User talk:Avraham/Archive 42

I am afraid I really don't know much about computers and surfing etc. and have come to you in part in respect of the surfing problem (I simply didn't know where else to go and you were so kind and helpful when you changed my name).

I received a message about an edit made by a user with my IP address that was simply childish and obscene. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_Ericsson_C902&oldid=297183724 at the very top.

Sure it's the same IP but I didn't write it.

Is there any way to *shrugs* undo it? Erm, I dunno what you could do but I would prefer that I was not connected to it in any way if possible.

Please if at all possible. Thanks -- Eddy ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Avi. Strage system. Have Wikipedia considered disallowing unnamed users from editing? It appears most of the vandalism is done by IP's rather than "people". -- Eddy ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cheers Avi. I would never have known but for clearing my browser cache and entering the site as an IP. Now the browser takes care of all the user name stuff again so if any other edits come up linked to that IP I won't necessarily know about them. I just hope no one thinks it's anything to do with me. Anyway thank you very much for letting me know the score and I'll see you around. -- Eddy ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You were referenced during a discussion here. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

In a comment regarding editors including myself, you write[1]:

"I beleive his point, (and certainly my point of view) is that they, or their parents, especially as regards the religious sacrament, should be allowed to. The point of view of the other side is that parents should not be allowed to circumcise their children, even in cases of religious sacrament (although, to be honest, that is an antisemitic technique dating back to the Greeks, Romans, and early Christians, not anything new)."

Please strike those hateful, sickening remarks about other editors immediately. No one falsely painting an entire side of a controversial issue with antisemitism should be an administrator on Wikipedia, much less a bureaucrat. Please recuse yourself from all administrative duties, de-sysop yourself, and apologize to myself and Garycompugeek (at least) for this outrageous accusation. Failing that, I intend to seek your removal from all administrative duties through official channels. Your abuse of editors has stopped being amusing long ago, Avraham, and your disgusting resolution to label those you disagree with "antisemitic," exactly as User:Jayjg did before you (while you defended him, saying his clearly accusatory remarks were misconstrued), seals the proof that you are nothing but a hateful individual. Blackworm (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Blackworm's misunderstanding (again) is explained on his talk page. -- Avi (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The other party to the conversation did not make Blackworm's mistake. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Avi, I am so confused! Please explain to me how your knowledge of history makes you a hateful individual? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wish I knew.   -- Avi (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

And here I thought it made you a more valuable contributor. In fact, I still do. :-) !!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here, I'll explain. When Avi says that "that is an antisemitic technique," he's apparently referring to "the point of view of the other side," that is, the side he himself is not on. Claiming that opposition to circumcision "is an antisemitic technique," in the context of a discussion of editors, is the same as accusing those editors who may be opposed to circumcision of antisemitism. Avraham has not retracted the comment, choosing instead to continue to simulataneously claim that "the point of view of the other side" is "an antisemitic technique," while denying that he is accusing those on the other side of antisemitism. Hope that helps. Blackworm (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I beg to differ. He clearly is referencing an historical position, and specifies the ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as the early Christians. Unless we have, in our midst, editing Wikipedia, a member (or members) of any of those groups, he is not speaking of any current editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thankfully, KC, like Gary, is capable of reading the original text, my explanation, and my apology for any unintended misunderstandings, and making up his own mind, BW. -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

On TDC, Xenophrenic undid my closure and added another set of ip's. I never got around to asking him, but thats why it hasn't been closed yet. Off for the night. Best. Syn 03:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also a quick note, Xenophrenic said he sent private evidence to the functionaries about the case. Could you check that out and see if anything further needs to be done? Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see that Avi has again marked the SPI case as closed.(edited poor word ordering) I see that the SPI has again been marked closed, this time by Avi. Could we please hold off on the premature closures while there are still outstanding issues? Thanks. As Icestorm815 noted above, the functionaries have had an extensive set of evidence regarding the accounts and IPs listed in this SPI. Avi, it was on your suggestion that I compiled that information, and forwarded it to the functionaries mail list. Please convey the status of those emails before rushing to close this SPI. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again? I believe I only marked it as closed once. -- Avi (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll check email once again, but the multiple copies were originally sent to the functionaries list during the first week of April. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Email checked. Nothing there. While I was there, I forwarded a copy of our April correspondence back to your email for your review -- just so we're both on the same page. I also forwarded a copy of the evidence that was twice sent to the functionaries email list, at your suggestion. It still has the original address and date info, if that will help them to locate it. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I forwarded it again to func-l and arbcom-l saying that you're still patiently waiting :) -- Avi (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's like deja vu all over again ;) I do appreciate your help and patience as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Avi, while we're waiting on the response to our emails, there is something you can do to speed this up and allow us to close this case. The functionaries will need to contact you regarding these details anyway, so you might as well review them now in preparation. Please review and confirm the following facts:

• TDC edits from IPs registered to Fuel Tech, Inc., (Example: 68.254.64.3 here)
• Editors Here Cometh the Milkman and CENSEI are suspected socks of TDC
• You performed a CU involving Milkman here (Result: Possible) and 1 minute later you blocked a Fuel Tech IP (12.54.29.3) here
• When TDC later tried to use his CENSEI account, he found you had "blocked his work IP" and he requested an IP block exemption, which you granted here.

If you can review those 4 bullet points and confirm your blocks & IPBEs on the Fuel Tech, Inc. IPs, then we can save the functionaries a lot of research, and we can also close this SPI case. The evidence we forwarded to func-l & arbcom-l already show TDC, CENSEI and Milkman edit the same Wikipedia articles and have identical behaviors; if you confirm they all have this Fuel Tech Inc. IP connection, then all doubt is removed and we can put this behind us. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ahhhh. That was refreshing. shirulashem (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

In this edit, you write: "...I believe everyone have every right not to circumcise yourself..." Wow, Avi, that seems like a statement a circumcision opponent might make. I applaud it. Hopefully as you say, males will be able to exercise that right by not having it done before they are of age to exercise it.  :) Blackworm (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The above by the way, is a "deliberate misrepresentation," an obvious one, and the first I've made. It's also a joke encased with a slight message about the uselessness of "rights" one has to not themselves cut parts off their bodies, enforced only after parts have been cut off their bodies for no health reason by others. I hope you take it in a spirit of reduced calamity between us. Blackworm (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• User:ASMFC Intern
• User:Savethefish

You just renamed this fellow and he seems to have gone and re-created his old account (a username vio). Care to have a talk with him? I would, but I have to go; it's late here (Bali; UTC+8). Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This user appears to be have gone back to editing under "ASMFC Intern". I'm tempted to block that name, but wanted to check in with you first, since you renamed the old account. -- Donald Albury 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. :) I've encountered what is probably a sock puppet of an indef-blocked sockmaster. This is not my usual neighborhood, so I wanted to get some feedback. I've tagged the suspect sock puppet's userpage: User:Rightphone (see others: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Justpassinby). Said sockmaster had a serious vendetta against the singer Jon Courtney of band Pure Reason Revolution, and I became involved after closing an RfA, here). What I'd like to know, since I've had little to do with socks, is if this is sufficient, or if I need to launch an SPI. The contributor has not edited much (with at least his earliest edits clear vandalism), so I wouldn't be inclined to pursue it too aggressively unless it continues, but I don't want to put the tag and leave it if custom requires further steps. :) (Also to note, even though I've never so much as heard the band, I would not choose to handle it myself, as I engaged this fellow extensively and he obviously made every effort to make it personal.) Advice? (Would be much appreciated!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since you've been editing but have not replied, I guess you have no advice to offer? I'll see if somebody else who volunteers in that area can offer input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice, Avi. I know what it is to juggle a million things. :) I think I probably will file, since his current activities suggest that he's going to escalate as he did before (assuming duckness). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

All done and no reply needed, but I just had to say that it's amazing how, no matter how long I'm here or how much I do, doing new stuff always makes me nervous. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.

Thankyou. Exxolon (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of this? Cheers, Enigma^msg 18:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have to hand it to you, getting that picture. Well done and thank you. Peter Damian (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are any of these related to the banned User:Pioneercourthouse? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

To the best of my knowledge, no, but jpgordon is more up to date on PCH than I am. -- Avi (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll run it by him. These socks obviously popped in here with knowledge about certain users. The other one that comes to mind is User:Ron liebman, but these aren't really his M.O. Thanks for your help. At least we know who they "aren't". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw your note. Yeh, the checkuser system is good but not perfect. I have posted on User talk:Jpgordon about this issue, so we'll see if he can find anything. The one that really bugs me is the Axmann8 impostors. However, they may be too long ago now to tie them to anyone. But the others in the list, the Barney Fifes, were recent; and PCH edited recently also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
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=I5UO
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

NonvocalScream (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

As you can see if you edit User:X!/Tally, it isn't even picking him up as open, so it doesn't matter what you do to the template, it will not display. MBisanz ^talk 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help, here the confirmation for close one of those accounts, best regards. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I can help at the moment, I'm afraid; I am very busy as we've just moved into a new house and am pretty much inactive on Wikipedia as a result; plus I leave tomorrow on vacation and don't expect to have net access at all till I get back. Sorry I can't be more help. Mike Christie (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

What was this about? Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC/Archive, he's a sock so why remove the sock banner to something less incriminating? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I second the above concern. That editor has gone from indefinitely blocked to confirmed sock to retired editor? At this rate, I'll expect to see his nomination for Admin before the end of the week. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You both have e-mail. Please take it there due to privacy concerns. -- Avi (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see that you have checked his/her socks, originating from the 174.129.0.0/16 IP range, at the SPI page. Apparently, there are more socks in that farm from this specific range. Could you check if TheDoubtfulOne (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) matches the results from this range? (The username sounds related.) Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS: 174.129.84.142 is apparently the exact match for the original IP. User:Maxim appears to have handled him/her, but I don't know if the same was done with the sleeper accounts from that IP. ~ Troy (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

...actually, it appears that there is more than one IP involved. Perhaps he/she is using open proxies. Try checking 96.31.81.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (meddlingimage.info) to see if it matches. As you can see, that proxy was blocked just recently. And unless I'm overly suspicious, perhaps the reason why the sneaky devil keeps evading blocks is by switching several IPs. ~ Troy (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Uphill both ways to school? ... lol, actually I did have to ... naaaa... I'm not even gonna go there. ;) — Ched :  ?  02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why is it banned? The license said it was free and other pictures in the same category on wikicommons are used in the Latuff article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

When it was made apparent that many Bureaucrats were ignoring DougsTech's oppose, the community determined that it would be fit to ban such an individual from RfA. If they continued to operate in the same manner and were being ignored, then it could only be a disruption to the process. Since I have already been called a troll (among other things) over the matter, and there are those like DGG that state that my interpretation has no basis, I can only assume that this is the likely process. If there is no place for me to post my concerns without a problem, I would like to know so I do not fall into the same problems as DougsTech. Unlike others, I am perfectly willing to give up quite a bit in order to finish my work. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Avraham,

I messed up and have been made well aware of my mistake. HospitalityExpert is a friend and apparently I made him a meatpuppet by mistake. I was trying to receive answers to questions regarding my article but now know that I cannot solicit help regardless of the intent. How can I get the sockpuppetry accusation notice removed from my page and move forward as a contributing editor for Wikipedia? Please advise.

Thank you,

Mfetzer3 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I much appreciate you closing what had become a very drama-filled and poisonous thread. Not my intention at all; I hate it when these things spiral off in an unexpected direction.  :-( KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Avraham, I was hoping you could help me. 212.166.167.79 I found that the above IP address was making ad hominem attacks in a hotly contested linguistic issue. If they're going to behave that way without signing in, they should be blocked. The issue itself is one that thankfully has improved with time (Valencian language). A few years ago, I remember that only one side of the conflict was being represented on Wikipedia. Now, the page makes a more balanced attempt to present both sides of the argument. Thank you and mazeltov for your work in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinoeuropa (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just saw that you have checked my account (based on an apparent bad-faith request by a banned user [2]). How do you justify checking my account (or Izady's account, who doesn't edit often and hasn't been involved in any edit war). I believe that I deserve an apology and expect better accountability from the check-users. Alefbe (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Responded on user talk page. -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info about Blackworm. Honestly, it's not really my concern who has the biggest POV or who has had the worst violations as far as editing the article space. My only role in the issue is to give an opinion as an outside observer over whether anyone has a conflict of interest in editing circumcision. Jakew's involvement with CIRCS is a potential COI, but only if his actions are actually promoting the organization in some way. At least that is my understanding of what WP:COI says. I asked Blackworm whether or not Jakew has actually done so, and asked if there were times when Jakew linked to his organization's web site, or literature, or mentioned it in the article space. If he did so, that wouldn't be a good thing, no matter how balanced Jakew's edits are otherwise. Aside from that, I can't see how Jakew's involvement in the group is a problem. It's not like this is an article about CIRCS itself. -- Atama^chat 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

for this. I think that leading a discussion to look for consensus when there has been disgruntlement is something the community elected crats to do. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

How do I fill up an arbitration request? The entire paperwork is so confusing, and I wonder if you can help me on the paperwork please. I'm requesting for Otterathome to be banned becuase he violated a couple of the Wikipedia guidelines such as:

• Involved in several edit wars, one of them takes place in his user page.
• Betraying a couple of people
• Redirected his userpage to Autofellatio

Here are his contributions. This guy must be stopped. Please. Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact the Embassy 09:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Avi. I really think it's not necessary to discuss editors' motives; instead we can just discuss actual behaviour, which is on the record, and which is all we really need to deal with anyway. We can't know other editors' motives, and it can be hard to guess right when different POVs are involved. I suggest AGF and avoiding comments like these: [3] and the sentences beginning "This is not the first ..." and "And yes, Blackworm, at times it appears to me ..." here. Re the first one: your original comment (as quoted by Blackworm; I can't find the original) seems somewhat ambiguous to me (or it seems to me to mean what Blackworm reads into it, not what you said afterwards you had meant; what precisely does the word "that" represent?) and I think it's quite reasonable for Blackworm to ask you to refactor it to clarify. Re the second, the quote you give from Atama is discussing actual on-the-record behaviour, as I suggest, not discussing motives. Regards, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

Whats with the sockpuppet comment? If you were to ask me, I would have told you: Hersfold didn't like my username(mypasswordis muscle) and froze me. She let me change it to "Just muscle". I am sure she will tell you about it if you ask. Not sure what that bonehead BQ is up to. He has been having a panic attack since I edited the namesake derogatory page of his. signed, Just muscle (used to be mypasswordis muscle). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just muscle (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Saw your note at Talk:State of Palestine. I hope I was not contributing too much to the creation of that mess. Anyway, I just wanted to say hi. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 10:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding Avi. Of course I welcome any effort to re-focus the conversation. Too often what's being said on talk has nothing to do with the article and everything to do with a person's feelings/beliefs/sensitivities toward the subject. Not sure that is the case for all involved. I think the challenge facing some of those with intimate scholarly knowledge of the subject is to focus their energy on building the article, rather than spending time explaining what they know to editors on the talk page who are not receptive to engaging the material there. I know from my experience in academia that when you studied something and know it intimately, you take for granted that others know it too and when you find that they don't, you can come off as pedantic in your efforts to explain. It can also be time-consuming to find all the cites from among your books or online. Anyway, it was the right thing to do to come in and call for a little more order. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problemo. Glad it met with your approval. ;) Tiamut^talk 21:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I also have an article up for FAC review. Its my second nom of it and beside Palestine (which was a total non-starter for FAC for obvious reasons), its really the first article I've tried to get promoted past good article status. I'm also planning to nom Palestinian costumes in the not so distant future. If you want to take a look at what is up for nom now, its Tawfiq Canaan. Any advice you have on how to make it FAC proof would be great. ;) Tiamut^talk 10:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anything further coming on ^ that case, or can we close it? Nathan ^T 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

This (specifically the second edit summary) was very cool of you to do. It made my day, and I'm not Tedder. :) Thanks, javért ^talk 00:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I am a new user and would like to add a website link to the "actuary" post.

I have created this website and the sole purpose of the website is to promote the actuarial profession. The main purpose is to provide a more personal and private perspective on why becoming an actuary and give some information to the student. This website also available in both english and chinese.

So i sincerely want to know why the edit was rejected and hope you can reconsider my edit. Thank you

Mulaohu (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure you have the full story (I'm not sure I do, or how best to proceed). OP added the link, it was deleted. I suggested it may have been deleted too quickly, and noted so on the talk page. NSH001 urged the OP to expand the site (implying that a better site would be acceptable). I can't say for sure, but I think is has been changed - I see material now I didn't notice before. Did you confirm that it is exactly the same material? It would be rude to suggest to OP that they should improve the site before linking it again, and then accuse OP of vandalism if they followed the advise. I'll emphasize that I don't know the exact sequence of events, if you do and I'm wrong, my apologies, but I want to may sure we are not biting someone who may be attempting to contribute in good faith.--SPhilbrickT 15:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am the user you kindly helped to change from User:GdaBaskerville to User:Giovanni Camporeale. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=300951873&oldid=300948518
At the end of your intervention you wrote:
Done. Please have the user retire the User:GdaBaskerville account. -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
After this statement I wrote: I agree this account User:GdaBaskerville be closed and its user and talk pages be redirected to my new account User:Giovanni Camporeale. Thank you. --GdaBaskerville (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
But I observe my GdaBaskerville user/talk pages are not yet redirected to my new account Giovanni Camporeale.
I no more use GdaBaskerville. I use Giovanni Camporeale only. I am a member of Medicine Wikiproject and write articles on Neurooncology.
But I am in doubt if there are things that I still have to do to close the “GdaBaskerville” problem.
Please, can you help me to understand? Thank you very much for what you can do for me.--Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply