This is an archive of past discussions with Avraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
< Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42> |
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) |
I don't understand why my old account is still being blocked. If it is due to sock puppetry then I have an excuse. No one will listen to me on my talkpage block review. You'll notice that in my scok puppet accounts I have made good contributory edits. I keep getting blocked because I have been "block evading" (I don't know what that even means). I want to continue to edit and stay away from the thing that got me banned in the first place. I am a changed person. I said that on my talk page but the admin simply said "no I don't think so". I asked what he meant but there was no reply. Its been weeks now. 78.144.107.76 ( talk) 00:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you simply missed my earlier message before you archived your Talk page, but here it is again for your convenience, with emphasis added: Please explain how in your view, the BMA's quoted statement "contradicts the BMA." [1] It seems you may believe the BMA is contradicting itself, but you have not adequately demonstrated that, and thus your reversion seems based on (at least) original research. Also please explain the reversion of the other changes, which you did not address in your edit summary. Blackworm ( talk) 03:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
i prefer to use GeorgeZhao,but i registed this account before,but forgot the password. i want to merge all me global accounts for differents language of wiki projects. i am not sure if i can get this name 'GeorgeZhao' OR 'GeorgeZHAO'now, if not possible to use GeorgeZhao, 'George.Zhao' is also an option i'd like to change. thanks so much. Gzhao ( talk) 05:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit, along with other examples of following me around to other pages I edit and reverting my changes or modifying my changes, seems to me to be the textbook definition of hounding, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that since you have said that you "know" that I personally do not like you, [2] this evidence is all the more convincing. Please stop immediately. Blackworm ( talk) 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
[3] Thanks for this, when you left the channel we thought you weren't going to be able to do it. Thank you for following up! Nathan T 04:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You've got mail. Please contact me as soon as possible. AdjustShift ( talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this and sorry to bother you again. I'm trying to figure out what happened. When I made the request, I clicked on the links for old and new usernames, and Tempo rubato existed somewhere else, but Rigaudon did not seem to. When you asked me to wait, Rigaudon existed here and at the German Wikipedia, and somehow you managed to give me the name change here. Is the German Rigaudon the reason why I wasn't able to create an account at Wiktionary, when I tried a few minutes ago? It asked me for my global password, and wouldn't accept the one I chose for Wikipedia. How do I fix that? Thanks. Rigaudon ( talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A German bureaucrat kindly renamed the stolen account, but I still can't create the name at Wiktionary. Even though I seem to be the only existing Rigaudon anywhere [4], my account here is treated as "unattached" to the global account. See here. Have you any suggestions? Thanks again. Rigaudon ( talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Everything is in order now. Many thanks. Rigaudon ( talk) 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Over at AdjustShift's page in your reply to me you state "If you would like to say you don't trust me; fine". I want to make clear that it's not that I don't trust you. Rather I think that what happened was an unconscious shift in perception in how the public evidence was viewed, based on the content of the secret evidence. It creeped from "unlikely" to "possible" to "guilty", all, supposedly based on just the public evidence. But as much as we'd all like to believe that we approach these kinds of judgments rationally and neutrally there are obviously a lot of factors into how we perceive things. This is in fact a very big part of the reason for why these kinds of procedures need to be/are carried out in the open - the input from others can help re-balance our perceptions and correct unconscious biases. And this is why all this monkeying around with "secret evidence" should have never happened and this case should have been conducted in a completely different manner. I really like the Anscombe's quartet graph on your talk page (This is the Anscombe of Anscombe- Aumann [5], right? (probably needs an article)). But without actually being able to see the data I can't help but think that you've fit that upward slopping regression line through something like Graph #4 (lower left). radek ( talk) 07:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm deeply concerned by the appalling way this case was handled. There was a complete lack of transparency and every time we hear a different version about the so called "secret evidence". First it was repeated for days, even weeks that the case would take longer because the secret evidence was being reviewed. Now AdjustShif made a comment on his talk page, if i understood him correctly, that the so called secret evidence was not used by you. So which it is: was the secret evidence used or it was not used? And if it was when it will be published as it was repeatedly promised during the investigation, if it wasn't then why this case went on for weeks where, lets be frank, the evidence which was made public could have been reviewed even by my grandmother in 2 or 3 days at most. Loosmark ( talk) 08:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
My two cents: let's assume that Molobo had a sock (as I have not seen the evidence, I can only do it on good faith). Why such a draconian lenght of a block? Despite all the accompaning wikidramu, the extent of his disruption seems minimal (when was the last time he broke 3RR? A year ago...?). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(<-)He is not banned, but blocked for a year, although a ban may be an option. Good work in one area does not excuse gross violations of wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has repeatedly violated various principles and guidelines, and has been indef blocked not once but twice. He may request a review on his userpage or e-mail ArbCom for a review. -- Avi ( talk) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham your comment above is interesting. I don't have any experience with that so probably i just don't understand how things work but i thought that Checkuser is simply checking the IP of an user? Obviously that's a technical function but what exactly do the editing patterns have to do with that? I'm not sure how is that a technical function and neither how are the two things connected. Can you please point me to page with where I can read the rules for Checkuser? I only manage to find this page Wikiversity:CheckUser policy, is that the correct page to look at? Loosmark ( talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham while you were examining the Molobo case did you have off-wiki discussions about it with Sciurinæ? Loosmark ( talk) 10:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
See, I read your mind :) -- Tinu Cherian - 05:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avraham, could you check to make sure I did everything needed for the image File:Nizar Rayyan AFP.jpg? A number of other images are going to need to be deleted (*I think*) for being non-free with too high a resolution, you can see a small discussion of it here. Thanks, Nableezy ( talk) 22:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
My bot thanks you for flag! -- Egmontaz♤ talk 09:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham,
Srini
vas G P
hani has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Srini
vas G P
hani
04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Avi, Thanks for doing the above checkuser. Whenever I've made a sock accusation I've failed, however convinced I was of the evidence. Presumably different computers/IPs were involved but the accounts were working to a common purpose. I'm not sure if there is anywhere else I am meant to go from here. Any suggestions?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avraham. Regarding this report [6], this is clear case of fishing by a banned user. I am not Tajik or related to him, so why are you confirming my alternative accounts as "sock puppets"? I haven't violated WP:sock, the accounts in question are used for different topical areas (politics, ancient history, modern history) etc, in like with Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT. I am neither a banned user nor have used these accounts to evade 3RR or anything like that. This is an infringement on my privacy. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
שלום וברכה! Hi Avraham. I saw on your profile that you are an administrator that understands and performs range blocks. If you could give me your expert opinion in the following matter I would really appreciate it. On this talk page an user added Dries van Agt as a Dutch Jew in his protest against the list mentioning also what he calls "partly" jewish. It's zum versyteren because this person has a bad reputation regarding Jews. In 1972 he caused outrage when he tried to pardon the last three Nazi war criminals still in Dutch prisons in 1972, who were responsible for the deportation of between 105 and 110.000 Dutch Jews, called himself an Aryan, and protected Dutch Nazi Menten. His very last remark I find very insulting, over the edge. Could you take a look at this? Thank you in advance for your reply: I have added your talk page to my watchlist. כל טוב, Metzujan ( talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly think that you're wrong in Tajik's case. Clerk Jake_Wartenberg already said he's sure it's Tajik's sock accounts. [7] Did you see what Jake shown here? Tajik used the following socks before: User:German-Orientalist, User:KabuliTajik, User:Padmanii, User:DerDoc, as well as User:Al-Fanā. Another hint: Tajik knew the banned user Nisakhan very well and strangely Kurdo777 is now also bringing up that same Nisarkhan dude. [8] This Tajik guy sure is slick and he knows how to trick you admins. I have no idea why you protecting him, it's not doing any good to Wikipedia. Another thing I wanna add is that Tajik knows a way of logging from Germany on a server in the UK.-- Self Image ( talk) 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avi, I'm content with the box, but I think the wording "The article on the incident" needs some work... how to improve it, precisely, I can't think of off-hand... Just kibbitzing a bit... Tomer talk 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I made the changes to the wording to add the self-published note and remove a bit of rubbish. Hadn't noticed the wording at the end. Nevard ( talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Because you have edited the ADL page, I thought you would be interested in the AFD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League Historicist ( talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This [9] is overdue to be closed. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The mighty Gods of e-mail have decreed yet more rubbish to be present in your in-box.... :) Pedro : Chat 21:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This message is to notify to you that G.phanisrinivas is know known as Srinivas. Thank you! -- Sri niv as 09:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sri niv as 13:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Friendly. Thank you. Sri niv as 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
This is an archive of past discussions with Avraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
< Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42> |
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) |
I don't understand why my old account is still being blocked. If it is due to sock puppetry then I have an excuse. No one will listen to me on my talkpage block review. You'll notice that in my scok puppet accounts I have made good contributory edits. I keep getting blocked because I have been "block evading" (I don't know what that even means). I want to continue to edit and stay away from the thing that got me banned in the first place. I am a changed person. I said that on my talk page but the admin simply said "no I don't think so". I asked what he meant but there was no reply. Its been weeks now. 78.144.107.76 ( talk) 00:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you simply missed my earlier message before you archived your Talk page, but here it is again for your convenience, with emphasis added: Please explain how in your view, the BMA's quoted statement "contradicts the BMA." [1] It seems you may believe the BMA is contradicting itself, but you have not adequately demonstrated that, and thus your reversion seems based on (at least) original research. Also please explain the reversion of the other changes, which you did not address in your edit summary. Blackworm ( talk) 03:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
i prefer to use GeorgeZhao,but i registed this account before,but forgot the password. i want to merge all me global accounts for differents language of wiki projects. i am not sure if i can get this name 'GeorgeZhao' OR 'GeorgeZHAO'now, if not possible to use GeorgeZhao, 'George.Zhao' is also an option i'd like to change. thanks so much. Gzhao ( talk) 05:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit, along with other examples of following me around to other pages I edit and reverting my changes or modifying my changes, seems to me to be the textbook definition of hounding, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that since you have said that you "know" that I personally do not like you, [2] this evidence is all the more convincing. Please stop immediately. Blackworm ( talk) 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
[3] Thanks for this, when you left the channel we thought you weren't going to be able to do it. Thank you for following up! Nathan T 04:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You've got mail. Please contact me as soon as possible. AdjustShift ( talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this and sorry to bother you again. I'm trying to figure out what happened. When I made the request, I clicked on the links for old and new usernames, and Tempo rubato existed somewhere else, but Rigaudon did not seem to. When you asked me to wait, Rigaudon existed here and at the German Wikipedia, and somehow you managed to give me the name change here. Is the German Rigaudon the reason why I wasn't able to create an account at Wiktionary, when I tried a few minutes ago? It asked me for my global password, and wouldn't accept the one I chose for Wikipedia. How do I fix that? Thanks. Rigaudon ( talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A German bureaucrat kindly renamed the stolen account, but I still can't create the name at Wiktionary. Even though I seem to be the only existing Rigaudon anywhere [4], my account here is treated as "unattached" to the global account. See here. Have you any suggestions? Thanks again. Rigaudon ( talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Everything is in order now. Many thanks. Rigaudon ( talk) 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Over at AdjustShift's page in your reply to me you state "If you would like to say you don't trust me; fine". I want to make clear that it's not that I don't trust you. Rather I think that what happened was an unconscious shift in perception in how the public evidence was viewed, based on the content of the secret evidence. It creeped from "unlikely" to "possible" to "guilty", all, supposedly based on just the public evidence. But as much as we'd all like to believe that we approach these kinds of judgments rationally and neutrally there are obviously a lot of factors into how we perceive things. This is in fact a very big part of the reason for why these kinds of procedures need to be/are carried out in the open - the input from others can help re-balance our perceptions and correct unconscious biases. And this is why all this monkeying around with "secret evidence" should have never happened and this case should have been conducted in a completely different manner. I really like the Anscombe's quartet graph on your talk page (This is the Anscombe of Anscombe- Aumann [5], right? (probably needs an article)). But without actually being able to see the data I can't help but think that you've fit that upward slopping regression line through something like Graph #4 (lower left). radek ( talk) 07:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm deeply concerned by the appalling way this case was handled. There was a complete lack of transparency and every time we hear a different version about the so called "secret evidence". First it was repeated for days, even weeks that the case would take longer because the secret evidence was being reviewed. Now AdjustShif made a comment on his talk page, if i understood him correctly, that the so called secret evidence was not used by you. So which it is: was the secret evidence used or it was not used? And if it was when it will be published as it was repeatedly promised during the investigation, if it wasn't then why this case went on for weeks where, lets be frank, the evidence which was made public could have been reviewed even by my grandmother in 2 or 3 days at most. Loosmark ( talk) 08:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
My two cents: let's assume that Molobo had a sock (as I have not seen the evidence, I can only do it on good faith). Why such a draconian lenght of a block? Despite all the accompaning wikidramu, the extent of his disruption seems minimal (when was the last time he broke 3RR? A year ago...?). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(<-)He is not banned, but blocked for a year, although a ban may be an option. Good work in one area does not excuse gross violations of wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has repeatedly violated various principles and guidelines, and has been indef blocked not once but twice. He may request a review on his userpage or e-mail ArbCom for a review. -- Avi ( talk) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham your comment above is interesting. I don't have any experience with that so probably i just don't understand how things work but i thought that Checkuser is simply checking the IP of an user? Obviously that's a technical function but what exactly do the editing patterns have to do with that? I'm not sure how is that a technical function and neither how are the two things connected. Can you please point me to page with where I can read the rules for Checkuser? I only manage to find this page Wikiversity:CheckUser policy, is that the correct page to look at? Loosmark ( talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham while you were examining the Molobo case did you have off-wiki discussions about it with Sciurinæ? Loosmark ( talk) 10:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
See, I read your mind :) -- Tinu Cherian - 05:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avraham, could you check to make sure I did everything needed for the image File:Nizar Rayyan AFP.jpg? A number of other images are going to need to be deleted (*I think*) for being non-free with too high a resolution, you can see a small discussion of it here. Thanks, Nableezy ( talk) 22:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
My bot thanks you for flag! -- Egmontaz♤ talk 09:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham,
Srini
vas G P
hani has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Srini
vas G P
hani
04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Avi, Thanks for doing the above checkuser. Whenever I've made a sock accusation I've failed, however convinced I was of the evidence. Presumably different computers/IPs were involved but the accounts were working to a common purpose. I'm not sure if there is anywhere else I am meant to go from here. Any suggestions?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avraham. Regarding this report [6], this is clear case of fishing by a banned user. I am not Tajik or related to him, so why are you confirming my alternative accounts as "sock puppets"? I haven't violated WP:sock, the accounts in question are used for different topical areas (politics, ancient history, modern history) etc, in like with Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT. I am neither a banned user nor have used these accounts to evade 3RR or anything like that. This is an infringement on my privacy. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
שלום וברכה! Hi Avraham. I saw on your profile that you are an administrator that understands and performs range blocks. If you could give me your expert opinion in the following matter I would really appreciate it. On this talk page an user added Dries van Agt as a Dutch Jew in his protest against the list mentioning also what he calls "partly" jewish. It's zum versyteren because this person has a bad reputation regarding Jews. In 1972 he caused outrage when he tried to pardon the last three Nazi war criminals still in Dutch prisons in 1972, who were responsible for the deportation of between 105 and 110.000 Dutch Jews, called himself an Aryan, and protected Dutch Nazi Menten. His very last remark I find very insulting, over the edge. Could you take a look at this? Thank you in advance for your reply: I have added your talk page to my watchlist. כל טוב, Metzujan ( talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly think that you're wrong in Tajik's case. Clerk Jake_Wartenberg already said he's sure it's Tajik's sock accounts. [7] Did you see what Jake shown here? Tajik used the following socks before: User:German-Orientalist, User:KabuliTajik, User:Padmanii, User:DerDoc, as well as User:Al-Fanā. Another hint: Tajik knew the banned user Nisakhan very well and strangely Kurdo777 is now also bringing up that same Nisarkhan dude. [8] This Tajik guy sure is slick and he knows how to trick you admins. I have no idea why you protecting him, it's not doing any good to Wikipedia. Another thing I wanna add is that Tajik knows a way of logging from Germany on a server in the UK.-- Self Image ( talk) 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Avi, I'm content with the box, but I think the wording "The article on the incident" needs some work... how to improve it, precisely, I can't think of off-hand... Just kibbitzing a bit... Tomer talk 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I made the changes to the wording to add the self-published note and remove a bit of rubbish. Hadn't noticed the wording at the end. Nevard ( talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Because you have edited the ADL page, I thought you would be interested in the AFD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League Historicist ( talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This [9] is overdue to be closed. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The mighty Gods of e-mail have decreed yet more rubbish to be present in your in-box.... :) Pedro : Chat 21:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This message is to notify to you that G.phanisrinivas is know known as Srinivas. Thank you! -- Sri niv as 09:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sri niv as 13:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Friendly. Thank you. Sri niv as 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})