User talk:Alison

Thank you!

Well .... where to start?

I just want to thank everyone - I can't possibly reply to everybody :) - for being so loving and supportive over the last few days. I said what I had to say and left for a few days, just to get some breathing space. I'd actually been thinking seriously about leaving over the last few weeks, as the unwanted attentions from certain people and the pressures of the current ArbCom case were beginning to wear me down. I truly wasn't expecting the kind of responses that came flooding in. I really don't know what to say. I've archived everything, my original message and all your responses, as well as a message to others at the top, at User:Alison/Depression. As I said, I hope others in a similar situation can read this, understand it, and take some comfort from it all.

Love you all, friends :)

-- Alison ^❤

PS: I guess I'd better get back to work, then! WP:RPP is calling out to me :)

PPS: Amit, it's lovely to see you back on here, too, with job intact!

Copyvio?

I'm going to take you up on your kind offer of assistance :)

So how does one determine copyright violations? I'm looking at E. W. Bullinger, in which there are several sentences that are exactly the same as on [1]. But a) it's certainly not a major part of the article, and b) I don't know which came first - we've had the article since 2003, and the "offending" sentences seem to have been introduced back then: [2]. So how does one address that? SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Introduction To Wikipedia

Hey ho there! We haven't really corresponded on this site, but, Alison, as an admin, could you possibly do a favour for me? I notice most users recieve a warm welcome to this site on their talk page and such, telling them what guidelines there are and etc. I did not recieve one. Out of kindness, could you please give me a belated "welcome" on my talk page? I haven't read all the guidelines because I amn't sure how many there are, so it would be even more appreciated in that way. Cheers!

Merry Christmas!

Sporker (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I speak Scottish Gaelic, and I notice you gave an invitation to users who do to help you out in translating some kind of Wiki-related stuff on the SG Wiktionary...I can not do it now but would love to at a later stage. Sporker (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like you've gone and done it! Thank you very much! :D Sporker (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser poll or vote

Hi Alison...can you link me to the supporting poll or vote that was used to grant you checkuser privileges?--MONGO (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali's still asleep, probably (PST slacker ;), but the decision was made by ArbCom, and you can see the request [3] here. SirFozzie (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MONGO. As Foz states, there is no poll nor vote for Checkuser on the English Wikipedia. I was appointed by the Arbitration Committee to that role, as per our checkuser policy. I guess if you have any questions around my suitability, you could directly contact either ArbCom or the Ombudsman commission. Have I done something to cause you concern? - Alison ^❤ 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the part about being a PST slacker? ;) SirFozzie (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed! I just spotted your little bit of "vandalism" :) Nothing gets past your eagle-eye! - Alison ^❤ 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC) (just woke up. How'd you guess? :) )[reply]

Oh, because it's the day after christmas, and if I had my choice, I'd be asleep in bed as late as possible, instead of at work? ;) SirFozzie (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was related to your participation in a website with a known history of attacking our contributors. I am not accusing you of also joining in on these attacks, but I can't see what benefit could be derived to this website by contributing, even in the most positive of ways, on a website that attacks our contributors.--MONGO (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like every editor at WP shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of our worst users (for example, all Wikipedia editors shouldn't be judged by the one who introduced the John Seigenthaler, Sr vandalism that got WP into so much hot water, not all WR editors should be tarred under the same brush. if they have something useful to say, both Alison and I are willing to listen to and reply to their comments. If they act stupid and ridiculous, we tell them just that as well. sticking our fingers in our collective ears and going "lalalalala, I can't hear you" won't help anything. SirFozzie (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, in that case you'd better run the same question by a few other checkusers, too, as well as certain members of ArbCom. MONGO, I can understand your concern but note that I am non-partisan in all matters. It may sound corny but websites don't attack people, other people do. It's that simple. I firmly believe there *is* benefit to be derived from participating there, even in the minimal way that I do. I spend a large amount of my time here dealing with people who have been attacked by others here on WP. That's one of the reasons I have been entrusted with checkuser privs. Ask the Oversight team about the requests I put in to them - the last one being just yesterday. Sadly, too, there are enough genuine contributors on Wikipedia being attacked and hounded off the project from within - we don't need WR to perform that function, unfortunately. In closing, I will say that I am not and never have been in the business of "attacking others", and I choose to associate with whom I will. There are particularly nasty people on WR, there are genuinely nice folks. The exact same applies to Wikipedia - it's the human condition. All we can do is be our best to each other, kitschy and all as that may sound - Alison ^❤ 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as a matter of interest, what does any of this have to do with my having checkuser privileges? Have you any issues over what I have done so far? - Alison ^❤ 18:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even suspect that you have misused the checkuser tools.

I disagree that it is worth your time to try and set the story straight with anyone involved on WR...I would liken it to trying to explain calculus to carrots. The fact that I would have no qualms with WR being shut down completely, that SirFozzie also participates in WR and he also signed onto an Rfc that was brought against me for fighting against linking to that website has not gone unnoticed. So what we have here is my concrete belief that any participation in a website with a well known history of outting and attacks is not a good thing against your and SirFozzie's comments that you are trying to the right thing by setting the stories straight there means I doubt we'll agree. I would urge both of you to cease contributing to that website...why on Earth should we make them believe they matter by conjoling with them?--MONGO (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a Wiki-Admin before I ever posted on WR, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, it was a certain banned user, JB196, who started posting there, that led me to posting there, to refute what he said. Let me be utterly blunt, MONGO. There are certain personalities over there that annoy me greatly. There are people here on Wikipedia who annoy me greatly as well. (no, I am not numbering you amongst that). I, like others, do not suffer fools and prevaricators gladly. If someone is acting like a buffoon and the village idiot, I will damn well call it to their attention.

But as to the situation, what I feel is the following. We have an opportunity to get our side of the situation out there as well. If we do not at least attempt to refute them, to discuss with them, to, as I said, stick our fingers in our ears and pretend not to hear them, we fail to hear an unpopular truth because we don't like who said it, it's to our (Wikipedia's) detriment.

I know it won't set your mind at ease, but I hope that it explains where we're coming from, that ignoring something isn't going to make it go away, but only looks like we have something to hide. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and all that.

BTW, I did not fail to miss your insinuation about my talking there, combined with the fact I placed a statement against you in a RfC. I will make the same offer I make everyone who I engage in discussion. If you think my actions are wrong, I have a fairly simple set of conditions for being open to recall. if any five editors in good standing request it, I will voluntarily relinquish my administrator rights. No need for long, drawn out RfC/ArbCom processes. You think I'm off base, you can have me recalled. SirFozzie (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is my choice of wording that seems to make the both of you defensive. I have zero intention of trying to get checkuser or admin tools revoked on either of you. I take, obviously, a very hardline stance on websites of the nature we are discussing, so I see any participation in them to be akin to aiding and abetting trolls. Your status as admins here and contributors there only gives them the notability they desire and also feeds them, even though you are there to defend us. For the record, I am well aware of Alison's excellent record of defending those that are being harassed. I would have zero complaints about WR if indeed it did do a real review...but most of the conversation there, even those that seem to start discussions with good intentions, quickly drift into never never land, full of rants and ridiculous commentary by many a Wikipedia banned editor. I don't condemn either of you for trying to set the record stright there, but I think it is a lost cause, and a waste of your time.--MONGO (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll agree to disagree, then. Hope you had a happy and safe holidays. SirFozzie (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I believe that checkusers should have to go through the same process as admins and bureaucrats (cf. with the modern way of selecting the Senate, vs. the 19th century method). That said, I believe Alison was an excellent choice. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind endorsement and, FWIW, I agree with your idea of a selection process - Alison ^❤ 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Foz says, we'll have to agree to disagree. The "calculus to carrots" comment is ... umm ... somewhat ill-advised, given there are actually some very smart people over there - for good or ill - and it behoove you to not be as dismissive as all that. Ignore at your peril, and all that. IMO, what feeds them and gives them status is policies like BADSITES, etc. Things like that (and indeed, this conversation) provides more drama and visibility than anything else, really. I think many WP editors who do post there have enough smarts about them to be able to discern the useful commentary from the "rants and ridiculous commentary", of which we have both on WP, too. I understand why you feel so strongly about it and yes, there are some truly despicable people over there but that is not the complete picture. And onwards we go .... - Alison ^❤ 21:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...if that website ever had a chance of being a real review, it was lost long ago by the sustained efforts by so many contributors there to out our contributors. Our perspectives offer a rather interesting contrast of sorts, whereby I find the overwhelming comments on that website to be borderline sociopathic and moronic, you find them to at least be occasionally intelligent. They are, from my perspective, mostly illinformed, so perhaps your efforts to set the story straight isn't futile. Anyway, best wishes.--MONGO (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think we all mean well here, MONGO, though we come from different perspectives. Best wishes to you, too :) - Alison ^❤ 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't point out that you are a WR contributor...you did...here. I was responding to that comment you made there...and so what do you do? You turn around, go post at WR and assume I have some kind of nefarious motives that I might be trying to put you in a bad light, when all I was trying to do was get reassurance (publically) that you fully intend to abide by our rights to privacy. Alison, you know as well as I do about accountability...and admins and checkusers should be prepared to reassure us that they intend to continue to abide by our policies. If my questioning of you seemed inappropriate due to the public nature of posting here rather than asking you privately, it was only done as a way for you to provide a public reassurance. So the next time (if you are ever questioned) you can direct them here as a reminder. I didn't mean to take you to task...but if you wish to assume that, there is nothing I can do about it...assumption of bad faith of my actions seems rather normative these days by lots of folks, so you're not alone. But indeed, I expect the WR contributors to assume the worst of me...there are several there that are now banned by my actions...so it's not likely they have any great affection for my actions...I am hoping that you understand where I am coming from and not lend an ear to the latest "lets crucify MONGO thread" that is posted there.--MONGO 08:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, attacking somones affiliations and views in the manner you have is a personal attack. PLease desist. Viridae ^Talk 10:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, MONGO, I don't know whether to be angry or amused by your antics at this point, so I'll choose the latter. You come in here, making pointed questions about checkuser and when called on it, reveal that it's actually a BADSITES thing you have going on. Then when someone on WR picks up on the story and I happen to reply over there to clarify a point, you get all upset about it and make references to WP:AGF. Frankly, nobody would have picked up on it had you not been stirring controversy and drama here in the first place, and the irony of your pointing to AGF has not escaped me. Now, people on Wikipedia can judge me for themselves based on my daily actions here and your casting aspersions as to my character will be doubtlessly taken in context. I put my best efforts in here on a daily basis as I truly believe in the work being done on the project here and I do my utmost to help people as I can. I've little time for the petty politics nor other peoples' personal agendas that so many others get enmired in. Now, back to editing I go - Alison ^❤ 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the person who posted the thread over on Wikipedia Review has his own site where they have an "outting" policy and where they have already collected information on me. Now how do you think I feel about that? - Alison ^❤ 18:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That editor is banned from here...he then used a sock which I later identified and had banned as well. His sock came to the Seabhcan arbcom case demanding action be brought against me. He is a notorious troll and an active contributor to WR. I suppose it is my fault Rootology has added content about you now? Here's what I suggest...reread my comments above and if you still feel that I have harassed you, then take it to dispute resolution. From my standpoint, I was merely asking some questions and the very first one was because I truly did not (until I was directed) as to how checkusers get that tool...I wasn't saying to myself...gee, why did they give checkuser to a WR contributor...I simply did not know how checkuser tools were/are granted...and I saw your comment on the AN/I thread so I was then curious since I didn't know you were a checkuser....it was something that was granted recently I see, and I definitely trust those that supported you. I probably would have as well, but that doesn't mean I am going to be convinced that trying to explain anything to the vast majority of WR losers (like Rootology) is worth your time. If you think it is then I hope maybe you and like minded people can turn that website around. For the record, I think there has been a big misunderstanding and I assume all responsibility for that. You think that contributing to WR allows you to set the record straight and I think you are wasting your time...but I also am well aware of the efforts you have made towards helping others defeat harassment...we have, I think, discussed such situations in the past and you were always helpful and I appreciate that. I was mainly seeking some reassurances that you were still interested in helping others and it is more than apparent you are. Your clarification of why you post to WR satisfied my need to know. As far as what Rootology writes on his websites and in other places...I would ignore it...most people who know his history know he he has used various mediums to attack people..the adolescent nonsense he posted on ED attacking not just me but a number of other WP editors makes it pretty clear that he has some issues.--MONGO 00:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on longer than it should now, and my amused disposition is wearing thin. You say, "I was merely asking some questions and the very first one was because I truly did not (until I was directed) as to how checkusers get that tool...I wasn't saying to myself...gee, why did they give checkuser to a WR contributor...". In that case, how do you explain;

"Hi Alison...can you link me to the supporting poll or vote that was used to grant you checkuser privileges" - MONGO[4]
"I was appointed by the Arbitration Committee to that role [...] Have I done something to cause you concern?" - Me[5]
"My concern was related to your participation in a website with a known history of attacking our contributors." - MONGO[6]

I think that spells out the timeline rather clearly, don't you? Now, you deny that you asked because of BADSITES and that it was only because you genuinely didn't know how things worked. How and ever ... yes, I'm more than familiar with who Rootology is and I know he's banned here on WP. " I was mainly seeking some reassurances that you were still interested in helping others." - are you serious??? Did I indicate for a second that I'd given up helping others??? Where did you get that notion from given that my workload has - what - doubled since I started working on RFCU?? Have you any idea how offensive you are being right now? All these pointed accusations, BADSITES nonsense and needling suggestions of ill-will are completely unfounded and quite offensive to me. Nor, BTW, did I ever suggest for a second that you were "harassing" me. I don't use the "H"-word lightly and your misbehaviour here hardly qualifies. Now please - give it up already. It takes an awful lot to annoy me - ask anyone here - but you're there already - Alison ^❤ 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done...

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

Oh! Thank you, Will :) What did I do? - Alison ^❤ 17:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, stupid mediawiki parsing. the WEA protection, by the way. Will ^(talk) 19:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Spidering Issue

"Google doesn't really spider userspace here thanks to the robots.txt file, so it shouldn't pick up all the talk page entries. I wouldn't worry too much about it" - Alison ❤ 22:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. See google links below

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammer1980/archive2

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BigDunc

Alison

fansoffans1983

Hi again. Well, as a courtesy, I have blanked the comments at User_talk:Hammer1980/archive2. I cannot blank the comments at User talk:BigDunc as that editor has explicitly stated that he does not want this done, and I must respect that. Please note that I've gone overboard already on what I'm able to do here and note that when you posted those comments here, you agreed to license them under the GNU Free Documentation License (it's on each editing page) and thus, they cannot really be retracted at this point - Alison ^❤ 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blanking the comments as requested. I appreciate it. Too bad BigDunc is so insistent on retaining my comments on his page. They must be very dear to him.

Happy Holidays

Alison/fansoffans1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans1983 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for this.[7] People have really been going nuts around here lately; there's a level of divisiveness and acrimony across the project that goes beyond the usual squabbling. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! - Alison ^❤ 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Alison

I'm speaking only for myself, but my interest in that article comes from it seeming that one group of editors was simply running over the other group, enforcing a "consensus" that did not exist. I am sorry for any headaches I caused you. Mr Which ??? 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

protection request follow-up

Greetings. Alison. Thanks for putting the protection on the Pope John Paul II page. I was the one that requested it, and I was pleased to see it accepted...things needed to cool down a little. Unfortunately, one user got in an edit after my request but before your protection. Eleland reverted back to an unfortunate POV version. I know that the protection is not an endorsement of the "frozen" version, but since this is a rather well-read article, I wanted to see if you would pop in and undo just that last one revert edit. If that's not appropriate, I understand. But if you don't mind, that would be appreciated, so at least the version that will be there for a week will be the more neutral, uncontroversial version. If you can't I still appreciate you taking action so quickly on the request to protect. Cheers! --Anietor (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd love to be able to help, I absolutely cannot revert to any other revision post-protection. It's totally against the rules. The sole purpose of my protect was to stop a disruptive edit war. The onus is now on you guys to iron out your differences on the talk page. It's time to discuss the matter and reach some sort of agreement - Alison ^❤ 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, you're supposed to link to m:The Wrong Version, not give out an actually helpful, serious answer to his query. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is Ali when the words are downright offensive and provocative. (Sarah777 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Then, Sarah, best thing at this time is to follow up on Talk:Pope John Paul II and work with the others here to come to some agreement on the wording. I've no opinion either way and my protection of the page makes no endorsement either way of the wording - Alison ^❤ 07:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are our wires crossed here? I was nowhere near the John Paul II page. But look at this freshly minted user and his one and only edit! User talk:Noel1993 - Sockpuppet/troll here we come! (Sarah777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ummm, well you're posting on the Pope John Paul II article protect thread! :) In fairness to the Noel guy, we were taught in school that the River Shannon is, in fact, the longest river in Ireland and Britain, so I'm not sure where the problem is there. It's not like he changed it to say "British Isles" only[8]. I'd have had a problem with that myself - Alison ^❤ 18:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check User for Kirbytime

Atari400 (talk · contribs) is definitely Kirbytime. I'm good in catching his socks. The reason he slipped by early with this username is that he was nice then so we didnt notice but now he's coming around to his typical editing behavior. You said in the check user request that the account is stale. The report wasn't filed correctly with all the diffs. How is this case handled now that the account is stale? I can provide all the needed diffs which will show very clearly that its him and I'm 100% sure its him. Is there anything that can be done? Should I file another report? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is stale, as the IP information would be in the checkuser logs as Jayjg, Deskana, Dmcdevit and Voice of All have all, at some stage, run checks. No comment on the {{fishing}} part, but I just found it interesting. I for one also think this user is Kirbytime, but like others I was waiting for checkuser confirmation just in case (as this user is now "established"). Like Matt, I would value your input as to where to take this. Daniel 08:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, you offer no proof. Simply amazing. You dislike my edits, so suddenly you feel I am some banned user. Atari400 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. The reason I marked it fishing was because there's just one account mentioned and there's almost nothing to go on - no diffs, etc, just a vague accusation is all. Because there are no recent accounts to reference from, I cannot use checkuser to reference against previous known Kirbytime socks so I'm working totally in the dark. Running through the logs shows that previous IP addresses used will be largely useless, too. How and ever, I've put the case live again so one of the "old hands" can take a good look at it. This work okay for you? - Alison ^❤ 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alison. If it helps you at all, I did have another account that I had deleted for privacy reasons. I would be willing to email you the account name, so long as it remains confidential. As far as the accusations of sockpuppetry, it is nothing more than an intimidation tactic on the part of two very aggressive editors. I only have one account, and my previous account was never blocked or banned(minus one 3RR violations). My question to you is, what is the best means of dealing with continued harassment, stalking and unsubstantiated accusations by other editors, for future reference? Atari400 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will work on providing the diffs and then its up to the other clerks. --Matt57^{(talk•contribs)} 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck! Atari400 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt57, I guess the only thing you lack now, is a shred of evidence? Atari400 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note User:JzG's abuse of admin tools to enforce his viewpoint at the page you protected

As I said at talk, I'm done. When a "respected" admin like JzG does this shit, it's over for me. However, you seem like a reasonable person, who may be willing to take a stand against this kind of abuse of tools. I just thought I'd let you know what he has done. Good luck, and best regards, Mr Which ??? 12:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested JzG that he undo his edit to the wrong version, per his viewpoint, at his talkpage. I am awaiting his response, if any. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He says he was unaware of the protection, and I notified him about this thread. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to note that Guy self reverted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this resolved itself amicably in the middle of the night here, thank goodness. I'm certainly viewing this as a mistake, especially since Guy has now self-reverted - Alison ^❤ 18:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I help you?

You have a long unpleasant task ahead of you. Is there anything I can do to support you, either in the actual checking or in your other editing areas you may feel might be neglected? Please let me know. I'd be only too happy to help you out. Jeffpw (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeff. I'm snowed under with the stupid thing, but it's all checkuser work, I'm afraid! No wonder nobody (including me) wanted to touch the case for ages!! :) I dunno what to do here - it's going to take hours of work. I may have to release info in stages or something. We'll see how it goes ... and thanks, Jeff, for the help on this one. You've already done tons - Alison ^❤ 20:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

The guinea pigs having said this is good enough, I'm working my way through the A's ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent and pro-active idea, Lar! Thanks for sharing this. I'm going to do exactly that ... just as soon as I finish this checkuser-case-from-hell :) Thanks again - Alison ^❤ 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial copy here for my own info & hacking about - Alison ^❤ 02:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put mine up. May look familiar to Ali. Same post-recall terms as well, Ali (if you remember that previous discussion) SirFozzie (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey - I remember that!! Bad times indeed - Alison ^❤ 02:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal IP - please BLOCK

This IP is vandalising the List of massacres. Please block. Though there is an Arbcom ruling stating that reverting IPs does not constitute 3RR with several Admins on the same tag-team (some with a history of power-abuse) I can't trust them to stick by the Law. Ta; and URGENT. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah - just a minute. That IP editor has been editing that article for well over a month. They're not (presently) edit-warring and their edit summaries are clear and explanatory. Given that anon editors have the same standing as any other editor in the community, I'm not seeing what the problem is here. What I do see is a content dispute going on between two editors with different points of view. I cannot in conscience regard their editing as "vandalism" at this time. I notice, though, that their talk page is blank. Have you tried bringing your concerns to their talk page? - Alison ^❤ 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Arbcom ruling that reverting IP's is not 3RR. Check out the ruling in the Troubles Workshop. And the revert was nonsense. There is a discussion of the validity of references ongoing; I have more refs for Fallujah than there is for any other article. PB Shearer is supposed to be mentoring this article but when the the edit-warriors (on hos side) appear he goes incommunicado. He keeps seeking more and more refs from me for Fallujah (I've eight so far) while ignoring a list I have marked because they don't have the minimum two. This is simply not good enough Alison; there is a grim determination by several editors (Adsmins and others) with US Army connections to ensure Fallujah does not get listed. They tag-team; abuse Admin powers and make up the rules as they go along. And, reluctantly, I suspect Philip is 100% on their side. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I should point out that the "Troubles" ArbCom case said no such thing (I was a party to that case). Check the rulings and besides, List of massacres is not a "Troubles" article. May I suggest at this point you contact Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and seek mediation over the page as things are spiralling out of control. Reckon that's the next point of call, as you're suggesting that quite a number of editors are showing bias due to their alleged backgrounds - Alison ^❤ 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re talking to them; they simply don't respond - except to edit-war. Philip's only "engagement" is to keep inventing more and more rules and requirements for Fallujah article, which he keeps obsessively returning to, - while leaving 20 items on that list that don't meet the level of verifiability he insists on for Fallujah. This behaviour by numerous editors is simply an outrage. And a ruling that IP can be reverted applies to ALL articles or none. That is more of the "make-up-the-rules-as-you-go-along" that is undermining any belief in the Rule of Law on Wiki. You are totally wrong on the troubles ruling, btw. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Archives
2004	Entire year
2005	Jan • Jun						Jul • Dec
2006	Jan • Jun						Jul • Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan • Jun						Jul • Sep			Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Entire year
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep • Dec
2015	Entire year
2016	Entire year
2017	Entire year
2018	Entire year
2019	Entire year
2020	Entire year
2021	Entire year
2022	Entire year
2023	Entire year
2024	Entire year