This is an archive of past discussions about User:Alison. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.
But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.
I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. If you decide to use mine (or someone else's) I suggest you give a history link to a specific version like Cacharoth did.
But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.
Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all.
Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.
I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.
Larry Pieniazek
NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.
Guys, good stuff! Don't forget to add them to this table as a resource for the benefit of all.
For a final version of this message see User:Lar/catmsg... Note alsos... 1) since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table (if you have one) to validate that it was you that added it. 2) Since you're using my criteria/process, you may want to give a link to a specific history entry version of the page, heck I may change mine to say that admins that start with A only need 1 petitioner to get recalled or something :) Cacharoth's entry is an example of how that was done. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Was just looking at the RfCU page for the first time since I stopped clerking it to free up time for bureaucrat work and taking over the MedCom chair from Daniel. I'm impressed that anyone managed to sort out the mess at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice :-). Thought I'd swing by and make sure you knew your hardwork as a checkuser isn't going unnoticed. Happy New Year, WjBscribe04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Thank you so much, WJB - and thanks for the vote of confidence :) That case was by far the hardest I've ever had to do & took hours to complete. Ugh! There's sooo much work in checkuser cases - Alison❤05:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alison, the Global warming page is under a sock attack, and has been for a while (see history). They all appear to have been created at around the same time frame, and the accounts were obviously created to get around a semi-p solution. I've noticed that most of them have been blocked as "generic" sock accounts, but at least one has been blocked as a sock account of Obedium(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). They should all have tags to a specific blocked/banned user, but it appears that some of them don't. Also, is there any more that can be done (other than revert/block, ignore)? I assume that the underlying IP is also blocked in situations like his, but is that the case here? It doesn't appear that way. As an uninvolved admin (and sorry for involving you) any advice you might have would be appreciated. R. Baley (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. If you can gather up as many of them as you can identify and file a case over at WP:RFCU, that would be great! I'll get on it as quick as I can. Just provide the text above with some diffs as evidence, collate the accounts as shown over yonder and file it under category "C". I'll get to it ASAP. Thanks - Alison❤09:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry if the block notices weren't clear enough (I blocked about 8 of them). I put Obedium in the comment on the block but I couldn't find the right template. I noticed that Raymond Arrit also did 4 or 5 without templating the users which I have rectified where I have seen it. Obedium is a skilled sock master and the IP is roving. --BozMotalk11:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alison (and BozMo!) I've added Capt. Merc. (and a question for Alison) to the report. Bozmo, if you know/suspect any others that haven't been included, can you add them at the bottom as well? Oh, and the first date that I've seen was as early as 17 Dec. R. Baley (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Lately I've been blocking the accounts without tagging per WP:DENY, but will start tagging them again if folks think that will help. I've been keeping an informal account of the names of the socks, the date and time that the account was created, and the time of their first edit. He's obviously got a whole drawer full of these things which he continually replenishes. The one thing that scares me a bit is the possibility that I'll accidentally block someone who's a legitimate newbie -- we've all seen what happens to admins who make a mistake like that. I'm not thrilled by the possibility of becoming another Charles Matthews "test case." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I know - I've blocked a number of his accounts in December. I left a comment on his dad's page here, but the guy is incorrigible - Alison❤20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Voceditenore (talk·contribs) has defended these three editors very faithfully in 3 different forums, exhibiting off-wiki knowledge of these editors. I was tempted to add him to the Checkuser, but didn't because his writing is clearly not by the same person. Now that the charge is collusion, I'm regretting not including Voceditenore in the RCU.
I hesitate to hammer a good editor; however, if this is collusion, and Voceditenore is involved, then Voceditenore would be the most likely ringmaster. Any suggestions? / edg☺☭20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't how the Checkuser report works, but from what you are saying, this would have been spotted (without the name being requested) in the report, and Voceditenore came up clean. Is that correct? If so, I can drop this. / edg☺☭21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alison. I wonder if you would have another look at User talk:80.229.9.98 and consider whether unblocking to permit him to discuss on the talk page only until his block would expire? If you don't think so, thats fine. The reason I ask is because his reasoning struck me as being a little above a garden variety troll, and he got me thinking that he might actually have a point (so I did a little research and put some sources on the talk page for discussion). Happy New Year to you, when it comes. Rockpocket22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeez. If I thought it was going to stir up so much bad feeling I wouldn't have bothered asking. Sorry about that. Rockpocket23:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
They breached 3RR, made no attempt to justify the insertion of a sectarian rant to the article, yet you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and unblock then to make their case on the talk page of the article, if he has a case to present he is well able to do so on his talkpage.--Padraig (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The guy has agreed to stop his edit-warring, had never been warned about 3RR and now he agrees to stop. As blocks are meant to stop disruption and this is hir first, let's see how it goes - Alison❤23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have explained to this editor that those edits are unacceptable and, should he continue along this path, he will be reblocked and for longer this time. Instead of attacking IPs for their "POV" edits, thereby fostering an atmosphere of conflict, its much better to attempt to explain why their edits are problematic and pointing out how to make them policy compliant. Assuming good faith is important, but not indefinitely. He has been pointed towards policy a few times now and if he doesn't take up the opportunity to learn to be a better editor in policy then there is little positive that we can take from his contributions. Rockpocket02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this the part where I get accused of being a sock or something? Or just have people keep their eye on me.. Hmm. Well my last edit was back in August and I've only ever been blocked once, sooo I reckon I'm safe for a bit. You can email me and I'll tell you who I am if you like. Thanks for the welcome. Hope you're having a good NYE :) CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Prior to the 3RR violation on Bobby Sands, this same user made a series of edits to Jacobite-related articles which seemed highly POV and were, to boot unreferenced. When I reverted those edits and asked him to provide references for the changes he made, he simply reverted again. Earlier this evening, he did the same, and went so far as to make insulting comments in his edit summaries (see these diffs [[2]], [[3]], and [[4]]). I am not asking you to take any action on this now, given that this is now several hours old, but wanted to bring the matter to your attention. Clearly, this user could use some lessons in assuming good faith and not attacking other editors. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that at 02:59, 31 December 2007, RepublicanJacobite removed both text I had added to the Jacobitism article & the top-quality reference that I'd provided that supports my edit & at the same time accused me in his edit summary of never providing references. My harsh words were in response to this vandalism & provocation.80.229.9.98 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, 69.131.147.72 (talk·contribs) has left an unblock request on 69.131.155.237 (talk·contribs)'s talk page. I have declined the request, obviously, but wanted to let you know in case you need to do a range block (since apparently this is a dynamic IP or this user has access to other IPs) or follow up in any other way. --B (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It's User:Green Kirby, block evading again. He just won't get the message (in fact, I've reverted him on this page just now). I've left some comments over there - he's basically community-banned at the moment for severe disruption and sockery. Wore everyone down. If he persists in this, I'm rangblocking. As it is, checkuser is catching accounts & IPs all the time now - Alison❤20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison can you look at this this editor is interfering with reference and changing the wording of the referenced text to push a pov. I have ask him to stop on the talk page and also his talk page, yet he is accusing me of POV editing, when I have provided a WP:RS. I have reverted him twice so I can't revert him again.--Padraig (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning note. As with these things, unprot ran out while I was asleep, but so far, eveything seems okay over there ... - Alison❤23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, crap, didn't know that. Go ahead and delist it unless the claim is valid. Sorry for creating a mess; I was just trying to fix the formatting. Keilanatalk(recall)14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ow, due to a bad cut and paste, part of my sentence disappeared, I meant Keilana added a comment by Anoshiravan39 who promptly removed it, not Keliana created a mess :P -- lucasbfrho ho ho14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Heya Ali, I know you're "awesum" with the checkuser... how good are you with determining proxyhood (open or otherwise), I recently semi'd The IRC ArbCom Workshop TalkPage for 24 hours because of two IP's insisting on putting something in with a link to a RfC on Ryulong from August of this year, and calling for him to be de-sysopped. I THINK there's a possible of open proxys (the IP's look to be Virginia and Germany from a quick whois look). Can you wave some of that magical pixie dust over those IP's and determine if they need to be blocked as proxies? Thanks. I owe ya one ;) SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the main workshop page, I see at least one more IP (this one from Taiwan) doing it before THAT page was protected, so I'm fairly certain it IS a series of open proxies, but I would still like someone to look over it before blocking as a proxy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Foz. One of them is a likely open proxy but nonetheless, I found some .. interesting ... editors behind it. Hardblocked for a week now, so it should be interesting to see what happens next here. Happy New Year, BTW :) - Alison❤23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like the user has already been blocked. This user also edited this page from 65.95.147.37 (talk·contribs). Can you tell from checkuser evidence what range to block? Whois says the range is 65.92.0.0/14, but I'm a bit nervous to block a whole ISP. --B (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Season Greetings
Dear Alison, on behalf of my snow-buried Canadian region of Ottawa, I would like to wish you a Safe and Happy New Year 2008. JForget02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison - I have finished a significant but partial rewrite of an article, James Blunt, in my userspace at User:Risker/blunt. It's also had some light copy editing by another user, so I know that there has to be a merge of the history. Can you walk me through the procedure to transfer the rewritten copy to the existing article and then get the history merged? Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
lol!! You know, I'd really love to help - honest - but I'm absolutely hopeless at history merges and avoid them like crazy because I always, always mess them up! Really sorry. Can anyone else help Risker do a history-merge?
Well, we can't have that messing up thing happening now, can we? ;-) While we search for an admin who's got the secret decoder ring, do you think it will be okay for me to move the actual information into the article? I am hoping that won't violate the GFDL too much. Your thoughts? Risker (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
History merge: delete old article (James Blunt); move new copy into its place (User:Risker/blunt?); undelete old article underneath the new; if the most recent version is not the new article, then revert to the appropriate version. ViridaeTalk23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison, Shibumi2 has emailed me and asked me to contact you. He says that he has emailed some personal details to you, so please check your email. Neutral Good (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Myself and Shibumi2 are in email discussion on the matter right now. Currently, the discussion is with him - Alison❤05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought a picture of scores of police "standing guard" on a Mayo road might require a little bit of explanation. But if you feel that strongly about it...
What I feel strongly about is that you have been pretty-much pushing a pro-Shell to Sea POV on here for some time, basically creating lengthy, biased articles and trying to get it into various other pages. Same with the images and the Gardaí page, and the linkfarm that is Rossport Solidarity Camp and Rossport Five. I've not paid much attention to it all until now, really, but right now the whole thing needs to be reviewed & it's something I intend to get around to doing soon. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting your own political agendas. BTW - I'm decidedly sympathetic to the campaign, too, and have been involved in the Glen of the Downs protest myself, back in the day. That's not the point, though; neutrality and balance is - Alison❤02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't feel I'm pushing any particular point of view. I have created very few articles. Those that I have created are not lengthy, and I remove any bias I find. I fail to see how you find the images biased, and I don't remember adding many links to the pages you mention. I'm happy to go over any of my edits with you, though you haven't answered my original point.
I just commented on ANI. I'm off to bed here but if it's not resolved by the morning and if nobody else takes up an RfC, I certainly intend to, yes - Alison❤05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you probably already know but you won't be the only one commenting on that. I'll try and remember to check your contribs to see if one has been started. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wake up, sleepyhead (grins and ducks anything thrown at him). Just wanted to suggest we work with Padraig to try to get the RfC set up either today, or over the weekend :) SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would have started it myself, however I've never really been involved in the RfC process, and would like to know what I'm doing before I actually start one. Anyhow, the AN/I discussion was "closed" by somebody shortly after you left, with note that RfC will probably happen. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see my note on John's talk page, and John's response. Like Rjd I've never done this before, so I'll wait another hour or so, and if nobody has objected I'll go ahead with the RfC. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been watching this from afar for a week or two after Sarah brought it to my attention and would also like to contribute to a RFC. If there is anything I can do to assist in its formation, please let me know, otherwise I will make a comment as an uninvolved party. Rockpocket18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I endorse Rockpocket's suggestion. I think it is important that the behaviour of all involved editors is scrutinised, and that we remain focused on solutions to this problem as there is already too much drama in this area of Wikipedia for my taste. The risk will be, going forward, that the very uninvolved admins we need to attract to the problem area will be put off from doing so otherwise. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If you read my post four posts up, I referred you to my note on John's page, where I expressed my preference for an article RfC, and John agreed. I allowed two and a half hours for objections before going ahead. Scolaire (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Guess I read your comment wrong. That doesn't seem appropriate though, as the issue isn't really with the article, it is with the editor who edited the article. Okay then..... - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I'm just getting on-line here and playing catch-up. Unfortunately, this is not solely an article issue but a serious user conduct issue; specifically repeated misuse of admin tools. Please do file an article RfC, by all means, but I'm going to go ahead now and file a user conduct one. There's no reason why both cannot be worked in parallel - Alison❤20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to move it, or just copy and paste? The reason I ask is, I see some people decided to sign it already. Now, we should keep the history of who signs what, when, so if you are going to just copy and paste, I'll wait to sign. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I know there is an article issue too, but isn't entirely related to the users' conduct, which definitely needs the attention. I will be participating in the RFC/U only. Thanks Alison, and Scolaire for explaining this to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The RfC should deal with the conduct of this editor as it spread over a number of articles not just one, where he has abuse his admin tools whilst involved in disputes.--Padraig (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Alison on this one. There may well be a reason for an article RfC (though it doesn't strike me as any more problematic than other disputes on this subject), but R. fiend's persistent use of tools while being very much involved, then ignoring the requests of others to stop, is deserving of a conduct RfC. This is what I would like to comment on, not the article. Rockpocket21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
All I can say is I asked for advice before doing the article RfC and nobody told me I shouldn't until after I had done it. If there needs to be an RfC for R. fiend then there needs to be one for Domer48 as well. I was hoping we could discuss the issues without fingering one editor, but if one editor is to be commented on the other one has to be too. The goings-on there (and elsewhere, per Padraig) are ridiculous, and need to be dealt with. Scolaire (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
My greatest concern here is regarding the repeated misuse of admin tools on multiple articles. Unfortunately, I was asleep while the other RfC got going (I did tell you guys what was going to happen!). Domer, bad an' all as he can be, is not an admin. By all means, do file an RfC on Domer - I'll probably weigh in on that one myself - but my primary concern here is about an admin abusing his position and misusing the tools - Alison❤23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I for one wasn't online when you ask for advice and only became aware after the RfC was posted, or I would have advised you to hold off on it. But no harm done both can run together.---Padraig (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Done - RfC is now complete - I just need to add the dispute resolution stage. Can someone check things over here and add accordingly? The dispute resolution stuff is covered, but just not in that section. Diffs need to be copied from the section above it. Once that is done, I can put it live. Comments? - Alison❤01:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Go raibh maith agat Alison. I think I have this account almost as long as my Irish one - I just don't use it very often - updating interwiki links here is about all the editing I do on en. See you over on ga. Beir bua, Nmacu (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you do a check user on these two please? i still have suspicions that they are the same person, looking at recent contributions does nothing to convince me otherwise.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have asked a check user privately if its possible to set TU's mind at ease regarding this, let's take a step back and work towards getting the article right. It's quite possible that EVERYONE is edit warring, and therefore everyone is right about that particular "accusation" (and wrong at the same time, by edit warring themselves). Lets de-escalate things, k? (man, de-escalate.. I've devolved into Corp-Speak!) SirFozzie (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence - thanks for that heads-up. Shibumi2 has now been unblocked per email correspondence with myself. Thanks again - Alison❤20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Allison, is it true that comments from other users should not be said on the Request's page like here? I had moved comments to the talk page but BlessSins has put them back. --Matt57(talk•contribs)21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's best that these comments be moved to the talk page before things get out of hand. The main page is for the request only and for listing request-related information. Debate can happen on the talk page, by all means because if that happens on the main page, things will rapidly get overcrowded and will make the checkuser's job rather more difficult. I've reverted and asked them to be moved to the talk page - Alison❤21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison, on the Easter Rising article, there were two occasions were the page was protected, and on both occasions the page block was breached. The first occasion was here, protected by Luna, the protection was then breached here, with this comment on the talk page. Having pointed that they were told not to edit the page I got this response. There was a storm of protest on the talk page, if you notice there were two changes made. There was no agreement at all on the first of them, and it materially changed the whole context of the statement. This is outlined here and here in a rather long thread. The thing is, they knew what they were doing. They knew there was no agreement, and made me out to be a liar. I explained this and Fozzie checked it out, and agreed I was right. So while Jj137 page protected the article again the somewhat trivial edits take on a whole new aspect? So you have two breaches of page protection, despite the problems created. I just seems on the RfC, that the two have become mixed up? Thanks again, and I left a post here for you as well. --Domer48 (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok - Domer, can you add this verbatim to the talk page of the RfC. I think the others need to see this too, but it's a bit late to add to the main body as people have already endorsed what they see and it would be unfair to retro-edit it. This certainly clarifies the whole Easter Rising thing that was going on. As for the comment on Sarah's talk page; well ... I'm only sorry I didn't get to this sooner, but I was snowed under with CheckUser cases and didn't give it the attention it deserved. That was my mistake and it only prolonged your frustration. When I started looking into this in detail yesterday, I was shocked by what I found. You were right all along and I need to apologize for not dealing with it sooner - Alison❤10:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison, I have now added a statement to the talk page of the RfC. It explains why I did not want the RfC to happen in this way. A very one-sided picture has been painted and the potential consequences of that are not good. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to know that after a user is confirmed by a checkuser for vandalisms at Wiki, will he be banned automatically or i have to bring this into the notice of Administrators?Sarmad (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Question
Hi, Alison, I come here to ask you about your comment on my report. I'm not an English native speaker, so I don't get what you said "Deferred to - another checkuser due to nature of IPs and ranges ". Does mean you decline to examine the case whether the suspected users are using several account or not? Or do you want other sysop to take over the case instead? I think the suspected editor has been a long time wikipedian as switching from account to account to prevent himself from establishing his bad reputation. I know there are many stale account but weirdly, even though NekoNekoTeacher and ShinjukuXYZ turns out socks, their account and ip address are not banned. Therefore, I think mentioning the two account is helpful for clerks to compare KorenaShoriSenyou with them. I look forward getting your answer soon. Thanks. -Appletrees (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Appletrees. I think it's a perfectly valid case and I took a look around at the active accounts. However, due to the nature of certain things (I cannot say due to privacy), I feel I'm not experienced enough to handle the case and have referred it to a more experienced CheckUser to return a result - Alison❤13:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. I get now what "CheckUser" means (a clerk in charge of checking ip address, am i right?) And do you think I have to add more evidences for backup? I just reported in part because my report is very long compared to other short report due to the long history of the user(s)' disruptions. -Appletrees (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct :) Checkusers are just editors who have access to private data on the nature of edits and editors. They are trusted by the Wikimedia Foundation with handling private information; accounts, IP addresses, user agents, etc. Re. the evidence, I think there's more than enough there myself, but it will be up to the next CheckUser to determine if it's enough for them. If not, they may ask for more. See how it goes ... you've already put a lot of work into this! - Alison❤13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
IP anon
Hi Alison, you might want to check out this IP anon]. I have just left a welcome message on their talk page with a little advice. The two IP's would appear to be the same editor, as they responded to comments on the alternative account. I have cautioned them about the 3rr, but I'm not sure weather to post it on both accounts. It could get out of hand as they seem to be experianced enough on wiki? --Domer48 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ray andrew left a comment for you there a couple days ago you may not have been aware. I wondered how to have your determination of "Likely" reviewed, as it seems to makes editors on these related articles comfortable in personally attacking me as being a sock puppet. Proctor spock (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
RFC/U ---------> ArbCom (?)
I've added a note to clarify myself also. I, obviously rather this didn't go to AC, but if it is necessary, and at this point it seems like it, I am prepared to become involved in the Arbitration Committee case. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I want to give the guy every last chance, though, and this thing seems to be just "progressing" from talkpage → ANI → RfC without any resolution in sight. Furthermore, it looks like the community largely agrees and I was also surprised to see one bureaucrat weigh in with serious concerns, too - Alison❤02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that WJB had chimed in as well. The people who have commented on this, specifically this section show that something needs to happen here, and it shouldn't just be shrugged off. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison, please consider reopening the ANI section, I was still commenting. And yes, the section was quite I'll-go-tell-mommy, but it prevented me from blocking DHM immediately, which would cause a lot more trouble. The dispute was utterly childish, but I wonder what would you do in my place. Thanks. Best regards, Húsönd02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Where do I go if there are stale protection requests and there's this user using dynamic IPs or open proxies removing tags? Thanks. —BoL05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
*snerks* well, Hack, since your ISP has turned into a ISD (Internet Service Denier), Ali just figured she had to pick up the slack for you. *Grins, Ducks, RUN!* SirFozzie (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hackney®, you troublemaker™!! I have patent pending on that, I'll have you know. I'll see you in court, I will!! - Alison❤20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (uh oh. Foz will now block me for WP:NLT :) )
Speaking of seeing me in court, I thought "that certain day" (to coin a phrase) was approaching yesterday when a rather imposing gentlemen in dark clothing insistently rang my intercom buzzer for about 20 minutes yesterday morning. But after he went away I saw he'd left a card in my letterbox saying he was there from the landlord for a property inspection, and not a bailiff after all :( One Night In Hackney30309:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oversight question
Hey Alison, I've got a weird question that is mostly curiosity. Does "oversight edits" temporarily remove something from watchlists? Like as a "technical glitch"? I've noticed a "strange phenomenon" before where a page that I'm watching will have something that gets oversighted and its the entire page listing disappears from my watchlist. This happened just a few moments ago on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keilana page where an anon list her old user name. I was going to do a regular revert and when my browser refreshed, both the page and the talk page was gone from my watchlist. When I looked at the article history, I saw that the edit must have been oversighted. Again, just a curiosity question so I know that I'm not going crazy in my old age. :p AgneCheese/Wine18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't oversight: an admin deleted the page, removed the edit, and restored the page without the troublesome edits. I then repeated this process to remove some more bad edits. I don't know about oversight, but I know that a deletion followed by a restoration removes the page from the watchlist until another edit is made. I hope that helps. Acalamari18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
←Acalamari to the rescue again :) Yes, some people call it "admin oversight" and just involves deleting an entire article and then restoring every edit, less the ones you want to hide - Alison❤20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Great! I see this as being a good thing, given how petty this all is. They've also burned through a few open proxies, too - Alison❤04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
protesting a block...
how does one fight being blocked? i followed the problem with the paris hilton page and saw how an editor had a blocked a lot of people for being puppets. fine. whatever you guys do there is your business. but then i saw this person flag 2 articles for deletion because he did not like where they came from. wiki guidelines state that such a tag can be removed if someone objects to it for any reason. under a now-blocked username "SufferTheFools" i objected to them. the actor is notable and funny. the video is popular and hilarious. within a few minutes, i was myself blocked as being a puppet. how can disagreeing with someone and following wiki set guidelines make someone a puppet? the only claim that could possibly be made is that my account was new and those were the only 2 edits made. well, duh. he just got a slew of people blocked... and then he got me blocked before i could make any other contribution to wiki of any sort. i had to make an end run just to be able to get on and send you a message. i don't think these actions are right. i don't think personal feelings should interfer with what is right. if the article is to be deleted in 5 days, how can a newcomer come on and make a correction? if making any correction to this editors edits causes a person to be blocked, why would anyone long-timer come forward to fix anything under scritiny? you set the blocks, so you make the call. read the articles... and do not consider who put them up. read the articles. if they are suitable for wiki, please tell this editor to use a cooler head and not use interest in the video as cause to block any newcomer trying to save it. and yes... i know that my own name will be up for blocks within a few minutes... and for the same reason. and king made edits to lots of places on wiki. why single out only the video and one of its actors? SufferTheFools as Everydayanothersin email:esotericvisions@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayanothersin (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, you've yet to understand that it's not okay to keep creating accounts again and again to get around a block. I checked and you're one and the same person as all the other accounts blocked, as well as the three more I blocked just now. You can come on and make corrections, etc, as a newbie but if you break the rules and get blocked, you don't get to just press the big reset button, create a string of new accounts all at once (as you just did), and start up all over again - Alison❤04:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This user registered two new socks today to revert edits to articles they had started at Paris in Jail: The Music Video and Michael Q. Schmidt (actor). As they wrote directly above, this user has said they will continue to register new accounts to circumvent this block and so an IP block should be instituted to prevent more abuse from sockpuppet accounts. Thank you for all your help in this matter, I really appreciate it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I blocked another half-dozen accounts and hardblocked some IP addresses. That might help ... - Alison❤04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not, as that just shuts out others. He's largely hardblocked now, so we'll see how things go. If it persists, protect time - Alison❤04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Your work
Hey Al, thanks again for your swift response in dealing with sockpuppets.[7] You've probably got a million barnstars for this already, so I'll just say that I respect all the work you do here. It looks pretty demanding to deal with such things constantly. So yeah, keep it up! Spellcast (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually, it's not over yet. I did some more checking and there are hundreds of accounts over there, all on the same narrow range and all the one guy. I think I'm going to extend the rangeblock to a few months, with ACB. I'll put them into the checkuser report, so you can see they're all the same, so you can tag them or whatever - Alison❤19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
*hug*
Hi Alison! Thanks for your many greetings and everything else! I hope your holidays were great. Two things: when you can, would you mind removing the move protection from my talk page so that I can archive it? I also sent you some mail. I hope you're doing well. Love, Kyoko02:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I made a mistake. My talk page isn't very large yet, so no need to archive. Would you mind reprotecting it? Thanks, and sorry for the mix-up. --Kyoko03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Foz (and Viridae :) ). Adding myself as an involved party. I'll have a statement later today just as soon as my brain kicks in - Alison❤23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey you / out there in the cold / getting lonely, getting old / can you feel me? * Pink Floyd - Hey You. Sorry, I had to. This thread title made me sing it. ViridaeTalk21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rambling! I'm just catching up here (still ill here and the moxifloxacin has totally knocked me sideways) - I've sent a reply and also fixed the privacy issue for that editor. Should be okay, I hope :) Thanks again, sir! - Alison❤19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW - is your name from the Lemon Jelly song? I'm a big fan)
// F9T has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks, Kyoko. I owe you about a dozen emails. Still sick today and on antibiotics but came into work anyway. Hey, Foz - I hope that's vegetarian chicken :) - Alison❤22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please look into the actions of Blotto adrift. He keeps changing the Trenton Ontario page to reflect his own edits. He has edited this page more than 7 times in one day. Now the page has been locked with his incorrect edits showing. Please ask Blotto adrift to understand that this is not the purpose of wikipedia and please correct the page. Thank you
Also, it appears that Blotto adrift has several user names and one of them is an admin. How this happened should be looked into. He is abusing wikipedia. For example, Gogo Dodo, Snowfire51, Malcolmxl5 MastCell et al appear to be the same person. Blotto adrift has seriously damaged this sites reputation. Please correct the pages that have his edits and take action against him.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.25.208 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
a hug for Alison
Hello, Alison/Archive 18! You have been given this message in recognition of all you have done for Wikipedia, and also just for being you. Wikipedia's greatest strength is its contributors, and you are a valued and important part of that. I hope that this message has brightened your day, and that it encourages you to spread the WikiLove. Thanks again for your contributions, and have a good day!
Hi Alison, I decided to leave one of these on your page too, because I don't want you to feel left out. Antibiotics??? Whatever you have, I hope you get well soon! *hug* Kyoko20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Group Hug! One of two things will happen.. either we'll all feel better, or Alison's bug and my bug will get together and voila, the Black Plague will be reborn! I put odds.. eh.. about 50/50. I'm willing to go for it! (TGIF!) SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the unblock request on this page. Since this seemed to be a single ip blocked rather than a range, I thought I should defer to you for advice. Is this collateral or expected? Please advise what we should do next. SpartazHumbug!20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Somehow both times I've tried to use that page I've messed it up somehow. I put in a request for PONDHEEPANKAR vs. Nadarsagham today but it doesn't appear on the page. Maybe since Pondheepankar is a confirmed puppetmaster it got screwed by the page names or something? Can you check it out and let me know what you think? Avruchtalk22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
User:MichaelQSchmidt recently registered and has made nearly identical edits to the same pages as L.L.King. A search of DNS entries reveals that Michael Schmidt owns www.cinemapress.biz, which matches the username that was blocked as a puppet of L.L.King, who claims (Leon L. King) to be the head writer for Cinema Press. I left this in a message on Schmidt's talk page, which has subsequently been deleted. It is very likely that L.L.King is Michael Schmidt (and per the usernames for User:MikeTheModel and User:ExtraordinaryActor) and he continues to use Wikipedia to promote himself and his work in various movies. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Having discovered a nest of sockpuppets and having had them successfully blocked with your help mean he must run back here to you when he feels he is loosing his fight to further destroy Wiki and promote his opinion as fact?
Last August, and being ignorant of Wiki guidelines, I put an article about myself on Wiki. Naturally it was quickly removed. My ignorance taught me to simply turn such matters over to those who job it is to do promotions and publicity. It has developed that my subordinants had a number of accounts to deal with edits and additions and image uploads. Best evidence indicates that these acounts made no votes nor destroyed anyone's work.
An incident took place in December where user Cumulus Clouds decided without consensus to censor certain informations in the article on Paris Hilton. He tagged a constructed set of relevent, related, and mutually supportive facts "trivia". He then removed most of these facts, again without waiting for consensus, and deconstructed the section.... turning it into the list of trivia he at first claimed. Unfortunately, these accounts attempted to undo theCumulus Clouds damage when they should have simply let the issue die and hope that someone might have decided to put Cumulus Clouds in check. Well... no one did stop him. His actions got worse. Their defense of Wiki actually became more active. And Cumulus Clouds's proffering ill-thought opinion as fact became more extreme.
At this point, when Cumulus Clouds could only have thought these actions represented a consensus against his actions, he ignored that supposed consensus and became even more antagonistic. Later research has shown that he does indeed have a rather acrimonious history on Wiki and has been able to undo nearly every correction to his own poor works. He bacame inflamatory and accusatory. And convinced you as a checkuser to determin the IP addresses of the consensus to determine if it were the same. Yoy then rightly had the users blocked. Fine.
Already feeling empowered by earlier successes in bullying other minor editors, and now acting positively sanctimonious, he then took further actions, and again without consensus. He went over the contributions made by these now blocked accounts and made haphazard choices on what to remove or what to leave... based totally upon his opinion' of what was notable or not, and with no regard to the reletive merit or worth of the contributions. He went to images these persons had uploaded, and tagged each for deletion. His reasons were in the vein of "uploaded by someone later found to be a sockpuppet", "probably without permission...", or "I suspect..." or "they likely do not have permission.." or "I feel....", or even a blatant "uploaded use is a copyright violation"... but he did not check nor verify any of these facts before making his claims... nor even grant that if they were all sockpuppets of mine (rathet than an overzealous subordinants) then they would certainly have had permisions to use my images. He says ONLY what he feels supports his narrow POV. And with others now afraid to challenge his actions (the few other editors who suggested he move with greater caution, the "consensus" Wiki is so proud of, were immediately rebuked) he went through these contributions as if with a machete.
Now I will grant that my knowledge of Wiki protocols is not very sure... but is there some specific section that states that images uploaded by accounts later found guilty of sockpuppery should be sumarily removed without thought or consideration to whether or not they contribute? Is there a guideline that encourages an editor to make repeated and blatantly false claims after he locks out any who might have shown him to be in error? Does Wiki support their own creation of Wiki bullies?
I learned of the actions of my subordinants and came online to study what had happened and why. I also discovered his picking and choosing among the contributions of the puppets, to remove only that which offended him. I wrote tell him that I agree that the article about me should be removed from Wiki... because of how easily my subordinants were able to make changes, and because of how easily he was able to make his opinions become fact.
To step back a few days in these events... by way of example...
The "sockpuppet" group had put an article about me on Wiki, as well as one for an associate, actor James Evans, and they had been creating articles about projects we had been in and had been improving aricles about others with whom I had worked. After his "victory" over the "sockpuppets", Cumulus Clouds tagged lagged the article about me as being "non-notable". Then removed cogent informations that might have proved to other Wiki users that I might actually be noteworthy enough to remain, thus leaving an empty article that was not worth verifying. This is the same tactic he used in the Parid Hilton article when he first tagged a well constructed set of relevent, related, and mutually supportive facts as "trivia", removed the parts of the section that made it cohesive, and turned it into the "trivia" he first called it. This fellow creates his own reality. Interestingly enough, the article created by these "puppets" about actor James Evans had much less information and fewer links and references... yet Cumulus Clouds chose to leave it. This would seem to be a strong indicator of a vendetta against me personally... and that seems to be completely against Wiki protocols.
Wiki is allowing this individual to run amuck. The "checks and balances" Wiki claims to have in place have not stopped him. I granted in a lengthy response that wrong as the puppet group was to break Wiki rules, he was much worse when he continued promoting personal opinion as fact under the guise of authority. And that yes, I now wished the article about me to be removed because his very actions underscored the deepest flaw of the Wiki system... that fact matters far less than opinion.
The puppet group bent Wiki guidelines, and that is unfortunate... but they never put anything on Wiki that was not 100% verifiable and true. Cumulus Clouds continues to spout opinion within Wiki guidelines, using opinion as fact, and acting without consensus... and THAT is even more unfortunate. He is the problem with the entire Wiki system.
But here is the reason I am writing. This Wiki user... this Wiki expert.... this person allowed to run ammuck with no regard to others... this anonymous Cumulus Clouds, has now made it possible... even encouraged others, to find my home and family and perhaps do damage to me and mine. Oh yes... withing the guidelines of Wiki, he began with a disclaimer that anyone following his instructions could find out these informations... but he put on a direct link to my name, home address, and telephone number. For all intents and purposes, he put up a big glaring sign that says "LOOK HERE". It was not neccessary.. He had won his battle. He was getting his way. No one was stopping him. But the fact that he was able to do all that he has done... that the total inaction of Wiki administrators to caution him, was accepted by him as consensus, and he went one step too far.
You need to visit "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt " and see what he wrote. As part of his vendetta, he wrote "This information is freely available in the Whois directories maintained by NetSol and other major domain name services. Here is the DNS entry...". While the information IS there, and individuals with the knowledge could find it, isn't his placing the link that leads directly to me and my family and then encouraging others to use it yet another abuse of his power and position? Do you not have some "rule" or "guideline" that discourages such rash actions? That he is actually inviting individuals who might not otherwise have known how, or even cared, to now have access to my home and my family is scandalous at best and criminal at worse.
I would ask that that specific link to my personal information, and any archives that include that link, or instruction on how to reach that link, be removed immediately. Certainly it is public information, but in the context used by Cumulus Clouds it is akin to posting instructions on how to make a bomb with kitchen chemicals. Sure the chemicals exist... and one can put them together in a certain order to create an explosive device... but does that make it right to share that information with the world??? It would be very unfortunate if the actions by user Cumulus Clouds, working within Wiki under the color of Wiki authority and using Wiki as the means, might result in the perpretration of any crime against myself or my family. He stepped waaaaaay out of bounds and he is using Wiki to do it.
One last point... the puppet group was wrong, but they did not break any rule of law... only rule of Wiki and they paid for their actions. Cumulus Clouds is using Wiki in abusive ways that could result in direct harm to individuals or property... and THAT is illegal.
And now he is here... whining back to the individual he feels is his biggest supporter and who seems to give affirmation to his abuses, calling me a sockpuppet of myself? Saying that someone working for me is me... or that I am he? Saying that my "edits" are the same as Leon King? Logic and truth is the same everywhere except on Wiki... and his own actions have decreed that the only pages I make comment of his abuse of Wiki are those same pages and same action of the sockpuppets. I will make no edits to Wiki. I only ask that this person not be allowed to continue in a vendetta against me... that he not be allowed to put up a flag pointing out where my family lives. Any wonder I agree my article should be removed? TELL HIM I AGREE. And tell him to grow up. And no.. he has not written me to verify or confirm anything... he keeps making invalid claims and assertions. It just amazes me that now, in asserting that I am someone else or vice-versus that he wishes to have you shut me up as well... one person to whom he might have asked for verifications in the first place???
How do you think I should respond to the inquiries I have had from popular media about Wiki due entirely to his actions?
It was never my intention to use the information in your DNS entry for malice. When I posted it on your talk page I censored everything in that entry except your name (which you have provided in the usernames to two accounts so far) and the name of the website (which again was provided as the username to one of your blocked accounts). I only provided a link to verify that what I was saying was true. Again, this information is freely available to anyone and you are able to contact your domain registrar and have it changed at any time. I seriously doubt that anybody has used this information to do any injury to you and it looks like yet another attempt to retaliate against me for the blocks of your account.
That your writing style, your references and your demeanor are all exactly identical to the blocked account does not seem to matter to you and you apparently believe that nobody will recognize the similarities. It is clear that you were using that account to promote yourself and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, I have moved to have all promotional material removed. You have continuously tried to manipulate and mislead other users with the use of socks and lengthy essays about my abuse of Wikipedia and this has been damaging to your credibility and cast long doubts on your representation of your ownership over images and the validity of the writing in your articles. I will leave it open to administrator discretion, but in the meantime I would ask that you please refrain from canvassing for support against me or leaving any uncivil remarks about me anywhere on this project. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely obvious that someone with your expert computer skills and knowledge of Wiki did indeed post links to my personal information with total malice, and examples of your malicious acts exist all over Wiki... put there by youself long before anything about me or my life was ever uploaded. Malice is your style and your tool and your catchphrase. Malice seems to be all you know. You spread acrimony everywhere you go and leave it in everything you touch. Malice is your middle name. DO NOT EVEN BEGIN TO PRETEND THAT IT IS NOT.
I , Michael Q. Schmidt, am NOT a Wiki editor. I am not a sockpuppet. I am not Leon King. I am not going to be cutting and chopping peoples works up like confetti. That you might convince some administrator to block me for my being angry at your attack on my life and family is a sad comentary on how bad things here have really become. You can IN NO WAY defend the malicious act of pointing a finger at my front door. You had aleady won your battle to remove everything written about or uploaded about me. DOING WHAT YOU DID WAS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. IT WAS A MALICIOUS ACT BOARDING ON BEING CRIMINAL.
I ask here and now that you cease any and all personal attacks upon me, my life, my work, and my family. LEAVE ME ALONE. That educated persons might speak and act with logic and civility is no proof of any conspiracy toward you... and your childish reactions speak of a certain paranoia on you part. You continue to abuse Wiki policies and guidelines in every manner possible in order to bully editors ALL over Wiki. Anyone who follows your muddy footprints over the last 2 years can find the evidences all over Wiki of your continued and repeated pattern of bad faith. I am not the first person you have attacked. I feel certain that I will not be the last. You are out of control and a detriment to everything Wiki was meant to be. You wish to remove promtional materials? Clean your own house before complaining of someone else's dust. You have won. Let it alone. Leave ME alone. Leave my family alone. YOU HAVE WON. GO THE HELL AWAY!!! Stop using the tools WIki created as a means to destroy other's contributions... AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING EVER WRITTEN AT ANY TIME ABOUT ME. THAT ISSUE IS DEAD. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME... IT IS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR TOTAL LACK OF MATURITY AND YOUR COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WIKI IS. LEAVE ME ALONE. Gee... now I'm not only non-notable... I'm pissed. I'll write it just one more time... LEAVE ME ALONE. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you conducted the RFCU. However I am not sure what I have to do next, should user who listed the case (in this case me) create a specific category for socks and information template for established sockpuppetary? Or, this job should be carried out by admin? And one more, may those socks continue to edit articles or those accounts will be locked, I asking this because editor in question, as result show, created additional account user:M.k.s.v. I would be very grateful if you could clarify those issues, thanks M.K. (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in this case. R. fiend, the subject of the above-linked case, has indicated that he will resign as an administrator, thereby resolving the main issue raised by this case, if the case will then be closed. Accordingly, this case is suspended for a period of 72 hours from the adoption of this motion. If R. fiend is voluntarily desysopped during that period, this case will be automatically closed without need for a further motion or proceedings and with a pre-worded determination, viewable here in italics.
If R. fiend does not resign his adminship within 72 hours after this motion is adopted, the case will resume and this motion will have no further effect. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Waterboarding RFAR, related to your CU work
I'm sure you're probably quite as sick of the topic as I am myself, since we both found this article that day. You probably noticed it's gone to RFAR, and there are relevant bits here and here you may be interested in, if you wanted to weigh in as an expert on the RFAR. If you don't, I'll quite understand. I can't wait for it to end so I take the article off my watchlist. Lawrence Cohen23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your insights and courtesy. Your professional demeanor has done much to molify. I did not mean to burden your talk page with so nuch, but I am new here and thought I had to respond at those places where I felt I was being attacked. I ask that you visit my talk page and make comment or invite me back here to do so. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will. Can you send me a quick email here? I'll process this, but let's keep the results off-wiki for reasons of editor privacy. Per policy, I will not be able to reveal any IP or personal information whatsoever as there's no justification for it - Alison❤05:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, we can do this by email or I'm on IRC now - which works better for you? I don't need the IP data, just an opinion on the degree of connection. WjBscribe05:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback request
Hi Alison, thanks for granting me access to the rollback tool. :) It's going to save me heaps of time. Thanks again, Somno (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems he is ignoring your warning can we nip this on the bud, he has already been on probation for this same issue, he will only restart edit wars on all these articles again.--Padraig (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your RFCU results. I think that you have outed a user "fufu something" and have damaged Wikipedia. It is noted that the main user is a productive user. The user will stop being productive and may even leave WP. The person's edit history seems to be that of a hard worker who is bringing two articles to featured article status. If they leave, your lack of tact would have harmed Wikipedia. I would have blocked the SPA's and asked the user to e-mail me for a chat. If you ever need someone to discuss matters with socks, let me know. I am willing to do this sort of work. I am an admin. Archtransit (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your offer, but the problem is largely that checkuser data is private and there are certain things I cannot share here. Regarding tact, I held back on one sock account for that very reason. Unfortunately, the user in question was using multiple accounts abusively and in a way, attempting to avoid scrutiny of their main account which, as you point out, is largely clean. Largely for that very reason, mind. Had they brought their activities under their main account (stuff like outting the previous identity of User:Keilana, etc), it would not look so clean, hence the whole good hand/bad hand thing. Either way, I appreciate your offer and understand that you mean well by it but note that the behaviour above (blocking SPAs and the quiet-chat-over-tea) also happens on a regular basis. Just that you don't get to hear about it, for obvious reasons - Alison❤17:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant to building an encyclopedia? Since we're on the subject of non-sequiturs, can you explain why you're doing your utmost right now to cause trouble for me (and failing)? Last week, it was my "jumping the queue", on RfAr which you brought to WP:ANI. Before that it was the interfering with parole enforcement, which ended up being endorsed by ArbCom. Before that, it was the parole itself. It's not like I've ever blocked you, so what gives? Why you singling out me for this treatment, hm? - Alison❤20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Is this relevant to building an encyclopedia? Since we're on the subject of non-sequiturs, can you explain why you're doing your utmost right now to cause trouble for me (and failing)? Last week, it was my "jumping the queue", on RfAr which you brought to WP:ANI. Before that it was the interfering with parole enforcement, which ended up being endorsed by ArbCom. Before that, it was the parole itself. It's not like I've ever blocked you, so what gives? Why you singling out me for this treatment, hm?" - I count four questions right there. Take your pick - Alison❤20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course I can, even though I don't edit Troubles articles myself as a rule. In the meantime, do have a go at the other questions. I'm curious! - Alison❤20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
can you explain why you're doing your utmost right now to cause trouble for me?
It looks kinda weird in his sig, but the little red heart is cute :) I've gone over there and closed some tags for Aatomic1, but I don't want to mess too much with his text lest I be reported for vandalism or something - Alison❤20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dunc. Two edits this month, two warnings today. If they persist, can you post a message to WP:AIV and an admin will check and block accordingly. Right now, they've stopped so everything is okay - Alison❤20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I posted something new in the discussion section of the rhinoplasty under "non surgical nose job" when you get a chance could u have a look at it and give me your thoughts. thanks so much. happy new year. --72.211.194.188 (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I do that thing with the special effects in my user name? I know it's abit of a silly question, but please answer!! thanks, Akira-otomo (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Because R. fiend (talk·contribs), the subject of this case, has resigned his adminship, this case is closed. If R. fiend wishes to seek administrator status again in the future, he may do so only through a new request for adminship. The Arbitration Committee finds that R. fiend's unexplained block of Ed Poor on October 1, 2007 was unjustified. An arbitrator will make an appropriate notation in Ed Poor's block log reflecting this determination.
Hello. Recently you dealt with a checkuser case which involved JazzlineB. I just wondered that after the conversation you had with him, the situation had changed in any way? This was a person I was informally mentoring, who was always curious and pleasant to interact with. I'm a little upset that they turned out to be the same person who left such me unpleasant messages. Thanks. SeraphimWhipp02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
As of now, I've not received any email whatsoever. There's a possibility of unblocking based on circumstances, but I need clarification from them first. I strongly suspect there's more to the case. We'll have to see ... BTW - they may not have been the unpleasant message person - Alison❤02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahh...I hope that's how it turns out...I always thought they were a good addition to the project... Thanks for your help :). SeraphimWhipp02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant message.
But you broke my mobile phone. Well, your talk page did.... well, it didn't really break it but I just realized I need a new phone. Really, a three year old phone just doesn't hack today's Internet. Had to resort to my phone as I was temporarily without Internet - and I checked a few pages around these parts. Yours was the first to give me an insufficient memory message. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you traumatized it and made it feel inadequate. :O) Actually, I did find out one thing about it, although it is still going for recycling soon. But it does render Unicode Sanskrit, which is .....ummmm..... great to know. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree there was nothing of consequence there. However, the other stuff; using the anonymity of a sock-puppet account to "out" the previous identity of an RfA affirm candidate was particularly nasty and the irony of socking to achieve that was not lost on me. That was cowardly :( - Alison❤07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep! I'm outta here in about 20 mins, though. Use my Mac one :) - Alison❤20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC) (ps: I knew about this - will upload pics to Commons tonight :) )
Confirmed - Blocked a bunch of them, including his IP addresses which started up after my 1-month prot expired from early December. Added three months this time :) - Alison❤08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Acutally i wasnt talking about ur user page I did not meran to vandalise that. I vandalised another page by adding a funny bit in it that was easy to delete just for some freinds amusment. (I blame peer presure). But trsut me thats the last of it out of my system. I was tired of my pure humour being replaced with fart jokes on uncyclopedia lol but i think i can go back there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RabisaE (talk • contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, RabisaE. I'd be totally disappointed if you were to get indef'd again after all this time - and yeah, I saw your edits afterwards. Well done! :) If you need any help or anything, just give me a shout - Alison❤17:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
'sokay :) I just hope that lessons have been learnt here. It's not that I was mad at you, it's that you treated others dreadfully. All in the past now, so onwards we go. We're sure to meet again (under better circumstances) as part of our jobs here. Best wishes - Alison❤17:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Ed O'Loughlin case
Yet another new user showed up and made an AFD comment on this issue as his very first edit: see [9]. If there's not sockpuppetry, then there must be meatpuppetry, posting in an external forum, or some other form of canvassing going on. Can you tell me if all the edits are at least in the same geographic region? I can't see a situation where unrelated good-faith users would all show up and happen to comment on exactly the same deletion discussion. *** Crotalus ***05:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison, can you change a checkuser block for me?? The original checkuser, Jpgordon(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) says it's OK to unblock the IP, and that he won't hesitate to reblock if the IP continues, but what I want doing is a range block.
... which is a lot narrower than /16. I've no idea as to the history of the IP address nor of the original block reasons so I'm much rather you checked in with Jpgordon about this one, sorry - Alison❤19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Birmingham Pub Bombings
I see where you declined the unprotect request, I was curious about this the recent comment from Aatomic1 (re. BHG) has a certain merit yet is being dismissed. what is this about.--Padraig (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This comment here. While Aatomic1 has a reputation, IMO, for making a nuisance of himself and edit-warring, dismissing the comment above as "trolling" (as ONiH did) isn't right either - Alison❤19:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
BHG gives her own personal opinion which she is entitled to hold, but I fail to see what that has to do with the issue of adding lists of the dead to articles, I have asked Aatomic numerous times what encyclopedic value they add to an article that just saying x people died doesen't, I mean the list is meaningless to anyone and unless you knew some of victims dosen't add any thing of value.--Padraig (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Alison
Thank you so much, my dear, for your thoughts, and your warm words while I was out, and your friendship. I missed you all very much, and I am happy to be back, even if at a reduced capacity for a while. I'm still quite tired, but seeing your notes and messages made my day bright. Thank you so much, I'm very lucky to have you as a friend. Ariel♥Gold19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It's just so nice to have you back on here :) We were all so worried about you and things were awfully quiet on IRC without you. Rest up and get well soon - your being back makes my day here :) {{hugs}} - Alison❤00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
How long do I need to wait?
Hello, Alison. I come here with anxiety for delay of my report. I feel completely ignored because I haven't gotten your answer yet and the report is still hanging there for over 10 days. I know the checkuser procedure is all maintained by voluntary editors with high credibility. However, after you deferred it to other checkusers, none seems to care about it at all without any reason. During the period, I made another small file related to the case which proved just partial. Unless the case doesn't go through, I feel like I need to file several other reports on the very recent activities of suspected users (including possible 3RR violation with sock ip). My plead is not upon your shoulder, but don't know where to say this thing, perhaps ANI? --Appletrees (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. As I said before, I've deferred it to another checkuser due to the nature of the check. There's not much either of us can do but wait until another checkuser picks it up. What I can do is post a request to the private checkuser mailing list as a reminder, and someone should pick it up from there. I'd really rather not handle it myself - Alison❤00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer although that is not what I need to hear. sigh.. I think I have to file another report about the disruptive editor's recent (suspicious) editings. --Appletrees (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well no, actually. I know exactly who you are and how many accounts you have created to get around the Green Kirby indefblock. Please stop doing that - Alison❤00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
New account
Hi alison, is it alright if you could erase my Yun-Yuuzhan userpage and subpages i can no-longer access the account for some reason even the e-mail address which i had placed on the account has gone under lockdown permanently because of someone trying to access it. Dust Rider (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
While I'm pretty certain you are both the same account, I'd like to leave it a few days just to verify. After that, I can erase the pages. Thanks - Alison❤23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison i've managed to regain my e-mail account, i'll log onto my Yun-Yuuzhan account once i e-mail a new password to verify, i do apologies for having this trouble, i apparently had some type of virus which wouldn't be removed i don't know how i got it might be from one of my game cd's this website including the other wiki sites are mainly the only websites which i prefer going on my pc should be fine since i've formated my entire hard-drive. →DustRider→10:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, I hope you're feeling better now! Unfortunately a lot of people are getting sick now. :( I hope you're no longer one of them! --Kyoko21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Awww. Thanks, Kyoko. Y'know, I'm a lot better now. Seems I had a fairly serious systemic infection of some sort. I'm just finishing the anti-b's today :) It's lovely to see Ariel back and recovering, too ... - Alison❤23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, that sounds awful! I'm glad to see you're feeling better, Alison, and Ariel too! I'll send you an e-mail later with more. And uh, hi DarkFalls! --Kyoko03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, could you tell me what is the process involved in having the above named article changed to John O'Leary (Fenian). I wish to expand this article over the coming days, and O'Leary's notability is directly drawn from his involment with the Fenian's. Thanks --Domer48 (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Opinion
What is your opinion of The Ten O'Clock Show Ltd. I think it is fairly blatant advertising and if you look at the main editor's contributions, you will also see them linkspamming to their own site, four of which which I reverted today. I was going to tag it as advertising but thought a 2nd opinion would be useful. Maybe it should be put up for AfD. Reply here is fine. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a very obvious non-notable business, using WP as an advertising site. I see someone's PROD'd it now, and someone else endorsed it, so we'll see how it goes. I'm close to speedy-deleting it as WP:CSD#A7 - Alison❤18:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alsion, could this IP anon, be the same editor as this IP anon. If it is, I think they just wish to start trouble. Is is possible to have the Provisional Irish Republican Army semi protected, to stop IP's just to let things settle down? I have reported the IP for 3rr edit warring. Because I reverted them, I guess they trolled my edits and started here. Just my luck. Never rains when it pours. Thanks --Domer48 (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Ms Julie is .. unavailable .. this month, so Isaac and Gopher have stepped in to put this newsletter thing together. We may not be as funny as you're used to, but if you'd like a free drink, come see me at the bar. That might help. Maybe. And no, there aren't any flashing lights or fancy pictures this month - I'm still recovering from a whopping hangover. Julie's recovering too, but that's a story I'll let her tell.
Two New Featured Articles (and...)
Emma Goldman was promoted to Featured status on 2007December 27. If you don't know Ms. Goldman, she was a Lithuanian anarchist. Aren't many of those around, really, so having one of our very own is special. She'll be dancing the Cha-Cha on the Promenade deck later tonight.
Ann Bannon was promoted to Featured status on 2007December 3. Faithful readers may remember Moni moaning that we didn't mention this promotion in the last newsletter. Happy now?
The marathon efforts of Dev920 against her astonishing abilities of procrastination continued this month, and she managed to update the Portal's main articles. Whether she will finally beat her procrastination pixies in submission and update the biographies remains to be seen, but Jeffpw has leapt to the rescue and taken it upon himself to do all our lovely news. Friends, lend us your goodwill and your eyeballs, and mosey on over to see all Jeff's hard work.
Also, back in October 2007, Allstarecho and Benjiboi worked diligently on the "WP:LGBT Random Quote" and "WP:LGBT Random Picture" sections of the portal. They added many new quotes and pictures but, and yes here's the cat's meow friends... you can now use these on your own user pages! To add the "WP:LGBT Random Quote" to your own userpage, use: {{Portal:LGBT/Quotes}} And to add the "WP:LGBT Random Picture" to your own userpage, use: {{Portal:LGBT/Pics}} If you'd like to see it in action, check out Allstarecho's userpage for both in action and Benjiboi's talk page for the Quotes in action!
The long, slow race toward FP status continues...
Bisexual Awareness Month
Folks in Utah are celebrating Bisexual Awareness Month. For our own wikicelebration, Alison suggests we try to bring Bisexuality at least up to good article status. Working on the Utah article would be encouraged, but do it stealthily - they don't like us to be *too* open.
A cunning plan
In a move sure to bring her fame and fortune at last, Dev920 (talk·contribs) has proposed that an FA buddying system be set up, to help nudge frightened tikes who also happen to write killer ass articles over that initial first FAC hurdle. Anyone interested in shepherding duties, or anyone interested in being made to lie beside still waters (handcuffs are optional), do drop Dev an RSVP so she can start battering those darned pixies...
Zigzig20s has mentioned a desire to work on .. desire. Specifically literature by and about LGBT desire. To facilitate "LGBT Literature" taskforce, there will be shuffleboard and lesbian fiction on the foredeck later in the afternoon. Signup if you're interested.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Your Cruise Director know.
I like the way you started the Rudget thread, that shows class. You've always been polite, and classy. Keep it up.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For outstanding civility. Your actions reflect great credit on the yourself, the community, and the project.Mercuryat 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you started the Rudget thread, I thought that was nice. I wanted to give you a thumbs up, so I looked thru your last 1,000 or so contributions and saw many examples of politeness and civility. You show the example, so you deserve it! Regards, Mercuryat 20:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would really appreciate it if you could kindly give me some of your excellent advice. Strontium chloride has been on my watchlist since I first edited it on January 8th. The problem is that content added in this diff, has now been reverted four times in less than 24 hours by ScienceApologist(1)(2)(3)(4).
I think these reverts by ScienceApologist(SA) might be a violation WP:3RR, but I would like to hear the opinion of an uninvolved and experienced admin like you. Is it an actionable 3RR violation? If so, is it worth reporting it to the 3RR noticeboard? I see that SA has had multiple previous blocks following a 3RR, an arbcom case, and edit warring. I think edit wars are counter-productive, and I have attempted to engage the editor in dialog on Talk:Strontium chloride, but SA is insisting he is absolutely correct, and threatening to revert yet again. Is the article in need of a short period of full page protection to prevent further edit warring? If so, would you protect it?
Is SA being disruptive? Am I the one who is misinterpreting policies WP:PSTS, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and guidelines WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT? Could you share your thoughts?
I notice that Admin Tim Vickers is also concerned about the deletions by SA of mentions of homeopathic uses of substances [11] I too believe that it is possible and appropriate to mention in an article about strontium chloride, in a list of its uses, that one use is in homeopathy, and to do so without supporting or appearing to support homeopathy. Incidentally, I have never had any previous interactions on or off WP with either User:Travisthurston or User:ScienceApologist. I am considering other steps in WP:DR such as WP:3O and WP:RFM. Thanks for your time. - Neparis (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that I am delighted to know that you are planning to stay around on WP. It would have been a great loss to WP if you had been forced out by what you had to go through at User:Alison/Depression. I am very sorry you had the misfortune of meeting any editors prepared to behave in such a persistently nasty way. Best wishes, - Neparis (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Attention please
Alison, you have got to do something about this warring Admin - he is obviously angling for an excuse to block me. See latest edit:
* (cur) (last) 11:12, 20 January 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (40,766 bytes) (philip, PLEASE STOP edit warring) (undo)
* (cur) (last) 11:08, 20 January 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs) (39,194 bytes) (→List of known massacres - removed Fallujah for further discussion on the talk page.) (undo)
I am concerned that a substantial contributor to Wikipedia Review has access to my IP information. "Welcome Back" is apt, as I think it's transparent that I'm a returned user. While I believe I left a large enough gap between my old ID and this one, I question your motives for participation in that project, whilst the perfectly good wikback exists. Perhaps you could clarify - why do you contibute to Wikipedia Review in an ongoing capacity? Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to be engaged in a discussion regarding contributions to that site. If you were to explain why you made such contributions, perhaps I would look more fondly on them. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have fully reviewed Alison's contributions to that site, which I accessed through [12]. That link shows 59 posts. On Alison's user page [13] however, there are a total of 62 posts listed. One feature of Invision Power Board is that it keeps the post count identical regardless of where posts are located. The only thing I could figure about Alison's Level2 user access and discrepancy in post count is that she participates in an otherwise hidden forum available to selected individuals only. This is disconcerting. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Vecause in some cases, they do have good points, and good suggestions. Do I favor their outing behavior? No. In fact, Daniel Brandt's site lists my real name, hometown and date of birth. But let's put it this way. By sticking our finger in our ears and going "lalalalalalala I can't hear you" we lose any benefits that may come of what the folks there suggest, and we look quite frankly, like what they accuse us of doing. SirFozzie (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe I have done such. I am interested in which of their suggestions you have found improved via your participation in their discussions, as opposed to silently reading their site. Perhaps you can expound with examples. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, A) it's a good way to get alternate viewpoints, such as a review of an essay on Nationalism that I posted off my WP User Page, as well as getting ideas on how better to handle editwarring, as in the Troubles ArbCom and R. fiend cases. Numerous Wikipedia Admins, amongst them Virdae and Lar, amongst others post there, and contribute there. While there are a certain hard-core group that I actively disagree with (that you seem to associate myself and Ali with) , I don't think having admins going over there and contributing is really a bad thing, I think it allows us to debunk some of their wildest theories, and softens the attitudes vis a vis each other. SirFozzie (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This "substantial contributor" has a total of 62 postings there. Here is my account. It's got the same name as this one for transparency. You can evaluate every one of my postings here. Along with many admins, arbitrators, stewards and checkusers, I find it useful to dialog there and I am primarily there to discuss matters (blocks, etc) in which I am involved. Along with the other checkusers who regularly post there, I certainly have access to your IP information. However, per checkuser policy, I am forbidden from misusing checkuser to such an end. Please do feel free, though, to request I be audited by the Checkuser Ombudsman. I'm certainly amenable to that.
Regarding WikBack, I am also a participant (and indeed, I'm a trusted forum host there) and my ID is the same as here, for transparency. Note that the owner of WikBack also contributes to WR, largely for the same reasons as I do, I suspect. Rather than grouping and writing-off an entire group of editors, as some do, I prefer dialog. Being from a country which has been involved in war for so many decades, I saw that conflict only end when dialog began and people started viewing each other as fellow-humans and not monsters to be shunned. Regarding sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica, I'm referred to there as a "Bureaucratic Fuck" and "Everyone's favorite bisexual with mental problems." needless to say, I don't participate there. If you wish to nominate me for recall, I'll certainly honour that but would question whether my participation there warrants something like that. Guess it would be an interesting test case - Alison❤22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for those descriptions. I would like you to review this post. If you were able to retract it, would you? Why or why not? Also, could you please disclose all of the forums on Wikipedia Review that you have access to beyond the following: New Posts Forum information, General Discussion, Editors, Articles, Bureaucracy, News Worth Discussing, Wikipedia in the Media, Wikipedia in Blogland, The Lounge, and, to the extent you have access to any other forums, immediately (and before responding here) archive all of the content of said other forums and send them to the Arbitration Committee for review? Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC) (Struck by PouponOnToast (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC) )
You have to be joking. A) Would you please tell us any wikipedia lists that you belong to other then publically viewable ones, and (before responding here) archive all of the content of said other mailing lists) and send them to WikBack for review? I don't know about Ali, but I certainly have no access to other forums (I can take a screenshot for you if you still want to Assume Bad Faith and disbelieve me, and B) Find your suggestions to be the height of trolling. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. I have received emails in the past from MONGO, Thomas Harrison, Slim Virgin, Kelly Martin and Theresa Knott, that I immediately recollect, and certainly scores of others. I retain emails for approximately three years, so said archives are already in existence. I will forward those emails to ArbCom if they are remotely relevant to any ongoing cases (they are not), or if you repeat your request. I am not registered on WikBack. I certainly believe you have no additional access to WR that I do not have - thank you for confirming that. Additionally, you may wish to read WP:AAGF. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it'd be more helpful if you made these accusations under your main account, instead of using a sockpuppet which may suggest to some that you're using a bad-hand account to troll. krimpet✽22:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, my old main account had information that directly connected it to my real name. I will not disclose it. This is the only account I currently have access to (I scrambled the password on my old account to resist temptation to re-use it to add weight to my statements but re-disclose my identity). If there is any serious belief I am using this as a bad-hand account (as opposed to an only-hand account, be my hands "bad" or "good"), you can request that it be checkusered. Alison's offer to be vetted by the Ombudsperson was more than enough for me not to press on the recall issue - however, I still suggest that cavorting with people who act with malice aforethought is a mistake. Certainly, commenting negatively about users in good standing on Wikipedia with individuals who obviously drive that user to distraction is, in all cases, a mistake, and I assume that Allison, who is held to a higher standard as a privileged user, will cease assisting Wikipedia Review in harassing MONGO. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I watchlist pages when I comment to them, so this one is watchlisted. I could not help but to notice, this thread is getting way out of line. She has offered to submit herself to an audit by the ombudsman PouponOnToast, I see no reason for Alison to disclose what off wiki forums she is a member, or what bearing this has on this project. You have veiled a recall intent above in your very first post, and you are attempting to compel Alison to disclose things she ought not have too. Unless you have positive proof, please desist. Mercuryat 22:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. I have struck through what, in hindsight was ovvereaching. If individuals do have privileged access to forums in which discussions of methods to subvert and damage Wikipedia are discussed, I would hope they would take it upon them selves to take the right actions. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll return to this later, as I'm busy here. Please note, though, that as an admin on the English Wikipedia, I am voluntarily under recall. However, this does not apply to checkuser. If you wish my checkuser access to be revoked, that will need to be done by applying to Jimmy Wales, the Arbitration Committee and/or the Checkuser Ombudsperson. Thanks - Alison❤23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I cannot speak for Alison, but as long as MONGO doesn't provide anything to criticize, I would be glad to leave him alone. The whole thing started because he came here, and made insinuations about Alison and I because we post there. I wasn't surprised to see how that discussion turned out, and I'm even less surprised about how this one turned out.Again, this is just me, not speaking for Alison. SirFozzie (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to do whatever you want to MONGO - here. Going to Wikipedia Review and criticizing him there is behavior unbecoming a user here. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have trouble critiquing users here without running into a series of acronyms, perhaps the problem is not the users but rather the method? If you'd like help. I'm happy to. I'm currently asked not to write on your talk page, but however. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering that this situation involves MONGO, his silence is extremely deafening. Or rather, why isn't he notified of this? Why isn't he here to inquire Alison himself instead of you? —Kurykh23:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This is about my concerns. His concerns were different than mine. I would prefer he not be notified - in fact, given the history there, I would consider it borderline harassment to notify him regarding anything related to Wikipedia Review or Encyclopedia Dramatica. I strongly advise against it. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It it not harassment to notify him of a discussion that ultimately involves him; please reread the dictionary definition of "harassment." If he is ultimately unconcerned about this, then you are in no position to pursue this matter any further. —Kurykh01:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be dismissive, but that's not how it works. I am troubled that Alison disparaged an editor in good standing here over there. I find it conduct unbecoming. If the disparaged user has no problem with it, it's still not ok. PouponOnToast (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
But it does not mean you have the authority to continue to pursue this matter irrespective of the opinions of MONGO and the opinions of the community. You have been troubled, you have been heard, and now you have been answered. —Kurykh01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have already concluded my discussion with Alison, as I mentioned above. I have the authority to continue to pursue any matter I chose, as long as I do so in a non-disruptive fashion, regardless of how many people think I'm right or wrong - cf DTobias. PouponOnToast (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You mistakenly conflate "ability" with "authority." Sure, everyone has the ability to investigate any matter that (s)he chooses; however, that does not grant authority to bring up accusations and insinuations, especially continuously. When one does so, one does not gain status as a whistleblower, but as a disruptive force in a collaborative encyclopedia. —Kurykh02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Harassment to notify him of a discussion on Alison's talk page? Thats rich, especially considering he's mentioned more than a few times and your objections are based on the attacks made against him. Avruchtalk00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No, my concern is that there is a history of "notifying" MONGO about "discussions" that are not helpful to the encyclopedia. It would be best if anyone notifying MONGO tread lightly, with special attention to past misbehavior. It is our responsibility as editors to not only deal with conflict appropriately, but avoid it when not necessary or useful. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate PouponOnToast going to "bat" for me, but this issue was already discussed between Alison and I. I was mistaken to badger her about it as I did and am rather embarassed about the incident now mainly because I have learned a number of things since we last discussed this matter. Firstly, I believe Alison registered at WR to set the story straight on some erroneous info that was being spread there about her editing here. Secondly, in examination of all the great work Alison has done for those who are being harassed here, I doubt she would be going there to harass others. Thirdly, while I disagree that contributing to WR is worth anyone's time, I certainly can't unilaterally condemn anyone who does. All I can ask is that respected editors here be careful to not feed any egos there...as there are at least 7 editors on WR that routinely misrepresent my actions here and they are mainly upset at me because I am the reason they were banned from this site. Can we put this situation to rest now?--MONGO06:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
MONGO - thank you for setting the record straight on all this. I think we should both put all this behind us now. As I said on your talk page, I'm sorry if my posting there upset you and that was never my intention. We'll probably always differ on our perspective on this one, but we both know where that line is drawn, I guess. We both have the best interests of the project at heart. Best regards - Alison❤00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Clarification
Largely for PouponOnToast: let me just state that as far as I'm concerned, the issue between myself and MONGO is largely over now. I can certainly respect his position on BADSITES, especially given what has happened to him over the ED thing, etc. However, I will say this. I will post on any site external to Wikipedia when and as I see fit. I will not be dictated to nor intimidated nor bullied into not speaking my mind or participating elsewhere. Not suggesting you are doing any of these things, but let it be clear that I will post where I like; be that Wikipedia, Wikipedia Review or the WikBack, and anyone who takes issue with any of that can act accordingly. I'm big enough to be able to take whatever consequences. Anything I post (or even have posted, contrary to your insinuations above) has been done in a public forum on Wikipedia Review though may have been archived/deleted/moved by the mods unbeknownst. On The WikBack, I have access to private forums due to the nature of my being a forum host there. These relate to the running of the site, is all. Any issues, please feel free to discuss them with User:UninvitedCompany.
Certainly, what you have done here is attempted to induce a chilling effect around the whole BADSITES issue, and that's something I will not bow to. I will not cowed into not posting there or anywhere else. Indeed, I am heartened by the sheer number of trusted Wikipedians who have stood up to be counted over the last few days to state that they, too, have accounts on WR and have contributed there; People like User:Deskana, User:Lar, User:UninvitedCompany and many other Wikipedians in good standing, so it would appear I'm in good company. You cannot induce guilt by association here.
It is in deference to MONGO that I have not posted there in the last week as he has an ongoing RFA and I do not want to stir drama or whatever. Yes, I know there's a thread over there right now and my name has been mentioned, but I choose not to comment right now. Frankly, you should apply similar rationale here - Alison❤00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Messy checkuser
I was just cleaning up around RFCU, and noticed that you put a clerk assistance tag on the Jack Merridew case. For clarification, do you want all the socks/IPs merged, or just the ones that you didn't mark "confirmed". I don't want to make it any messier. :) Keilana|Parlez ici21:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Keilana :) That now makes a whole lot more sense. Basically, there were two cases ongoing, both with huge intersection so it's obvious we're dealing with the same case. I've one case already half-done when I saw the other. At least this means people can pool their resources instead of duplicating effort. Thanks for sorting it all out!! (and thanks for the other kind words, too :) ) - Alison❤23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm the real Jack Merridew. If I can help clear-up any confusion about this case, please let me know. I've not read much about checkuser, but it must be largely about analyzing server logs and looking up IPs. Hopefully you have a good set of tools; with the level of abuse on this site, I would expect so.
Much of this is likely one user — an experienced one. I have no solid reason to believe Hobit or Rray are this vandal, only that I started encountering them and their also objecting to clean-up tags at about the same time as the harassment began; if you can pronounce them uninvolved, it will clear the air.
A lot of the anons, and there are lots more — many one-offs — likely arrived via a link on some off-site forum such as 4chan. I don't know more than what a skim of the article tells me, however 4chan has been mentioned to me several times and has been part of a few bits of vandalism I've seen.
The hoard of socks is the main problem. Basically whomever is creating a new bunch every day or so and for whatever reason, autoblocking isn't giving him a problem.
Can you look at this users edits his entire contribution consist of mainly vandalising articles, he has been warned twice on his talk page today.--Padraig (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool
I am perfectly cool, Alison. I'm certainly not "stalking" Vk, but our watch lists clearly overlap. I can't win here. If I make perfectly reasonable edits in policy without explaining that policy to Vk then I risk him losing his temper and creating an incident. If I explain those edits in the most reasonable and pleasant way I can, I get accusations of stalking and abuse spewed at me. We should not let good faith, but atrociously written text slip by simply because the writer cannot accept simple typo and grammar corrections. Moreover, Vk requires "space" he has all the "space" he needs editing boxing articles, but I am certainly not going to remove articles from my watch list simply because he is unable to edit in a socially acceptable manner.
He was unblocked and permitted to edit on the understanding that he edit in a mature and civil manner in relation to The Troubles. His tantrum today clearly shows he is having problems doing that since there was nothing, nothing in my edits that precipitated this that could be considered provocative by any reasonable editor. The best way to calm him down is for someone to remind him of that, because if this continues, I'll move that sanctions be invoked for breaking the conditions of his probation. Rockpocket21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't gimme that "nothings changed" pish - incase you haven't noticed I have had no problems with any other editor in months except you! You know you are following me around I know you are following me around - its bs to say that its because they are on your watchlist! How the hell could Phil O'Donnell (Irish republican) be on your watchlist when I had just created the article???? What about you turning up at James O'Brien (footballer) and Connie Green and Kevin Coen - were they all on your watchlist to? I can understand that Sean O'Callaghan was on your watchlist but you still ensured that you got in there straight after me - I know what you are doing and its not as subtle as you think.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Phil O'Donnell (footballer) is on my watch list (which you moved to create Phil O'Donnell (Irish republican) thereby creating over 50 incorrect redirects), sorting the mess you left that article in led me to Connie Green and Saor Uladh, both of which also needed work. Kevin Coenis on my watchlist [14] as is Sean O'Callaghan[15]. You say I got in "there straight after [you]", yet a review of the facts shows this not to be the case. On 11 January you edited the article, two others edited it in the meantime, then I edited almost 4 hours later [16] when I logged in an saw it on my watch list. Since it was BigDunc, not you, that appeared on my list as the last editor, how can I be stalking you on that instance? However, the very next edit to mine, just 6 mins later, was by you [17]. Which ironically enough, suggests if anyone is doing the "stalking" it is you. However in that instance I fully expect, like me, you simply saw something appear on your watch list and thought you could improve it, right? The next edit, a very minor copy edit [18] on 13 January, was a full 5 hours after your edit, again, because It appeared on my watch list when I logged in. James O'Brien (footballer) is also on my watch list, the entire Celtic squad is.
I hope this will allay your paranoia about stalking. Quite frankly, considering your history of genuine stalking behaviour (threats and personal abuse off wiki, and the posting person details on wiki) I find your complaints both trivial and insulting, especially on the page of a person who has been stalked.
Since you are here, let me spell it out to you directly. If you continue with these allegations and abusive messages in response to perfectly legitimate edits, then I will move to ArbCom enforcement. You indicated you only wanted to edit boxing articles on your return. It is perfectly fine if you have changed your mind and wish to edit articles relating to The Troubles, but you have to accept that you will run into people you would rather not work with, and you have to do that in a civil manner. You don't have to interact with me if you don't wish to: just delete any message of explanation I leave for you and I will take that as read and understood. Good day, and my apologies to Alison for bringing this to her page, feel free to move it to mine if you would prefer. Rockpocket17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes you have allayed my fears!. "If you continue with these allegations and abusive messages in response to perfectly legitimate edits, then I will move to ArbCom enforcement." - stop fuckin stalkin me!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
ENOUGH, VK. Your behaviour needs improving, stat! I can understand that you two have seen enough of each other for several lifetimes, but you will follow WP:CIVIL or you WILL be blocked, by myself if need be. Do I need to make it further clear how pissed off I am? SirFozzie (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is more about application of policy than anything, but I have a question regarding this checkuser request: How do you distinguish between say a teacher who forgot to log in a couple of times at a school versus one of the students who uses a computer to trash his rival school(s)? I'm not saying this is the case here, but I am interested in knowing the process. — BQZip01 —talk23:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I just came across this were the subject of an article has apparently requested that it be deleted as he is under 18, so could you take a look and if necessary delete it.--Padraig (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Nrw Article
Hi Alison thanks for your suggestion on Fozzie page if I email the image I have to you could you use OmniGraffle to work your magic. I have exams at moment so a little busy so if thats ok I will email it soon thanks very much. BigDunc (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Betcha when you see this, you are going to try doing the accent.
Oh, thank goodness the Montenotte Mothers of Seven didn't hear about this! Yes, that was a Hall's Pictorial Weekly reference. I am now reaching the 1970's in my popular culture references :O) (Ok, I just about remember the sketches.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In a not unconnected post-script to the above, did you notice I finally reached the early 21st Century as regards mobile technology? (Actually I had WAP phone when they were really cutting-edge :O) which is another story - that story involves a pub, but anyhoo...- , but I finally got a phone that actually doesn't clunk on the Internet at the weekend. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Various
Hi Alison. I actually dropped by to apologise for my intemperate language on the R fiend arbcom which I know you initiated and know had to be done. I continue to feel bad that we (I) could have done more to support someone with a medical problem, but I think he acknowledged himself that he didn't help the situation with the way he dealt with it.
Anyway, I read the thread above and wanted to express my support for the good work you do here. You are living proof that someone can be an admin, not shy away from getting involved in difficult areas, contribute to Wikipedia Review, and still be a civil and constructive editor of Wikipedia. Thank you, and keep up the good work. --John (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
jc37 has requested some help on a recurrent issue, and with your previous involvement with the problem, I was hoping you might help him out. If you didn't have anything to do with this, then my apologies. Octane[improve me] 21.01.08 0854 (UTC)
Potentially related troubles
You confirmed Asgardian as having used a sock puppet to evade a block.[[19]] On his user talk page, he alleges that you were wrong. He writes, "Sock puppetry? No - just one clever impostor who fooled Wikipedia but not me. I'm better at IT than most and worked it out - no mean feat. Done and dealt with. That said, I can't help but note the irony as I agree with the edits."[20] I'm skeptical by nature and have difficulty believing something that convoluted, but I also believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. Convoluted things do happen in life. So . . . is there any way Asgardian is correct in his claim that your user check was in error? Is that even possible? Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you have a look at the bottom of this one, just in case I blocked two highly improbable users that happen to have the same editing history than the other socks? Thanks ;) -- lucasbfrtalk14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for handling that.[21] I have been trying to get him to settle down so he could be a productive contributor, but he was trying everyone's patience: [22] and [23]. The edit war in question has resulted in a page protection and RFC request: Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl. There is also a thread at WP:ANI. I am not sure if you are interested in any more involvement in this issue. If you are, the whole situation could use more analysis from uninvolved people. If not, hey, that's cool, you have done enough. Thanks again for handling that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're looking for the RfB, I removed it because you didn't accept before it was transcluded and the RfB was done inline instead of a separate article. The last revision before my removal is here-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Solumeiras, thank you so much for your kind nomination, and for having such confidence in me. I'm honoured and delighted! However, I'm really sorry but I cannot accept at this time. I'm just not ready for bureaucratship and checkuser duties have me swamped with work right now. I'm also active on a number of other wikis including Commons, where I just passed my RfA and need to focus there for a while. Thank you so much, though, for your faith in me, but I can't accept. I'm so sorry - Alison❤23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind comments! At least it's good to know someone appreciates you! Anyway, there's no rush, I didn't realise I was so premature. Anyway, thanks for the positive reply! No worries. Hope you enjoy it on the other wikis... see you around! Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! :) As Gogo Dodo says, you should really think of getting an account here. Maybe if we all ask you, you might. I'll personally grant you rollback privs (your history as an anon is excellent) - Alison❤00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh I thank you, but I'm not interested in having a named account anymore. Sure there are benefits but... I used to edit from a named account, but I go through these periods were I like to walk away and it is much easier to do that as an anon compared to having a named account. Less attachment to awesome people, less pressure to perform to top standards. ;) My entire way of anon-life is flawed, as I still eavesdrop on certain editors who have impressed me over the years, which nullifies my logic slightly. (Sadly a lot of them tend to leave much like I have, some of them permanently :( but such is wiki-life) Thanks for the kind words. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
repost from something you missed in the wikibreak :)
I appreciate any help/suggestions/direction you can give me Legotech (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've commented over on his talk page now. This has gone on for far too long and something needs to be resolved here. If Tedius is not amenable to fixing this problem, I'll gladly assist you in getting an RfC drafted and placed before the community, but we need to give him a chance now to clean up first - Alison❤00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
With that insulting comment, Tedius has crossed the line. I've given him a final warning that he will be blocked if he continues. krimpet✽09:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Krimpet. I just want him to stop making Wikipedia a poisonous atmosphere for women. He's part of the reason there's disproportionately few female editors here - Alison❤17:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
He's actually taken things further than that. See this entry on the blog you helped him set up, where you're mentioned by name. Ok - I pretty close to blocking him indefinitely but would rather defer to the community, so I'll finish the RfC you started and put it live tonight. We'll take things from there ... - Alison❤03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
He left this post on his talk page just now: [24]. He is also requesting a name change, and has asked to be unblocked to go through with that request. I know the block is set to expire in a few hours, but he seems to be active now, and as an act of good faith, i think that based on his obvious contrition, it may be appropriate to lift the block early. What say you? --Jayron32.talk.contribs17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, blocking is meant to prevent disruption and if the editor in question promises to end his bad behaviour, then go for it. However, be aware that he's a colleague of User:Green Kirby and there's a history there - Alison❤17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I unblocked him. I have been keeping an eye on his situation for some time now, and I intend to continue to do so. Lets hope he's serious about the change of heart... --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for doing so. Could you perhaps leave a little tutorial or a link on my talk page showing me how to check for that and fix it if it comes up again in the future? --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind...
I wikilinked RL on your break message for those who don't know the abbreviation. You never know who will read it and not understand. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I must be in a good mood (I think it's the new car I have :D), I just gave Coco a third Bai for his comment. Hmm.. do you think I would get in twubble if I changed Bye Bye Bye to Bai Bai Bai? (Deliberate redlink!) SirFozzie (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Quick bit of advice
What's the best warning to use for the Sizzler spamming I'm in the middle of mopping up (see contribs)? I can imagine it possibly being an ongoing problem..... One Night In Hackney30318:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Rockpocket
Is not wan a ye gonna say atin ta him about following me around on ever article I ever edit - its going to blow up again if he doesnt cop on and its doin my nut in to!--Vintagekits (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
See User talk:91.108.239.17. Its a little complicated, but the person seems to genuinely not know what is going on, so I am inclined to think that unblocking them is OK. Since you handled the initial block request, can you handle this unblock? --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*de-lurk* (busy in RL here). I've commented over there and can set up an account for them, but I recommend not unblocking that range at this time - Alison❤20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom and other daftness
Hi Ali; that smug dip***t "Waggers" (whataname eh?) has managed to get me "banned" for "anti-British remarks". This is utterly ridiculous. Please tell me how I go about asking for an end to the Arbcom ruling that facilitates twits like him? What is the procedure? Sarah777 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
My top 3 suggestions, for what they're worth:
Stop using playground behaviour such as petty name-calling and aggressive remarks
Stop using playground behaviour such as petty name-calling and aggressive remarks
Stop using playground behaviour such as petty name-calling and aggressive remarks
If you seriously have a problem with my attitude, come and talk to me about it on my talk page rather than "asking the other parent" and calling me names behind my back. Waggers (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
And you really do flatter yourself by calling yourself "the other parent". I dislike being patronised even more than I dislike threats. Btw, wouldn't you reckon that running to an Admin to get me "banned" was a bit 'running to Mommy-ish"? Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Fozzie is confused; he made no threat to Waggers for his sneering remarks above. Admin solidarity or something? Are they all precious? Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I never got a chance to warn Waggers. However, I did warn you that one more comment like that would merit a block. (goes to put notice on Sarah's page) And I'm not sure who the IP is here, but um.. please don't stir things up. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Umm wow you call that stirring things up? Does AGF mean nothing to you? Or does it only apply to named editors that you know? My apologies to Alison, for this is not the page to discuss this but that was a straight smack in the face. Baseless accusations of stirring things up, simply because I mentioned that I thought you meant "one more comment" rather than "one comment". Or was it my informing you that the rumbling grumbling disruption was still on going? Now that is laughable, or disgraceful or maybe both. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
a thank you note
Thanks for participating in my RfA!
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ext link question
Are External links to sites which are only accessible to a portion of the world allowed? Specifically, a link to an AOL video site for the tv show Cane, which is restricted to Americans only. It just seems link an inappropriate link to me, but I got reverted when I removed it. If you could check, I'd appreciate it. Here's the diff in question.Jeffpw (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion. I'm hoping you'll accept my apology for bringing up an issue which should have been done under more private circumstances, and with a lot more research on my part beforehand.--MONGO08:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison
Hey, it was nice to see you there. Don't worry! I understand too well, you can't spend much time in so many things. I have some spare time right now but soon I'll be overwhelmed with soooo many things that I won't be able to contribute much too! I think we all do the best we can and I gladly appreciate each and every contribution. It's nice to see what you do, your user pages are really beautiful and great! Have a great weekend! See you and keep on doing such a great job! Best regards, Slán arís, Capsot (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So, WP:RTV, then. Apparently its not a right, only a courtesy, and all a contributor's contributions are available under the GFDL. So what about when a user exercises a "RTV" and then returns - can their previous contributions be unblanked and where can this be requested? BastunBaStun not BaTsun21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
For the good words there. I haven't even checked email, probably gonna take some time off. Catch ya on the flip side, k? SirFozzie (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer, I'm highly disappointed by the whole matter. I've a lot of respect for RtV but this was not a RtV case. Not only did he not 'vanish' but was using the sock account abusively. Then there was the whole matter of running away from the ArbCom case. Not good - Alison❤20:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am still confused. User:AMRDeuce is not listed as a clerk, has only 175 edits and has only been an editor since 22 January 2008. Is it that User:AMRDeuce can do research but not take final action? I am just trying to understand the levels of procedure over there. Kingturtle (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Is User:AMRDeuce acting as clerk over there?? That's kinda strange, considering they're not an admin.. No, there are a core group of clerks that handle tagging/blocking, etc. If it's NisarKand, then he should definitely be blocked, though as he's now banned. I'll see to the blocking myself - Alison❤01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure all clerks are admins (I wasn't an admin at first so it's definitely not a requirement), so usually the best is to ask any admin (at WP:ANI for example) to perform the blocks based on the CU results (we often archive cases without blocking everyone, especially in possible/likely cases). I'll drop a note to User:AMRDeuce, if he wishes to help I'm sure he'll be welcomed once he is a bit "older" (wiki wise). -- lucasbfrtalk10:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
I just wanted to say thank you for the sweet message while I was gone, it's very much appreciated! I might have failed at the "soon" and "hurry" parts but I succeeded at the "back" finally ;) -- Editor at Large • talk11:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser rangeblock
Hi there Alison, you blocked User talk:91.108.233.225 as part of a rangeblock. The IP is asking to be unblocked. I have no idea though which account it comes from, or even how to undo rangeblocks. I am deferring to you given that you are the blocking checkuser. Thanks. Woody (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, Woody. I've replied over there and hopefully, we can get an account set up and have them up and running soon. Sorry about all the hassle but I've had to softblock that range due to some serious abuse from there - Alison❤00:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. They seemed like a well-meaning user, shocked to have been accused of vandalism. Thanks for dealing with it promptly. Warm regards. Woody (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it is TBSDY. I did only create the account for the purposes of WP:MEETUP, and also to see what books are and aren't on 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die - see User:Tbsdy lives/Books to read before I die. I find a book that isn't on there, I'll write a small synopsis. Unfortunately, as my wife is expecting (and also, in no small part because I'm somewhat fed up with wikipolitics), I'm not going to be able to do very much else!
(ec) Excellent!! Yayy - BTW, I just added rollback to your account, for what it's worth. Dunno if you're going to look for your bit back but that'll do for the moment. Good to see you back on here :) - Alison❤11:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well... Tim Starling offered to reset my password so I could access my account again, but I declined. Maybe one day. Oh, incidently, hope everything is OK with you. I also suffer from depression... though haven't had an episode in a long time. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
..nothing to say. Other than have a great afternoon. I'm off to sleep. Glad you're back and feeling better! Steve keeps trying to sell us good stuff, like that light laptop! I feel like crying...! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Opinion requested please
See emails I am about to send to you. Can you give an opinion on the validity of the claims made please? 3 emails, the whole of an exchange between myself and another as you will see. ViridaeTalk23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I just got them. I'm kinda snowed under right now but will take a look at them tonight and get back to you. Thanks - Alison❤01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It has been drawn to my attention that my revert might give the wrong impression. I didn't realize that the edits were from a banned sock. I just never noticed that there was no wikilink to Byrne in the article myself; the edit description was not meant as a derrogatory comment at all.
Hey Alsion, I just wanted to let you know I protected the above article just after you protected it. I reverted it back to your protection, just thought I would let you know. Cheers! Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. You published your IP address when you were blocked and requested unblocking;
IP address: 121.220.6.59
Blocking admin: Dreadstar
Autoblock ID: 767787
Original block reason: [[Wikipedia:Autoblock|Autoblocked]] because your IP address was recently used by
"[[User:100%freehuman|100%freehuman]]". The reason given for 100%freehuman's block is:
"Abusing [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]] accounts: [[WP:NPA|Harassment]] and [[
Your account name 100%freehuman
The autoblock ID is mentioned and is available for all to see. There was a question around the edits done from that address yesterday and your clarification here affirms that - Alison❤08:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Alsion there was no block ever placed on that ip until it was done by Dreadstar please read this a little I would also like to know why you would publish someone request to be unblocked ?
They Blocked today based on a mistake at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 100%freehuman (talk • contribs) 08:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
People's requests for unblocking are published all the time on here. The block log and autoblock logs are available to be studied. Nothing mysterious going on at all. Anyways - it's midnight here. Have to go! - Alison❤08:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
Hello. I just wanted to thank you for reverting that edit on the Klein article; I had kind of expected it, but wasn't savvy enough to keep a watchful eye, and just happened to see it today. Anyways, thanks for all your diligent work on Wikipedia! 24.229.203.46 (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
See this user's unblock request, relating to User:194.80.21.10, which you put a checkuser block on. Given Pk006's edit history (1 edit ever), I am not so worried about the collateral damage, so I declined it. But I left a note suggesting that the network administrators contact you: maybe that will help to resolve the abuse issue. Just thought I should let you know. Mangojuicetalk15:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ali
Mind if I run some information by you, I'm probably going to be doing an action that some will consider very WP:BOLD, somewhat relating to one of the checkusers you did (don't worry,I don't need sooper sekrit checkuser evidence to make my case, I consider the evidence pretty much a direct hit under WP:DUCK), and want another set of eyes to make sure that I'm not stepping into a situation like what happened to other editors. I'll shoot you an email. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Email sent. Could you send a copy of it back to me? (I sent it by wiki-mail and forgot to save a copy, which pretty much I could post direct to AN when/if I take this action) SirFozzie (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Foz - I'm not forgetting about you, but I'm flat-out here. I read your messages and will get back to you later - promise! - Alison❤20:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I came across this article, which is giving me some issues. I've posted the article at the BLP noticeboard, but the more I look at it, the more it seems that the two main contributors (one registered and one IP) appear to be socks of banned user:Leaveout. Since the checkuser case seems to be closed, should I file a new report, or what should I do? Also, any advice on what to do with this article would be appreciated as well. Thanks! Dchall1 (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking over the SP report I submitted and blocking the user (whether or not it was for already being a banned user or for the reason I gave). Have a good day.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw the whole thread about the threat, but I was wondering, shouldn't the edit be oversighted? The incident has been dealt with, and I don't think it would be a good idea to have someone else stumble upon it and freak. Do you think it should? Icestorm815 (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I have had to protect a couple of talkpages from vandals in this range. Seems to be quite a bad one. Woody (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As Woody says, there's a rangeblock on here and it's to deal with some pretty bad stuff. I strongly recommend not unblocking at this time. Sorry - Alison❤23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Judging by the tone of the unblock requests I don't get a strong feeling that this is an innocent user caught up in the range block, but just felt that I should raise it to you. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your Efforts Much Appreciated
Alison, thanks so much for your protection of the Leonard Cohen page. Leonard will be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame on March 10 and his fans are trying to keep his page clean and up-to-date as many in the media will be accessing it. Your protection will go a long way towards insuring that everything will be in tip top shape. Thank you.
Unrelated to any of the others - Alison ❤ 19:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. for 3RR violation - Alison ❤ 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hope you have a good day! --Nengscoz416 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Done :) - take a look. As a special offer, you also get Commons:Template:Translated tag localized for free. Two for the price of one :) - Alison ❤ 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed - tagged and blocked - Alison ❤ 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Done - RfC is now complete - I just need to add the dispute resolution stage. Can someone check things over here and add accordingly? The dispute resolution stuff is covered, but just not in that section. Diffs need to be copied from the section above it. Once that is done, I can put it live. Comments? - Alison ❤ 01:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely. Another different editor. I've added it to the checkuser case - Alison ❤ 05:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
