User talk:Alison/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18

Contents


OTRS

When you get a chance, and there's no rush, will you please take a look at the contribs of 66.108.196.93 (talk · contribs) (suspected sock of Ericnorcross) and specifically this edit which claims a right to vanish per OTRS #2007111410005168? If the claim is valid, I would suspect the pages should be deleted, not just blanked. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - pages deleted - Alison 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

please help

Sorry to bother you again, but could you please restore the page "St John Bosco College Year 12 2007", as it was in its final stae around the 13 or 14 of November so i can make a final copy, Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don butch (talkcontribs) 05:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I restored your article to User:Don butch/St John Bosco College Year 12 2007 about two weeks ago. It's still there :) - Alison 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Green Kirby

Just kidding, wanted to scare you. But I wanted to ask if you watch Project Runway. You just seem like you do. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 05:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

You have mail. Miranda 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From me too. --Kyoko 22:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both. Replies on the way .... sooooon! - Alison 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have a question about vandals; If they were blocked for a long time(1 month,1 week,etc) couldn't they go on another computer and continue to vandalize? I was just curious.¤~IslaamMaged126 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, they can of course, and many do just that. Ultimately, they end up blocked again. Check out Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information - Alison 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cool Award

Ice1filteredk3b.png


For just seeming to do everything right, and never arguing with anyone. Also being just super cool, I hereby award Alison with the “Cool Award.” F9T 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is anyone who really deserves this award. I think it is you. Thanks for everything you have done on Wikipedia, also good luck with your Veropedia project. F9T 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Wow .... I don't know what to say, really. Thank you so much for your kind thoughts. I just want to be fair to everyone. Thank you so much :) - Alison 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


***hugs***

so many big giant lolcat hugs for you sweetie!! superca- superca-, yep not anymore :) anyway, you're awesum, drop me a line when you're online. ~Eliz81(C) 05:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One more CU for you

Hey there. Think you can take a peek at the Jimbopheel CU case once you're done with it? Very similar farm of socks I'd like to nip in the bud before they get stale. — Coren (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

mm-kay. Busy day here :) I'll try get to it later today - Alison 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Just wanted to abuse use the fact that you seemed to be on a roll.  :-) — Coren (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: S3<R3+ 3V1D3/\/C3

Alison, Glad to see you took my comment as a jest. That's what it was intended to be. I understand the need for confidentiality when it comes to user information and I appreciate it! Thanks ! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

heh - no problem at all. BTW, your 13375p341( has improved immensely too. Well done! :) - Alison 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Burningadrew block

Thanks for the quick action. Tonywalton   Talk 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OMGWTFBBQSOX!

  • feeds the CheckittyUser some yummy Sox* ;) Is it friday yet? SirFozzie 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, someone noticed! Thank Eliz81 (and Herby) for that one :) - Alison 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Your checkuser work was awesome, Alison! You amaze me. Thanks for making my wikilife just a little bit easier. Jeffpw 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Holy crap, I love that image... EVula // talk // // 21:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Piononno

Thanks! Darkspots 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The core contest

Hi Alison! Greetings! If I'm not mistaken you are one of the judges in the Core Contest that is going on. However you don't seem to have participated in the discussions going on on its talk page. It will be great to have your response to the arguments being presented over there. Cheers! Amit@Talk 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Amit. I've deliberately kept away from all the political kerfuffle associated with the contest as, being one of the judges, I want to stay as neutral as possible in all this. Thanks for the note, though! - Alison 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: E-mail

You've got mail! :D – Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  18:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So do you! - Alison 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail...again :P ! – Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Got your email

I got your email response. Thanks. GRBerry 18:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See email

See email on Komodo, you forgot one and have thoughts. Thanks for the help. RlevseTalk 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - I missed one out! - Alison 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin Abuse Alert!!!!!!!

Before I get arbitrarily blocked by User talk:Daniel could you please call him/her to order? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, as Daniel is one of the mentors in the Famine arb case, I strongly suggest you listen carefully to what he has to say here - Alison 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that what she is? She never mentioned that. But she needs to get a bit tougher on User:Sony-youth whose endless attacks on Irish editors seem to escape all scrutiny; and get tougher on User:Mackensen, rather than just seconding his remarks. Or is he another mentor? (Sarah777 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
No, he isn't. Actually, Mackensen's talking sense — refocusing the discussion onto content. I introduced myself as a mentor on the articles' talk page, and linked to it again when you asked for clarification on my talk page.
As I said, if Sony-youth continues, he/she too will be warned. At the moment, Mackensen's speaking sense, so there's no issue there. Daniel 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Note

While I am a member of the Arbitration Committee, my presence on the talk page and related article is entirely unofficial. Daniel, Angus and Ryan have the final say there. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! - Alison 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Oooh, I just said something similar on Sarah777's talk page without seeing this. Daniel 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

silly checkuser suggestion

Hi Alison, now that you are a checkuser, I have a suggestion for you, in line with my "ways to waste time as an admin" posting on Riana's talk page. Have you ever considered checkusering yourself, just to find out what ISP you are currently using? Just a random bit of silliness to hopefully brighten your day. --Kyoko 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, my very first checkuser I did was checking myself to test the process. Obviously, I couldn't just choose *anyone* due to privacy/process etc. I was shocked to see that not only did my two or three usual IPs appear, but also a sprinkling of telco ISP ones???!!! It took me a few minutes to figure out what was going on :-) - Alison 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: the list

Thank you for the list yesterday. But we have a problem, it look like there are a bunch of Socks left...somehow he's manage to stock up a few more... nat.utoronto 17:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've followed-up over on ANI. If someone can gather up the loose sockies and post them over on the old checkuser case and relist it, I'll get to them later today - Alison 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

As the header says, you have one from me. :) Acalamari 17:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Acalamari - I'm flat-out busy today. Got your message and yes, I'd love to. Pass the message on ;) We can work on the details over email later - Alison 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fine if you're busy, Alison, don't worry. :) Excellent news on your answer though, and we'll sort things out when you're ready. I'll pass the message on, as you request. :) Acalamari 22:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Could You

Delete this page for me. Its an archive of my talk, but I moved all the contents on it to pages based on months (like User talk:Sasha Callahan/July 2007). Thanks in advance. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done :) - Alison 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that was quick. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

two questions in mail

Hi Alison, I've just sent you two questions in your inboxes (by mistake, I clicked more than one). Nothing personal, but still something that I felt better asking off-wiki. My message is a bit lengthy (lots of exposition), but I think it can be answered very briefly. Love, Kyoko 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Check your inbox :) Call me if you can? I don't bite (too much :) ) - Alison 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's too bad (about the biting). ;) Pinball22 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I can always make exceptions!! :D - Alison 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alison, how about IRC instead? --Kyoko 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm on there now :) - Alison 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

where? --Kyoko 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note

With respect to this, you may want to check that guy's recent talk page activity and/or block log. FYI. >Radiant< 22:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for that. I've left a note on his talk page following up on that comment. Thanks for the FYI - Alison 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vatomanocu/Garcia

I see. Thought that was a friendly new user spreading WikiLove all around. Thanks for finding out who he is a sock of, and for taking quick action. Cheers, PeaceNT (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text restoration

Hello, could you please help me get back the original text for the page "Ames Stump League," which was speedily deleted this afternooon (Dec. 3)? This is my first attempt at recovery so I'm not too clear on the steps involved. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanmcg (talkcontribs) 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you didn't get this....

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 3 December, 2007, a fact from the article 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Of course, you only did the easy bit :) One Night In Hackney303 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yayy!!! Thank you :) - Alison 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now I see that someone flamingoed up which is why you didn't get it before! One Night In Hackney303 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Its Pytch.. Hon

Hi Ali, I've got this ever increasing list of socks, it's just started to turn nasty, I was wondering if you could offer some assistance or advice...? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, did I miss something or did I say something wrong? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Nooooo :) Just crazy-busy here. I've not forgotten you :) - Alison 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds lame, but I've done my best to issue my first ever request for CU. Hope it's vaguely suitable. Well, having said that, hope it does the job. Shout at me if you want me to do anything more. I'll be asleep in about four minutes but back in 8 hours so let me know...! Thanks Ali.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That seems to have done the trick. Thanks Ali. What now? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Morning (to you!), hope you're well. How many more socks did you think you'd identified (just out of interest)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Morning, Rambling. There's dozens more, from what I can see. I'll toddle over there now and do some more ... - Alison 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Wowwee. Makes you wonder how he could have got away with it for so long. Is there a wiki-record for number of socks by puppeteer? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 socks

Just a note in case you missed it: User:utcursch added an other sock to the bottom. Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed - plus a bunchload of new socks. Ugh! - Alison 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

kevin Barry

Can you keep an eye on this [1] we have an anon IP re-adding disputed content about which there is a discussion on the talk page he has re-added the four times. Could this article be semi-protected.--Padraig (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep! As I'd like to keep clear of that stuff, can you post a request to WP:RFPP and someone else can evaluate and protect if needs be? Sorry - Alison 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

(EC) I noticed; no idea how you made that determination, but clearly something was awry. You did give me a start(!) when I read the diff for your message on my talk page; who was being blocked was not specified. :P cygnis insignis 16:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

lol!! Sorry about that! I got a tip via email, checked the contribs and recognized Garcia immediately. I also ran a checkuser on the guy, per policy, so yes - proven sock. You were right ;) - Alison 16:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Weird. Two and a half years of wiki-ing and one sock experience. Last three days, two socks. Hmm. Bizarre. Keep up the good work Ali. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Loll!! Making up for lost time, maybe? That socking case took me hours to complete and there were hundreds of socks. Consider yourself caught-up :-D - Alison 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No sock block for me mwahaha!

Thank you for your intervention in this odd situation. Here's a stamp for you too Alison. I'm no sock. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting edits for new user...

So, User:Takenages is asking a lot of "good" questions at WP:RFA. Thing is, he/she has made only about twelve edits in total. Worth a look? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They've just announced that they're a returning editor, but as long as they're not using the account disruptively, there isn't a problem really - Alison 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What's that word

Aah yes - mail, that's it :) --Herby talk thyme 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying :) Thanks, Herby! - Alison 17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Me too, dahlink. Cheers, ~ Riana 21:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ECW500

This user's contributions, User:41.245.141.41, make it seem like this user is ECW500, no? — Save_Us_229 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same editor. Furthermore, I rechecked the case and yes, those accounts are definitely theirs. The timestamps are within minutes of each other - Alison 17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your comment on my talk page. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice pic too ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 09:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Pic?? - Alison 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The cat one on this page. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 09:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh! lol!! They're Herbythyme's, from his Commons talk page :) - Alison 10:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Not sure if you've had a chance to watch this since your new jobs came up, but if you want to look its inching ever closer to unprotection now. Lawrence Cohen 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow!! I took a look yesterday and, yes, you guys are getting there. What a huge amount of dialog ... wow! - Alison 19:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#V-Dash and User talk:V-Dash? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you welcome User:Buncombe83, they are new and I think should receive such. Also, tell them that I liked their "commen" on heir talk page, if you will please. Sorry to make such a request, but I did :). -76.188.26.92 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lindi James

You have been mentioned here. I do not understand why Printer222 is taking so much interest in this case. If there is a reasonable explanation, Lindi James could request an unblock themselves. - Jehochman Talk 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason i'm taking an interest in this case is because the blocked user canot fully represent themselfs by investigating as they are blocked.

I would like to know if there is any other evidence that this user is a sockpuppet of the baned user apart from the same ip address. If there is no other evidence i don't believe it is fair that this person is blocked as it appears this user created an account to try and stick away from the vandalism as it is a shared interent conection as it is a interent conection. Wikipedia suggests that people create an account when using same ip addresses to avoid exactly this problem.

I know that you should not have to deal with this as it was not your decision to block this user but i have been refered to you. Thank you Printer222 (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. There is rather a lot of evidence, I'm afraid. Per privacy policy, I cannot reveal much as I would end up revealing information about their location. I re-ran the CU three times now, just to be certain, and the recent edits from User:Lindi James and their identical use of multiple IP addresses has only confirmed the matter. Same with a certain IP address involved in this matter. I'm always extremely careful as to how I report checkuser findings to ensure there isn't collateral damage and I apply WP:AGF to checkuser too. However, in this case, consider it Confirmed - Alison 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Check user!

Hello Alison, how are you? Long time no speak (You probably don't remember me). Anyway, I have a possible checkuser request. A couple of other users and myself have collected evidence in here: User:Scarian/Sandbox - relating to a user possibly using a sock account to circumvent a 3RR block. It's messy in there and has no vivid structure. But before I tidy it and submit it for checkuser could you possibly take a quick peak in there to see if the "evidence" is strong enough? I don't want to bother you if you don't have enough time, but I would appreciate it so I don't embarrass myself on WP:RFC. Thanks in advance (Don't worry about it if you don't have enough time!). ScarianTalk 18:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, I remember you, I've seen you around a lot :) I took a quick glance over the evidence and it certainly looks like enough to run a c/u. I'd maybe add some more article diffs if you can. Looks okay to me, though - Alison 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

smile

Awards page?

For being awesome.

Hey Alison, do you have an awards page? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Noooo - I deleted it ages ago. You can see it here at Special:Undelete/User:Alison/Awards - Alison 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, where in the world am I suppose to leave this!? :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Awww - thank you :) I guess you could always leave it here. Still, it is the thought that counts :) - Alison 07:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (sorting out checkuser requests - they take ages to do!)
Yeah, I saw the blocking of the sockpuppets thanks to IRC. Thought I'd leave the metal, however, maybe this is better. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow, that is nice! Thank you so much :) - Alison 07:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (back to digging out white supremacist / rape apologetic sockies)

His Pytch...Hon returns...

Hi Ali, can you have a look at User:Scott Spector - just recreated a Pytch...Hon article almost immediately, same "style".... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm ... Confirmed - also V V V V V V (talk · contribs) - Alison 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Much appreciated. Felt, for one moment, that'd I'd gone out on a limb, but I guess instinct works... top stuff you. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

another one

Another visit - can the IP be blocked? Tvoz |talk 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked - yup - Alison 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison can you check this out, [2] I have already warned him twice for vandalism, he keeps blanking his talkpage to remove them.--Padraig (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also blocked now. Nothing but disruption and personal attacks. Note that they're within their rights to blank their own talk page comments, but not to mess with other people's! - Alison 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alison, I don't know what that was all about.--Padraig (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Where is the precedent? the_undertow talk 11:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The undertow, what precedent do you have to protect and delete your talk page to begin with? — Save_Us_229 11:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Undertow - per WP:PROT. I'm a regular RFPP patroller and know the score there. Fully protecting your talk page cuts off communication completely with all editors. I'm really sorry, but it's not ok. I unprot'd yours so you wouldn't get trouble over it, but I'm not going to wheel war on this one - Alison 11:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yours was an effort to protect me? That is something that never occurred to me at the time, but I have digested it, and the watchful eye was in my best interest. You were in the right. I was wrong. the_undertow talk 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
'Sokay. I was just looking out for you and trying to keep ANI dramaz down ;) - Alison 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never been to ANI before, and then all of a sudden, I pwned it. Not really a good pwn, either. I will not cause any drama this evening, as my TiVO is calling. the_undertow talk 02:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Now that the ANI is closed when will The Undertow's user talk page history be restored? RMHED (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Soon, I'm sure. Let's give the guy a chance here - Alison 03:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

You have some, that you didn't reply to! That's the last time I'm thoughtful...... One Night In Hackney303 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! How'd I miss that??? Emailed ya earlier today from my phone! Hurry back :) - Alison 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in no major rush to be back online permanently, the flat is now tidy for a change! One Night In Hackney303 11:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Using Hack's heading... you've got more mail! --Kyoko 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Core Contest and diffs for Veropedia

Hey Alison, I entered Domestic sheep in to the contest, but I wanted to make sure that you knew that I was continuing to make improvements. So whatever the result of the contest, it would be more beneficial to upload whatever is the most current diff to Veropedia, rather than the one I used in the contest. Of course, this is me assuming that the point of the contest was to garner articles for the site. Regards, VanTucky talk 18:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, VT. I'm on my phone here typing this :) Thanks for letting us know about the article and thanks, too, for entering into the contest :) - Alison 20:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

Hi Alison. I haven't had much to do with this user lately; but I seem to remember some talk about appointing him a mentor. Did that suggestion ever go anywhere? The reason I ask is that I do not appreciate this insult from the dear chap. Per my policy of avoiding direct communication with this user, I wondered if you could advise me how best to proceed. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the edit, John, and left him a word. I'll discuss things with him, and see if it'll help. Ali, let me take the lead on this, k? I'll shoot you an email later about why.. SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
While we are on the subject, if someone could have a friendly word in his ear about User talk:Kittybrewster#James Arbuthnot. Irrespective of his good intentions in policy, the history between them and edits such a these [3] [4], demonstrate him editing that article is as about as uncool, COI-wise, as Kb doing so. This is not going to end well as long as him and Kb are sparring over this article. Taken with the above, I'm concerned we are seeing the beginnings of a return to hostilities after a period of relative good behaviour. Rockpocket 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, not having that - I've behaviour in text book fashion with regards to that article. Kb has breached COI, was edit warring and knocked the back out of OWN also. I'm not taking any heat for that one.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll talk to him.. the Arbuthnot thing.. yeah, I'm a bit concerned about that myself, but I haven't familiarized myself with it.. maybe I can have a word with Giano, see what he thinks... SirFozzie (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Kittybrewster, shouldn't be editing that article as he has a clear COI this being about his brother.--Padraig (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the other part of things. I'm about to have a word with Kittybrewster myself. I'm suggesting both sides step down, that's all. (We should to apologize to Ali, we're making her new message bar flash like crazy, and none of it's to her! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, sorry to taking up your page over this Alison, but you seem to be on decent terms with Vk. So perhaps you could direct his mentor's attention to this. Threatening to continue disruptive editing unless another editor shuts up is not acceptable, and Vk was blocked by BHG for something not dissimilar. I don't know who is mentoring Vk at the moment (I was assured he had one), but his behaviour on the William Fleming and Arbuthnot page is very reminiscent on the pre-ArbCom behaviour we were all assured was in the past. As usual, everyone is to blame but him yet he is at the centre of both incidents. Someone please have a word and perhaps we can stretch the relative peace for at least a little longer. Rockpocket 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Needs-moar-drama.jpg iridescent 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that subtracts from the drama, Iridescent. Its constructive purpose is lost on me, I'm afraid. Rockpocket 02:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
William Fleming (Irish republican)? Ad hominem attacks, references to editors on 3rd party user pages, ownage, refusal to stay off talk pages when requested while deleting replies on his own page, and, quite simply, getting the facts totally arseways weren't specifically addressed in any Arbcom ruling and unless you can provide an absolutely verifiable reference that I agree with, then the sky is green, not blue. K? :P BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

GK is Back :(

Special:Contributions/69.131.150.244 He is adding sections on certain user's talk pages, and even the Main Page. :(. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. IP Blocked, I left him a message. I hope that he reads it and understands it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Foz :) You're awesome! I can't believe Kirby is at it again, though - Alison 01:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

unprotection request

Hi Alison, could you please remove the protection on my talk page just long enough so that I can archive it? When I'm done creating a new talk page, maybe you or Riana can leave a message and picture, in accordance with Riana's dislike of empty talkpages. Thank you! --Kyoko 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - in record time. We aim to please :) - Alison 01:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (I owe you a dozen emails!!!)
Yes check.svg DoneI'll have to remember that template. It always takes me a little bit to remember how to archive things. Thanks! And I'm falling behind on e-mails too... Now all I need is for someone to start off my page with a random pic and message. Thanks again! --Kyoko 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, a lolcat would be nice. :) --Kyoko 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

From me. Acalamari 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) - Alison 09:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Acalamari 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User Fansoffans1983

Hi Alison as you were the admin that blocked this user for vandalising my talk page he is now back after his block doing the same again here could you have a look for me please, Thanks. BigDunc (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This user is back again here making more personal attacks against me will I bring it to the attention of another admin as you never seem to reply or acknowledge any posts I make on your talk page or will you be willing to deal with it thanks. BigDunc (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Dunc - I've commented on her talk page. I suspect this is the last time we will hear from her. If she does it again, we can re-block but in the meantime, please just let her go. She's just blanking her own comments in a bid to leave - Alison 09:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Jeeny-xmas tree.png
Don't mind me, I'm just trying to fix Jeff's card. --Kyoko 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and Happy Holidays too! I was going to greet you later (not on wikibreak yet) but I'm already here, so why not? Love, Kyoko 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Award for your non awards page

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar, I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar (even though you already have one) because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes, especially with the zeal you show on RFCU. RlevseTalk 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple English Userbox?

Since you know everything about Wikipedia...:D. Do you know of any Simple English Wikipedia Userboxes?Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 01:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for supporting my RFA


Ruhrfisch RfA Thanks.png Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia.

Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 554.jpg

Holiday greetings

Happy holidays, Alison! May you have a sparkling New Year too! Note: do not attempt this at home. :) Love, Kyoko 15:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks for the award. You do too. Now we've given each other awards. RlevseTalk 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom regions

I ask, if as a knowledgeable admin, you could keep an eye out on this page. I realize you are Irish, but I believe you have done admirably in staying neutral so far. In any case, our favorite sock is back; I've given a warning about the arbcom ruling, but I would expect it not to matter much. Thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

ok - will do. Watchlisted now - Alison 09:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey Alison, Thanks for dealing with that crazy mess. :D . nat.utoronto 20:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Admin mop.PNG

Thank you so much for the co-nom. It was quite a ride! And a very close call, but I'm very happy that the third time turned out to be the charm.  :) Thank you very much for your nomination, and your strong support. I'm confident that having your name in the nomination, brought me some more supporters.

Especially since it was such a controversial nom, I'm going to take things very slow now. Plus of course it's the holiday season, so there are plenty of off-wiki distractions! I'm working my way through the exercises at the "admin school", and will phase very gradually into my use of tools.

Thank you again for all your help, and for believing in me, Elonka 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding downgrade protection to permanent semi placed

Hi, it looks like we have consensus (except one person on one fine detail, who won't agree to go with wording supported by all sources). Request is here to downgrade to indefinite semi-protection like Iraq War and George W. Bush:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Waterboarding_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

Thanks for protecting it before, and stopping the stupid vandalism and IP warring. Lawrence Cohen 14:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. Delighted to see you guys have finally come to agreement after a phenomenal amount of hard work on everyone's part. Well done!! I just headed over to unprot earlier and saw that it was also posted to WP:RFPP where someone else reviewed and unprotected. Excellent result all round! - Alison 09:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help me

Anietor continues to importune me leaving tags of edit-war in my talk, while I'm doing the same thing as him. He continues to rollback his POV and sinophobic version of Christianity in China. --Xi Zhu (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I welcome any objective third parties to come on over and take a look. There are a few of us that are trying to reach a consensus on some issues there, but XiZhu just keeps steamrolling his block edits without engaging in the discussion. Thanks! --Anietor (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the PP, Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 04:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

No problem at all! Delighted to help :) - Alison 09:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Youcantcatchme

So, how to eliminate this annoying little ass-cricket? Is there a way to community ban his IP range? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah Humbug

You have a Bah Humbug moment - oh, you can guess ;) - in your e-mail. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

PS I would have added "Happy Christmas, me arse", but that might have been censored. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Woman's Barnstar
Great job at WP:RFCU! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And happy holidays! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Happy holidays to you, too! - Alison 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Would you mind dealing with this? Thanks, Mønobi 02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • A number of admins are now working on this one, which has now involved legal threats. The editor has now also been blocked. Thanks for reporting it! - Alison 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hope this was okay. Acalamari 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. I knew it was weird just as I'd clicked it. Never have much chance to use {{legalblock}} :D Thanks for picking it up - Alison 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Impressed

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Just a note to say that I thought you handled this very well and that I'm impressed by your compassion as much as by the hard work you put in (on that one and across the 'pedia) ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 12:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Thank you :) I'm guessing this was about the "Dépeceur of Bergen" case. I feel dreadful about not being able to do more for the man, though - Alison 05:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFCU Clerking

I've just realised that I didn't say thank you for your barnstar. Thank you so much. Thank you also for your hard work at WP:RFCU, I knew it already but the recent events reminded me how hard a job CheckUser was. I don't think there is a "Don't crack under the pressure" barnstar, but you all most probably deserve it, for yesterday and most probably all the dramas. I hope the Checkuser policy gets enhanced, so the foundation expectations and the policy fit. It's a good thing Mike Godwin was around though... -- lucasbfr talk 12:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lucasbfr. Truth be known, you clerks do a ton of work over there, much more than the obvious clerking, I have to say. The work you put in over there keeps it all running and I certainly couldn't do my job nearly as well or as easily without your help! - Alison 05:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhinoplasty

Hi in the section rhinoplasty theres a term called non surgical rhinoplasty. A term that was invented in 2003 and Trademarked by a Dr. alexander Rivkin heres the source for that ((Tm-Source:Serial Number 77/097,402)I feel that a person should get atleast some sort of credit for coming up with a term especially if theres proof for it. Please advice.

Ill make a note on the external links and will not add them in the future. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyfeetprod (talkcontribs) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that Dr. Rivkin only trademarked the term, "Non-Surgical Nose Job™" and using this term in the Rhinoplasty article isn't appropriate, given the subject is non-surgical rhinoplasty in the generic sense. What you added, as well as the article you have previously created is simply blatantly promotional; in other words, an advert. Proof of trademarking a term doesn't establish notability nor does it make it encyclopedic - Alison 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

An intelligent person at last! Thank you for backing me on this issue. Please close my account and delete all pages associated with it.

Yours Truly

Alison

fansoffans1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans1983 (talkcontribs) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison. Unfortunately, for technical reasons, I cannot close your account - there's no way of doing that. I could block it, but as you've not been disruptive, I'm not allowed!! What I have done is blanked your talk page as a courtesy and marked your userpage as a retired editor. I'll also have a word with Dunc so he knows you've left. I'm really sorry things didn't work out here but you are very welcome to return sometime in the future if you like. And if there's anything I can do to help, just let me know ;) - Alison 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
you've not been disruptive how about personal attacks and blanking editors talk pages repeatedly id hate to see this editor being disruptive. BigDunc (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Dunc - please - just let her leave in peace, ok? She's angry about having her article deleted in the first place and is now leaving the encyclopedia. The reason she was blanking her comments was because she wanted to erase her presence, is all. She did it on my talk page, too (and yeah, GFDL, I know). Please let's not rub it in any more - Alison 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The last thing I wanted was for an editor to leave I tried to give her all the help I could when she was editing even put a welcome template on her talk page im sorry that she took the deletion of the article she created personally but it was not me who deleted it or nominated it for deletion.BigDunc (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My Contributions

Hi Again

I appreciate that. Would it be possible to have the page MY CONTRIBUTIONS removed as well? This is my main concern really, and what I was trying to do in the first place. For some reason, however, the editors in question will not allow me to remove my comments. Only seems fair as my article was dismissed as non-notable. I don’t see the point of keeping the comments (mine or theirs) regarding edits made to an article that no longer exists. Please have the editors remove the postings.

Thanks in advance

Alison

fansoffans1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans1983 (talkcontribs) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Alison. Unfortunately, you can't really remove your contributions as when you edit a page, you agree to license your edits under the GFDL and they can't really be retracted. I'm really sorry, once again, and this is something people really feel strongly about here. Once things are archived in a few days, however, everything will be largely gone - Alison 05:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

SixString1965 socks back (and not even trying to hide)

I don't know whether to be impressed at the balls of this guy or to pummel him with a Cudgel of Enlightenment. He's back in the John Lennon article, and is actually of the opinion that he's going to have anything to do with its improvement. He's using two id's: 12.72.53.178 and Innocentvictim. I am tired of dealing with this self-righteous crap of his. Is there anything more proactive we can do aside from just banning the creep's new socks? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked User:Innocentvictim as a sock. And blocked the IP for 24 hours. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the two IP addresses associated with these accounts have now been blocked for quite a while. However, the 12.72.53.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is likely not to be SixString, per checkuser - they've only one edit and it's largely constructive - so I'm unblocking that one - Alison 05:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. 'Night. -- Flyguy649 talk 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Troubles ArbCom

Hi Alison, I noticed you have had dealings with this editor. You may be aware of this recent unpleasantness which I will pursue myself, as this is not the first time this editor has abuse there tools. They have been warned before and I know they have a history of this sort of thing. What I would like is for them to be included on the Troubles ArbCom, as the articles would come under that heading. My approach with this editor will be done strictly by the book, as evidenced here and regardless of the attempt to provoke me with there reply I will maintain my cool.Take care Regards --Domer48 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer, I agree that something strange is going on here. I need to investigate in more detail later but will look into it. Crazy-busy right now - Alison 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison, Please, this is getting out of hand here, can something not be done. This type of name calling is a straw too many. --Domer48 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That.. way over the line. I've spoken to R.Fiend on his talk page, but content aside (again, not familiar with the situation), he needs to dial it wayyyyyy back. SirFozzie (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen folks thanks for that, I know no one on the Troubles ArbCom would get away with that carry on. I got blocked for less by this editor, and they abuse and revert at will. I'd put a warning template on thei page again, but what is the point, they would just delete it and block me again. Sorry for having to bring this to your page, and thanks both of you again. --Domer48 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer, first of all, let me just say, that the REASON you were blocked was valid, even if the blocker wasn't. WP:3RR is an electric fence. You shall not break 3 Reverts within 24 hours for ANY reason whatsoever (except reverting blatant vandalism, and if it's that blatant, you should be bringing it up on AIV or ANI to get the other editor/IP address blocked). This wasn't the situation. Them's the rules, man. you did revert four times (for different reasons, admittedly), to your preferred version. I would suggest that you, Dunc and VK don't continue to edit war here (you can be blocked for editwarring EVEN if you don't break 3RR). If the situation is so intolerable, you can always create an article content Request for comment or an administrator conduct RfC. SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fozz, I'm not going to play word games with you. I do respect ye! But come on "you did revert four times (for different reasons, admittedly), to your preferred version." Preferred version, ah hello. You mean the correct version according to wiki policies, WP:V, WP:RS. Now picture me laughing when I say this, And I was Shafted. All things aside, thanks for the advice, I did ask John for advice on that. Now do you want to apply the same logic of "you did revert four times (for different reasons, admittedly), to your preferred version," to my new best friend on the Easter Rising or is it just for the lower ranks. LOL --Domer48 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I was away for most of the drama here. - Alison 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, glad your back LOL. Just following on from my last post, I posted this last night. With my last block in mind and my dialog with Fozz. "you did revert four times (for different reasons, admittedly), kind a stuck in my head if you know what I mean. Based on that report I posted and the comment from Fozz "you can be blocked for editwarring EVEN if you don't break 3RR" I think that two stes of ruls are being applied. I will more than likley go with John's suggestion but can you look at the 3 rr for those on the Troubles ArbCom list, in light of this situation. Thanks, and Regards --Domer48 (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Think this says it all dont you Domer48 (talk) All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others-- BigDunc (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the way I see it, all those involved in the ArbCom are subject to the penelties, and yet anyone not involved can just bounce in a run amock, and we get the bad end of the stick. In such a clear case of edit warring, the editor should be place on the ArbCom list, and be subject to the same things as the rest of us. By and large, all involved in the ArbCom have being editing away and trying their best not to create problems, and we at lest deserve some credit for that. --Domer48 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ali, you must admit, Dunc is a very blunt way dose have a point.LOL, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Final Question

What do you mean by archived? Does this mean they won't appear on the net?

fansoffans1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans1983 (talkcontribs) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Aatomic1

Hey Alison, just a heads up that at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, Aatomic1 (talk · contribs) is attempting to remove him/herself from the probation you put into place there. Metros (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Alison. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. (yay, I templated a regular ;)).. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_more_eyes_related_to_Easter_Rising_and_Tom_Clarke_.28Irish_republican.29 SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Foz, thank you so much for standing up for me in my absence and for taking on this contentious 'troubles' case (and I know you're burned out on all this nonsense, too) - I really appreciate it! Thanks ;) - Alison 22:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

6 Colors

Hi Alison, I have been working on the backlog at WP:CV. Came across this article, permission was claimed and the user indicated that he sent the email. Can you please check OTRS... Thanks and cheers!--DO11.10 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I ran a search and I'm not finding any entries in OTRS relating to this article. Really sorry :( Can you ask if they have an OTRS ticket number? They should have been assigned one by the clerk when they received a response - Alison 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile

NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Awww - thank you!! :) - Alison 16:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Heya

User:I need a name over on GA.Wiki is almost definitely NOT the same one here. Folks have been creating accounts to harass him here and elsewhere apparently. I need a Name confirms that User:You Need a Name, who is claiming to be him, is definitely NOT him (and he's reverted You Need a Name's edit) SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me, Foz, and blocked - míle maith agat! ;) - Alison 06:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
One over at pt., as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

a check please

Hi Alison, hate to bother you but with regard to this [5], a new user has sprung up today, Makemewish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Can you check on it, or should I file another CU? Thanks R. Baley (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed you were offline, so reported at ANI. R. Baley (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed and IP blocked - Alison 05:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem :) - Alison 05:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777

Per your comments at the AN/I thread, I have unblocked her with the proviso she refrain from editing that article in the meantime. Daniel Case (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Daniel. That's excellent - Alison 16:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (just woke up :) )

Unblock request by 64.53.2.215

See here. Since this involved a checkuser and the IP would naturally be supposed to be kept private, you might be better able to tell what's up here and provide any admin with relevant info (if that were to be me, you can send email ... I will keep the case confidential). Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to check this while you're at it: User talk:4.152.165.81. nat.utoronto 03:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've commented on both cases. The latter one isn't my checkuser case, but the former one is. As the former blocked editor is largely not forthcoming with an explanation and refuses to identify, there's not much that can be done there - Alison 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton

Ali; I'm looking at the options here - I have tried to follow the steps in setting up an RfC re this editor for abuse of Admin powers and I note that to be "activated" it needs a co-signer. How does one alert the interested sections of the community to the existence of the RfC proposal without falling foul of some Wiki rule about canvassing? - Sarah777


I'm also concerned at the suitability of User:Philip Baird Shearer (another Admin editing this "Massacres" article). There was a clear WP:Edit war edit by User:Jack.Hartford which Philip ignored even though he himself edit the same section, Irish Rebellion of 1641, shortly after the warring. Again, I have asked him to revert the warring edit on his page and await the response.
Regards - Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
While I'm at it User:R. fiend appears to have blocked Domer48 in similar circumstances to the Lawton block. And this Admin obviously takes some pride in his aggressive adminship as you see here (Sarah777 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

This appears to be a big and growing problem on Wiki; we need to do something about it in general terms. Perhaps like 3RR a warring Admin who blocks and edits on the same article should get an automatic one-month loss of Admin powers? (Sarah777)

Hi Sarah. Ummm ... there's a lot going on here. Firstly, admins are just editors - they can edit what they like, get into edit-wars, get blocked, etc, etc, just like any other editor and it's important to bear that in mind. Admins are editors, too :) However, admins tend to be held to a higher standard than other editors and are aware they need to be absolutely open and fair in whatever they do. There's little wiggle-room for arrogance and aggression when it comes to admin actions. When editing articles, we are just human, same as anyone else!
As regards the behaviour of certain admins; if you have any issues and you have done your best to resolve them, you could either bring them to the attention of the admin community at WP:ANI or file a Request for Comment regarding either the editor/admin or the article/situation. You just have to have all your homework done and everything documented with diffs, etc, and have other editors who are willing to endorse that. It sounds like you may have both here, looking at your talk page. If you need help filing an RFC, I can possibly help. Needless to say, I'm neutral in all this and, as you know, if you're off on something here. I'll sure let you know. You know that!!! :)
In the case of Rklawton, I should tell you that the guy is on vacation now and won't be around to answer a case. He told me this early on in yesterday's crisis, BTW. It's not that he's gone AWOL or anything - he's just away for a break. I know about the User:R. fiend thing and Domer, etc and I'm keeping a close watch on the whole thing, too - Alison 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Shearer

Ali, I am now formally reporting to you User:Philip Baird Shearer for WP:edit warring and abuse of Admin powers on List of massacres (Sarah777 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Hi Sarah. Thanks for mentioning it here and I'll take a look in a few mins. While I see this editor has been editing List of massacres, I don't see any (ab-)use of his admin tools over there. Can you show me where? - Alison 20:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I took a look and it seems that Philip is making constructive edits over there. He's done a nice job of cleaning up messy refs. He has stepped in (where RK left off) and removed the Fallujah section. However - he's only done this once and has brought his detailed rationale to the talk page where anyone can address the issues he has with the cites. He says there may be issues around them being a "reliable source". None of this seems to be off-the-wall unreasonable or anything - Alison 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
He refused to reply to me comments on his page explaining my edits, so inability to communicate isn't the trademark of a good Admin surely?; he repeated a bad-revert by Lawton that another Admin has already reversed; he added back a name for the killing of settlers in Ireland in the 1641 rebellion without any explanation; a name which I had deleted with a clear explanation and which the original author has now himself agreed was a wrong name. I am only looking at his edits where I am involved and I find bias and very poor judgement. I don't think either himself or (obviously) Lawton are suitable people to be mentoring this particular article. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Happy Holidays

Buon Natale e buon anno! Giano (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both :) That's lovely .... - Alison 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ali, same from me from sunny/cloudy and definitely hot Laos. All the best ,The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Wild sex at 7-11

One night in the summer of 1997 I had wild sex with a strange girl named Alison in a white lexus in the suburbs of Philly, by any chance could that be you? She was very hot.--Zimbobman (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bye bye, NisarKand. To answer your question, it must have been so utterly non-memorable that it slipped my mind. So sorry! - Alison 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Owned 13:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkleheimer (talkcontribs)

Weird, I signed, but my name didn't show up, only the date. D=Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Famguy231

Famguy231 is requesting unblock. Please feel free to comment at his talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!


Thanks

Thank you for welcoming me. I have just read the tutorial and some other pages and have learned a great deal about Wikipedia already! Blurple (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

ANI question

Hope this isn't canvassing; I'm only asking one editor. But I saw you recently comment on a similar matter, and I believe this needs to be addressed (it's currently in danger of being ignored): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#GusChiggins21_blocked_for_edit_warring_by_involved_admin. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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 [6]. 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: [7]. So how does one address that? SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Ali's still asleep, probably (PST slacker ;), but the decision was made by ArbCom, and you can see the request [8] here. SirFozzie (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
And what about the part about being a PST slacker? ;) SirFozzie (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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? :) )
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)

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)

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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think we'll agree to disagree, then. Hope you had a happy and safe holidays. SirFozzie (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for your kind endorsement and, FWIW, I agree with your idea of a selection process - Alison 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

MONGO, attacking somones affiliations and views in the manner you have is a personal attack. PLease desist. ViridaeTalk 10:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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[9]
  • "I was appointed by the Arbitration Committee to that role [...] Have I done something to cause you concern?" - Me[10]
  • "My concern was related to your participation in a website with a known history of attacking our contributors." - MONGO[11]
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)
Let's not be selective in repeating what I wrote...I didn't just write, as you quoted me: "I was mainly seeking some reassurances that you were still interested in helping others"...what I wrote was, in full: "I was mainly seeking some reassurances that you were still interested in helping others and it is more than apparent you are."...you left out the part I italized. I disagree with you...no, I don't think that contributing to WR is wise...and I didn't like the fact that after I ask you questions that you have repeatedly misconstrued as having some nefarious intent, what do you do????...you post to WR and state that "I'm not impressed and I can see it for what it is"...nevermind...you and I seem to be talking past each other.--MONGO 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
"you and I seem to be talking past each other" - something we can both agree upon. I remain unimpressed, needless to say. Goodbye, MONGO. I'm sure our paths will cross again, now that I'm likely categorized as a "Troll enabler" - Alison 05:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done...

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
{{{1}}}

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

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

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

...for this.[12] 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)

Glad to help! - Alison 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
It certainly is Ali when the words are downright offensive and provocative. (Sarah777 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
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)
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))
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[13]. I'd have had a problem with that myself - Alison 18:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks! I will work on providing the diffs and then its up to the other clerks. --Matt57(talkcontribs) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish you luck! Atari400 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Matt57, I guess the only thing you lack now, is a shred of evidence? Atari400 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
He says he was unaware of the protection, and I notified him about this thread. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to note that Guy self reverted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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))

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)
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))
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)
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))
The "Troubles" ArbCom states that when an editor is under probation, they are only entitled to one revert per week on designated "Troubles-related" articles ... unless they are reverting blatant vandalism. This is what you're referring to here. Regarding the List of massacres article, I think you should seriously consider mediation - Alison 03:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ali, I have written to the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. The current "system" has allowed a blatantly biased list to survive for three years in the process burning off opposing editors who get banned or give up; so it doesn't work. When something doesn't work, you fix it. - Sarah777 (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Alison,

After Sarah made the same request of me, I looked over here and read your response. I have decided to protect the article with a suggestion that everyone remove to WP:RS/N and discuss the issues they were editwarring over. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom ruling

Ali, read the ruling; looks like it refers specifically to editors restricted to one edit per week on The Troubles. You right; me wrong. (Sarah777 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Clerk note:

Alison, There is a checkuser case that I cannot get to show in the RFCU page. The link is here and is one more of the NisarKand requests. The alleged sock is already indef blocked. Thanks! -JodyB talk 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like lucasbfr fixed it and Deskana has already dealt with it. That was an easy one :) - Alison 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Can you please delete it. Too early - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/F9T // F9T 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done sorry it was too early - Alison 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine, hope to get some sort of Admin Coaching soon. That way it might not be too soon soon. Also I think User:Sunderland06 also declined their nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sunderland06. Thanks very much. // F9T 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ping

You have email, on a bit of a sticky wicket, Ali. Could you investigate that for me? SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it, Foz. Will do - Alison 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack

Thank you for registering at the WikBack. I have just activated your registration and look forward to your participation. If you have no idea what this is about (or if you did not register), please let me know right away so that I can close the account.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, it's me all right. I'm interested in seeing how things go and, hopefully, contributing. I'm forum-neutral on all matters (see the MONGO thread above for more details). Best wishes for the new forum :) - Alison 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Thanks for the help.[14] I think I've got it fixed now. I'm not very familiar with RFCU, and the instructions for reopening an existing case aren't that clear to me. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help :) We should really review the instructions for re-opening cases, I guess - Alison 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thanks

Thanks for getting to my checkuser request so quickly. While your response was not what I was hoping for, I understand your position. Please also know that this was not an attempt at "fishing" as there are several who have raised the question. Best, Newguy34 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry the answer wasn't the one you wanted. Checkuser is really a last resort tool mostly used for extreme cases. Has anyone tried dialogue with the two users in question, by any chance, to maybe get them on-board? - Alison 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no reason to apologize. :) We have tried to dialogue with the users, and their responses (both consistently) are generally to accuse us of violating NPOV or other WP policies related to WP:BLP. Some of us are just a bit exasperated, I guess. Newguy34 (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll put the articles on my watchlist here and see what I can do as a neutral observer - Alison 20:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer blocked

Alison, Domer has been blocked for edit-warring despite not having breached 3RR. Could you please take a look at it? Regards -- Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles

Sarah, you're edit-warring over there with the now-blocked User:Traditional unionist. Now, of all articles, this one definitely comes under the auspices of the Troubles ArbCom case. Please be careful here - you know the rules! - Alison 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a named participant, not restricted to one per week and two edits short of 3RR. That's also in the rules. Unblock Domer. --Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to be placed on probation, Sarah? My message was a friendly note to ensure you are not, is all. Feel free to ignore it by all means ... - Alison 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And please withdraw you charge of edit-warring; such an inaccurate charge is dangerous coming from an Admin. -- Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No. - Alison 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that you've obviously looked into the case, what sanction can we expect on Trad Unionist for breaching the Arbcom restrictions (when he is unblocked for 3RR?) And, btw, the grounds for "probation" would be, what? -- Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I'd put him on the same probation as anyone else, you included. In fact, I'm going to head on over to his talk page and warn him of just that. Grounds for probation would be persistent (yes!) edit-warring on Troubles-related articles. Just keep going the way you are, both of you, and I'll see you both are put on probation. Simple as that - Alison 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
it's Alison's call, but personally, considering the history of all involved, plus the GIF ArbCom that Sarah was part of, I think in this case, any probation should be longer than a month. SirFozzie (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, TU informs me that you were edit-warring against talk page consensus. It turns out that he was right about that and you were edit-warring against consensus. Even Padraig agrees on this - Alison 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Like 3RR, the Arbcom ruling is absolute; one revert per week. Block TU now; or I will regard this as a precedent. Two edits in six months is NOT warring as I said; whether God or Padraig or you say it is - as he pointed out I wasn't involved till now. The key issue for me now is why is TU allowed to flout the Arbcom probation rules? I breached 3RR by accident and was shown no mercy by you or anyone else. Now do what you must; enforce the Arbcom. Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I will absolutely not block TU right now, least of all on your say-so. Firstly, he's already blocked and thus can not disrupt further. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption only. Secondly, he is not under probation as defined by the Troubles Arbcom. And thirdly, he's largely reverting on "your" article to maintain consensus, something he defined as reverting of your "vandalism". This is a term I disagree with, but however, TU has not done anything to warrant his going on probation. Simple as that - Alison 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison can you look at this apparently someone didn't like me agreeing with you earlier is being petty to WP:Point, I have already removed this twice already when it was posted by other editors, the provided source clearly dosent support the content of the text added.--Padraig (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm told by yourself and Ali that making the same edit twice is serious edit warring! Well is it or isn't it? And is looking for a fair and consistent application now WP:POINT? Seems that the rules can be flexed to suit just about any viewpoint on the planet! Sarah777 (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, it's largely dependent on context and edit history, as well you know. You've been edit-warring and POV-pushing on a number of articles today, largely going up against consensus. C'mon now - Alison 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Padraig, there are a bunch of editors socking over there. I've just caught them and now they're blocked. It's a pity, though, that Sarah insists on reverting to their version and that they were socking to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else - Alison 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I started a discussion of the text on the talk page of the article and so far everyone has agreed that the source dosen't support the text, even Sarah agreed to that, until she decided to add the text back and left a message for me on the talk page, seems I have upset her today :).--Padraig (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Page Protected for 96 hours. I'll try to monitor it to see if there's any agreement before then. SirFozzie (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie, they isn't any dispute, what it was was one editor using socks to insert text with a source that didn't support the text, the text was also sectarian in nature, Alison has blocked the socks and the text has been removed, that hopefully the end of the matter.--Padraig (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

You look like you're currently (23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)) active-ish. Could you pop on teh 3vil IRC for a minute, please?  :-) — Coren (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Coren - I'm just heading out again here. In-n-Out Burger is calling me, and I'm vegetarian. Go figure :) Catch ya later on IRC, okay? - Alison 02:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Jossi NY Greeting.jpg

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Awww - thanks, Jossi :) Happy New Year to you, too!! - Alison 02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Where aren't you?

Are you here? El_C 05:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How about now? El_C 05:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Now? El_C 05:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Here right now, yup ... - Alison 05:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty editing veropedia (for example, where's the any key?); maybe you can take me through it, so next time I can do it myself...? El_C 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. That's an easy one. If you hold down [CTL][ALT] and the [DELETE] buttons at the same time, editing should no longer be a problem! ;) - Alison 05:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm serious. I thought I was all set up but I appear to be stuck on the implementation. El_C 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Where do I edit the page, I mean? El_C 05:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean, how do you edit a page within Veropedia? The simple answer is that you cannot; nobody can. All the editing and tidying is done here on Wikipedia and the article is then uploaded to Veropedia. That's the basis behind the whole thing, and how Wikipedia stands to benefit from Veropedia - Alison 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand that. But I'm trying to add something different (faq); I caught Danny on gmail (been having trouble logging on lately), but then had to get the phone and he was gone. So I thought, I'll ask someone else. You're someone else! El_C 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What's happening? You still there? Was I just too slow? :( El_C 05:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Still here. Just had to put my kids to bed. You're changing the FAQ? On the wiki? That should be pretty much the same as here, so. What's going wrong? - Alison 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for being overexcited! No, I'm trying to add another-language faq (I told Danny I'd do it in three days, so obviously I got around to it three weeks later, which is to say: yesterday). El_C 06:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Urgh! Which reminds me - I owe Danny a FAQ translation in Irish. I'd better get to it. Okay, so I'm on the wiki right now, here's the FAQ in French, for example - is this the kind of stuff you're trying to edit? - Alison 06:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm just trying to add the Hebrew once, it's all set to go. El_C 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Waitaminute!! Have you an account on the wiki? I'm not seeing one [15] - Alison 06:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weird. Yeah, Danny set it up a few weeks ago. I got the machine password and everything and logged in fine... El_C 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I remember chaning the pw to kitty's name from the machine gibberish and everything... El_C 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The account was set a few weeks ago; I log in but it looks like I'm not, but it tells me I am. Anyway, the thingy is on my he user page, so if only a dev can add it, which now that I think of it is likely the case... But if not, let me know how, as I'm finding the platform counterintuitive. El_C 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm. I've no idea :( Can you hop onto the dreaded, evil IRC by any chance, and I might be able to talk you through things? Are you on the wiki? - Alison 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ever since a wikipedia sysop who is also an irc chanop booted me for trolling (I was quoting William Blake for someone — sadly, I failed to get to the third line of the poem), I developed an alergy to it and haven't used it since (that was over a year ago)... El_C 06:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
They thought those quotations were my original (I wish!) flame-baiting; it was quite comical, actually. El_C 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeesh!! I can imagine. Let's not mention Wikipedia and IRC in the one breath :) - Alison 06:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hah, too late! El_C 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I posted at Veropedia IRC that you are asking fro assistance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that was unnfair! El_C 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
(I have to de-indent here. My brain hurts) Yeah, you need to be on the wiki, and you need an account/invite/etc to get one. What's your account name over there? I'm not seeing you at all. If you're on, leave a message on User:Alison over there. I'm 'crat on that wiki, so I should be able to get you up and running. I can see where the Hebrew FAQ stuff lives, etc, so it should be easy enough once you're on - Alison 06:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's El_C; see you there. El_C 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm there and logged-in; what do I do now? El_C 06:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Go edit my talk page. I can see you there .. - Alison 06:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't see talk pages, or anything like that. El_C 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it maybe logging me out on the redirect? My firewall is off and everything... El_C 07:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I just tried logging in with IE instead of FF and, again, it logs in fine, but it looks the same as when I was logged out. I'm not seeing any new options, no user/talk pages, or anything. Thoughts? El_C 07:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
OH!!! Nono. You need to log into the wiki, far as I know. http://wiki.veropedia.com - Alison 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Shiiiiiii El_C 07:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not letting me in; saying there is no such username... Gah! El_C 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! That's what I was wondering. I didn't see your account on the wiki at all. Email me your email address and I'll set you up. Username is obvious :D - Alison 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought you saw me logged in (there ?). I'm still confused as to why there's login at the main page, but that page isn't the wiki, so why would there be log-in-ing there, in the first place. Sending email now. Please update me here when you get it. El_C 07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok - all done! :) Check your mail - Alison 07:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! I'll let you know when I get it. El_C 07:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The pw you created for me is still not working. El_C 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Nm, I'm speaking to Danny right now. El_C 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok - let me know how things go. I can't understand where your password went, as I asked the thing to mail it on to you a number of times. Frustrating!!! - Alison 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in! But Danny explained to me that even he can't add the thingy, only a developer can, so... oh well. Thanks for your patience! El_C 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yayy!! Finally :) BTW, I'm also a developer on Vero and have shell access. What needs to be done? - Alison 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I translated the faq (it's on my he user page). El_C 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and you'll also need to add an עברית drop-down menu to be on par with the other ones... El_C 02:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Got the message

I received the message about edit warring on Plural Marriage. Im currently engaged in a discussion on the Talk page. I like to keep my Talk page clear, so I will be clearing it. Noleander (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Please stop revert-warring or you will be blocked, though. The other editor is saying you're indulging in vandalism, which you are not, IMO. Either way, I'm glad you're on the talk page now & both of you can sort it out from there - Alison 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)