User talk:Avraham

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Liten askenasisk sjofar 5380.jpg Avraham is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Meta soon.

Notice of review of adminship

Hello Avraham. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2012. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before October 08, 2012. Kind regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RfD

Hello Avi. At Meta:Requests_for_deletion#All_fair_use_files_and_templates we've discussed wether all fair use files and templates hosted at Meta-Wiki should be gone. More than 7 days passed and I even requested closure on RFH however even the notice went archived and the RFD is still open with no comments since 5 september. I'm used to see thoughtful and well considerated closures from you and since you have not participated in the RFD I wonder if you could have a look at it and determine an outcome. Best regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that consensus and common sense were in accord in that discussion, and closed it as I thought best reflected both. -- Avi (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you - I've started deleting some fair use files. I'm happy that the RfD has clarifyied the situation. Meta should not be a limbo where everything can be hosted. In the next days if there's no issues I'll continue cleaning the fair use categories. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves

Hi Avraham, I'm an administrator on Hindi Wikipedia. Can you tell me how to rollback multiple disruptive page moves by a single user? There's a user on Hindi Wikipedia who has moved loads of articles to nonsense titles. Although, I've blocked him/her for one month (after several warnings, of course) but still there's a huge backlog of such pages which need to rollbacked to their original titles, thanks and regards.--Bill william compton (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a built-in command in mediawiki for that; the rare times I've had to fix those (years ago) I did it manually. Perhaps someone with scripting skills can write a script to help fix it? -- Avi (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration. Do you have anyone in mind who can do this?--Bill william compton (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately not off of the top of my head. -- Avi (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Unified login - problem

Hello, I'd like to usurp the account User:Summergirl on enwiki to create an unified login. Can you help me please? --Summergirl (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You will have to file a USURPATION request on EnWiki at w:Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations and follow the procedures there. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Summergirl (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Lists

Hi Avi. Please remember to update the relevant lists when assigning advanced permissions. :-) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 :doh: Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

edit request

Hi, Please, add this - Template:Welcome/bn(Bengali translation) in here Template:Welcome/lang. Thank you--Leemon2010 (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please check that it worked properly. -- Avi (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

On the broader picture of policy

Moin Avraham, I would like to take the opportunity to make a broader point on the RfA-case currently debated by the community in relation to one of your points that not directly (or rather exclusively) linked to the individual case (and therefore I would like to make it here). You pointed out current policy forbids crats to acknowledge consensus in cases like this one and I think that is a very narrow reading of our current policies.

As I pointed out elsewhere in different language, this is an artificial dilemma and - I'm inclined to argue once more- not existent in current policy. There is a perfectly credible case to be made why it is - under current policy - perfectly sound to follow consensus in this case. The RfA policy is obviously not a case falling under the (mainly legal or otherwise WMF-related) limitations of one of our very basic policies; stating:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining a project, ignore it.

We all have been around sufficiently long to recognize that our usually sound judgements on policy-design never cover all aspects of all individual cases under the policies we are inventing. That's what judgement is for and I Think we are usually well-justified in our conclusions. The valid policy I quoted above is in place excactly for cases like this one (if one goes with your finding on where the consensus rests; I have just started evaluating the second argument Marco has put forward and his views are always worth careful consideration).

However, strictly legalistic (and that seems to be part of the trouble), the deciding crat would be obliged to explain how he (as a crat) can justify ignoring longstanding policy - which permits him to make reasoned exceptions casuistically on policygrounds in cases under policy (as this one is) - in declining to act in accordance with consensus under policy. That is the current policy position of this wiki, there are no limiting principles preventing the applicability of IAR in this case, and simply ignoring this fact without proper argumentative justification of such a move is an artificially invented dilemma. Its hard to see where we create anarchism by stiking to established policy (IAR) :), regards, --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jan. Your position is certainly a valid one. I guess I tend a bit more to working within the system, even when it would be easier and simpler to go around it at times. I will agree that I tend to a more legalistic interpretation at times, that probably comes from years of editing in contentious articles on the English Wikipedia, where, sadly, any false step can be used as fodder by those who disagree with one to push a topic ban through, and where, sadly discussion about merits takes a back seat at times to wikilawyering. That reflects poorly on me, I guess. Sorry. I agree with you that IAR would allow the crat to ignore policy, and in this case, it makes about as much sense as it ever would, I agree, and that is why having open discussions like this are so important. If I were the crat, I'm not sure what I'd do; my suggestions were made in order to allow the RfA to succeed by anybody's standards, but that is just one person's opinion among many. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the different views expressed in the debate reflect poorly on anyone (although I don't share the rhetoric in which some of them are being put forward); I feel I was able to see reasonably well where everyone was coming from so far. It just happen that I disagree with one of the arguments (narrow legalism, if you like to label it) and to be curious about the reasons backing up two points (non-content project Wikidata by Savh & the causual link one might read into the point made by Kylu).
It might also be worth acknowledging the various grey positions folks have expressed, if one likes to put "upholding the point regardless of any individual aspects" and "abolishment of the point without replacement" in the white/black corners respectively. My own comment - for example - said I would support a copyedit to clarify the status-issue. Thus, I'm among the grey :), best --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Meta_talk:Administrators#General_introduction btw which is according to you the best way to publicise it? --Vituzzu (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Meta talk:Requests for adminship. YOu can always draft a site notice :) -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of review of adminship (April 2013)

Hello Avraham. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/April 2013. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before April 08, 2013. Kind regards. -- MarcoAurelio 14:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery, 14:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Signed. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Abusive reasons for block on Romanian Wikipedia by administrators

If you translate the Village pump of the Romanian Wikipedia you realize that the language used is abusive therefore there are making fun in a rude way about the fact that I graduated the school of engineers, they pretend that I have different gender identities, the use two double sens arguments either "I am a child" or "I am too smart to be a child". There is only one fair comment about me that I have done a lot of good work on reverting vandalism.And maybe this is the reason why some people are so upset with me that not only that they dedicated to have a rude attitude about with an abusive vocabulary but also to block me.I think that you have to check through the proper translation of the discussions that are going on the Reclamation page and also the Village Pump.Receptie123 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

شكرا لك. -- Avi (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of review of adminship

Hello Avraham. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2013. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before October 08, 2013. Kind regards, Barras talk 14:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Signed, thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop, votes are confirmed in a different manner, thru a bot, and have been done this way for several years. They are confirmed centrally and the bot then propagates it. Snowolf How can I help? 01:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry -- Avi (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the abrupt message, I'm just in the middle of dinner, if you drop by #wikimedia-stewards-elections Pir can explain. Basically the bot copies all votes to a template then we check it there. Right now the bot paused, Alchimista will fire it up when he gets back up and then set it up on cron :) The template is at Template:Stewards/Elections_2014/Voters/Check. I really gtg now, sorry. Snowolf How can I help? 01:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I am trying to get on IRC simply to apologize, but Chatzilla is acting up here. Thank you for the heads up (and enjoy dinner :) ) -- Avi (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Back for a minute, don't apologize, all is fine :) Don't worry about it :) Snowolf How can I help? 01:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Also noticed I wrote in the middle of dinner, I mean in the middle of making dinner :D Sorry about that. Snowolf How can I help? 01:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility

Hi, how did you determine the eligibility of this user? I wrote on his meta talk page because he doesn't have a global account and also doesn't have made links between his meta & ar.wiki accounts, but maybe I missed something or he fixed it in the mean time? --MF-W 22:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:MF-Warburg (for ping purpose :) ). He has a link to his ar account on his meta page. -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
That he has, but not vice versa, as far as I can spot on ar:مستخدم:باسم. --MF-W 22:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh snap; you're right. /lashes self with noodle. -- Avi (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of review of adminship

Hello Avraham. In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged administrator actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/April 2014. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before April 08, 2014. Kind regards, Barras talk 09:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Handled, thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Stew

Hello Avraham. I updated your common.js page to the latest version of StewardScript. This is mainly to enable automatic updates, but it also includes a few fixes. If you notice any problems or have questions, let me know! :) —Pathoschild 04:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)