User talk:Avraham/Archive 34

< Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35 >

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)

Blanket ban on IP address

Would you kindly revert the blanket ban you have put on IP addresses of the form 79.73.XX.XX? My own falls under that form, and I don't see why I have been banned from editing Wikipedia until February. Many thanks. Uncantabrigian (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Indeed I can edit, and I understand how blocking works for vandalism; I am just curious as to why a blanket ban is put on IP addresses which would have no relation to whoever may have been vandalising. Uncantabrigian (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi

Avi, Several people came to the page and asserted their points of view, myself included. I commented last, but no one answere my coments. This cannot produce a concensus. Is there a procedure?Historicist (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Range block of 79.73.0.0/17

User talk:79.73.105.166 is requesting an unblock. I'm obviously inclined to decline, given your block reason, but hoped you could tell me who the master is, since edits to the IP talkpage indicate a potentially positive contributor. Not bugging you (hopefully) but just want to make an informed decision. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Skip this - the IP outed himself to me, and I've handled the request Fritzpoll (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Range block of 149.254.192.192/26

149.254.192.221 (talk · contribs) is requesting unblock. This appears to be related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bruce99999,[1] but that's about as much as I know at this point. --Elonka 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the puppetmaster asking for the unblock -- Avi (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation!  :) --Elonka 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide text of deleted article

Someone immediately deleted the article "Uli Kozok" that I wrote created earlier today for lack of notability. I think that this was an improper deletion and that I can easily add the required indicators. (The subject is a German scholar of Indonesian languages sufficiently prominent as to have an article in the Indonesian wikipedia, which I translated and augmented.) I would appreciate a copy of the text to revise. Thanks.Bill (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Range block collateral damage

On Tuesday 11 November 2008 you blocked the IP range which my computer is within, completely preventing me from editing Wikipedia from home. I am a very frequent, good editor who has used the same computer to edit Wikipedia since July. I am not guilty of abusing multiple accounts, which is the reason you gave for blocking the range for six months. I have never had my account blocked, and I am sending this message from my account, but from an Internet cafe. Please modify the block you imposed, so that I am still able to use my account within the currently blocked range. I am the only person who edits Wikipedia from my computer; I am always signed in when I edit, I have never edited from just an IP number. Could you please exempt my account from the relevant IP range ban, as soon as possible - thanks. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to use my account to edit Wikipedia despite the block. I have never used proxies of any kind; I don't even know how to. I don't do anything disruptive, nor will I - all of the (over 3,000) edits I have made have been in order to improve articles. I have made some minor beginner's mistakes, which have been corrected, but I'm not guilty of any sock puppetry or of changing IP, which I also do not know how to do. All my edits are listed on my account, which should make it possible to prove it is not me that is doing whatever caused you to impose the block. Werdnawerdna (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

NYT ref

The ref at Ari Emanuel is broken as well. I would fix it myself but I can't figure out from the diffs what exactly you did. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A question for you

 Note: See this comment. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 11:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I have taken the matter to WP:ANI. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaby de Wilde checkuser

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Gaby_de_wilde If you don't mind, there's one more account that should be checked... thanks! Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple checkusers

Who, how many, names not prevarication pleas. What are you doing with the information. Who was the banned user you thought Lady C was? Giano (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can reply on my talk. Please be aware I am not letting this drop. Giano (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano: re "prevarication": please assume good faith.☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How dare you tell me t assume good faith, when some "person" has just checkusered me for no good reasom what-so-ever! NONE WHAT SO EVER! Giano (talk) 23

31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a good reason for the checkuser run, Giano, which was explained to you. The block is a completely separate issue. -- Avi (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock question

User talk:Saxsux is requesting an unblock for one of your checkuser rangeblocks. Would you mind taking a look to see if it's a problem for IPBE? Looks like he's been around for a while. Thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the rangeblock is 149.254.192.192/26. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah -- I think there might be some overkill there -- there are a ton of perfectly good editors in that range. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the sockpuppeteer, who has been very active, has already been caught trying to get the block lifted so it is working. I'd rather at this point have a handful of temporary IPexemptions than allow the sockpuppeteer back creating another 20 or so accounts at a time. Jpgordon, do you disagree? -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If that works, I guess it's OK, but it seemed to me there were a lot more than a handful. We'll see. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting that out - I really appreciate it. :) --saxsux (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

CU policy

In reply to your response to me on Giano's page (not wishing to hog his talk page): In my opinion the problem was not that any CU policies had been violated (indeed, reading the policy makes it clear very little in the way of concrete policy exists as regards CU), but that the policy and associated pages gave the impression that the policies had been violated. The wording on those pages conveyed an idea of CU as a last resort; one that was applicable in only a very small number of cases; and one where CheckUsers would rigorously question whether a check was justified, whereas in reality it is often the principal method, its field of use is much wider, and little in the way of justification seems necessary. This disconnect between the theory and practise benefits neither the CheckUsers nor the non-CheckUsers, so I have made a start in rewording the pages to remove the misleading sections. My preference would be for the use of CheckUser to be governed more strictly, but, as it is, altering the policy pages to reflect the current practice is preferable to leaving them in a state where non-CheckUsers believe their rights to be greater than they are and CheckUsers are open to charges of misuse of the tool. Yomangani^talk 00:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. To address your points on my changes: I removed the mention of the Foundation in that section as it is noted earlier as the overarching policy for CU, and that particular sentence stated that the text below was a verbatim reproduction of the meta page which was no longer true once I had edited it. I think "activity" is preferable to "abuse" because the case for the activity being abuse must be assessed by a human; if CU is run and the connection not proved the "abuse" tag hangs somewhat heavily on the accused. As to the freedom of use of checkuser, we may need to add a sentence to the effect of needing "a d@rn good reason for it", (I'll add something along those lines when I have a little more time to edit), but I think the non-CheckUsers should be made aware that this is a possibility. My main concern in editing the pages yesterday was to remove the stress that employing CU was a last resort, as this clearly isn't the case. On a note specific to the Affaire de Bourgh, while no policies may have been violated, it does show a lack of judgement akin to that displayed by the blocking admin in the !! case. When the results returned Giano as the controlling account the involved CheckUsers should have questioned the correct course of action to minimise disruption: having David Gerrard block Giano so obviously wasn't it. Yomangani^talk 11:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your reply is interesting as it implies that CheckUsers judge and crosscheck the validity of the reasons for making the check but then detach themselves from the results. Is that the case? I would imagine it is difficult for them to engage with every case (Thatcher claims to have run over a thousand in June, so to follow up on each of those would be nigh impossible), but do they habitually draw a line between performing the check and involvement in the actions taken as a result of those checks? It's rather hard to work out the process in regard to this specific case as the general rule about the the checkuser performing the check not being the blocking admin has not been adhered to, so it is difficult to judge at what point David Gerard is acting as a checkuser and at what point as enacting admin, but, for example, would you expect Thatcher in this case to confirm David Gerard's findings and not question what his intentions were with regards to actions from those findings? (again I suppose this is difficult as the checkusers are admins - where does one take off one hat and put on the other?) Yomangani^talk 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mizbiplob socking

Could you take a look at this case? Thanks, Enigma ^message 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Socks were predictably named. Enigma ^message 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Would you please run a limited, quick checkuser on user Goss9900? According to his user talk page, he writes "I just looked up my IP. It is 12.176.20.xxx and my IP locator puts it as Maryland. I am close to Washington, DC". That user was subsequently blocked. I am doing some research about Wikipedia. Specifically, the accuracy of are peoples' claims and to tabulate the frequency of ISP's used versus ISP's of IP editors. This should be a permitted checkuser request because the user, themself, is making an IP claim.

The question to you is even more general; Was Goss9900 editing from Maryland? It's up to you to confirm or not to comment if he was editing from 12.176.20.xxx.

If you wish, I shall inform you of the results of my research. It is intended to help Wikipedia. I have also gathered some information about IP users and will give you the conclusions of the research. My theory is that certain ISP's are more prone to trouble than others. I also have theories of location but I won't bias you by mentioning them. This specific editor is of interest because of ties to other users which make the research scientifically valid (a single user with no links has no value in my research project (Note: I corresponded with you as Uni111 and clearly noted it on my user page. I had to change names because an administrator was acting threatening but, as I said, I clearly noted it on my current user page of the Uni111 identity.) BBC5 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is not to be used for scientific research; it is supposed to be used solely to protect the project. As Goss9900 is already indefblocked and there is no evidence that the sockpuppeteer is active, I'm afraid that that I cannot fulfill your request. -- Avi (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also reason to believe that the person is not guilty of the accusation because there seems to be edits from the accused sockpuppetmaster from another city (In other words, two people from different cities, each editing separate articles are being blocked as the same person). I don't advocate for or against unblock but consider this a request for checkuser to protect the project by not developing a reputation for improper blocks. BBC5 (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you follow the normal route and file an RFCU. I will not decline it, but I will not run it. -- Avi (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is people will accuse me of being Goss9900 even though I am nowhere near there. RFCU tend to be very heated. I am more interested in the process than the specific user. Please confirm that Goss9900 is either lying or not lying. Thank you. BBC5 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

New information, there is information that this user is active. My investigation reveals that this user has edited as recently as this month. BBC5 (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(<-)So file a WP:RFCU and bring your evidence there. -- Avi (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you guarantee that you will unblock me if I am blocked for being accused of being Goss9900's sock? I have seen it too often that a post to ANI or RFCU leads to the reporting user being accused of being a sock. If you will give me your word, I will post in RFCU. BBC5 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will make no guarantees other than I will do my best to follow wikipedia policy and guideline. Chances are I will not run this check, but let another CU do so. -- Avi (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you anyway but I will not ask for a RFCU because if someone blocks me claiming that I am Goss9900, even though I am thousands of miles away, you will not unblock me. No thanks, I'll mind my own business and let that other sock continue to edit. BBC5 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I thought it was ok because I did not reveal the sockpuppetmaster's real name. I won't do it again.

"TV reporter is found to be a sockpuppet master" on ANI

It might be necessary to oversight that post as it was easy for me (out of shear curiosity and boredom) find the person that was being described. It essentially was the person's bio verbatim from the station website. An oversight is probably an order as that is about as close to outing as you will get. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 21, 2008 @ 07:12

I've already sent an e-mail to RFO, thanks. -- Avi (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am really very sorry about this. I thought that it was ok to mention the results of my investigation as long as I did not mention the person's name or the TV station that he worked for. UN111 (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think CRBLEEB, whom you blocked, is also a sock of Seattlehawk94 based on my investigation. If you're curious, you could do a quick checkuser to confirm this but you don't need to. (it would prove that my investigative ability is good) I already am confident that I am right. So you may, at your option, list CRBLEEB as Seattlehawk94's sock. UN111 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User requesting unblock

Viv Hamilton has been caught in a hard-rangeblock made by you. He has been around since February 2006. I came that close to giving him IPBE before consulting you, but... ehh I just couldn't do it. Too much messing around for my liking. Can you take a look? Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks! -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the IP Block Exemption and quick response. I have a couple of queries because I don't want to inadvertently infringe the conditions for IPBE. I always log in to my account, but if I'm at home (or occaisionally visiting a friend) I can use a fixed line IP address. I always assumed WP wouldn't care if editors used different IP addresses, where the contributions are by a logged in account - but does it matter? Also I generally have a web accelerator on, because if the T-mobile broadband signal is poor, it can take forever to browse the changes on my watchlist. WP sometimes objects if I edit with the web accelerator on (ONSPEED), if so I stop the accelerator, and then do the edits, then switch it back on to go back to browsing. Does the web accelerator count as an open proxy? If so does forgetting to switch it off infringe the IPBE? Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another user caught in that rangeblock

Apparently we've got another user caught in your rangeblock of that Tiscali range--see here. Any chance this can be taken care of? Blueboy96 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask the user--but who's the sockpuppeteer in question? If he's a severe enough vandal, it'll be grounds to deny an unblock without further discussion. Blueboy96 02:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Jniech (talk · contribs)

He's caught in a rangeblock of yours and requests unblock. Could you take a look? Thanks,  Sandstein  21:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)