Jump to content

User talk:Alison/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

Alison is Away

Please note, Alison is currently Out of the Office, Out to Lunch, out of luck, and out of control (well, the last doesn't surprise any of us, her favorite TPW). If you need help, and it's something someone besides Allie can do, please bring it to their attention.. Otherwise leave a message at the *beep* and we'll try to do it for her anyway.. SirFozzie (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

...*Beep*

Is this anyone we know?

[[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of John Daker]] My guess is JtV. Happy New Year! NawlinWiki (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dunno who it is - it's not JtV - but there's plenty of sockses. Here's the list of  Confirmed;
Happy New Year to you, too :) - Alison ❤ 00:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Amanda Lindhout

Hi. I have left a comment on the Talk page, I'd very much appreciate it if you'd join me in discussion. THanks. Twafotfs (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive 10

Hi, just a minor clean-up issue. Could you please remove or deactivate the {{reqscreenshot}} template in User talk:Alison/Archive 10. Thanks --Traveler100 (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Another Mrpontiac1 sock

I just blocked Sourabholland (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock, but maybe I should have raised an SPI to make this better known. He'd quickly edited and reverted himself on another article so he could get past semi-protection. I see you tried a range block but it didn't take him long to get past it. Of course, I could be all wrong. I haven't tagged him yet. Any suggestions as to how to progress (or a trout if I've made a mistake)? Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's  Confirmed, yes. Two socks, plus two open proxies - Alison ❤ 19:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

ScottyBerg

What's going on with ScottyBerg? Are you sure this was a sock? AFAIK, Scotty has been editing productively on Wikipedia for quite some time. I'd be very surprised if he was a sock. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

HI there. Yes, I'm sure he is. I've been involved in dealing with MMs sock accounts over the years and, yes, this is another - Alison ❤ 18:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you're already familiar with this Mantanmoreland, can you tell me what they did that led to an indefinite ban? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland was an editor who abused multiple accounts - both on WP and following through in email (Mantanmoreland / Samiharris) - for quite a long period of time. He completely gamed the system here and pulled the wool over a large number of other editors' eyes, and did so for years. He was eventually subject to an Arbcom case which led to sanctions and article bans, etc. He went on to circumvent this repeatedly, was eventually caught and banned by the community. That's the seriously short version, but there's quite a history to this editor - Alison ❤ 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Mantanmoreland. That was before my time. But even if they are this Mantanmoreland, Scotty has been editing Wikipedia productively and without any major issues AFAIK. Other than the sockpuppetry, are there any other allegations of miscoduct by Scotty? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Isn't that like asking "Other than the minor issue regarding all those murders, Charles Manson doesn't have any reason to be in Jail. Shouldn't we just let him out?" Unless and until someone is willing to follow the rules, I don't see any reason not to continue to block their sockpuppet accounts. The sockpuppetry is, itself, enough for me. If it is important enough for Mantmoreland to edit Wikipedia productively, he'll go away for 6 months, and then ask at his main account for terms to return. Just a talk page stalker--Jayron32 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would't equate WP socking to Charles Manson! xD But either way, I suspect he'll be back again soon. He always has done - Alison ❤ 19:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There are other issues relating to COI. I don't wish to discuss the details here as it's privacy-related - Alison ❤ 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Not really. I'm not crazy about following rules for rule's sake. If someone is productively editing Wikipedia without any issues, then what's the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
If someone wishes to edit productively, they will follow the rules. MM was not banned without cause, so he needs to establish the trust of the community by having the community overturn the ban. That needs to be done first. After that has been done, he can edit productively. --Jayron32 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotty and me may not always agree, but I've never had the feeling that he was editing in bad faith or causing any problems. I don't know anything about sock poppet investigations or what sort of evidence is required to confirm a sockpuppet case, but it looks like there wasn't a confirmation of using the same IP. It looks like it's based on editing overlap. But some of those pages, such as User talk:Cla68, User talk:Jimbo Wales, User talk:MONGO, User talk:William M. Connolley, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I've edited as well. I'm sure lots of editors have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait - I must be losing my mind or something. This report is from September of last year.[1] Am I looking at the wrong one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

HelloAnnoying closed it as a bad faith report.[2] This is all so weird. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I started a discussion at ANI.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Alison, you can safely ignore the ANI discussion. It was quickly closed because I posted it in the wrong venue. Please pardon my ignorance, but I don't know much about SPIs. I'm not really sure how to respond if you can't discuss the details here because it's privacy-related. How can the community review this block to make sure that it's valid? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Mantmoreland can appeal his block using the instructions at WP:BASC. It requires him to send an email to ArbCom. --Jayron32 03:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Jayron32, what makes you think SB is MM? Have you seen the secret evidence? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Alison said that he was. I have no reason to think that Alison would lie about that. --Jayron32 17:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Lying != mistaken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If that is the case, then I trust ArbCom to correct the mistake in due time, and don't see the utility in hounding Alison over the matter. --Jayron32 17:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is hounding Alison and I find that accusation to be counter-productive. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on. Relax. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Jesus. I'm a little blown away. I kind of thought of SB as a tool, but not never a malignant sock of MM. I guess the proverb is true: ""Stand by the river long enough and you'll see all the bodies of your enemies float by."
What was the tell that alerted you to his identity? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks dubious to me. I would urge you to re-examine your evidence and (if still convinced) make clearer in public what your basis is William M. Connolley (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Just to say that I'm currently working with the Arbitration Committee to resolve this issue one way or another. Yes, there is evidence that I cannot share here and to be honest, I don't like "secret" evidence any more than the next person, but for reasons of privacy I'd rather not share it here. That wouldn't be fair either. Checkuser is not perfect either and I would never claim 100% infallibility in anything. While I'm quite certain here that the block is justified, if ArbCom decides otherwise on review of the evidence, I will not hesitate to undo the block and apologize. It's happened before. In short, I'm working with ArbCom and I understand that ScottyBerg is also - Alison ❤ 18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Scotty Berg - Wikimedia Commons

Alison,

ScottyBerg is currently involved in a lengthy deletion discussion in Wikimedia Commons. [4] The "length" of the discussion is due to ScottyBerg, since he is the only complaining editor.

I believe this block should apply to ScottyBerg in Commons as well. If it does not, is there any way to recuse him from the discussion and pending decision? Thank you for your time. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. Well, the projects tend to be separate and WP bans don't generally extend to other projects such as SEWIKI or Commons, so it would be a local matter, really. Note also that the original 'Mantanmoreland' account was never blocked on Commons; he just stopped editing / moved to another account - Alison ❤ 19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edison and the WR

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=472379034&oldid=472378836

Can you please tell User:Edison on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tarc_reported_by_User:WR_Reader_.28Result:_.29 that http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/ is the Wikipedia Review, not a successor or a replacement. The domain name (wikipediareview.com) is the only thing that expired. The forum, its threads, and the accounts are still there. Tell him that you can still log in to your account. See http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36278 for some background. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Laura Wilson prot

You previously protected Laura Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about three years ago for what I assume are oversight-related BLP reasons. I'm giving you a message to remind you of the state of the article :) Sceptre (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sceptre. Yeah, thanks for the note :) Right now, though, I'm not going to unprot as it's been targeted in the past by a banned editors and has been linked to certain RL problems. Emailing .... - Alison ❤ 04:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Just for anyone who wants to chase this up in the future: correspondence has been done, and I'm perfectly fine with your reasoning. Sceptre (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your request on my talk page

I will certainly abide by it, but I would like to note that I was not speculating (the User himself acknowledged on the other site that he had posted the material here) and neither was I identifying a real life identity (merely a message board handle). That said, I filed the report and am done with the matter. Thank you.AceD (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:BarkingMoon

I appreciate you protecting the page (as you noted, I suggested the same at WP:AN), but the edit-warring happened mostly five or more hours ago, so your edit summary may have been a touch out of date. Lame edit wars happen, but editors are not always lame about it. Geometry guy 01:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that when their shift ends, another crew would soon be along to play similar games. 24 hours of time-out will give the community enough time to iron out what's going on (I hope!) without pointless battles going on. I mean, seriously - tagging a page is not a life-or-death situation, it smacks of retribution and is being used as some sort of badge of shame. Nothing is achieved other than the drama-pot getting stirred - Alison ❤ 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I broadly agree with you after the first sentence, and am glad you protected the page. However, given that the dispute has died down, such protection should be viewed as a precaution against, not an expectation of, further edit warring.
Beyond the next 24 hours, though, the issue remains confused and unsettled and it will take the community time to iron out what has been going on. Understanding what stirs (or does not stir) the drama-pot is worthy PhD topic in itself! Geometry guy 02:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Zhand38

Hey Alison, could you take a look at User talk:208.102.209.78? It's User:Zhand38 who has been globally blocked for some time and is again threatening self harm, both there and on my talk page at commons. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! I tried following through the thread of what's going on there, and can't make much sense of it. He's been socking to edit articles on Cincinnati Zoo and that there's some RL aspect to this? Per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, it's probably best to take this seriously - send an email to emergency @ wikimedia.org and tell them that this is going on. It's clear that they're not behaving rationally and may need help - Alison ❤ 03:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
In fact, I'm emailing them now and CCing you - Alison ❤ 03:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Done (sounds like we sent emails off at about the same time). Thanks and yes, it goes back many months and is awful. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Alison,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Hope everything is fine with you. :) Quit coming online on Skype? --Highway Hitchhiker (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hiyya. Dunno who you are, but I'm actually on there now :) First time in about three weeks, I think - Alison ❤ 08:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Suppressed revision

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/F%C3%A6&diff=475795227 – Can you please Email me a copy of my revision. I don't have any copies, and I don't want to forget what I've said. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

email

Hi Alison. Did you see my email ? Please let me know any reply or if I should redirect the query, thanks - Youreallycan 13:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems important

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! It's okay - the diff linked is pointing to the one after the suppressed one, so I think we're good! - Alison ❤ 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see

Someone reads what I write. Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

I'll admit that I was in work when I saw that comment, and laughed out loud! How appropriate for Commons! - Alison ❤ 00:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CTC logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CTC logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Alison, I actually have a feeling that User:Takabeg is also a sock puppet of User:Ledenierhomme (or vise versa). The reason I think this is because, historically, when I have forgetten to sign in, they have accussed me of being a "troll" just as User:AbdolRezaCCIH has been doing in the last few days towards User:OzofAvrupa. Furthermore, Takabeg used to be seen on the Iraqi Turkmens article as well as at Turks in Europe. Could you look into it? I have not listed it under the sockpuppet investigations just in case I'm wrong on this one, I don't want to start reporting innocent users. Turco85 (Talk) 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I Know You're Busy But...

Not being a stalker, but how old are you. At first I thought you were in your early 20's, but then you talked about the late 70's, so now I'm confused!

Ironic, huh, that you'd support COPPA and you have kids of your own? Wouldn't they want to join wikipedia too or are they like six and seven years old? Just wondering.


{{SUBST:User:Atum World/Toast}} (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

usar page

hi Alison. i expected it, more or less. some people have no sense of humor or taste in dongs. :< -badmachine 06:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

talk about "sexy results". :P -badmachine 06:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed! - Alison ❤ 07:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme ‎ is back again

Hi Alison, as you seem to have some knowledge of this users behaviour would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme. It seems as though know one has looked at the current case, Ledenierhomme is now going by the name "User:GAYousefSaanei".Turco85 (Talk) 01:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ❤ 03:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alison. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 05:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guerillero | My Talk 05:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

thank you Alison. :) -badmachine 06:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoration request

User_talk:Fastily#Restoration_request – Can you please fulfill this restoration request? The image was uploaded way before Logs existed, so I need the page history. Fastily is "burnt out", so he or she won't be able to fulfill my request. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he declined your request. The file was deleted after a unanimous deletion discussion. The correct venue is Deletion review. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought that Fastily asked for a clarification ("why?"). I only need it restored temporarily so that it can be moved to Commons. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Moving the file to commons would be attempting to override the English Wikipedia consensus. It is a well known fact that it is quite difficult to get anything deleted on commons, as there are people over there that will !vote keep on anything released under a compatible license. So yes, if it were uploaded on commons, it is unlikely the file would be deleted again. However, there was an enwiki discussion establishing that the subject was a lower resolution duplicate of an existing file. Trying to get around that by uploading it to commons is gaming the system. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time that I've heard that. Interesting. I'll try WP:DR. I don't have any desire to game the system. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion started. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Congratulations on five years, Alison! :) Acalamari 23:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

User script listing cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion (talk) 04:29, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned you...

on my talk page. Please see User talk:LadyofShalott#?. See what you think. LadyofShalott 14:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

sockpuppets of mrpontiac1

dear alison,

here is another one, [5].-- altetendekrabbe  07:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks. here is a new one [6]. suggest a full protection for the maratha pages.-- altetendekrabbe  07:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That one actually traces to a cellphone in New York (look it up in Geobytes) so is likely someone else. As to the articles, they're on my watch list now, so any issues over there will likely now be picked up and dealt with by me - Alison ❤ 07:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
ok, but he's most probably a meat puppet. he's only listed with 4-5 edits, all of them are reverts from today. hence, he is making false claims about earlier edits.-- altetendekrabbe  07:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

ACC backlog

Hey if you get a chance, there are a few requests on the ACC tool that require a checkuser. Some are coming up on two days in the queue. Thanks! — Bility (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser question

Hi Alison! I'm sorry to bother you, I was wondering if you could take a look at this thread at ANI. I have no idea whether the circs of this incident warrant CheckUser action or not. It's very rare that report things to ANI, so I'm not fully clued up on procedure, but there is something about these editors contribs and concerns raised in the ANI thread that sets my spidey-senses off. Thanks on advance Pol430 talk to me 20:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi

Alison:

Tá brón orm go bhfuil mé caillte do affection (agus gur de Brown-eyed Girl, a bhfuil meas agam go mór). Tá mé ag cur sos ó Vicipéid. Ba mhaith liom tú ar an saol mór le do na páistí. Is mise, Quis separabit? 23:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Awww! Táim an-bhrón anois. Níl túsa caillte dom, ach táim an-ghnóthach sa 'fíor-shaol' ag an am seo. Dude, I still think you're awesome, it's just that I'm so busy IRL these days and I'm just not here that much anymore. I still remember the times we had on here (good and bad), and how you came back from the cold. But I still take a peek over on your user page whenever I'm about, just to see how things are. I think WP wouldn't be the same if you weren't here - Alison ❤ 00:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


Ar ndóigh, tá mé i gcónaí neamhchinnte, tá mé foirm Giúdach Nua-Eabhrac -- úsáid mé a chur i gcomparáid le Woody Allen. Anois siad comparáid a dhéanamh dom "Newman" ón tsraith Seinfeld (ró-ramhar!!) Quis separabit? 23:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My reactions to your principles

Hi! I just thought I'd let you know what I think about your principles:

  1. Yes, we should have extra edit scrutiny for BLPs. But wouldn't flagged revisions prevent constructive editing (such as typo correction)?
  2. No. Absolutely not. There are several non-vandal IPs out there, and people who are inclined to vandalism could easily take 2 seconds and get an account.
  3. I don't know what you're talking about.
  4. Probably yes, unless there's a consensus to keep.
  5. Amen!!!!!!!!!!!
  6. Child editors fall into three groups, just like adult editors. Group 1 comprises the stereotypical newbies who are curious about being able to edit a website. Most leave after just a few edits, so there isn't much danger from them. The "Facebook group" is a subgroup of Group 1 (those in the "Facebook group" are those who use their userspace for social networking). We do need to worry about the "Facebook group" because they're usually immature and don't realize the consequences of their actions--plus social networking lends itself to the revealing of personal information. We have oversight to deal with the "Facebook group". Those in Group 2 are the vandals (who rarely pay attention to their userspace) and they are easily dealt with. There's another group, though: Group 3. Child editors in Group 3 are those who want to contribute constructively and become established editors. We don't need to worry about them because they're usually mature enough to handle themselves. I'm not saying we shouldn't take precautions; I'm just saying that it probably isn't as big of a problem as you think.

Thoughts on my reply? ChromaNebula (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My overall contributions so far (Important)

Hello Alison, hope you are doing good :). I need to ask about a frank view/opinion on my contributions so far from all experienced users (all other users are also most welcome to comment). As i want to improve more and more day by day and help the project become more successful which i am proudly a part of. I am always truthful, i also intend to become an administrator in the future to help and serve the project better than ever and for that i need more help and support from all other users on every aspect. I had started my Wikipedia editor review Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser almost a month ago, but only one user till now have given me feedback about my contributions. Looking forward to hearing for suggestions from you and all members of the community :). Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin Interview

Hi!

I'm a student at Michigan State University and am currently working on a project that highlights the experience of Wikipedia Administrators. As part of a class assignment, Professor Obar provided your contact information to be interviewed about the Adminship process. I can e-mail you a brief list of questions for the project as long as you're still interested in taking part. Feel free to e-mail me at hocka2012@gmail.com.

Thank You,

Allie

Request on an Email

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -  Done - Alison ❤ 19:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

ACC query

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mlpearc (powwow) 19:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Something in your area of expertise

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Lauder, thanks. 2 lines of K303 16:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • No problem. I wasn't sure if there'd be any checkuser data kicking around or not, I know it's not stored that long but given the lengthy discussions about the data in that case I thought there might be a chance.... 2 lines of K303 05:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I thank you, Madam. — 99801155KC9TV (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
And a post-script: — it seems, my dear and my most learned friend and lady, that the both of us are equally international in nature, albeit in separate, but not opposite, directions, and with vastly varying fortunes. — 99801155KC9TV (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Kindness and Tolerance

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For saying "This project needs more tolerance, not more bannination" in a recent WP:ANI thread. I totally agree. —Torchiest talkedits 18:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Protocol surrounding removal of talk page comments?

Hi Alison, You recently performed a checkuser for a sock-puppet investigation I filed against ProwlingToad[7]. Thank you for taking care of that. I wanted to inquire about what the standard protocol is in removing, archiving, or striking out inappropriate article talk page comments by blocked users (or in general). Elsewhere I've witnessed editors deleting talk page comments—including by legitimate editors—that violate WP:FORUM. In the case of confirmed socks, I've seen editors strike out their talk page comments. I've searched, but cannot find any policy documents or guidelines governing these matters. Could you advise? I'm really just looking to clean up the talk pages that this guy cluttered up with multiple unconstructive threads and personal attacks. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 14:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche

Please see this edit [8] re this User:LHirsig, thanks...Modernist (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep -  Confirmed - four proxies already blocked by AGK (talk · contribs) - no other sockies that I can see - Alison ❤ 17:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail about revision delete

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

Oversighter's Barnstar
For your quick response to a new editor mistakenly posting his e-mail in a Feedback form, which I thought was beyond the technical ability of Oversighters to remove! :) Salvidrim! 06:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Pine(talk) 08:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lulz

ma'am, you'd know- where may I find the lulziest lulz in wikipedia:/wikipedia_talk: space? Egg Centric 23:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

JLC Talk Page

Hi Alison

Thanks for your "explanation" however the point I was making wasn't that the "urban legend" was true. I was making the point that it should be mentioned and then disproved by the many citations and sources arguing AGAINST it (bbc / Daily Mail / Daily Mirror / et al). I don't see how disproving or correcting an incorrect legend does any harm? For example, if a rumour was going around (and had been for 20 years) than Jimbo was gay but there was plenty of evidence that he wasn't would that be banned not only from the article but from the talk page as well? This seems to be a very very flimsy argument and whilst I can understand the need to protect people I think on this occasion it speaks of "fanboyishness" and serves to hide an issue that WP should be more than capable of setting the record straight on.

Removing a TALK section rather than addressing the issue raised seems to me to be very undemocratic. Why didn't you simply respond to my question on the TALK page rather than simply deleting the entire section - which smacked of Big Brother. I was making a point but also asking a legitimate series of questions which simply got binned! My points comparing the rumour to the ones impacting on Lady Gaga were just ignored when they merited a little discussion -- or is someone on the payroll of JLC? It hardly looks independent does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanzarotemaps (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I've replied at my talk page. E-mail, if you'd rather. I'll monitor my e-mail continuously over the next half-hour if I see nothing on my talk. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Over the top

The ANI post was over the top with "The original abuse, in a small way maybe, is just being perpetuated here. " No, it is/was just good faith editors seeing BM's actions as disruptive rather than misguided. Nobody Ent 03:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

+1

The Special Barnstar
For following your heart. -badmachine 05:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Alison, ^ up there wants a hatted box with fifty dicks on his user page. I kind of want to say no, just for safety's sake, but I can't really see what the problem would be. Few children are likely to stumble onto his user page. But I still kind of want to say no, being a puritan at heart. But besides that, I don't know how to do this or how to make an exception. Your advice on all these points is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • i would just as soon not bother Alison with this. people point out our association, and i want my proposal to succeed on its merit, not on any perceived favortism. -badmachine 23:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For being the best user on wikipedia Egg Centric 21:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Insert AOL soundbite here

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Whitelisting of ED

I've reverted your unilateral whitelisting of a website notorious for hosting highly defamatory attack pages directed at wikimedians. I would suggest that you gather some sort of consensus for the inclusion of links to that website instead of unilaterally whitelisting it. I have to step away from the PC now, but seriously, let's not whitelist links to ED, which as you know is in a category of its own in his horrible harassment of wikimedians in the worst ways possible. Snowolf How can I help? 09:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. First point; I didn't 'whitelist ED' - I whitelisted one page of ED; my userpage. There's not a whole lot of vandalism or defamation anyone's going to be able to do linking to one page. Secondly, the only reason I added it in the first place was so I could link from my userpage for purposes of transparency. It's something folks should be aware of. I've been a WP editor for over eight years and have had links to ED for over four. Having said all that, I don't mind your revert, but I just want to clarify the rationale behind adding it here - Alison ❤ 17:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Alison, where exactly do I have to request the blocking of an IP? As you can probably guess I don't normally request blocks. Thanks in advance.Turco85 (Talk) 18:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You can just ask any admin, or if it's vandalism-related, a message at WP:AIV will work! :) - Alison ❤ 18:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Guessing you've seen this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— KC9TV 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been mentioned by me (and others) . . .

here: Diff of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop Regards, Bielle (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification ;)

Doc9871 (talk · contribs) and some IP have helpfully mentioned you in this thread. Hope ya have your IPv6 tools sharpened. IPs are actually right, but may be anak nakal. Several of the user account are pretty BITEy, too.  Br'erRabbit  06:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta AFD4

Hi, your input is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (4th nomination), per your previous comments at the third AFD. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked uesr is back

Hi Alison. FYI that User:Mgunetiquette is back with the account: User:Machinegunetiq. They continue their un-bias edits. I have requested a sockpuppet investigation, though, that might not be necessary since it's rather obvious. Perhaps you have better input on what to do :) Thanks. Sarah (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!! Sarah (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unban anniversary

Cheers!

Hey, Alison. Here's to the one year anniversary of my unban. Cheers! CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 09:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

ALERT! Possible return of ScottyBerg via sock REPLY REQUESTED

I would like to report that banned user SCottyBerg might have returned under IP address 173.63.176.93. as ID. This individual is making pro-NY edits using travel sites(www.explorechinatown.com) as his sources. In the meantime, he rejects reliable resources that say otherwise, such as www.city-data-com. www.city-data-com collects data and info gathered by the U.S. census bureau for all communities w/in the U.S., from state all the way down to individual neighborhoods.

173.63.176.93's edits are eerily similar to ScottyBerg's. Furthermore, the edit history of 173.63.176.93 was non-existent until right after the blockage of ScottyBerg! We all knew he was going to be back sooner or later. It wasn't a matter of "if", but "when" and as "who". I'd give at least a 70% chance likelihood that ScottyBerg and 173.63.176.93 are one in same. In any case, I think it's in your best interest to definitely run a checkuser and put a block on them.

Regards, MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Woohoo! Bra straps!

That's totally hot and I hadn't even noticed. Thanks for pointing it out! Keep the faith, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

The Special Barnstar
For being a good person and not tolerating ignorance. – ツ Teammm (talk · email) 00:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Cookies93

Hi, thanks for blocking. The only edit of his I didn't revert was this one because I was loath to touch that page. Also note the preceding edit (left side of the diff) by the IP and the edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Alison, this protracted drama connected to Cracker92 has been one of the more bizarre events I've seen on Wikipedia. And it's not over yet. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User 58.7.138.14

Thank you so much for your block of User:58.7.138.14, he of the incoherent anti-feminist screeds. You may well have spotted it already, but in case the situation escalates I'm 99% sure that User:120.151.106.44 is the same person, mostly due to posting the same nonsense on the same or similar articles. Thank you again for your quick work on this! Euchrid (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

He's back with the same.[9][10] --Niemti (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
And again: Special:Contributions/58.7.55.27. bridies (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Jimjilin

I understand you are having issues with this user, he has turned up on History of antisemitism, can you keep an eye on this if possible? Joshuaselig (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Anurag Mathur‎

Hi, Ali. Can you close out this AFD, please. I initiated it but am withdrawing it on second thought; we might as well nip it in the bud before I start getting insulted. Thanks.

Already done. Quis separabit? 18:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

:: BTW: Did an editor calling himself Terence noel george ever contact you? I advised him on his talk page, in response to a request that I re-edit his article, that you might be the best person to assist him. I doubt he is who he claims to be but everything is possible. ♥ Quis separabit? 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess not. Quis separabit? 18:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wups

I saw the "wups!", so no worries : )

But I was wondering what happened? - jc37 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh - I was on my cell, about to revert vandalism on Brittney Griner when I hit the wrong link. I'm sorry! - Alison ❤ 00:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Lol no worries. Just was curious.
They should give you a better interface or something to help with that : ) - jc37 00:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, they totally should. Who makes those stupid things anyways? :) - Alison ❤ 04:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your input is requested

With respect to your diff here; two editors appear not to understand your edit summary. Would you please elaborate on this at the appropriate talk page?. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hi Alison. I was going through a list of checkusers and was wondering if you could checkuser this as it appears someone is impersonating me and other users and trying to get them blocked.—cyberpower ChatTemporarily Online 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey Alison, did you get a chance to look at this? Regarding Unkown WormTT(talk) 16:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

checkuser

I've now seen several comments by the editor suggesting they have been using more than one account. This, depending on how one reads it, would appear to be another. Would this be worth requesting a checkuser? - jc37 16:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams archives

I notice you've protected the Stephanie Adams page. I'm wondering why the discussion archives have been blanked. Is this something that's normally done? Talk:Stephanie Adams Thanks for checking into this. Pkeets (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Edit

Thanks. Normally I wouldn't bother, but considering it's not my usual address I'd hate for some troll to latch onto the wrong chap :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)

Nomination of Rodney J. Woods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rodney J. Woods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney J. Woods until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ...William 16:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Site down?

Hi. I'm not sure if you're aware (or if it's just me, for that matter), but <http://www.alisoncassidy.com/> currently returns a white screen accompanied by the text "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable" for me. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Yeah, big meanie Apple pulled their MobileMe service recently and as I've the site 303'd to there from my own server, it's kinda failing. I really need to rebuild the site and put it back up but I'm still trying to figure out a good, simple CMS for the Mac. Thanks for letting me know! - Alison ❤ 20:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

|}

socksmash

ban-hammer of antipuppetry
Thanks for that impressive round of sock-smashing. Looking at your contrib list... I think my mind would have exploded halfway through. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Kardthrow

Hi. Can you link me to the sockpuppet investigation that concluded that Kardthrow violated WP:SOCK? Was it established that he did not create a second account to effect a "clean start"? I'm just curious. Nightscream (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. There actually is no on-wiki SPI case. I'm one of the site's checkusers and the above case was discovered as a result of another check I was doing on a returning IP socker. What I discovered was that the Kardthrow account was  Confirmed to be a sockpuppet of one of dozens of accounts associated with one editor, used to POV-push and add BLP violations to numerous articles. Check my recent block logs and you will see some of the dozens of accounts and how they operate. Yes, it was WP:SOCK, WP:SCRUTINY, WP:GHBH - Alison ❤ 02:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


Thanks

Hi, Ali. Thanks for having my back. I just noticed a little while ago. ♥ Quis separabit? 18:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Any time, Robert! I'm still looking out for ya though I'm not here nearly as much ;) - Alison ❤ 06:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please could you undelete Samantha Brick?

While getting rid of the article was the right thing at the time, she is now in Celebrity Big Brother so I don't feel that BLP1E still applies and seems a good idea to have the entire history there... Egg Centric 14:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello, Alison. I see that you indefinitely blocked User:DarthVader&Sons. Well, I'm pretty certain that he's back, this time as User:Lagresi. DarthVader&Sons added this contested material to the Serial killer article. Lagres has showed up out of nowhere and added the text back. Even though, unlike DarthVader&Sons, he has removed "(although this percentage is consistent with the general population of male homosexuals)," it's still suspicious that this "new user" would show up and pull this text out of the edit history to add it back to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For one thing, the addition is a borderline "close paraphrasing" COPYVIO. The original source states (viewable here): "Though gays constitute only a small minority of serial killers—about 5 percent, according to the most informed estimates—they are even more prone to "overkill" than their straight counterparts, indulging in the most horrific extremes of torture, mutilation and dismemberment. They are also among the most prolific of serial killers." There's nothing in the source about "higher rates" or that "Homosexual male serial killers also are more prolific in their number of victims." Considering the close paraphrasing and misinterpretation of the source, I have removed it. Doc talk 20:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this and taking care of the matter, Doc. Much appreciated, as is your general help with that article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Anytime! FWIW, it could be a sock, but I can't do much about that as a non-admin. If it is a sock, it's likely to now be horrified out of existence at least on this account. If not, and they're a legit new editor, perhaps they can edit within our copyright rules from now on. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-feminist troll, again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.7.117.65 I think this new IP should seem familiar... Especially diffs such as this and this. Boasts of trolling and of being banned, again. bridies (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Death of Carole Waugh

Hi Alison. I guess you're right, but I'm slightly confused. We have other images used in similar articles (such as [[Murder of Joanna Yeates|this one] which I used as a template for the above article]). So should none of these articles include images because they're about the event rather than the person? If you can spare a couple of minutes I'd appreciate a bit of advice on this as I don't want to do something that's not right in future. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just an update on this. I've put it forward for AFD again. The discussion can be found here. BTW, how did you enlarge the typeface on here? I have difficulty reading some small text so I think this would be useful for me. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. Just to let you know I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography on the issue of "murder of" articles, and written a draft essay on the subject. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
PS, I'd still appreciate some feedback on the image thing as it might be useful to include a paragraph on it in the essay. For example, if we can't use an image of a person in an event-related article, which I'm assuming to be the case as one was removed from the above article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

GNAA

Do you think it is reasonable to explain to people that the GNAA group are not actually gay black people trying to reclaim a pejorative? —Cupco 09:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What kind of a question is that? Do you think it's reasonable to add speculation as to the racial origin of the alleged members of the GNAA? Would this be appropriate in an article relating to some other organization? I strongly suggest you research WP:BLP and WP:OR before adding stuff like that in future. It's completely unacceptable - Alison ❤ 09:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a sincere question. Isn't there a substantial possibility that those unfamiliar with the group could think that they might actually be gay and black? They go to great lengths on their site and publications to include pictures of black people. I will propose an alternate phrasing. —Cupco 09:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
No, there's isn't 'a substantial possibility'. Does that answer your question? - Alison ❤ 09:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It does not. What are your reasons for saying that a group which goes to great lengths to mislead people and includes pictures of professional looking black people on its website and publications is not likely to fool someone into thinking that they have black members? —Cupco 09:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Colburn, Adams County, Wisconsin

Hi-At the talk page of the town of Colburn, Adams County, Wisconsin article, someone left his/her e-mail address. I am not sure if it is a problem or not. According to the history of the article's talk page, it has been there since 2006. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for letting me know. At this point, six years later, I don't think it'll make much difference. I'd say redact it, by all means, or just leave it be - Alison ❤ 22:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ankh.Morpork 14:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

? Ankh.Morpork 09:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

apparently I am a sockpuppet lol

Can you put this ridiculousness to rest? Please and thank you :) --Zaiger (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Alison! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

User:Quis separabit

Hi, Ali. Could you redirect this old userpage to my username as the name happens to coincide with my signature. (Can you believe it's been 5 years??). Thanks, as always, Quis separabit? 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

fyi

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Maractus talk 00:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

New medical organization

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous comment

Lather-rinse-repeat. Does the repeat apply to both Lather and rinse, or just rinse? Nobody Ent 12:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suspect "lather" will be involved again - Alison ❤ 12:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Outing

Alison, you've just protected Youreallycan's user talk page on a version which outs me and falsely claims that I edited under my own name, which I never have done. I have asked for oversight on YRC's outing edits. Please get rid of that last edit. Prioryman (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The edits are currently under review. Give me (and the rest of the team) a chance already. I've temporarily removed the edit in question for now - Alison ❤ 23:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I really wish, though, that you wouldn't throw phrases like "grow up" in my direction simply because I object to YRC posting my real name, which I've never used on Wikipedia. I have a right to remove privacy-violating information and to ask the poster to stop posting it, don't I? I've already reported it to Oversight, as I'm sure you're aware. Prioryman (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You are *all* behaving like 2nd-graders right now, to be honest; you and him. I've suppressed the edits and have contacted the greater Oversight team, so this may well change on review. Either way, suppress first here when in doubt and review later - Alison ❤ 23:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I disagree, obviously. There is one more house-keeping issue to take care of, if you could. Nomoskedasticity started an ANI discussion about this incident but was evidently unable to add a notification to YRC's talk page before you protected it. Could you please add the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template to his page so that he's properly notified? Prioryman (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You might wish to comment on ANI, actually, since oversighter input is being requested there. It seems to have been resolved on ANI, anyway, so thank you and your colleagues for helping to resolve this. Prioryman (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Youreallycan

Can you delete all revisions violating WP:OUTING, please.--В и к и T 23:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Rob

I wanted to let him know I have proposed an IBAN but you have shut his talk page off, will you let him know please so he may respond, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but are you guys sure, based on the evidence in the ANI thread, that outing actually occurred? Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Youreallycan and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --Rschen7754 04:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

YRC oversight

I am a tad confused. Why was the revision by Viriditas on 22:54, 26 October 2012‎ oversighted? No comments containing Prioryman's name were there beforehand and it would seem odd for Viriditas to say Prioryman's name when it was clear Prioryman was citing outing over that very issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Feline1 and accusations of homophobia

I name-dropped you at ANI, regarding a user you once blocked for calling others homophobes at Talk:Crisco. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Debi Gliori

Hi Alison: This just in. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 15:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alison. You have new messages at Vacation9's talk page.
Message added 00:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vacation9 (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

A request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Codswallop

Thanks very much for pointing out my mistake on dexamethasone. Saturnink (talk · contribs) has been warned about the inadvisability of adding codswallop to Wikipedia (after all the interaction has not been documented). JFW | T@lk 22:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

COPPA

Hello Alison! I came here because of your quick work when we contacted Oversight earlier. I was wondering if there is anything I can do to help with the COPPA compliance? As I am doing my reversions, sometimes I see all kinds of personal information being put out there about kids. This is particularly true about highschool articles and music articles. I wish I could lock pages, but you have to be an admin to do that, and I'm not interested in the headache of going through the admin process. It's painful just to watch others go through it. Is there a COPPA project or anything like that? I'd like to help. --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 01:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sue, and thanks for letting me know about this. Yes, if you see personal information relating to young children on here, especially full names, ages and locating information including school location, the best thing you can do is contact the oversight team and let us know. We'll discretely deal with it. You can also contact me directly via email or contact any of these people] and it will be dealt with. And thank you for being vigilant about this stuff! You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. Thanks again! - Alison ❤ 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I would say that about twice a day I will see a kids full name being used on a highschool page. It's actually rather common. I can tell that the references are to children because the comments are usually quite negative, and speak of things like what class they are attending, who their BF/GF is, etc. I and others have probably reverted a lot of these in the past, and I imagine that all of that info is still in the histories of those pages. I don't think a human could do it, but if you have access to some sort of software that can scan highschool pages for full names, it would be a good idea to do so. Other than that, will simply make oversight requests when I encounter these in the future. --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 21:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Lord McAlpine Allegations Made On Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alistair_McAlpine,_Baron_McAlpine_of_West_Green#Alleged_information

Alison

You have dealt fairly regarding other articles I have been an editor on and wish to ask you to offer opinion on the above talk page.

Here are the facts: The BBC flagship news program 'Newsnight' suggested a very senior Conservative member of parliament abused children. Evidence for this was obtained through web sites including Lord McAlpine's talk history, allegations which had no substance were bandied about on this page. Now the BBC have issued a grovelling apology the BBC in disarray and the program made be cancelled and yet even now some editors wish to include this incorrect and defamatory nonsense in the main article. I wish to roll back and delete any suggestion that Lord McAlpine was involved in child abuse on the talk history page. Not only is it a bad day for the BBC but a terrible day for Wikipedia.

On the Harriet Harman BLP article you stated that the talk history be archived or deleted, this is a much stronger case for removal as a matter of urgency to protect this poor mans reputation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/09/newsnight-lord-mcalpine-abuse-allegations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20278885

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20268548 Twobells (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting aspect of the problem. What leads you to believe that the BBC Newsnight programme was partly based on material posted to the talk page of the Wikipedia article about the person? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It's nonsense. A casual glance at its history shows that the revdeletes didn't start until 2 November this year, the day the Newsnight program was broadcast.
What I would be curious to know from Alison is whether there is any Wikipedia policy or guidance concerning standards and/or privacy which can be cited in support of not including this material. I wish there was, but I can't find any myself. Meanwhile WP:WELLKNOWN seems to me to positively encourage including it. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lost wikimarkup access

Ali, do you know anything about or can you help with this? I only ask since I know you're a computer whiz. Thanks. Quis separabit? 16:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alison. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiamNolan24.
Message added 17:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I need advice

In this AfD discussion House_of_du_Souich, I strongly suspect sock puppetry and astroturfing. I do not know how to launch such an investigation or even if I should. Could I get another set of eyes on this? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

After a glowing description of you I am in awe, of course

You will see that glowing description here. It was suggested there that I wave this towards you. I think it intersects with some of your specialist area of interest, and you might find it of more than passing interest. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

e-mail

I have sent you one.  pablo 11:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Contact

Alison, one of the major disadvantages of this site is that there is no way in which long-established admins can contact/console each other. Or if there is, I have not found it. I am still here; is all well with you? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 23:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And, by the way, did you ever hear from Sharon (Phaedriel)? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 23:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

1990hornet (talk · contribs)

Hey, Alison, a few years ago you created this account for me as a doppelganger so I couldn't be impersonated. You procedurally blocked it as I was banned at the time. Well, as you know, I'm not anymore and was wondering if anything can be done about the block message to update it to reflect my current status on wiki. thanks. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 00:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Email
Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SQGibbon (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:MikeFromCanmore

Saw your CU. I'm familiar with Flyer22, have had many private talks and even gave her IP exempt due to problems with her "brother", in good faith. Whether it really is her as both, or her brother, you may know this has been a long term problem. I would be shocked if I didn't get an email soon, and I will direct her this way. I revoked Mike's talk page access based on the fact that this is a sock, making his current activity just trolling. There has likely been a few dozen IPs and names that trace back to this same place, much of which isn't in the SPI archives. In hindsight, I can completely see how this the same IP as Flyer, whether or not there really is a brother. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I've been comparing email from Flyer22, to which I have a few dozen. Without disclosing any details in them, 220.255.2.x's behavior is very, very consistent with Flyer's. 220* has left a great deal of interaction on my own talk page to compare to. It looks like a block of /24 would take care of the problem, but that is actually part of a /16 which I am not comfortable blocking due to potential collateral damage, so I will leave the block range in your hands, and simply provide the linkage information. If this does go to WP:AN, please let me know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A sad day

Alison, what the heck is the situation with Flyer22?

I mean, if Flyer22 has to be blocked for some reason, OK, but this would be a terrible loss to the project. We need her. There are very few editors willing and able to engage editors in depth on certain fringe sexual issues, such as editors who wish to normalize adult sex with young children. These editors are sometimes clever, erudite, and subtle, and are often tireless. I can't do this. You can't do this. Flyer22 can. Do we have to throw her away? Now that Will Beback is also thrown away, practically the only one left willing and able to do this is Legitimus, and he's only one person. This is a problem.

If Flyer22 is some kind of destructive or mad troll, she'd be a pretty unusual one, in that she's put in years and years of really constructive work that is vital and that virtually no one else is willing to do. I've worked with Flyer22 for years and haven't seen any evidence of the behaviors that you attribute to her, such as a "LGBT POV-pushing spree". So this is a very odd case.

Everyone understands that many households have one computer that is shared by two or more people, as is the case in Flyer22's household. We're not all rich or middle-class you know. I suppose this presents a problem regarding puppetry, and I can see that that could be complicated and I don't know how that's handled or should be handled. However, that's not an issue here, since I gather from your note that you have 100% incontrovertible proof that Flyer22, and not some other person using her computer, is engaged in the nefarious behavior you describe, based on edit times and other info.

I'll be double-checking your work very closely over the coming days, what I can check. I can't check who is using a Singaporean proxy, but you've stated that the actual account Flyer22 has been using a Singaporean proxy (it would be counterproductive for Flyer22 to run the actual Flyer22 account through a proxy, though, so that seems odd -- is there no chance that this could happen due to using a browser setting set by a previous user of that browser, or something?). But I assume the data is incontrovertible or you wouldn't have acted as you did, so this is just a formality I suppose.

Whatever, it's a sad day for the Wikipedia, that's for sure, and a serious loss. A little less crowing ("you're done here") might have been in order, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please chill right out, Herostratus. This is not over yet, nobody's being "thrown away" and rhetoric like this is certainly not helping - Alison ❤ 05:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm room temperature, a point halfway between being chilled out and being hot with agitated concern, which I think is appropriate for the situation. Re rhetoric it is not I who said "you're done here", and that certainly doesn't sound like a description of a situation that is "not over yet", and if the situation is not over yet then perhaps that is the sort of rhetoric that is certainly not helpful. You didn't say "It appears that..." or "Indications are..." or whatnot; you said "You've been..." and "they're all you. Confirmed..." and "nobody is going to accept [your] excuse this time..." and "You've gone to great effort to cover your tracks..." and so forth. You certainly sound quite certain. If you're not certain -- either never were, or are backing off that now -- maybe you could temper your prose in future? But let's not bandy words, but fix the problem, if it is fixable. Herostratus (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been working with Flyer22 for many months now on these issue, helping her on several occasions and always found her pleasant company as well. While the technical data is overwhelming, I think Alison has remained as open minded and sensitive as possible and is continuing to engage with Flyer. I trust Alison to listen, follow the evidence, and do the right thing. These things occasionally take time as it isn't a simple issue, and the rest of us do not have all the evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyes@wikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you!! Merry Christmas to you as well - Alison ❤ 06:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Pine✉ 08:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock user

Hi Alison - I saw your edit here. I don't doubt it - the user's behavior makes it likely - but when I click on the link for the SPI, it leads to the Nrcprm2026 page where an SPI archive link is listed, but it doesn't contain any information on 2010 SO16. Can you refer me to the page where 2010 SO16's SPI took place? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm one of the Checkusers on enwiki. I ran the check as a result of an off-wiki email request, which contained evidence which I considered sufficient to run a check, per policy. Not all checkusers are run as a result of SPI requests - Alison ❤ 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
All good by me, was just curious what the background was on that user and how they were found out. Their behavior seemed suspicious and upon seeing that they'd been labelled as a confirmed sock, my impression was "that figures". The point that an underlying checkuser confirmed it helps settle the matter. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison/Archive_59&oldid=1190143379"