User talk:Alefbe

Request for CheckUser information processed

Hello Alefbe. Your request for CheckUser information has been granted and archived (see result). —{admin} Pathoschild 20:39:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Alefbe 05:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

hi

I see your word about sysop power abuse in checkuser section. I think we must solve problems that accured for my account that blocked for 3month and sandbad for 2week. please save fa.wiki.:((--Gordafarid 01:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

voting requirements

Hello Alefbe, in order to be able to vote, please link to Your account >600 edits of Your home-wiki (You already do, Alefbet@fawiki, I guess) but please also link back to this account here on Meta, many thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already linked my account in EnWiki (and it already passes the requirement). However, I don't know how to link Alefbet@fawiki (because the username is different from alefbe and it seems that the system can not link it automatically). Alefbe 20:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, the accounts on en.wiki Alefbe and Alefbet seems not to pass, but Alefbet does, You can link back to this account here by just putting [[m:User:Alefbe]] on the fa:User:Alefbet userpage, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Alefbe 20:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this already ok? Ojanfar 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hello Alefbe. A few users have complained that you are canvassing to oppose Mardetanha's steward election. (Canvassing means to systematically confront persons to try to convince them to vote like you.) Canvassing is strongly discouraged, and continuing to do so may lead to your block on this wiki and possibly others. Please respect the voting process and do not canvass. :) —Pathoschild 05:38:17, 02 February 2009 (UTC)

I sent some emails in the first hours of election to some stewards of Metawiki (to give them some basic information), as well as some users of Persian Wikipedia (who knew Mardetanha, but didn't know about this election). Then spacebirdy told me that this is considered canvassing and I shouldn't continue it on Meta, and I didn't send any other email related to this issue on Meta or Persian Wikipedia (other than answering to some questions). I guess you can also look at the detail of my conversation with spacebirdy (she has my permission to send it to anyone she likes). Alefbe 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alefbe, I would like to remind You that every person has the right to express their opinion and that every person has only one voice, it is IMHO not very respectful to comment every other vote, You had the chance to express Your thoughts, please grant others the same right. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean commenting other votes (and their reasons) is restricted to the negative votes? Alefbe 18:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't like that for the opposes neither, but I don't see why the candidate should not comment there, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, from what I see, those comments (on negative votes) are not limited to the comments by the candidate. Alefbe 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why You copy the bad behaviour? Sorry, but to me it looks as if You are doing a campaign there not commenting and I only wanted to let You know that IMHO this is a bad behaviour because I think that every person has one voice only, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I respect your opinion and I won't comment again. But what about this? Shouldn't I be able to comment on the allegations against me? Alefbe 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO this whole section is a mess and hard to read and to follow for others, but I think it is ok to answer to that since it was directed to You directly, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed that comment to avoid any perception of irony. Alefbe 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

re:A question

Hello Alefbe, I have answered here, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

election

What i can see is that all fa:wiki comunity is deeply divided about Mardetanha what is quite easy to to unerstand cos of the political situation in Iran. I can see this split among your community but i got very good opinions about his work at meta from my feelow sysops and 'crat (and current steward) from pl:wiki. I dont think he can be a threat for persian wiki especially that he wont be allowed to use steward's tools at his home wiki. Anyway- if he is such a big problem, why he has got support from at least half of fa:wiki community at this election? If You got a problem with him You can solve it at You local wiki (ArbCom, desysop. etc). Meta is dominated by peolpe from western world and i think its not good- thats one of a few reasons (the other is his explanation he sent me by email) why i change my vote. Stewards are well controlled i think, and we have got confiramtion which helps a lot in problematic situation). Regards! Vuvar1 19:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Being allowed and having access are two different things. Stewards are recommended that do not use check-user access on their home Wiki or large Wikipedias (such as the English Wikipedia, which already has Check-User). Nonetheless, they have the ability to do that. The question is that "Is there a meaningful probability that Martetanha (or someone on behalf of him) misuses this ability?" I think there is such a probable possibilty (partly because he lives in Iran, and partly because in all major disputed in FaWiki, and in all elections, including this one, he has been supported by pro-IRI users of FaWiki, while many independent or even nonpolitical users of FaWiki have voiced their concern about him). Of course in theory, if he (or someone on behalf of him) misuses his steward access, his access will be removed. However the delay between starting the abuse and detecting it and removing his steward access can endanger real lives of many Iranian users of all Wikipedias, including English Wikipedia and Persian Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia (even if that delay is less that one hour). Alefbe 20:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also see this. Alefbe 11:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that there is a meaningful probability that Mardetanha will use any tools on any of those projects. He has always committed to not using checkuser on all of the main projects you are concerned about. User:Mardetanha/recusal is a commitment. He will be instantly desysoped if he crosses the line that he has drawn; if he gives himself CU on those projects, questions will be immediately asked on the stewards IRC channel where everyone is notified of all changes of rights. You may visit #wikimedia-stewards^connect to see these notices, and see who is watching those notices appear in real time. There is no escape from watchful eyes.

Rather than oppose, I think you should be carefully reviewing his recusal statement to see if that contract is acceptable to concerned users. It will be the duty of the rest of the community, especially the other stewards, to enforce his recusal statement. John Vandenberg 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You have spoken

Now, can You please be so kind and let others speak too, as I already said to You everyone has only one voice and every person should have enough respect and decency to grant everyone the same right, please can You therefore not comment every other vote, even if they say that they disagree with You, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Although I didn't comment on any vote (I just commented about allegations against me or claims on discrediting my argument), I won't comment on the Yes section at all, no matter what are the statements or the allegations. Alefbe 20:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, well, there are allegations in every section, for each candidate, and it is not possible to comment all these, because they are all personal opinions/impressions of individuals, if an allegation would be addressed to the candidate, IMHO it would be in order for the candidate to address it or ask to address it in the questions-section, but others should mostly not do that, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)