User talk:Avraham/Archive 51

< Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52>

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)

User talk:Markk7

Hi there! This user would like his account to be "deleted" but since we can't do that can you rename his account to Vanished Account 1232134 or something to follow WP:RTV? Thanks :) --Addihockey10^e-mail 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

He should file a request at WP:CHU. -- Avi (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

חַג חֲנֻכָּה שָׂמֵחַ

הַנֵּרוֹת הַלָּלוּ קֹדֶשׁ הֵם

Hi Avi! Hoping you and yours are spiritually warmed by the holy lights of
חֲנֻכָּה

With gratitude, Chesdovi 2010

Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Peter Karlsen

Hi Avraham. You may or may not be the closing bureaucrat for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jerem43 2, but you are the bureaucrat who blocked User:Peter Karlsen whose detailed 'oppose' !vote may have considerably added to the 'pile-on' opposition, thus making the RfA an unduly close run, or even controversial candidature. I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever in your reasons for blocking Karlsen, but I am nevertheless curious to know why it is shrouded in mystery. I am used to a generally high degree of transparency on the Wikipedia, however unpleasant it may be. Kind regards, --Kudpung (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Responded via e-mail. -- Avi (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Understood. --Kudpung (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Steward-y question

Per this thread, are you aware of any way to remotely disable the "email this user" function for an account? User:Kbthompson recently passed away, and his widow doesn't want to receive periodic emails from people who haven't spotted the notice on his userpage, and want to discuss a block he made etc with him. As far as I know, altering an account's settings like this is outside the scope of admin/crat action, and can only be done by steward. Thanks! – iridescent 11:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that stewards can change that either. The only method that I know would work for certain would be for his widow to log in to the "Kbthompson" user account, go to preferences, and uncheck the "Enable email from other users" setting. If she does not know the password, but has access to the corresponding email account, she can always request that the password be reset at the login form, which should send a temporary password to that e-mail account. -- Avi (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Jimmy Wales if it's possible to adjust the settings remotely from the WMF end. (I assume his widow does have access to the email account, or there wouldn't be an issue, but it seems fairly insensitive talking her through the mechanism of accessing his Wikipedia account in order to disable it.) – iridescent 13:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but that is the only way I know of to block the reception of e-mail. More than that needs back-end developer stuff. As an aside, think of stewards as "super-crats" and not developers in that we can assign or remove most any user rights (and then of course use those userrights if we assign them to ourselves) but we cannot change the back-end databases. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. -- Avi (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello, you blocked the user, who wrote a few DYK articles and did not do anything against the wikipedia policies. I believe there should be more transparency in this block. If a user has done something bad in the past, and created a new account to avoid scrutiny, it is one matter, if the user simply vanished, but then changed his mind and came back under a new name it is a different matter. In any case I believe this indefinite block of a somebody, who looks as a great contributor should be clarified more than just (checkuser block). Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to contact arbcom for clarification. -- Avi (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need I guess. The user was just unblocked. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, speak to the people in charge. They make the decisions, I merely implement them. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please do me a favor

and semi-protect this page so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:KHamsun

Hi there. In March you blocked this user. The talk page indicates this was a CU block related an SPI of Nelsondenis248. However, there is no reference to this account on the archive page. [1].

At that time, IP 69.203.119.66 was blocked for six months. MuZemike tells me he did that at your request. The block log[2] indicates that this was a checkuser block. However, there is nothing on the user talk page indicating the reason except for this unblock request by the IP [3], which he later deleted, indicating user was KHamsun.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because there's a new SPI case involving that IP and various other accounts and IPs [4], basically a replay of the SPI last March. Do you think it might be possible to clarify on the archive page that Khamsun and 69.203.119.66 were blocked as socks of Nelsondenis248? Thanks, ScottyBerg (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not keep records of every check I do, and I cannot find anything on MBernal. The logs are obviously stale now, but I can confirm MuZemike's finding of the Taft accounts being the same. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Page

im not sure if ive asked this before and too who, but can you resurrect India – Syria relations? It was deleted as copyvio, but i didnt get a chance to redo it. If recreated i would certainly use what is there and reword and/or add more from other sources to balance out.(Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

I have userfied it at User:Lihaas/ISR. Please correct it as quickly as possible, and leave the {{Userfiedpage}} tag on as long as you are working on it. -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Thank you, and Happy Holidays! -- Avi (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Randhir234/Archive

the users have not got been blocked yet, apparently theyre still blaning pages(Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Ill also be done with the User:Lihaas/ISR page soon, should i add it back or will you move the page histories et al.?

finished the article, but not sure how the move works.(Lihaas (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article restore

Hi Avi, There was an article Judaism and bus stops. I have heard it was funny, and I would like to read it please. Could it be restored in my user space please for a few days until I read it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you missed my message?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done at User:Mbz1/JBST. Please delete when done. -- Avi (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

G'day from Australia

Gday Avraham, just wanted to stop by and thank you for making me nearly fall off my chair laughing. For reasons I dont understand I ended up on your user page and began reading your "Humorous edits", they all made me chuckle a little bit until I came across your "Channeling Shakespeare--badly". I think my staff thought I had finally lost the plot (I am a Zoo Director and well its christmas, kids everywhere) because I was laughing so very hard and had trouble sitting on my seat. So thanks for the laugh it sure has improved my day. Merry Christmas, ZooPro 15:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind words; I'm glad I could put a smile on someone elses's face too! Happy Holidays! -- Avi (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Free" image

Hi Avi. Is it just me, or does it seem impossible to you that this image was actually created by a user from a free source? nableezy - 00:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It does look like a screencap. Perhaps it should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files? -- Avi (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew there was a place to go, thanks for pointing me there. Happy holidays. nableezy - 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another user:loosmark sockpuppet?

Look at the history here: [5]. An anon and a "new" editor, User:Hallersarmy. I've made my 3rd and last revert on this article for awhile - first I removed unsourced claims or original research, and then I restored blanked info by these two. And here he is again, blanking referenced info: [6].

Having wasted too much time on loosmark's other socks (user:23Michal and User:J.kunikowski) here:[7] and here: [8] etc. (I can find many more links). I am writing to several admins who have blocked this guy for sockpuppeteering because I hope this will be looked into quickly.Faustian (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 Inconclusive You'll need to use behavioral evidence, as it's not immediately identifiable as Loosmark, although there is some proxy stuff going on. -- Avi (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He's basically just removing stuff, so I can't compare language used. OTOH it looks like a single-purpose account devoted to the issue of Józef Haller and his actions. Two of loosmark's other socks, whch I have interacted with, were each also single-purpose accounts. User:23Michal was devoted to removing info from the article about the Carmelite Church, Przemyśl (see his edit history here: [9]) and User:J.kunikowski was devoted to the issue of the Massacre of Lviv professors (see his edit history here: [10]). The pattern is single-purpose accounts involving removal of info deemed unflattering to Poland in some way.

Also, one of the already-blocked sockpuppets, User:Agoodhistorian, edited on the same topic as "hallersarmy": [11].Faustian (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have enough behavioral evidence, go for it. Or, log a request at WP:SPI if you would like some other admins to take a look. -- Avi (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to SPI.Faustian (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

I see your point about sub-samples of samples. I asked a question, here, at the maths references desk. You might find it interesting. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note :) -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

:)

Dferg has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Nice :) thank you. --m:dferg 22:54, 03 January 2011 (UTC)

Ipblock-exempt

Hello! I believe you don't need IP block exemption, as you are an administrator. Regards, HeyMid (contribs) 20:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please check my history; I've been asked this at least a dozen times. Please review the usergroups carefully, and then see if you need to ask me again . -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

From User talk:Avraham/Archive 48#IP block exemption: "ipblock-exempts get the additional torunblocked right, making those with it immune to blocks of Tor." I think that's the answer I wanted. HeyMid (contribs) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup! , although, as I've stopped, I should remove it now anyway. Thanks for the reminder! -- Avi (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1

Hi Avi, I'm concerned about Mbz1 (talk · contribs), and the issue of her talk page. I see you deleted 844 talk page revisions in January 2010. I assume you did this because she said she was leaving, but when she failed to leave, you didn't undelete them. There's no history of harassment of this user, and no privacy violations. She openly posts her own name and webpage when she uploads images, so there's no issue of outing. The only contentious material on the page is the documenting of her frequent blocks and the reasons for them, and her repeated attempts to have her talk page deleted.

I found these deleted edits yesterday when searching for another user's posts, and undeleted them per WP:RtV. I was told later that you raised the issue on the functionaries' list. Can you say why you did that, and what you said? I also want to draw your attention to this post of hers, where in response to my removing a speedy deletion tag from her page, she linked to an off-wiki page that purports to out me. I'd be grateful if you'd take the appropriate admin action in relation to that.

I'm puzzled that you're supporting this behavior. She's a disruptive single purpose account, who has been blocked 12 times since July 2009, twice indefinitely. She's repeatedly tried to have her talk page deleted permanently because it documents that history. I can't understand why any admin would help her with that, especially not to the point of trying to gain support for her on the functionaries list while she's attacking another admin who's trying to deal with it. I'd appreciate an explanation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

parenthetical insertion

Well, I apologized to SV for so called outing her, but I did it before I saw that hateful rant full of lies about me that somebody brought to my attention just a moment ago. How many of my "legitimate" blocks notices were deleted after you deleted my talk page's history? Only one was, the one for January 10,2010, the one that was lifted 30 minutes after it was issued. My other so called indefinite block for July 2009 was issued because of my own request, which is clearly seen in my block log. It was one of these times, when I tried to run away from trolls and wikihounds, but was not strong enough to do it on my own You know the story about deleting my talk page in January of 2010. You know what they did to me that day on AN/I and SPI. It had nothing to do with my block record. Most of my blocks 99% were posted after that, and I have never asked those to be deleted! Am I SPA? Does this look as SPA? Does this look as SPA? Was I blocked 12 times? No, I was not. I was blocked 10 times with 70% of those blocks being unfair, as any reasonable and not biased person will see, if he/she will spend some time looking in the matter. SV claims being outed. When she outed me yesterday, I did not post the links to it all over wikipedia. I emailed oversighters and asked those links to be removed. Sorry for putting you in a difficult situation, Avi. Go ahead block me, and to make it easier for you I will remove my apology that I posted to sv talk page. I would not have done it, if I saw this ranting of her before. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Slim, this is not something I can discuss on-wiki. If you would like to contact me via e-mail, you may do so. -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

consensus re: the 'Controversy' section of Koestler's'13th tribe'

So Avi, how do you propose we arrive at a consensus on the perceived bias and impartiality of the 'Controversy' section of Koestler's'13th tribe'?Mystichumwipe (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Through discussion at the article talk page, not here. -- Avi (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. When? As I see you still have not answered nor addresed the points in my previous three discussion posts nor granted my requests for clarification on the discussion board. You and Briangotts just keep undoing my editing/contribution without even attempting to reach consensus. Is it a time issue? Do you intend to now engage in a discussion or do we need to seek arbitration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 07:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration is for behavior, Mediation is for content. Please review the discussions both current and in the talk archives for background. -- Avi (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tahash article

Have you seen this article: Tahash? I don't even know where to start. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass culling of garbage, perhaps? Drop a note at WT:JEW so we can get some other expert eyes on this. -- Avi (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletions at ksh-Wikipedia

Dear Avraham, I am an admin at ksh-Wikipedia. We have a severe problem at our own small wikipedia as approximately 500.000 redirects have to be deleted. I hope you as a steward will be able to help. Please contact me at my ksh-userpage.

Thanks for your support. BBKurt (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

transliterations

Shalom Avi. I noticed this and some related reversions, and thought I'll give the background as I see it. A certain IP editor (62.220.33.64, probably same as 83.149.41.124) has decided to go on a crusade for the usage of ALFB NewWay transliteration of Arabic. I have very little to say about Arabic (studied it a bit on 6th grade, more than 30 years ago), other than NewWay is a rather new transliteration (I believe from 2010) and there are 3 "standard" transliterations already, DIN, ISO and ALA. I made some comments trying to direct the editor at achieving consensus first (some of the discussion is here). I think your recent reversions just unmade half of the edit, the half where he fixes his own work, rather than addresses the issue. On the other hand, my understanding of the subject is very limited. Kol Tuv. --Muhandes (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik article

Help with Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik article Hi Avraham: Could you please help out with the following request that I received, thanks. IZAK (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC):

"Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik: Howdy. I've come across and appreciated your work on rabbinical biographies before, and in my usual process of trying to add sources to unreferenced biographies of living people I came across this article. I've been having some trouble finding reliable, secondary sources to verify/establish notability, although it sure looks like he would be independently notable with a bit of sourcing. I had been considering replacing the article with a redirect to Brisk_tradition_and_Soloveitchik_dynasty#Rabbi_Meshulam_Dovid_Soloveitchik, but when I noticed you'd been the original author, I figured I'd ask you if you could suggest/add something you consider appropriate and reliable first, so, any suggestions? References absolutely need not be in English, but I'm personally limited to reading English myself. Thanks in advance, --j⚛e decker^talk 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm making more progress after recognizing an alternate spelling, so feel free to pass on this if you wish, although sourcing improvements are always welcome. All the best, --j⚛e decker^talk 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)"

Help with moving articles

Hi Avraham:

1. The article Jews and Judaism in Switzerland (almost exclusively about history) needs to be moved & redirected to History of the Jews in Switzerland (should be the main article). Thus, History of the Jews in Switzerland should be the main article and Jews and Judaism in Switzerland needs to redirect to that, and NOT the other way round as it's doing now. I would do it but it has various double-redirects stopping the move, and it has a notice that comes up that it requires an admin to do it, so this is a request for your help. FYI: "Jews and Judaism" is for categorization of countries, such as in Category:Jews and Judaism by country, while the lead article about any country's Jewish history should read "History of the Jews in ____" such as "History of the Jews in France"; History of the Jews in Germany"; History of the Jews in Italy" etc etc etc.
2. Same with Jews in Kazakhstan it needs admin help to be moved & redirected over the double redirects to History of the Jews in Kazakhstan (that should be the main article).
3. Same with Azerbaijani Jews that needs to be moved & redirected to History of the Jews in Azerbaijan (that should be the main article), as it's almost all the Jewish history of the Jews in Azerbaijan.
4. Uzbek Jews needs to be moved & redirected to History of the Jews in Uzbekistan (that should be the main article).
5. African Jews needs to be moved & redirected to History of the Jews in Africa (that should be the main article), it's all about the history of various groups in different countries. There is no such thing as an "African Jew" -- Arabs in the North, Blacks and Whites in the center and south, native tribes who claim Jewish descent, so the most NPOV and accurate is History of the Jews in Africa (that should be the main article).

Let me know when you make the moves and I will fix any and all remaining redirects if need be. Thanks in advance for all your help. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for all of these moves? -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Avraham: Having worked on improving dozens of these type of articles and creating many of their categories over many years I would say that just based on the fact that the main lead articles in each of the over eighty (80) categories in Category:Jewish history by country and about twenty more articles that still don't have categories of their own, that given that about 100 such articles are all named "History of the Jews in ____" that this in itself is an overwhelming consensus. There are a few articles that split between the people and their history, but in this case, if you actually read the articles you will see for yourself that they are about the history of different types of Jews in the countries and not just about one type of "Jews" in them. If you have more questions, let me know. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IZAK, I don't have any preference, but you might want to check with Jayjg. I seem to remember that he moved many of these articles from "History of the Jews in XXX" to "XXXian Jews". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malik: The above are the few exceptions. While the over 100 "History of the Jews in ____" articles deal with the history of different types and waves of Jews in various countries, because the articles are not about one type of Jew in a country as "XXX Jews" would definitively indicate. For example, presently the bulk of the Jews in Germany arrived from the former USSR in recent years so calling them "German Jews" is not helpful and it's confusing. Likewise the Jews now in France are mostly from North Africa so labeling them as purely "French Jews" is also a recipe for confusion. The term "XXX Jews" is basically reserved for more specific things like Sephardi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews where there are clear-cut ethno-religious-Halachic differences. For the vast majority on the other hand, each article here deals with Jewish history and not with specific types of Jews that the "XXX Jews" nomenclature would indicate. I have disagreed with Jay on this and my view has carried the day over the years. In some cases there are articles for both "XXX Jews" and "History of the Jews in ____" but that is an exception. If it makes no difference to you, that's also great. Why should Jews and Judaism in Switzerland be the only one like that for European countries? Or the truncated Jews in Kazakhstan that goes nowhere as a title? And the rest are all 90% history content and actually state that there are different types and waves of Jews in those countries. IZAK (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand, IZAK, but I'm trying to prevent a repeat of what happened with the Temples articles. Perhaps you should drop a line at WT:JEW, if not a full formal blanket RfM. -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Avi, don't worry, this is not the same thing. (By the way, do you think Christian or Hindu or Muslim or Communist or Atheist editors will come along and say what Jewish history should or should not be as they did with First Temple versus Solomon's Temple, is that what you are afraid of? That means that a Jewish editor has to seek "permission" to edit Jewish articles from non-Jewish editors? Do they "WP:OWN" Jewish topics but a Jewish editor is "WP:OWNerless"? Since when is that a "WP policy"? If so, sounds like de facto antisemitism to me. Do they ask permission from Jewish editors when they screw up topics? Just curious.) I will see what to do next as I come across more of the exceptions. Have a great Shabbos.IZAK (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi Avi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not think I have the time to add this to my current volunteer work. Thank you for asking! -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi :)

Request:

• You renamed a user to RenamedUser46 but perhaps forgot to unblock him. As you'd left a note (on the user's previously named page) to inform you, I thought I'd request you to kindly unblock the user in case there are no other issues. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is more to it than merely the name; please have the user contact arbcom, or at least the functionaries list. -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

AshleyBird1 and some new sockpuppets.

Hello. Remember AshleyBird1 and her sockpuppets? Since the close of the investigation on her sockpuppetry (and duly archived: [12]), she had created two new socks: BirdGirl195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Abird123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I just found out you're a checkuser. So can you make investigations on the IPs used to create these two socks, as well as other accounts she may have made now? Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michoball

Hi Avi,

A WP:SPA has shown up very recently, trying to get the deleted article Lorenzo Iorio re-instated. The original AfD and article were plagued with sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio, which were eventually blocked after a CU case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gravitom/Archive. This new account was familiar with the AfD, and in general seems to have much in common with those blocked accounts. As you were the CU who did the work, I was wondering if you could see if this is another sock? I know the case is old, but there may be something in the logs or records giving an indication, and the CU case itself includes an IP address. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The old case is too stale. Behavioral evidence is what will be needed in an SPI case; sorry. -- Avi (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Image problem

Hi Avi. A number of images have been uploaded to commons and used in the article 2011 Egyptian revolution that have a watermark claiming a copyright. The flickr page shows the person claiming the copyright saying he is the uploader of the files to commons (here). My question to you is how should this be handled? Should the uploader be asked to file something with OTRS? Given that the picture and the flickr site claim a copyright while the upload says CC-2.0, I think the uploader does not understand what exactly they are forfeiting by licensing the picture under that license here and thinks they can still claim a copyright. If the upload and flickr comment claiming the user is the same person is enough to accept the image then the copyright should be cropped out. If not the images should be removed and/or deleted. nableezy - 19:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think are correct. I think the pictures should be tagged on commons as possibly unfree, and that the uploader should be contacted to either release, or to have the images deleted. -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Provocative categories

Hi, a new user is putting rabbis into Category:American Chardal rabbis and Category:Chardal rabbis in Israel because they support Religious Zionism. Can something be done about this? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Like anything else, categorization, unless obvious, needs verifyable and reliable sources, and cannot be based on original research or synthesis. If the user can show that a verifiable source has called these Rabbis "Chardal" or the like, then the categorization is appropriate. Otherwise, it seems like a BLP issue. -- Avi (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mordecai Tendler vandalism

Hi Avraham, when you get a chance can you take a look at the Mordecai Tendler article, it is presently undergoing some vandalism and may need some semi-protection. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added pending changes level 1 for six months. This means that all IP edits will NOT show to standard users unless they are "approved" by regular editors or reviewers (or admins, of course). -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as an eye is kept on it, there is no need for WP to become a sewer. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Avraham, it is odd that you refuse to allow anyone to add source material to make the page more factually accurate. If you do insist on revising the page, at least review the materials, articles, etc. and decided what to add,etc. Koltorah (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinions from unedited blogs and adding weasel words to an article is not making it more factually accurate; facts make articles more factually accurate. -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD of article you worked on

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

HI!

im 2z and beacuse you are beaucrat i want to ask you if i can change my username to Vasil1234? on my main wikipedia page i change it so i ask you can you change it here? please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2z (talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD

You may be interested in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avraham Friedman. There is also an entire template of roshei yeshiva of Hebrew Theological College which is nothing but red links. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly notice. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

5W Public Relations

Please review 5W_Public_Relations years of comments and discussions being ignored by user: Ravpapa. They are introducing inaccurate left wing political biases which dont belong on page regarding Jerusalem. Pls assist on talk or in edits. Emetemet13 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly notice. -- Avi (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

/* note - BLPN - Mordecai Tendler*/

Hi Avraham, just a note to let you know a thread has been opened at the BLP noticeboard here in which your contributions got a mention. I see the user has been blocked already and blanked his talkpage. Perhaps a little discussion at the BLPN will help the new user understand why his additions fail policy and help them understand wiki editing practice a little better, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Avraham: Hi there! I'm NicholasTurnbull, your friendly mediator from the Mediation Cabal, a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation, discussion and advice from a volunteer. Someone's asked for our help, and mentioned you in the following request:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-03-31/Mordecai Tendler

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation, if you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out.

Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's absolutely fine. This is an informal mediation request and the Mediation Cabal doesn't sanction or discipline anyone.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposer was engaged in blatant forum shopping and the article is on its way to deletion, so the above is neither appropriate nor necessary. -- Avi (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 08:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Avraham. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Skäpperöd (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Responded. -- Avi (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Processed. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IP- Jacurek edits

Hi Avraham, My cousin made the IP edits I think you are investigating right now[13] therefore some IP's may cross and the ones that do not cross it was him as well. I did not ask him to do it and I did not know about it until today but I realize that this does not look good. No need to do further investigation because I spoke to him already and he confirmed the edits. I left measasage with Sandstan as well to do whatever because most likely I'm done with Wikipedia anyways. Cheers.Jacurek (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:American professional bodies

Category:American professional bodies, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Avraham. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SOXROX (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Handled. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

[14] Very much appreciated. :-) Risker (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A pleasure as always, Risker. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

AMF

Didn't understand your last comment[[15]]. The source documents were not from the American Messianic Fellowship website, but rather an international Christian missions peer-review conference, and the archives of Wheaton College, which US News and Princeton Review call a top Liberal Arts college. Certainly more reliable than some of the newpaper articles used elsewhere on the page. --DeknMike (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis categories for rename

Please help me. You may know about the discussion underway regarding Rabbis categories for renaming. IZAK wants your valued opinion whether we should switch "MIshna rabbis" to Tannaim. Much obliged, as always. Chesdovi (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted. -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff

Hi Avraham,

I hope you can help with an editor who made some edits to the article recently. Though I do support his point of view, he obviously has some problems with verifiability and NOR. Maybe you would jump in and explain it to him? I think my english is not good enough, I usually work on the german WP... Thanks, Adornix (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we were able work it out. When you are online next time you might want to look if the article is ok. I suppose the other user is not an english native speaker too :-) Regards Adornix (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, ny home PC is dead and I don't have much time at work, so I've been very quiet. -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your words on the article talk page. You explained it very clearly and I think user Sandinistas can try to improve his additions on this basis :-) Regards, Adornix (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99

Re. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99: Is the case above also confirmed for the record? -- DQ (t) (e) 03:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I noted that on the page now for the record. Thanks for the heads up. -- Avi (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cláudio_César_Dias_Baptista

You mentioned the IPs are hundreds of miles apart, but with the exception of User:201.75.82.71, they all belong to the Velox ISP in Rio de Janeiro state. I'm pretty sure most, if not all of them, are Mr. Baptista - if you check the way they spell certain words and the sentence structure they tend to use, not to mention the fact that their edit list is virtually the same you'll see the similarities. I lived in Rio de Janeiro for many years and was a customer of Velox, which unlike some ISPs in the US has highly dynamic IPs (my current Comcast account has had the same IP for 2 years now, Velox changes it every time the user restarts their modem). The geolocation info might be just a quirk of their network architecture (my home IP until a few years ago used to say I was in Tacoma, while I'm in Seattle). Anyway, I'm sure you know most of this stuff already, but I figured since I was a customer of the same ISP, I'd let you know.

Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The IPs range from one end to the other over 500 miles, with Rio in the middle. There is insufficient evidence using technical reasons alone, I am afraid. However, behavioral evidence is often better at identifying sockpuppets than is technical evidence. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The tool I used actually places them all in Rio de Janeiro (some from the first SPI were in Mesquita or São Gonçalo which are suburbs of Rio). How did you arrive at 500 miles (Rio is barely 400 miles end to end)? Just asking out of curiosity. XXX antiuser ^eh? 02:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser and http://cqcounter.com/whois/. -- Avi (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the same one I used. Apart from the one IP that tracks to Manaus, all of them are from Rio? Anyway that's irrelevant - I think the bigger proof is their edit histories. Thanks for entertaining my questions anyway! XXX antiuser ^eh? 02:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the named accounts geolocate within about 500 mile diameter with Rio in the center, which is why I thought the named accounts unlikely. More than that, I won't say at this point, as I don't think the need is enough to justify further detail per the policy provisions. The IPs are pretty obvious to geolocate, as you saw :). -- Avi (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know, I was only asking out of curiosity. Well, that plus they're hounding and attacking me, which is annoying. Thanks for being accommodating. XXX antiuser ^eh? 03:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)