User talk:Avraham
| This is Avraham's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 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 |
Your attention would be appreciated on an RFCU
A second RFCU was filed against me today by parties who are attempting to game checkuser with fishing expeditions. Could you take a look here? I'd appreciate it. TGH1970 (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Might I request that the case is reopened per the opening rationale that RHMED may have some evidence? That is, of course, unless I have missed him saying he didn't have any somewhere. — neuro(talk) 22:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done. -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- A violation of policy would have to be established first. None of the editors have provided any reason for running a checkuser. Nobody is accused of votestacking, canvassing or improperly editing under an alternate account. So far all I see is a small group of people who desperately want to run a checkuser but can't figure out why. Their evidence does not correlate or even indicate sockpuppetry and this is a pathetic attempt at retaliation against me for filing a report against Banime at ANI. TGH1970 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- That may be true, but I see no harm in holding off the archiving for a day or two. If the evidence is not forthcoming or weak, the request will be denied. If you believe you are being harassed through these reports, a discussion on WP:ANI may be appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- A discussion is already underway. In either case, there won't be any more substantial evidence presented so I will wait a little longer for this thing to get closed. I appreciate your help. TGH1970 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again. — neuro(talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The filing administrator has said the case could be archived, can we finally close this thing? TGH1970 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
RFCU
I was wondering if you would please take a look at this RFCU case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BreakEvenMatt. Several days have gone by without action. At this point, several people have discussed it, but no official action has been taken by any checkusers. You will find explanatory comments there. Regards, HoboJones (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done. -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. --HoboJones (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Should I remove it
and wait a couple of days, or leave it up?Historicist (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Ref Myself and Charles O'Sulivan
hi Avraham, I'm making approaches to have Charlie O'Sulivan re-opened as we are not the same person nor is Charles a meatpuppet....What is the process? (you looked at in Nov with Sam Korn and said get back to you when the block came off)
Oldham coverage Central Manchester, greater Manchester, Stoke-on-Trent, Oldham, Leeds, Preston Basically the entire NW England.
Although now my IP is from Southport (even further away) Liverpool, Blackpool (due to attack on e-mail provider, likely suspects JIDF)...Thank you for your timeAshley kennedy3 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt and informative reply..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
RFCU
Please email me before you release the result of either side of the RFCU. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying the entire checkuser is done? Or just this section? — BQZip01 — talk 19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm interested in how this checkuser turned out. Assuming you read or communicated by email with Cumulus Clouds, why did you not email or communicate with the others involved in the checkuser? Thanks. --Banime (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose if the disruption is ended that's all that matters. Thanks for looking into it. --Banime (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Note
I reverted PR on a comment and opened this action for community inspection - here. I'd appreciate your input/review as well. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
RFCU question
If it were another category would it have be accepted? Grsz11 05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, just trying to understand. Thanks a lot, Grsz11 05:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Question
Re your question, honestly I wasn't aware of the discussion.
My quick impression is that it is hard to tell what should be there, but that I don't see anything that significantly distorts the page, something which unfortunately couldn't be said for Khalidi's bio over time. You may recall when I first found it, and a significant section was headed "Political views," which in fact solely featured the most controversial quotes which have been attributed to him.[1] Friedman's statement was turned into "Accusations of PLO associations," even though it was nothing of the sort. Currently, we are talking about whether a section should present him as in fact having been connected to the PLO throughout his career, as having falsely denied this, and then having been refuted by a number of sources.
So frankly, if we were talking about adding a criticism of Kramer's to the article, I think I would be less concerned; at least then people see it's a criticism, and can go check it out. When the allegations are embedded throughout the entire bio is where I think it becomes more of a problem. That doesn't mean I'm confident that Massad's comments should be there, as in general I think it is the kind of thing Wikipedia should likely avoid. Of course, Massad's bio is full of controversy as well. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
RFCI:CC
Don't have time to do blocks, please move it back to appropriate section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)