User talk:Avraham/Archive 1

Request for usurpation

Hello Avraham. Your request for user name usurpation has been archived (see discussion). —{admin} Pathoschild 07:03:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

No, this is about the number of links that have to be maintained. If you have an article about X in en, de and fr Wikipedias, then:

• en:X will have links to de:X and fr:X
• de:X will have links to en:X and fr:X
• fr:X will have links to en:X and de:X

That would be 3*(3-1)=6.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikola Smolenski (talk)

Sure

I understand. I am here to help the media wiki, and i would be glad to be rid of that image. I dont quite know what i was thinking upon uploading that image, but rest assured, i am here for mediawiki, and nothing else. I am grateful for your concern, and i hope we can be friends and help each other out. You see, i come from Wikipedia, which i have been in for 3 years, so if you have any questions regarding editing, backgrounds, parsers, or even variables, let me know. Id be happy to help. Cheers, The7DeadlySins'λάλει ἐμοί 19:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks for the support. and apologies for such a NewYear's present. Serebr is a serial litigant. --Lute88 17:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Respect

I just wanted to clarify that I have it for you. And not just for that vote.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahem

A few misconceptions:

• I never panic. Well, hardly ever, anyway.
• As for my excess of "Larness", I'm trying to lose weight, honest.
• Finally, I expect I'll be seeing yet more of your nonasciiemoticonizational activities going forward, so I'll have to steel myself, grit my teeth, and slog through a veritable forest of grinning imps and the like when you're about. But that doesn't mean I have to like it, as I IZ SERIUS STEWARD and THIS IZ SERIUS BIZNESS. And don't you forget it.

Thanks for the BooYah. I think. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

עזרה

שלום אברהם, שמי דניאל ואני מתנדב ב-OTRS. שמתי לב שגם אתה מתנדב ב-OTRS וגם יודע קצת עברית אז אולי תוכל לעזור לי בדבר קטן. ראיתי שעיקר הפעילות ב-OTRS מתרכזת בתורי ה-permissions-commons. אני גם רוצה לעזור לטפל ב-permissions-commons אבל לא ממש הצלחתי להבין מה בדיוק יש לעשות עם מייל שמתקבל בתור (queue) הזה. תוכל להסביר לי? מקווה שהעברית מספיק מובנת. אתה יכול לענות באנגלית. בברכה,

Daniel B 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

האם אפשר לפתוח תור "permissions-commons-he"? בעיקר בשביל התמונות של יוני (יונתן).

Daniel B 18:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

שים לב. Daniel B 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ראה בבקשה

otrswiki:User talk:Avraham. Daniel B 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

כנראה שלא הייתי מספיק מובן. אני שואל מה לעשות עם המייל (ticket) שאורלינג שלח. ראה דף השיחה שלי ב-OTRS-wiki. Daniel B 09:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Josef Tal

שלום לאברהם, קיבלתי אתמול את ההודעה הבאה:

No OTRS ticket

There is no OTRS ticket for File:Josef Tal & His Loudspeakers.jpg. If it's copyright status can't be verified, it will be deleted. Plrk (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

עניתי בהתאם:

Dear Plrk, Please instruct me how to provide the requested permission. (BTW - isn't it enough that I officially declare this?) Anyway - I have it in writing and I can fax it to you anytime. I suppose this must settle the issue. Kind regards, Etan Tal (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Etan Tal

עד רגע זה לא קבלתי תשובה. כיון שראיתי שאתה דובר עברית, אשמח לפקסס לך את המקור, כך שתוכל לקרוא בעצמך את ההרשאה של הצייר ולהביא את הענין לסיומו.

האם יש עוד דבר אוכל לעשות בנידון? איתן טל 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

I hope I did it right :)

-----BEGIN PGP ARMORED FILE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use "gpg --dearmor" for unpacking

hQQOA5SyA3xlFDnMEA//RvYnlIPWl2yLFd+i4oeI2OhcNz2kdEiPBmeIlye/rkD5
dmDnb5kWBCA8oPPbAwgu0y5TwrGxet1Nl3qOYNV+B9iYg7iTb3PHGX/N2eLpXNY9
p+uQIPTVItO8s5cujLRRIO7n4T3TXvAzQNaPvs2UXIT6Q/Mz2AEDuBMpgz69vaR3
qimB6qDmQ0p+OHK/9Ih+6nmMR5ekZ35M5m8OmZKphpmZp3GWLW+RcCMGiBIj/hEE
nr4KWbct9PfCI3TD6EFqegQBQc33A7ws4slg2G5ziEbxIbMcsUkt3arHsAPduBVl
9UecqIXPrl8u2yYmLlujoP1om5aDoA+fOrwcOiDcyF5CXpGTSyMfTRkN8BCbKJQV
b90xYf4JMZy9Yi6NNIRoogRAdGVMh43GvAZF9oVB0rWQdxSC4Fvi0274Roj2BUWR
w8452aVeh/Sb+E8RSA8Gh4DE+rEq11L8JIpTimWP9AAJnGoSS2FQmrc+gpRmyOeF
TgEG2MthK1IG2BjgRUZhKlNlh+HPCxrxUHM6Zoai6xHjy/U+rKjWhkT2SWPOjeMZ
d705Jbjdbkoq2ifdB+fXx5pBruafNxpOiYXx5Nz8K0FamGdPW+5e2g+pQAtekK/B
NXGGXaekcFIblCvivA4B/gQ/4W8dj33mAgOg/iOK0gtd04BrMVVFb56R7/A0IO4P
/33oqeRoyTnPuG/h6lTYJqdWMFap082NgB3dB+InXw878KUeQzbYy8Dxh+tdQS0b
W9uZB7KDcdSzLTDIWAUVeRh7u/e8TRbk0YeQTJmXimNmuuABNx8TLo5wi64dAwQE
bQS7TfwVLGprboYLThjn3JTUp+Jn9jO9avgZuZmqOqnvfoODTOFBO9s7vCmN1gWh
tH7FQjVxSLh/BeEsYTP6oSQadGpgjij8trsWPM4lhW92VGOV+bm+gqHqFFnEdmvk
yrittsjVyuukfBiJgcDZv/7n0dZ84qiJ3H1QqMGZ/8I76B9/WAFbjiMnK9d86s9V
zzu2WeaBPl7wwlsxwOHczauwDhPa1DgXxb7NWc6TFTGeiuLUf28c5idrc+eDtYvt
uppGFAo9XVBEFNGn41ZJaXO6i8Qh3Elgh8kE6x10ohlTxRacnmjNl+0gpSSnf89b
KCOO+72xi/spWdgh+1GJSeEopugVVrnvamhzbTRIlPnCkjWHLq85uslpKhfrV7Au
3zmTmAFRpKwtd9oFVtyL/LQjUG2fAFDq65BuJxVHPzFIsZvXcJIaHN0sLpXRMVJ0
+oV+UB0XbJGpR2LN6fqmmRwGN8C7OOWqvccj9Ppck9u+ccfovXefect84l3mJxxp
F5oMe36o7uOBMjrMujzlEPx//fhGl+rBp9NWLKVjK1jE0sBWAUjIdIh1j0goWOXS
A/fKFC2l6tCoZUl6+sBP3PH5soiErFFj3ZgE1BoxQ/VOfbqdVZxdppwoI0qkEBJP
KpA+WBDr9ioDk1qMZb+y9MyIME3bitMif4FupqDMcruayB7CoKosSt7t0Dp7os+9
GZwnGounPRoeOzXLte8UBh2UzAeqUoWz2X1ZuSxpXrvtoKhIPTOLxDqspq70+6co
CWpiUJ5FPHuPD+CnHMmr3KovGbvJBZBWK0UfADSiTu3THw8AIeeTAXKJmUiJeICP
T4LAv+nOz6irdQHn34QFWA13OOw0QdM1Y8LuKxG6olvx+1nbXNo8EOnY1KLpieyT
hCCkeJMiKaV8sQgzs+q0s1mvGSYoUOWXY/4=
=4SnY
-----END PGP ARMORED FILE-----

 — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My statement

Hi there Avraham. You wrote a Hebrew translation for my old statement, but I've rewritten it now. Would you be willing to update the Hebrew translation that you've provided? Thanks, Razorflame 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Avraham, thanks for your edits. I'm currently reorganizing the template system and I would appreciate any structural changes to be declared in advance. Could you join us on IRC (#wikimedia-stewards-election) if you have any suggestions? Thanks, --Church of emacs talk 20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation

Thanks for the translation. Best of luck with the election process. I cannot think of a more worthy candidate. billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You come close sDrewth... you both have my strong support, as does Dferg. ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both :) -- Avi 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hi there Avraham. I had to remove personal info from my statement and all translations because I was getting stalker-like emails, and so, by removing it, I probably messed up a bit of the translation. If you could just pop around my statement and fix up the Hebrew translation, that would be great! Thanks, Razorflame 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Avraham@nv

Hi - though not yet official, there a high chance you will become a steward; however, for some reason your account does not exist on Navajo Wikipedia. To prevent the possibility of imposters (as has happened in the past), please take a moment and go there to claim your good name. Thank you. Seb az86556 09:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, but I cannot add anything to the pages as I am not autoconfirmed there yet :) -- Avi 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Seb az86556 00:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

מזל טוב לדייל הטרי

שלום אבי. מבקש לברך אותך לרגל מינויך לדייל הראשון שדובר עברית ברמה סבירה. בטוחני כי מיזמי קרן ויקימדיה רק ירוויחו ממינוי זה. בהצלחה! דולב • שיחה 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're Hiding :P

First you ping me while I'm at work now it seems you aren't coming online :P. Anyways I'll keep an eye out for you if you still need me and feel free to drop me an email if that's easier. James (T C) 18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Nederlands | português | Türkçe | русский | العربية | Tiếng Việt | edit

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our budget is smaller than Commons)

Avraham, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Meta. Please take a moment to read the Meta:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, and Meta:Requests for deletion, but also Talk:Spam blacklist and Talk:Interwiki map), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

A tip: add this page Meta:Administrators' discussion index to your watchlist, it tracks the latest activity to various sections of many of the important pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-admin @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading although it doesn't always completely apply here at Meta.

Please also check or add your entry to Meta:Administrators#List_of_administrators and the Template:List of administrators.

–Juliancolton | Talk 21:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks :) -- Avi 01:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Need help for plural at mk.wikipedia

Hello Avraham, please can you help to fix plural trouble at mk.wikipedia? Please consider this conversation on translatewiki.net. It takes so long time and the problem still exist. If you are able to fix this please do it if not may be you can redirect me to the right person to ask for solution of this problem. Best regards. --Brest 21:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

hey great, looks like you fix it? how you do it?! Can you explain to me?--Brest 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I was away and didn't do anything; perhaps it was someone else? -- Avi 06:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

hi, thanks for such wonderful birthday present :)--George M. 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't thank me, thank the community that trusts you; my job is merely custodial :D -- Avi 18:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Founder clarification q

Can you look at my question w:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Clarification re Founder. I'm hoping you are the right person to ask; forgive me if not. Cheers, Chzz 21:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Answered on EnWiki. -- Avi 22:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for that - much clearer.Chzz 03:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Global Rollback Rights to user:Gaeser

Greetings. I am referring to this poll - Global rollback for Gaeser.

I am a sysop at ka.wiki. We at ka.wiki recently discovered that this user had rollback rights. It is very easy to overlook such requests, if no background checks are made in the local communities where users are active. This user should not be given any global rights. He manipulated himself to becoming an admin at ka.wiki and then had to resign by community pressure. His behavior, to put it mildly, is unstable. He responds to criticism violently and unilaterally reverses edits. This tool gives him policing power that he can not utilize within reasonable limits. Discussion on how he managed to become a kawiki sysop bypassing local consensus is still open at the local village pump. What can we do to reverse this decision? Any advice on how this can be expedited would be appreciated. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 19:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI. I though that this user has changes, at least a little, but he hasn't. I also ask you to stop this user from personal attacks on at least on meta - if I am not mistaken, on ka wiki he seems. I won't even comment his baseless accusation. If I am not mistaken, we still have rules, which protect volunteers from such insults, like bypassing local consensus, manipulated, especially unstable. Or maybe we have no rules against insults? --George M. 09:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. To make clear to you, why this user is so angry. Recently, in this (hidden edits) discussion he violated the privacy policy of the one user and threatened to spoil his biography on wikipedia. I warned him, that such behavior is unappreciated by the foundation. According to Privacy policy, such comments must be hidden - mustn't they? I've contacted the steward, and asked him to hide these edits. Now this user is angry, that he was pointed at violation of policy, and as I was the one who warned him, is really angry with me. I hope I made the situation clear. If not, you can see hidden edits from ka wiki and Google translate will translate them for you. Anyway, I hope you will explain him, that a) he mustn't violate privacy policy and b) threatening other users to spoil articles about them isn't within the scope of project. All the best, --George M. 10:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The reaction speaks to itself. The point is that this user has cheated to get sysop rights at ka. The deleted edit has been recovered and will be discussed in detail at ka, however, in the future such requests should not come from this user. I will make the note on the voting page as well. My recommendation in general is that efforts should be made to seek references at local projects before granting global rights to users. Thank you. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 18:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reaction tells us everything. IMO, the user who violates http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Privacy_policy Privacy policy] shouldn't try to hide this with such baseless insults. Calm down, read privacy policy and try not to violate it any more. About cheating - I won't even comment this nonsence. --George M. 18:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is something that seems to need handling on your local project. If there is a concern about anyone having global sysop rights, the proper venue is to file an RfC on Meta. -- Avi 06:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What d'ya think?

Hi -- before I go on the barricades and launch a protest I need your input. Give me your take on this username: השואה. I mean.... WTF dude? Seb az86556 22:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

He is usernamed hardblocked on HeWiki b/c of the name, I think you have a case here. -- Avi 22:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. I wasn't asking for legalese -- I want to know if you are offended. Seb az86556 23:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I do think that someone having the username "Holocaust" is in very poor taste, but, obviously, my background leads me to have a bias. -- Avi 03:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question

I'm not very sure what the correct venue is but I have made a suggestion here that might not be correct. Is the ArbCom the proper venue for that? Regards, --DF 10:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. ArbCom is the proper venue for that, and he should e-mail ArbCom. He may e-mail the functionaries list as well, as that includes non-ArbCom checkusers and oversighters, but ArbCom makes the final decisions. -- Avi 11:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Steward request

Could you grant me the steward rights so that i can take care of the users that are being abusive with their admin rights so would you mind doing it so i can revoke their admin access so there will be no more abusing there please.

WP:Pending changes

The above policy is restrictive and against the principles of the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't know where it got started, but if it could be reconsidered, or at least thought over very carefully; I think that would be most beneficial to this organization's goals.--Gniniv 06:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of Chunghwa Telecom

Hello Avraham, why have you range blocked the following two IPs on zh-wp: 114.44.128.0/18 and 114.44.112.0/20? You blocked with this range block a big part of Taiwan from zh-wp. Please consult a local admin before do such a nuke action. Thank you very much. The reason you had given are unsufficiant. I unblocked both.--Wing 17:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My appologize, the block was requested by a zh-wp admin. Though I still think such a range block with such a long period is not proper. It can affect too much other users.--Wing 18:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

cu

Please CUUser:Twhk2011，He not me.

seein--Hoyojo 16:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• See Steward requests/Checkuser#Hoyojo@zh.wikipedia. -- Avi 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi Avi, would you mind taking a look at this vandalism report when you have time? I'm asking you because you locked one of the accounts in question in August.[1] A checkuser confirmed on enwiki that there's sock puppetry going on, although not all accounts could be checked since they don't all exist on enwiki. This probably needs to be handled globally since the same behaviour is occurring in many language versions. Regards, Jafeluv 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Salamat@pt.wikipedia

Avi, I'm so sorry to say that, but you're wrong. I'm not worried of your intentions (I'm sure you have good ones), and we agree about the policies. But, when you say "someone who was looking for administrative privileges on PtWiki is much more closely related to a few other accounts than he or she should be", I have to ask: how much closely to this accounts a sysop "should be"? You talk like blocked accounts but Harleif, Wvideo, Ceay and Kthiw has no contributions. Nothing, not even a word! Nurkh, Salamat and Usuariowi was never at same discussion and never edit on the same article. "Alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)". Tell me: how could these particular accounts being used to create "the illusion of more support and harassing other users"? Finally, the sentence "was justified in the result" is clearly not acceptable. "There must be a valid reason to check a user", remember? There is no result without a check, that's why the reason must be provided before the check, never after it. It seems like, in every request for adminship, anyone can come here, and ask for a check, "just for fishing". I was really waiting for a {{fishing}} in that request, and I was disappointed. These were my opinions, and I think I should talk to you, because we both want to do the right thing. But now it's done, all I can do is suggest you to pay more attention on the reasons before accept to make a check, in the next time. Just think about it, and make a self-judgment, if you find it useful. Best regards, CasteloBranco^msg 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Castelo. If you look at the report filed on Meta, you will see that one of the claims is "Reason: Simillar edits between the two accounts: Both users make personal attacks to users that criticize him:", which is forbidden across pretty much every project in wikimedia space and is why we thought the checks justified based on the information submitted to us. However, I do agree with you that I am not an expert on specifically PtWiki's policies about sockpuppets, and I come from a background of Meta/EnWiki/Commons where such activity is much more frowned upon. If such hidden or secret sockpuppets are allowed on PtWiki, then, at the very least, the sock page should should be updated to let us infrequent travelers to PtWiki know about this. Again, if PtWiki has a more lenient view, then my statements about administrators and socks should be ignored. I will reiterate, however, that electing local checkusers who are more aware of the local situation on PtWiki would be best. Thank you for your explanation, your assumption of good faith, and for allowing me the opportunity to explain myself. -- Avi 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Steward request

Hi!,[[2]]en.wikipedia#User:Eseki]]Oh,PlaseEseki 03:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

[3] --dferg ^{☎ talk} 11:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

CU+block request spammer

Hello Avraham, Dferg told me you might be able to help out a bit in stopping a prolific spammer. The user Milgrujic (non-SUL) spammed travelsitesonline.net over 100 times crosswiki both from this account and many IP's (COIbot report) until it was globally blacklisted. He (highly probable) then continued with topholidaydestinations.net at least 256 times (COIbot report). Both sites have the same AdSense ID and are both registered in Serbia. I would not be surprised if this guy spammed or spams other domains. Could you please perform a CU on:

---

User:Milgrujic

(commons: userpage | talk (←links) || Edits: +/- | logs ← Milgrujic ← logs || search)(Reports: COIBot)
(Tools: GUC | stalktoy | CA) (Search: Google | → links ←User talk )

(enwiki: userpage | talk (←links) || Edits: +/- | logs ← Milgrujic ← logs || search)

---

I'd like to know if this guy, or related accounts or IP's have placed other external links than those mentioned above. The user in question should also be blocked per request on meta. EdBever 10:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Help deleting or suppressing history.

Avraham, I have been trying to stop GOOG from returning my figurenude photographs to children with searches for simply "Curtis Neeley" for roughly sixteen months and am currently involved in a drawn out United States Court litigation against them. The Wikipedia Foundation approved alteration of the donated photograph attribution to the "CN Foundation" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Artful_nude_or_figurenude_photograph.jpg) The file history still reveals the name "Curtis Neeley" on the page. Could you suppress the file history to require a click to another page so the thumbnail does not display on a page showing "Curtis Neeley" at all? Thank you. CurtisNeeley 21:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you sent this to the Commons Oversight list, on which it is being discussed by all the Commons oversighters, of which I am only one. May I trouble you to send a little more information and any necessary documentation from the Wikimedia Foundation to the list? Thanks! -- Avi 21:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I will send anything I have. I will never litigate against any Wiki but was perceived as threatening because Judge Erin L Setser asked me to ask Wiki to cause my name to be not shown. Wikipedia is mentioned in District Court but is NOT a party. Wiki is part of the case but not a party.CurtisNeeley 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for translating my confirmation statement into Hebrew. Much appreciated. Hope to see another year with us :-) Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 14:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Portlas on Wikipedia

Hello Avraham, I am asking you the following question because you're listed as an admin. my question is: What should I do to have Portal namespace on hy.wikipedia.org? Is there a specific place where someone can help me with that question? Thanks!--Togaed 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

hey, thanks

Don't think I got to it before, but thanks for the advice on the Stewards page. However it works out, I'll certainly take it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I represent a client that has a page on Wikipedia and would like to remove some parts of her bio. What is the best way to go about this? I would like to avoid having it changed back by anyone and would also like to avoid entering any sort of dispute.

Thank you for your help.

Agree

I wanted to say that I feel you're dead on correct when it comes to local communities' deciding whether or not local CUs meet their policies to keep the bit. Stewards should aim to make as few decisions as possible. We can decide when to or not use our own tools, but not override consensus. :) fr33kman 02:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppression in Chinese wikipedia

I have posted a cases about oppression in Chinese wikipedia. Looking forward to your assisstance, recommendations or judgment. Thank you very much.--Coekon 08:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser of Marcus Luccas

In checkuser, you saw the IP 200.216.152.19 (talk · contribs · CA) was linked to account of Marcus Luccas (talk · contribs · CA)? Is to reveal this information? Sorry for bad English. Pc^Talk 20:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to what you mean, I did not mention any IP in my results. -- Avi 04:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Pc^Talk 13:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo Deletion

Hello Avraham, A few weeks ago the administrator Jcb deleted a photo off of commons (Kermit_High_School_2010.png). This is a photo I took myself and released into the public domian but was still deleted because another user grouped up a bunch a photos on the page (Kermit High School) on Wikipedia and deleted them withouit looking at the lisencing. It seems that Jcb is no longer an active member so I really need your help in restoring this image.

Thanks, 69.94.169.105 16:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I didn't realized that I wansn't logged in!

Thanks, KTownUSA 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it allowed in Wikipedia?

To keep in the pages of wiki Administrator's personnel thesis? at http://sd.wikipedia.org ? Other problem is We call Computer as same in English, but admin forcibly used his word Ganpukar of Computer. I have proof that thousands of published books called it Computer not Ganpukar. If some one oppose him he started abusive language. That is the reason sd.wikipedia.org never got attraction to Sindhi community. Plz check record there. Other things are he locked CSS due to that on the same site there are lot of font styles appeared there. He is not able to set commonCSS or Monocss. We are in trouble to work in our local Sindhi language. I don't know where to say for this problem. Record history says all the situation there. I appeal plz warn him to follow en.wikipedia.org rules, other wise he will continue use his personnel details and personnel promoted articles there. Dear I am sorry If u r not right person to say all about this, Plz suggest me where I can raise this issue. My sd.wikipedia.org ID is same. His thesis is not a violetion? http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/ماحولياتي_انتظام_ڪاڻ_اُپُگِرَهِي_عَڪس_ضماءُ_۽_درجه_بنديءَ_جي_طريقن_جو_اَڀياس

Alixafar 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Done?

Hey, Avraham. Not sure, but looks like the check on this request was done. Maybe Shizhao just used the wrong template on his answer. Cheers.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 14:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

By all means, if I am wrong, please fix it :) -- Avi 17:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I don't like to change these kind of edit without asking first. I will confirm that with Shizhao. Thanks.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 23:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom email to Mbz1

The Arb who penned the email speaking for the committee has agreed to release its text [4] so it can be publicly quoted here, etc. ASCIIn2Bme 06:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Firstly, I believe that the RfC Mbz1 has in mind is inappropriate for Meta based on Meta's own rules (as I have posted elsewhere at length), so I am uncertain as to why the e-mail should be posted. Secondly, have all parties to that e-mail agreed to its release? -- Avi 06:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comments

You've stated in a deletion discussion that RfC is flawed and an RfC about a user on another project was out of scope. However, if you read through the past few years, most of the RfCs are around people banned unfairly from other projects or who were unable to resolve their disputes on the other projects, and the RfCs were always seem as giving them a safe and neutral ground. A lot of people who are not en.wiki users are upset by what appears to be a united opinion of en.wiki based users who are ignoring that and are rewriting history to get rid of what is a valid critique of something that en.wiki effectively prevents. That is more of a problem with en.wiki and not Meta, and one would hopefully go to en.wiki to deal with it instead of trying to prevent Meta from operating in its standard capacity. For instance, Courcelles, an Arbitrator, acted in a manner that should have resulted in a long block yet was not. Why even have Meta if it is now just another en.wiki project in which people do whatever they do whenever they do it without any rule or legitimacy? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ottava. I am trying to approach this issue as a Metapedian following Meta's own guidelines. The RfC guideline, as currently written, only allows for RfCs about non-Meta disputes when they remain unresolved on the local project (regardless of whether it be EnWikiP or Vietnamese Wikisource). My interpretation, and I have no delusions about it being worth any more than anyone else's, is that when the local dispute resolution comes to a conclusion, that is a resolution. Obviously, not everyone will be satisfied with it; often, no party is completely satisfied with it. But it is a resolution, and so an RfC on Meta is not appropriate. Only when the local process is either non-existent or is systemically unable to reach a conclusion should Meta be brought in. Meta should still remain a place for people to complain about issues they have with other projects, but an RfC, at least according to the current guidelines, is not the proper venue. -- Avi 16:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCs are not binding and are for general discussions. If anyone feels an issue is not resolved then it is not resolved. The term "resolved" means that all parties agree. For anyone to try and use that word as a way to lawyer the page off Meta is upsetting to me as it goes against the whole spirit of Meta and the RfC system. Every other Wiki language and project type that had those RfCs were not given the en.wiki special privilege of making troubling information vanish. Why this exception? Because it makes them look bad? That is exactly why this should stay, because the information is bad and they make it obvious that they see it as a threat. To be honest, if en.wiki wants to have any ounce of respect then they would need to ban every single person who complains about that information as it represents the worse possible behavior and thought process that an encyclopedia should have. RfCs are the venue for -all- complaints and they are non-binding for a reason. That is one of the sacred pillars to Meta and I think you are on the wrong side of the issue which has major ramifications. It is no coincidence that those like SandyGeorgia are tearing apart the ethics of the same people over here complaining. There is a major sickness over there and it honestly makes me worried that some here are being tainted by it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I am approaching this not from the perspective of an EnWikipedian, but as a Metapedian who has been a participant in this project for years. To me, the purpose of the RfC option on Meta was to act as a fallback for projects incapable of taking care of things themselves, the way we do for projects without the infrastructure to promote or demote sysops, run checks, perform oversights, etc. Just as we are not supposed to have Meta intrude on local projects which have infrastructures robust enough to handle themselves in those regards, so to, has always been my opinion, that Meta should not intrude on the dispute resolution processes of the local projects. Meta can still be used as a place to complain about a project, but filing a formal RfC is inappropriate in light of how our RfC is worded. As for the definition of resolution, it is almost never the case where all parties are happy with the outcome of a decision. More often, nobody is truly happy, for everyone wants to have their own side deemed completely right and their opponents completely wrong. A resolution to a dispute is when a decision has been handed down by the person, persons, or body which has been agreed to be the authority to adjudicate the dispute. I respectfully submit that is not "wikilawyering" but is an understanding of the nature of dispute resolution, be it on or off wiki. As an aside, do you not find it interesting that the author of the current version of Meta RfC, User:Sj, believes that the RfC on GwenGale should be deleted as an attack page? I think that supports my understanding of our policy, which has nothing to do with EnWiki—since EnWiki rules should have no bearing on a Meta RfD discussion, only Meta rules. Lastly, if the RfC is truly non-binding, as you say, then the same result could be had having a discussion on Wikimedia Forum. -- Avi 17:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

With the mass amount of sock puppetry, Arbitrators plagiarizing, people pretending to be who they aren't at high levels, etc., I think the problem is those connected to en.wiki thinking that matters are capable of being handled in house. There are still major questions regarding Rlevse and the Wikileaker that ArbCom is unwilling to answer (see the SandyGeorgia related matters). If anything, Meta and the other WMF wikis should be more involved in the matter with many new people brought in to help clean out the rot. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I will have to respectfully disagree as my opinion is that it is not Meta's place to intrude where there are working dispute resolution processes and an active community. People should be able and welcome to bring issues up on the local projects where the issues are, whilst realizing that not every resolution is going to satisfy every participant, but that is a function of societies being composed of imperfect human beings. -- Avi 19:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Working is the key word. Most people would say it isn't working. Look at Fae, for instance - a person who normally would have been banned but skipped out, created a new identity, gamed the system into admin, and is not banned for the mass amounts of abusive behavior. This isn't unique but tons of people have the problem. As I said, Sandy is railing against it all the time but it is obvious that the problems are throughout and systematic. Go contact Sandy and she can inform you. If anyone understands what Wikipedia is and what it should be, she is the one. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request

I would like to ask you what did you mean under this one please?--Mbz1 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I said. -- Avi 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked because I did not understand. Did you mean that an editor, who believes he was treated by arbcom unfairly could bring his concerns to stewards?--Mbz1 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant that if an ArbCom has run amok, is violating the terms of its mandate and blocking or banning all those who criticize it, call for RfC's within that local project, or call for new elections within that local project, the stewards should be informed, they can look at what is going on, and, if they have to, step in to protect the local project members from the tyrannical ArbCom. That is certainly not the case on EnWiki, or any other of the wikis with an ArbCom at this time. -- Avi 17:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ancient words

thanks for digging up and reviving "askance" — but it's not a noun ;) Seb az86556 17:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. Can I claim poetic license? . I should change it :) -- Avi 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well.. since you dug it up from its grave, the zombie is yours to walk (get a leash) :P In any case, in my neck o'the woods, people will look at you 'n go where-the-fks-he-from-?... Seb az86556 17:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of RfC

Noting that "__NOINDEX__" had already been added, I believe the blanking is too much of a gesture on behalf of one perspective -- and there has perhaps been too much of that (resulting in the insult/exit of experienced volunteers). But will say no more at this time. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Proofreader. I intended that as a form of compromise, but if anyone feels the blanking is to too much, while I would like to understand why, I will not contest the unblanking. -- Avi (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Avi, as I am an infrequent visitor to meta, I have restricted my participation mostly to two comments (here and this one_{(removed after someone responded with a link to a current en.wiki arbcom case causing an allegation of "off-topic")} without assertion of vote (with a somewhat more expansive "(out of order)" redress after a prominent en.wiki administrator linked to my enwiki blocklog. :-) _{(And one "rhetorical flag" as an example of such flags. :-)}

I.E., I'll observe the ripples in the pond, and read the tea leaves that wash to shore. For now. ;-) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(Follow-up) NOINDEX magic word

(Correction to previous assertion) FYI-- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make that exception on mw:Help:Magic words. Where is that documented? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See this discussion with MZ. (You'll have to ask him.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's documented (by me, a while ago :) ) at en:Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing, footnote 2. And the obvious solution would be... moving RFCs into the Meta: namespace. Rd232 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Null edit

Really? a null edit? Too much trouble to comment on either the main page or the talk page? Also, what reception would I get if I reformulated it as an RFC? Will that be crushed equally mercilessly - perhaps with a block thrown in for disruption or something? Rd232 (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The null edit was to change "god" to "good"; Please read the actual page. As I wrote on the page itself, Meta is too necessary for the workings of the hundreds of wikimedia projects to be closed. Perhaps more structure is needed on Meta, and some better working relationship with our larger projects, but a suggestion to close Meta brings to mind images of people climbing German political buildings dressed as radioactive arachnid bitten superheroes -- Avi (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: null edit - sorry, my bad not reading edits properly. Second time on that page today! Hum. But as to the substance, I don't see how you can argue that either (i) discussion of closing "Meta as we know it" and moving its functions elsewhere, including at least partially to a very different sort of Meta, is of the order of ludicrousness you describe; or (ii) that a discussion of that, explicitly open to other thoughts on improving Meta, should be closed down within an hour without giving it a chance to develop. There's every chance it would achieve nothing; the haste to close it almost looks, to an outside observer, like fear that something might actually happen. Finally, would you answer my RFC question? (It would be formulated more broadly on improvement, but it would include as a central part the prior closure proposal as one way to do it.) Rd232 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"god close" (innovation via typo!)

(Semi-serious) Actually, the creation of a special "God" account (which would be used to close all discussions) would be a good idea. If that sounds problematic, I would suggest that in a sense that is what is happening -- with discussions regarding what close should be taking place (probably) on IRC, with someone then stepping forward to issue the proclamation of behind-the-curtain consensus. It is perhaps (and perhaps fitting in this case) that the (abandoned as a matter of honor) user name WizardOfOz might be a less problematic name than "God." :-)

Metacomment: Typos may be great sources for the inspiration of innovation.[No comment necessary ... but clarifying that some technical form of "black box" administrative actions would be preferable to the personalization of actions which often yields outrage and RfCs, for example] -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a lovely typo. :) Maybe we could have User:God, a bot account, settle unsettlable issues with a roll of the dice... though Albert Einstein might object of course (God does not play dice with the universe...). Rd232 (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

@Rd232 OK, I'll try to answer your questions in the order they were asked:

1. Meta's purpose is to serve all the hundreds and hundreds of Wikimedia projects; each to its own need; each in accordance with foundation policy. If we close Meta and move the functionality elsewhere, that will become the new Meta, that is where stewards will hang out, that is where CU and OS will be given and removed, that is where projects will be open or closed, etc. The functionality and appearance of the new project will be exactly the same as Meta, so why move?
2. The discussion was not framed in a manner representing "How can we improve Meta's relationship with our larger projects". If it was, the way that Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users was portrayed, I'm certain it would not have been closed, but instead would have conversation. There was a very large element of what EnWikipedians would call w:WP:POINT (and w:WP:REICHSTAG) involved.
3. I think that if you opened an RfC, with an explanation (in respectful wording) as to what you believe to be the significant problem or problems that you see with Meta, proffer some suggestions as to how to address them, and ask for contributions from the community, that would be a good thing. But setting up a no-holds-barred steel cage match between Meta and EnWiki is only going to create more bad feeling and more defensiveness between the projects, which will only make everyone's job harder.

@Proofreader, well, there was Jimbo, but he was removed from his position as Godking of Meta a few years back. . -- Avi (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

1. the proposal explains a little how it will be different - better multilingualism, and better integration with the local projects.
2. The discussion was not framed in a manner representing "How can we improve Meta's relationship with our larger projects". Well, no, because that's not what it was about. Are you under the misapprehension that the proposal exists because of the Gwen Gale RFC deletion discussion? Check the dates: that discussion began at 17:56, 7. Feb. 2012‎ (and I didn't see it til 11 Feb, and didn't comment til 12 Feb), whereas Wikimedia_Forum#What_is_Meta_For.3F began at 04.55 7 Feb and a comment of mine mentions the cross-wiki meta namespace idea on 8 Feb.
3. I don't see what part of the closure proposal is "disrespectful", or any mention of or link with en.wp. And incidentally I think the cross-wiki meta namespace could substantially reduce the relative power of en.wp, by making many more smaller projects aware of cross-wiki discussions (where currently a single post to en.wp can draw many users, so there's disproportion in terms of information flow).

Rd232 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(@Rd232) events timeline (partial)

• Feb 7 RFD tagging of RfC/Gwen Gale was reverted/declined ... initial RfD removed from RfD discussions - transferred to discussion on RfC talk ...
• Feb 11 RfC erased/reverted/etc / Meta RfD action
• Feb 11 WP:ANI topic begun (later moved to AN)
• Feb 11 RfC re Meta comment on users created

Yes, the RfC/GG was the reason for the escalation to creation of the meta RfC re RfC/users. With AN/I (moved to AN) discussion ... WAR!
--Proofreader77 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your point being? Your diff is 18.55 on 7 Feb. Rd232 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the action didn't successfully begin then. Feb 7 was undone. RfD deleted/transferred to RfC talk. ONLY on Feb 11 did all the rest occur. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Closure of Proposals for closing projects/Closure of meta-wiki

Please give the discussion its fair time to run. The discussion is reasonable and in good faith - I consider it highly inappropriate for it to be continually closed without giving it the appropriate time to run. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and by the way SPQRobin agreed that his closure should be reverted, which is why I struck his comment. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

However, as someone who has been involved in multiple wikimedia projects over the past 6.5+ years, and in maintaining them for over 5 years, I am convinced that this is not only an incorrect way to go about getting valid changes made, it is a harmful way to do so. It will serve nothing other than to "balkanize" the Wikimedia community. I am in whole-hearted agreement that there should be both some codification of certain processes here on Meta, and a more formal recognition of dispute resolution processes of the local projects, but having a suggestion to close Meta can not be addressed seriously, as it would never be approved by the foundation, let alone Wikimedia project members. If the passion and energy is channeled into constructive discourse, we are all much better off. -- Avi (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment sounds like you never read beyond the title of the proposal. Had the discourse turned unproductive I would have swiftly withdrawn the proposal. If the passion and energy channelled into quashing this discussion had been put into engaging with the proposal, we'd be getting somewhere already. Per your closing comment, you're very sure that the proposal could not possibly succeed; but this is contradicted by the thoroughly indecent haste with which it has been repeatedly closed. PS This proposal as it stands is tantamount to someone posting an RfC on En or De wiki asking to close those projects down. is an outrageous comment. Meta is the correct venue for closing projects, and the radical restructuring I proposed amounted to a procedural closure. Would you rather we go and discuss on en.wp whether to change meta dramatically? Then take it to Jimbo and the Board? Rd232 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I suggest that no radical restructuring is going to work without direct authority of the board and Jimbo, and that such a proposal is one that will never reach approval. I would say that most of what happens on Meta now would be required to happen on a central wiki regardless. For example, we stewards cannot have 300+ CU and OS pages on our watchlist—there needs to be a centralized location. We stewards cannot have the another 300+ pages for watching RfA's, RfBs, RfCU, RfOS, etc. There needs to be a central location for all requests for projects in which the local community cannot give or remove those privileges (and that includes ALL projects for CU and OS). Discussions of opening small wikis cannot be done on that small wiki, for it does not exist yet. Discussions about Wikimeetups that span various projects, such as wikimania, must occur on a central location. Discussions that relate to the workings of most or all projects, such as global rollback, global sysops, and stewards need to be done at a central location. Therefore, with the need for a central project to serve all projects remaining, regardless of how other tools may be parsed out, the request for closure could not succeed as it stood, since a new Meta would just have to be created to take care of the majority of what this Meta does right now. Furthermore, have you researched whether or not the functionality you suggest be moved to a new space spanning all wikis is even possible? You may want to ask the developers if that is possible before suggesting it; I personally have no idea. -- Avi (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

300+ pages????????????????????????????????????????????? Please tell me you didn't close the proposal because you didn't bloody understand it. InstantMeta. Like InstantCommons. Meta:Insert Something Here would be one page, visible from every project, appearing on every local watchlist (if the user's watched it locally). Rd232 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I did understand it; however, I understand Wikimedia functionality well enough to know that a central wiki will always be necessary, and it would have to look almost identical to the current Meta. So closing the current Meta is something that will not be accepted by Wikimedians or, in my opinion, the foundation. As someone who has been tasked to help in the smooth running of Meta, I felt that your proposal, as written was, untenable, would engender more harm than good, and likely something the foundation would repudiate, so I closed it. It is not up for deletion, it can be linked to in a more focused conversation, but I am relatively certain that no proposal to close a functioning and functional project, especially one as central as Meta is to all Wikimedia, would pass. -- Avi (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I did understand it; however, I understand Wikimedia functionality well enough to know that a central wiki will always be necessary. These statements are contradictory, since the proposal accommodates whatever centralisation is technically necessary. Rd232 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, as whatever "new" wiki would handle the centralization (I believe you mentioned "Strategy") would, almost immediately, become the new Meta. There will always need to be a central area to co-ordinate issues that affect multiple wikis, its being called Meta or Strategy is irrelevant. Which means that whatever problems you believe would be solved by closing this project down will almost certainly appear on the new replacement, rendering any closure impotent (and that is besides any foundation element). -- Avi (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe you mentioned "Strategy"... you really didn't read my proposal at all, did you. And you're not listening to me. I'm unwatching your talk page, because much more of this I may get uncivil. Rd232 (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when you said "1. other, specialised coordinating projects (like Strategy)" I took that to mean that you realize the need for another centralized area for the handling of items such as:

• Applying and removing rights to local projects
• Applying and removing OS and CU rights to all projects
• Requests for CU, OS, speedy deletions, and dispute resolution for smaller projects
• Global locks and unlocks
• Global rollback/sysops
• Opening of new small projects

and the like. If that was not what you meant, where did you intend all of the above (and all the other cross-wiki items) would be handled? -- Avi (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

<facepalm> Seriously? Even now, you don't understand the fundamental concept of the proposal you closed? Read point 2, if necessary in conjunction with mw:InstantCommons. Note that InstantMeta would need to allow changes to a Meta page to be appear on local watchlists (currently, changes to a Commmons file page don't show up on the local file page in any way, so the local watchlist is silent). See also bugs like this one and this one. Rd232 (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

PS In case it wasn't clear, options 1. and 2. for transferring content and functions were not wholesale alternatives; the idea was that some things might be better off not being transferred into the Meta: namespace, but elsewhere. But everything would go into the Meta: namespace unless there was a good reason to hive it off. Of course, in the usual way discussions work, these issues would be clarified within the discussion, not on the talk page of a closer who clearly hasn't understood the proposal they closed at all. That lack of understanding is no doubt partially my fault for not explaining better in the first place, but still. Rd232 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Cross-wiki triumvirate barnstar

I hereby award you the cross-wiki triumvirate barnstar, for your outstanding ability to deal with proscription lists, on (self-proclaimed) behalf of the whole amused audience. I warmly suggest you to be careful when you approach unknown shores to avoid your head being cut by a local teenager/newbie king/godking. Nemo 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you take care in how you discuss other users. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bravo! (to Nemo) for inspiring me to historical reflection, and finding treasures: (e.g., Cicero's last words are said to have been, "There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly. (w:Cicero)) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

Please reply at [5]. Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

and canvassing it was

Hi

Here you asked: "Once again, how can informing EnWiki about an RfC that relates to EnWiki be considered canvassing? " Here's my response to your question.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

what attacks?

could you please point out specific attacks, and I will remove them.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Email-foreshadowed limerick

(eyes only ) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've seen Avi's wisdom when posting, but someday in hell they'll be toasting his pressing his weight 'midst Mbz-gate supporting en-vaders, not roasting.

I am wounded to the quick! -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One good turn deserves another; meant in witty jest and not serious :) -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Proofreader's verse is well known, Across Wikimedia it's thrown Regarding EnWiki In his mind he's tricky We “real-life” readers just groan

More discussion :)

When you get a chance, if you would respond to my last at Meta talk:Requests for deletion#Discussion of proposed change, and perhaps go ahead and implement some improvement/clarification. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It may have to wait until Sunday; sorry. -- Avi (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment sought about enWP block

Gday Avi. Would you be so kind to assist with a enWP blacklist item with your name against it. See Meta:Requests_for_CheckUser_information#122.57.80.0.2F20. Thanks. billinghurst sDrewth 14:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

question

regarding this I wanted to know how it is possible that you reveal the geographical information of users? It can be harmful to their security and this sort of information can be misused. --Sicaspi (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Per CheckUser_policy#Information_release giving information such as two users are on the same network is permissible. -- Avi (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Does it allow to give information if like they are from the same ISP? Is network in what you said the same as ISP? Doesn't it give more info than just saying they are from the same network?--Sicaspi (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

An ISP is an w:Internet service provider - the network utilized to connect to the internet. You may be confusing ISP with w:IP address. Even so, saying two people use the same IP address, without mentioning WHAT that IP address is, is also permitted under the policy. It is how we identify sockpuppets. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Change of blocking time?

Hello Avraham, may I ask you why you changed the blocking time of this IP address? THX.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Email sent. -- Avi (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Froklin@hi.wikipedia.org (checkuser request)

Please re-review the checkuser request? It's been a while, regards.--Bill william compton (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Done -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Avi, For matters of clarification, I would like to know whether the local wiki is free not to take any action against established sockpuppetry? Is there something like a rule which applies globally to all WMF projects? And will it be possible for you to clarify policies in this regard on the hi.wiki village pump. I'll be grateful if you can get some third party to translate your comments (if you choose to comment at all, and do so in English) into Hindi for the benefit of editors who are not well-versed in English. TIA. Regards, Lovysinghal (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  Doesn't HiWiki have a sockpuppetry policy at w:hi:विकिपीडिया:कठपुतली? -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Add Kurdish (Sorani) to Template:Welcome

Hi. How are you? Can you add Kurdish (Sorani) Language to Template:Welcome?
Thank you