User talk:Avraham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is Avraham's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Avraham.
Article policies
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

Clerking

Hey Avi, thanks for the clerking at the RFA. Would you mind looking at this redaction you made as I think it might have changed the meaning a bit. I think the "the only editors who actually" part was important for the meaning. If you think it's better to leave that out, it's your call (as a crat and steward you probably know a bit more than me), but I just thought you might have broken it at the wrong point. Thanks, Wugapodes (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes. All my being a 'crat and steward means that I spend too much time on Wiki[p,m]edia Face-smile.svg. I'm always open to constructive criticism and I always retain the right to change my mind if persuaded by suitably convincing arguments. In this case, I thought about it, but decided that leaving it in means that the editor was explicitly saying than older Wikipedians were exhibiting bad faith—or at least not AGF, which I felt wasn't helpful. I could have refactored the sentence, but I think I'd be less intrusive just removing statements instead of putting words in people's mouths, even if it is very close to their own actual. Your thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I can see why you removed it, and given that, I don't see much of a problem. It's a little choppy, but I guess I'd take a choppy sentence over an inflammatory one. And if anyone really wanted to see it, it's still in the page history. Thanks for taking the time to look over it and respond! Wugapodes (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Question

Regarding the RfA: I got an evasive answer to a follow-up question, asked a different follow-up question, all about my concern that the candidate gave a barnstar for a block without a warning to the blocked. Why do you hide that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Because while we allow follow ups, your last question seemed to be a third one (bold added to make point):
  1. Even if you say you would block only vandals, I would like to know how you feel about {{user talk before you block}}
    Follow-up:Thank you. They were blatantly ignored (literally, the user couldn't know them) in a recent case, starting with step one, and you gave a barnstar for the block. I like your content work and collaboration, but was not happy about that. Care to explain? (In case you don't remember: Kirill Lokshin blocking Eric Corbett for edits that were in no way detrimental to Wikipedia).
  2. Gerda back: I don't see any edit on a user talk page being harmful to Wikipedia, - edits to articles can be when facts are distorted. Would you agree?
  3. Different question then. While you thought ArbCom was "going to desysop Kiril", I thought that ArbCom was going to desysop Yngvadottir, and they did: desysop a capable female admin with a heart to revert something that was wrong, in the name of closing the gender gap. What do you think about that? - I try to write a daily article on a woman to close the gender gap.
Per Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#B2:_Limit_the_total_number_of_questions_that_may_be_asked_by_any_individual_editor, it is clear that the community has decided on a hard limit of 2, which is why I did not erase it, but hid it. -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Enforcing this as a "hard & fast" rule would seem to mean, then, that a candidate would just need to filibuster the two questions, and the questioner is then proscribed from trying to get them to actually answer the questions by probing a bit deeper. Is that a fair reading of how the RFC intended the "letter of the law" to be? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Hallward's Ghost:How the candidate answers is, of course, an important component in making one's decision about the candiate. Also, there is not necessarily a "hard and fast" rule. My understanding is that bureaucrats are instructed to use their discretion in these matters. In my opinion, Gerda asked two questions including one follow-up prior to the one where she says "different question". Perhaps another bureaucrat would be different (just look at our cratchat discussions), but I think the community is clear that they do not want the candidates over-burdened with questions, and to me this was an example. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I missed yet another regulation, sorry. This means I may end up opposing, while I wanted to give the candidate another chance. - I think it would be nicer to candidates if THEY could say: "enough", instead of teh rulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt:Perhaps, but the bureaucrats were clearly tasked to enforce the community decision. Moreover, if we make the allowance as you suggests, that completely defangs the RfC decision as cndidates who do not "voluntarily" answer a slew of excess questions will be looked at with askance. -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, English is not my first language, "excess" seems excessive, but thanks for trying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • For the next 2 RfAs, one question was enough to reach a support ;) - Different topic: when you remove admin rights due to inactivity such as Riana, do you really have to leave a valuable editor with "none", instead of at least autopatrolled, in case she returns? (I always keep hoping.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Any admin can give those rights, so the moment she returns, she can get them lickety-split. I'd be thrilled to give them to her were she to come back, but if she hasn't edited in over a year, she probably doesn't need them now, and they aren't wikiposthumous badges 8-). I don't think anyone thinks any less of Riana because she doesn't have rollback/autopatrol; at least I hope not! -- Avi (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining "the moment she returns". I didn't think at all about what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

TY

Nothing ever goes 100% the way any person hopes it will. RfA can be very ... difficult? Thank you for doing a great job at trying to keep some sort of decorum there. Regardless of my own personal feelings on this one individual RfA, I think the entire community benefits when you (and you plural for crats), oversee the procedure in positive ways. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  09:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome clerking. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Hearing that our work is appreciated is always welcome and feedback as to what the project wants from its volunteers is the best way to guide those volunteers. A few kind words always go a long way Face-grin.svg! -- Avi (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Just wanted to thank you for your top work clerking this RfA. You ventured into the unknown, and it was hardly a walk in the park (even as RfA goes!) While redactions can always be contentious, I think you dealt with the whole process very well, and managed to keep things on track and pretty civil. Thanks! Harrias talk 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Harrias beat me to it. I may disagree with your clerking decisions, Avi, but I never doubt your motives. Good work! Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you both! -- Avi (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on my RfA

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Clerking is not easy. You handled it well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thank you very much. You should feel very proud that so many people think so highly of you, and I think that should you address the concerns about responsibility and judgement over the next year or so, the Wikipedia community will respond. Thank you as well, for acting with grace and maturity throughout this difficult process. -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cucciolo gatto Bibo.jpg

Your clerking works so well that the disruptive minority had to use cheap metaphors to describe it. Well done.

Esquivalience t 02:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess the mountain isn't coming to me...

Hey Avi, you're an Oversighter who's been active in the last hour or so...

Do you know who's currently running the oversight-l and functionaries-en lists (I'm assuming things are the same as they were 2 years ago, maybe that's naive)? I should do whatever I need to do to get back on them. Also, I guess I need to get access to requests that come in via oversight-en-wp; is that through an OTRS interface or something? I didn't handle incoming requests when I was on the committee, so I never actually dealt with any of that. I kind of assumed there'd be a Welcome Wagon (probably dating myself) or something with pamphlets and coupons and instructions who would just show up after the OS bit was flipped. If you can point me in the right direction and give me a better person to pester, I'd appreciate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam, pop me an email to let me know what email address to add to the mailing lists, and I'll get you set up. I'll also ping Keegan to check out your OTRS setup. Risker (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Risker, email sent. And sorry, Avi, for the (now unnecessary) orange bars. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: your OTRS account for oversight requests has been reopened. You can visit the login screen to reset your password. Keegan (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam:, sorry, you must have caught me just as I left the office. Left early as I had to go pay a shiva call Face-sad.svg. I could have only helped with func-en anyway. Risker is a list admin for both (and a wikijaguar par exellance) so you are much better off in her capable hands than my fumbling mitts 8-) . -- Avi (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I'm in no rush. And while typing this I just got my invites to both. Sorry to hear about the shiva call; my condolences. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I am almost afraid to ask what a wikijaguar is... Floq's paperwork seems to now be complete. Condolences to you, Avi. Risker (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and WikiJaguars are also known as Wikipedia:Talk page stalkers 8-) -- Avi (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Tor exit node block

Hi Avi, I've planned to use Tor browser by running from a USB drive. But today, while editing a WP article, I've received this message in the Tor browser.

"You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address, {0}, has been automatically identified as a Tor exit node. Editing through Tor is blocked to prevent abuse. For additional information and instructions to legitimate users, see the No open proxies global policy."

And as per WP:IPBLOCK, I understand that I should contact a CheckUser to request an IP address block exemption. Could you consider my request? Vipinhari || talk 12:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vipinhari, as you are well established I've temporarily added an ip block exemption to your account, normally editing via tor is not allowed. Avraham, please review this request on your talk and comment if this should be temporary or long term. — xaosflux Talk 14:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Tor block exemptions are given out only under "highly exceptional circumstances" in general, see Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Used_for_anonymous_proxy_editing. Are you editing from a geographic location in which you are in danger of harm? Are you editing from a totalitarian country which blocks access to Wikipedia? Please contact the checkuser or functionaries list with more details if you feel you are in jeapordy. Otherwise, to the best of my recollection, exemptions just to run a ToR exit node are not granted with no other pressing reason. I will ask among the fiunctionaries/ArbCom if this policy has changed, but in the interim, forgive me but I will be removing the exemption for now. -- Avi (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Avi - will leave this in your capable hands now! — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Xaosflux.
Avraham, I'm from India and thankfully none of the situations which you've mentioned applies to me. Wikipedia is openly accessible here. Advice to users using Tor said that registered users in good standing may choose to use Tor in order to exercise their right to anonymity. So I thought that I'll try this option. No worries and I'll wait. Vipinhari || talk 17:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vipinhari: Hi. The good faith there means that if people apply for Tor Exemption in accord with Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Used_for_anonymous_proxy_editing claiming that they are behind the great firewall, for example, good faith applies in that we don't have assume they are actually in the UK and are using a proxy to look like they are in China. However, the basic requriements for the exemption still stand. @Xaosflux: I've confirmed with at least one response on func-en that IPBlockExemption should be handed out only for pressing need like government-level blocking and fear of bodily harm. For cases where that is not obvious, the user should apply to ArbCom or func-en. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Avi for explaining this in detail. Vipinhari || talk 18:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
My pleasure, Vipinhari. On the one hand I'm sorry this didn't work out for you. On the other I'm very happy that you do not need it! Face-grin.svg. -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)