Jump to content

User talk:Alison/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Check user request . . . User:House1090 again?

Alison: Can you or another person do a check user on User:MountCan as a possible sockpuppet of User:House1090? MountCan's edits at Chino Hills, California are very similar to those of House's sockpuppet User:Ie909: This one today compared to this one on November 7, 2007. The pattern of edits try to change things about the San Bernardino, California area. His edits seem fairly consistently involving that geographical area and have the same poor grammar, like his entry on my talk page here, just like House. Judging by the user page, he may have moved. I would appreciate your help. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind . . . I now see you already did a check user for an alert User:Amerique on 9 July. Thanks anyway, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That's  Confirmed and now blocked - see the ANI thread - Alison ❤ 04:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, Gogo dodo blocked another apparent account of his, User:SBHouse1090, today: [1]. Would a range block would be effective? Thanks for your time, Ameriquedialectics 00:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's  Confirmed again, but it's way too early for anything like a rangeblock, IMO. The range he uses, BTW, is very busy - Alison ❤ 00:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alison,

Another suspect. Maybe he's trying to impress us with his sincerity as he edits with one sock while requesting to be unblocked with another: Neillty (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Thanks again, Ameriquedialectics 02:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed again and blocked - Alison ❤ 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Ameriquedialectics 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

User:Radioinfoguy

Hi Alison, I've added one more to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Radioinfoguy. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just replied over there. The account is Red X Unrelated to your editor, but is still socking it up to the max - Alison ❤ 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh crap, I think I made a boo-boo. I blocked and tagged all of those accounts as Radioinfoguy and extended his block because of it... just to clarify one more time, they are not socks of Radioinfoguy? Tiptoety talk 07:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Although the IPs may not be related I think they are alternate (or proxy) accounts of User:Radioinfoguy one way or another, I'd like to hear what Alison thinks. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not, I'm afraid. They're geographically quite different and it's not via proxy - Alison ❤ 07:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean via IP proxy, I meant human proxy, a meatpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Ali. I am going to leave Radioinfoguy indef blocked anyways. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I never thanked you for helping with the Richard Hell issue on Commons. Thank you, Alison. --David Shankbone 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help, David :) Welcome back to Wikipedia, BTW - Alison ❤ 00:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's good to be back, and it's good to see you here. You're this place's "Phaedriel" until she returns ;-) --David Shankbone 02:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
lol - David, I'm so not Phaedriel, but thanks for the compliment :) Still miss her, too .... - Alison ❤ 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just let you know...

That I've stolen your monobook.css. It's a nice look. Maxim(talk) 00:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool :) Glad you like it - Alison ❤ 00:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A break from your break please?

A merger proposal was made two months ago by someone that Celtic tribes of the British Isles be merged to List of Celtic tribes . The latter is a much more comprehensive article and includes most of the information in the former. There has been no objections to the proposal when I came across it a few days ago; I went to considerable effort to merge both without loosing any information. Almost immediately Tharkuncall, who is obviously watching my edits, reverted all I'd done without any rationale other than "I don't agree" I have defended this guy repeatedly but really we need an Admin warning to stop warring (ie demerging) on List of Celtic tribes . Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think you make a very fair point indeed, Sarah. Let's not have anyone go to war on this one - Alison ❤ 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but still need help.

Thanks for your help with the IFA Championship and IFA Interim Intermediate League articles. Unfortunately, however, they are are still not quite right. I had rewritten both to update them, make them accurate and provide more information. What we have now is the old articles under the new names. We need the new articles under the new names. I can't find the updated version in the article history. A lot of genuine work that I have put into these appears to be lost, and the articles are now inaccurate. Can you help again? Mooretwin (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done - all sorted now :) - Alison ❤ 17:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

email

It's reasonably important.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied! But you know that already :) - Alison ❤ 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A Message From The Innocent Sockpuppet

Hi Alison, I think I may have messed up by posting another message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/GDD1000. I wasn't aware when I was writing the reply that the page was being closed. I thank you for your comments and intervention and ask that you read my reply at that page. I have grave concerns.The Thunderer (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc has reopened this twice. I closed it the first time per User:Scarian's reasoning. I closed it the second time per your reasoning. I think the case should be closed, but BigDunc won't give up, apparently. Enigma message 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
All I want is a definitive answer as to whether this editor should be treated as a new editor or as an obvious reincarnation of GDD1000, for the next step in dispute resolution. Also who is Scarian this user has not edited the sock report.BigDuncTalk 21:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Complaint lodged at WP:WQA. I've posted the info here because I think it's relevant.The Thunderer (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Alison Balison! I hope you had a nice moving house transitional period! :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you...

...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hungry

(goes rummaging through your freezer for a snack)... Heya Allie, how are ya? Sorry about going quiet on everyone (Long story).. hope all is well! SirFozzie (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've sent you a email. DHMichaels 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh hey, FozzieBear. Was wondering where you'd got to but figured the so-called 'day' job was getting the better of you. Good to hear from ya :) - Alison ❤ 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

DavidYork71

Hi Alison. Thank you for the recent checkuser. I wanted to double-check about the IPs in question: User:TheIPdude, with his first post on the DYK talk page, seemingly identifies as being 85.73.215.163 and the other dynamic IPs involved in that discussion. Would it be correct to assume that the concerned IPs = User:TheIPdude = User:DavidYork71? Regards, ITAQALLAH 23:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I opened an SSP report earlier today. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DavidYork71 (2nd)‎ Enigma message 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Guys, both of these have now been updated. Enigmaman - more sockies for you by the looks of things. But yes,  Confirmed - Alison ❤ 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

From me

Hi Alison, just a note to let you know I've sent an E-mail. However, I see you're quite busy at the moment, so I can assure you that my message isn't urgent. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 23:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Will reply later when I get a moment, but the response is likely to be in the negative. Sorry! - Alison ❤ 00:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:UpwardToCarlow

Hi Ali - could you do something about this troll - it seems to be on a vandalism rampage. Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

194.46.233.17 is another version of the same thing. Sarah777 (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I see John has now stepped into this one. You should be in good hands now. This editor appears to be trying to make a certain point (similar to the British Isles one, I guess) but is working in good faith, IMO, based on their recent comments - Alison ❤ 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your recent message Mooretwin (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sokay :) You earned it! - Alison ❤ 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Musiclover565 RFCU

Hi Alison and thank you very much for reviewing the case. Not to swamp you with requests, but may a block for the sockpuppet account be appropriate here? The user has been a cause of constant disruption for other editors over the last 6-7 months and his frequent "identity changes" were clearly done in bad faith, to mislead other editors and administrators. Of course, there is little we can do to stop one from editing wikipedia, or, even, from being disruptive, just as there is nothing we can do to prevent this user from coming back with a new sock account and then another one after that, but if we could at least make him use his primary account... Cheers! BanRay 10:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to take any admin action against this account as I originally ran the checkuser. An uninvolved admin or checkuser clerk will act accordingly - Alison ❤ 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll try the noticeboard! BanRay 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Oop..one that I missed. My clerking skills have gone down the drain this past week, lazy lazy Tiptoety. :P Tiptoety talk 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Complaint re: your Checkuser on me

I am writing to you regarding two major issues I have with your recent Checkuser regarding myself and Musiclover565; I will address my concerns about your actual findings later, but firstly, and most crucially, I believe you abused your powers by actually performing the Checkuser in the first place.

WP:Checkuser explicitly states three, and only three, grounds for performing a Checkuser - to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. Even if I was Musiclover565 (and I can only give you my word that I am not), my edits do not fit into any of these columns, as my edits clearly show. A Checkuser may have been justified had myself and ML565 been performing similar edits, and therefore, wanting to give the impression I had extra support - however, this is clearly not the case, as shown by my latest edit yesterday at 23:15 GMT (1) and the final edit of ML565, way back on 4 Feb at 18:52 GMT (2). As you can see, they are completely different. It seems to me that, in requesting a check, BanRay was "fishing" - he did not have a specific reason for why a Checkuser was necessary. Basically, he and Tennis expert have been involved in an edit dispute with me for a number of weeks now, and I believe that they were simply seeking a way of discrediting me, even though they knew a Checkuser would be inappropriate - indeed, since your findings, Tennis expert has already used them to attempt to discredit me, even when they were completely irrelevent to the issue (as way of saying my edit was poor, Tennis expert reverted it irrelevently pointing to my apparent use of sockpuppetry - Whitenoise123 is a consensus of one, unless you count his proven sockpuppets, of course. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Musiclover565). In summary, as I did not fit under one of the three "grounds for checking", you had absolutely no right to invade the privacy of myself and ML565.

Also (though very much secondarily considering, as already shown, a Checkuser was unlawful), I would like to take issue with your actual findings. Your reason given for concluding I was ML565 was "based on the SSP case technical evidence". Correct me if I am wrong, but this leads me to believe you reached your conclusion solely on the basis of what BanRay provided in the sockpuppet case he started on 1 July - that I had a "geographically similar" IP to ML565, in that we both registered as being from Manchester, United Kingdom (I believe every IP from North West England, an area covering 6m+ people, registers as this). As I stated in the initial case, this is not sufficient evidence - it is not implausible that 2 people out of 6m could have an interest in arguably the most famous tennis player in the world today, during the British season where popularity of tennis skyrockets here. If you have other evidence to base your findings on, other than what BanRay provided, I would appreciate it if you elaborated on this evidence.

I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your misuse of the Checkuser function, and assume you made a human error in that you misunderstood the situation, believing me to be performing vandalism when I was not (BanRay certainly misrepresented the situation in his report); in which case, I look forward to you retracting your findings on the Checkuser page and stating the findings cannot be used as ammunition against me, in the Sharapova edit dispute or any other. If you believe you were justified in performing a Checkuser, I look forward to an adequate, thorough explanation as to why this is, coupled with a clarification of the technical evidence you used to reach your conclusion. If you cannot provide any of this, I am afraid I will have no choice but to submit my complaint to the Arbitration Committee. Please do not consider this a threat; I dearly wish to sort this without it getting messy, and like I said, do not believe you intentionally misused your power, but at the same time, I cannot sit back if you do not correct this misuse.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you. Whitenoise123 (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, BanRay's request for a checkuser was far from a fishing expedition. Musiclover565, Mash4ever, and their associated and self-admitted anonymous IP accounts were very disruptive concerning the Maria Sharapova article earlier this year. The disruption resumed via anonymous IP accounts and Whitenoise123 in June of this year. Their tactics were remarkably similar. Accordingly, a sockpuppetry case was opened and then a checkuser was requested. For some history about this whole problem, see this. Also, have a look at this, where Whitenoise123 admitted to being disruptive concerning the Sharapova article. Tennis expert (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps ML565/M4E/etc. were disruptive back then. But, even ignoring the fact there does not seem to be a shred of solid evidence linking me to them, you once again fail to address the fact that that user would have been within his rights to perform the edits I have done, because my edits are perfectly legitimate. Your only complaint about the actual content of my edits has been that it chops away a fair bit of what was already in the article, which is permitted under WP:Be bold. Only you and BanRay appear to believe I have been disruptive, with that link to my complaint against you showing no other editors believed that I was being so. That brings me back to the initial point that Alison grossly breached policy by performing a Checkuser when I had not been disruptive. But tennis expert, this is your opportunity - given your complaint about me removing material is invalid, in line with WP:Be bold, what about my edits do you believe to be disruptive? What editing policies have I breached? Whenever I have requested you answer these questions, you have not done so.
As for that second link you cited - you are going to have to tell me how on earth you interpretted that as an admission to being disruptive. To me, all it seems to be is one of many examples of you rejecting my attempts for consensus with you. Whitenoise123 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, don't feed the troll ;) BanRay 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, guys - and I'm extremely busy here - I'd appreciate it if you didn't continue your battle on my talkpage. Regarding the checkuser, this was absolutely done according to the rules, especially given the evidence provided at the SSP case. I'm disappointed, Whitenoise123, that you have characterized it as "gross misuse", and indeed "unlawful". In this case, I'd rather not share technical evidence of checkuser and instead, direct your complaints to the Arbitration Committee where I'd be only too happy to file privacy-related reports in confidence. I had every reason to run checkuser in this instance and stand by my decision to do so. Thus, I will not be filing a retraction at this time - Alison ❤ 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you feel you were still entitled to perform a Checkuser, especially considering an administrator, Neil, has stated he does not believe my edits to be disruptive (here), effectively eliminating what you have implied was your grounds for checking (if you believe you had other grounds for checking, I ask you tell me). Because I stand by that the check was illegitimate, I feel it necessary to forward my concerns to the Arbitration Committee, and will probably do so in due course.
I would, finally, like to take issue with your implying that I did not assume good faith; I made it very clear in my original complaint that I believed you had good intentions, and that you had simply misunderstood the situation. Whitenoise123 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that you've been blocked indef now, and that Neil has made his own determination that no abuse has occurred. This is obviously conflicted with the checkuser clerk. Indeed, one of my main rationales for running the check in the first place was based on the "evading scrutiny" part of WP:SOCK. It's pretty clear, IMO that that's exactly what has been going on here and it just allows you to edit-war intensely on that one, particular article. That is a pretty clear justification for running a check, IMO.
Either way, your block has now been declined once now and another request is up. Given the nature of this, I will bring the matter up again on WP:AN so that the admin community as a whole can be flagged on this and can come to some agreement here as to what should happen. Right now, there's obviously no consensus. My own personal take on it is that you should be limited to using one account as moving serially through accounts is causing confusion at best, and is evading your edit-warring past, at worst. Let's see what the other admins' take is, though - Alison ❤ 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and yes. You do have redress available by taking the matter to the Arbitration Committee. That could quite possibly be the next step - Alison ❤ 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Perusnarpk

Alison, will you comment on the unblock request on User talk:Perusnarpk? It's related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Perusnarpk and doesn't appear to by a request that can be handled without checkuser knowledge. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

'Don't mean to be a pane in the A double S here but would you like to talk about "the subject" we were talking about via email now? DHMichaels 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Query for collateral damage

66.225.253.134 (talk · contribs) was used disruptively against SA, possibly by a sockpuppet of a banned user. After listing as a possible open proxy, it was discovered to be from a web-hosting company and likely a web-proxy. Is 66.225.253.0 - 66.225.253.255 reasonably blockable on the evidence and would there be any collateral damage? (And since I don't usually do rangeblocks or really understand ranges, could you do the honors?) GRBerry 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My checks show that it definitely is an open proxy, and likely to be a host system belonging to a small /24 webhosting firm. However, checkuser shows that the IP above is the only one being used and in this case, hardblocking that one IP as an open proxy is the best way to go, IMO. Co-incidentally, it's also been used by Grawp - Alison ❤ 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Matter of interest; ClueBot IV is using quite an old version of nmap (v4.1.1). The current release, and the one I use, is v4.6.8 - Alison ❤ 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Random Apple Comment

I wish Apple would go back to using PPC processors in Power Macs. It just isn't the same now that they use Intel processors. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Gawdz - NO!!! :p And go back to Open Firmware?? No thank you! :) Having worked in the BootROM of both platforms, I know which one I'd pick in an instant. While the PPC/Power are far more elegant CPU architectures over x86, the new low-level firmware architecture is far more elegant. The only thing I don't like right now is having to run old stuff in Rosetta. (Now you know why I don't edit Apple articles; I have waaaay too much POV and COI) - Alison ❤ 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Email

Did you get it yet? MBisanz talk 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I did, yeah :) Check your inbox - Alison ❤ 00:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Got a second...

...to check this user (see the one deleted contribution)? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One-off, single account. Another wanna-be copycat.  IP blocked - Alison ❤ 01:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much.  :) NawlinWiki (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

TY

thanks for the catch, could you please do a checkuser on those guys and see if they are socks of plyjacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Muchas Gracias, mi corazon...

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of ya ;) - Alison ❤ 08:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You got mail

ronseal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs)

Got your mail, VK. I'll get on it later today and mail you on the stuff ... - Alison ❤ 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Even more mail :) --Vintagekits (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering about this and this. Is there some way to remove the stray personal data (its still in the history) or is it not big enough to worry about? Also, User talk:Txbad1 revealed his personal data, is that okay? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff is dead?? What?? I had no idea ... shocked and saddened. Don't worry about Jeff's sister's info - I'll deal with that now. This is just dreadful - Alison ❤ 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you had to find out that way. I forgot myself in the moment. Thank you for your work. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison. Jeff had assured me so many times, in so many ways, that he was fine, that I had a very hard time believing it wasn't a hoax, until Ryan verified the CU location. I guess Jeff misled me on purpose so I wouldn't worry :-( I appreciate the help on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I'm going to be out all evening; I'm hoping someone will get this under control, whatever that means in this case. I'm not sure what our policy is, so I guess it is what it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, that's been done now, don't worry. I'll look after the details - Alison ❤ 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hornetman16

Hi Alison, do you remember Hornetman16 from last year? I seem to remember that you adopted him for a while. Well, I'm curious if you think Firefly322 could be a sock. What do you think? PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like Hornetman6 at all. Totally wrong profile, totally wrong subjects of interest, totally different writing style - Alison ❤ 01:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? Compare this user page with Firefly322's current user page. Also, this style of personal attack seems very familiar. Of course, the user names are also similar. PhilKnight (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not a sock. I never, ever have sock puppeted. Nor would I even meatpuppet. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Trust me, I know Hornetman16, having dealt with him extensively across a number of wikis, and this editor is not him - Alison ❤ 04:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well-deserved barnstar

The da Vinci Barnstar
While you do get very little thanks, there are some of us who recognize the extraordinary work that you do. This could've been any one of a number of barnstars, but I didn't want to flood your talk. Thank you very much for your outstanding checkuser work, your diligence, and your mostly very quick responses. I'm sure I speak for many others when I say it's very much appreciated. Oh, and your other work is pretty damn good too, though Checkuser understandably overshadows it. Enigma message 03:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Maybe then, this is not entirely accurate after all. :) Enigma message 03:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow! Thank you so much, Enigmaman. That was totally unexpected - I just never get barnstars any more :) 90% of it is behind-the-scenes, & this accounts for why my mainspace edits have gone way down. Thank you so much. Coming from someone as hard-working and respected as you, this means a lot - Alison ❤ 04:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New one

Please CU User:Kostchtchie -- the usual. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just the one - another wannabe. Open proxy blocked now - Alison ❤ 04:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.  :) NawlinWiki (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

CU Mistake?!?

I noticed you were on ANI a short while ago. Can you please look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_Needed_-_User:Mspraveen? I'm sure there's a big mistake somewhere in Sam Korn's findings - the blocked user has had been careful to engage in impeccable conduct at all times, and as I expected, also insists he has not been socking in his unblock request. He's an asset to WikiProject India, as well as the pedia itself, and I don't want to see him put off by this unnecessarily prolonged block. Sam Korn also hasn't responded the last couple of hours so I'd like to see him unblocked asap. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oooo-kay. I did just take a look, as did another checkuser, as it happens. Umm - I can certainly see where Sam got the result from as there is a clear technical correlation. However, checking the IP block ownership and his geolocation shows up a possible reason for why that is. I need to discuss this with him in private and cannot discuss the details out on WP for obvious reasons. Certainly, behaviorally, they look quite different - Alison ❤ 07:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I see he's been unblocked now, too, so that takes away some of the urgency. Checkuser does get it wrong, betimes - it's not flawless and it's often difficult to make the call. Prior to being a CU, I got seriously burned by the User:Gerry Lynch checkuser block, and that was wrong, too. In that instance, I did the AGF unblock thing, too. I've also made some checkuser calls that have been incorrect. Not saying that Sam got it wrong in this instance but It can happen - Alison ❤ 07:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand - I imagine CU work requires a lot of time, effort, work and often results in burn-out. Mistakes are bound to happen, and that's okay, as long as any damage from it is mitigated in the best possible way. He has been unblocked quickly so I agree that the most urgent part is resolved (I've marked that part of the ANI that way too) - I've left the remainder of the ANI discussion untagged so that a few checkusers can discuss it privately first and then clarify the findings in the SSP report (and a note can be made in the ANI thread before it's done and dusted). Anyway, thank you very much. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that Alison, much appreciated. I had a strange feeling from the begining that something might have been fishy with the results. Oh well, mistakes happen and the only thing we can do is learn from them, correct them, and ensure they do not happen in the future. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-confessed sock' IP

59.93.48.38 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Alison, hope you're well. This edit just cropped up on AN/I. The anonymous editor claims to also run numerous other sock puppets, including two admin. accounts. I'm inclined to think it may be a hoax, but is it worth looking into?

Well, it's into your capable hands now. :) Just thought you should be aware of it.

Anthøny(talk) 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What Anthony said...(I see I've been beaten to the punch). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Ncmvocalist did stumble across this little incident in the first place. :) Anthøny(talk) 13:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh - all of us got beaten to the punch! Thatcher's dealt with it already - it's just another User:RRaunak sock. Some more socks have been blocked but there's no admin account - Alison ❤ 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And another - Alison ❤ 17:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done - cheers!! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
One more I think - 59.93.79.61. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 Sorted! - Alison ❤ 23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One more, I think, to the list: 59.96.103.76 -- Refer [2] and [3] Thank you. Mspraveen (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP seems temporarily blocked now. Mspraveen (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for 8-minute delay

See [4], sorry for the 8-minute delay! Harhar. Not bad for the newbie crat huh? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Woo!! Awesome :) - Alison ❤ 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rudget

Hi Alison. I was hoping to post a message to Rudget via his talkpage, only to realise it's fully-protection, meaning I can't edit it. I was hoping to e-mail him seeing as his talk is fully-protected, but it seems he's disabled that too. Seeing as I've had good communication with Rudget in the past, I was wondering whether you could copy/paste this indented message onto Rudget's talkpage under the first few comments from you guys:

Sorry to see you go Rudget. You have been a great asset to have on Wikipedia; it's always sad to see someone like you go. I hope you see these messages in the future, and possibly consider a return in the near future. Best wishes, D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, though I don't want to undo his admin action. He probably doesn't want the drama and fanfare. Folks - please don't ask me to do yours, too!! - Alison ❤ 21:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I wouldn't expect you to undo his admin actions! =D D.M.N. (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to take over your talk with Rudget messages, Alison, so I'm going to create a subpage. User:Rudget/Farewell Enigma message 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Good plan! Thanks for that - Alison ❤ 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Whitenoise123

Alison, I'm aware there's a parallel AN/I thread regarding this, but I'd just like to let you know that Whitenoise has approached me (see user talk:AGK) with an appeal to unblock him as a 'last chance'. I'd be interested in your opinion on this. Personally, I see some hope, and would be willing to work with the guy... I may be seeing him a little too rosy, however. Anthøny 01:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. It looks like after the block, he admitted having the two accounts and has now gone back to editing with his main account, Musiclover565 (talk · contribs). The ANI thread has plenty of detail as to where we stand but right now, it's very much in content-dispute territory over one single article - Alison ❤ 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback Privileges

Hello! I'm currently requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#Current_requests and I was wondering if you'd take the time to consider my request for Rollback privileges. Thanks! preschooler@heart 09:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Moreschi already did this :) - Alison ❤ 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Votestacking / vandalism sockfarm

This is really a note to self :) Bunches of these accounts were rather blatantly votestacking on AfD. There seems to be some link to comics and comic artists, especially Alan Light. Basically all these accounts are the same person:

 Confirmed - many of these are not blocked yet

  1. A Stiff Uppercunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Omorashi Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Davem, the Son of God (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Musical Electric Chairs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Sockdrawer Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. The Dustman Always F*cks Mice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. NEver yer PAL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Sherpa from Nepal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. Affan Parkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. Anti-SPA Tagbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  11. Another Mascot Guy sock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  12. Cumbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  13. Cluckingfunts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  14. FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  15. JimboWales is a KUNT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  16. V andal C U NT FU CK SH!T Poo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  17. Mrs Vulva Frontbottomy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  18. Garage Banned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  19. The Single Purpose Account tag is SPAstic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  20. Ban SPA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  21. SHlT HEADED MONSTER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  22. Oh Bishoff, Won't you? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  23. Father Mucker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  24. Kitty Lighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  25. Replovandalate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  26. Canadian Actor Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  27. Stagemom67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  28. Sadiqd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  29. Wroth of Groth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this is one of the earliest socks
  30. Alan Light Is Shite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  31. Alan Light Is A Piece of Shite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  32. TihS sI thgiL nalA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  33. Alan Light IS a Fu ck He ad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  34. Preteen.brave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  35. That CU NT Alan Light is a F U CK H E A D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  36. ALaN LiGhT has NO PEN!S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  37. The Gayers Bide for Cosmic Fu ckdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  38. Paved Shussy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  39. Groth and THUMUS aRE GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!oneone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  40. Wetter Roberson Dies At Midnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  41. FCK FCKING WIKY PEDIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  42. I CUM to VANDLELYSE WIKY PEDIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  43. Andrew Lau II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  44. Alan Light - Man Without a Doodle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  45. Sh!t fu.ck!ng Cun+s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  46. Mrs Vulva Frontbottom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - how on earth did this get though unblocked!! :O
  47. Melon123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  48. Veux-tu coucher avec moi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  49. FIRETRuck offENCE cOunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  50. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  51. MurrayBishoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another range - a few of these may be Aiza00 (talk · contribs) socks:

  1. AlanLight: Man Without WeeWee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Luvlife Cheer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Wroth of Kalish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. AyenHitler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Consciously Unique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Cothing Line (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. DaH20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Ginacarmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. Carisilm2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. SBTVCAL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another range:

  1. Revulva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Untalented Sibling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Jordan kiehne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. De Valdez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Deedle Nick the Fug Bucker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. LOLfats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Future Adm!n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Skin Flautist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. Shithead McGee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. Out to sea, drowning themselves. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  11. Alan Light Sits Down to WEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  12. Netsnipe is a CU NT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  13. Dick Less Wunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  14. Alan Light Hater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  15. Stewie45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  16. Alan Lights Out (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  17. Larry Sloth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  18. DollyD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this one is definitely involved, but looks good-hand

Ranges:

203.194.0.0/16 - almost all accounts in this range.  IP blocked - AO/ACB
203.111.0.0/16
202.168.0.0/18 - somewhat busy but too much collateral damage to rangeblock right now

... posted here 'coz I can't sleep and had a spare moment. Will deal in the morning. Urgh - this took nearly an hour :( - Alison ❤ 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  •  Clerk note:
  • All of the aobve are now blocked
  • Those that were softblocked were changed to a hardblock
  • I bet they are all socks of Wroth of Groth (talk · contribs) and am willing to tag them all as such if you like
Tiptoety talk 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tiptoety. I'd say go ahead and tag them as Wroth of Groth (talk · contribs) if you like, yes. That seems to be the oldest sock. At least now that we've identified the source of all this, it'll be easier to manage. And ... *ahem* ... thanks for clerking on my talk page :) That's above and beyond the call!! - Alison ❤ 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I went ahead and tagged most of them, I left a few as redlinks for obvious reasons ;-). Also, DollyD (talk · contribs) is still unblocked, I will let you deal with that. Tiptoety talk 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Move to formally announce Alison's talk as an annexe of RFCU. :) In case you haven't noticed, Alison -- we all haunt your page with our clerk hats on, anyway. ;) There's just as much work to do here as @ RFCU! Anthøny 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh - thanks, guys :) You both work so hard at this stuff - Alison ❤ 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't like having my username listed on someone's talk page as being a sockpuppet, "good hand" or otherwise. I'm not removing or altering the reference, but I feel it is only fair that I am allowed to show my objection on this page. DollyD (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockblock

Could you identify who Untalented Sibling (talk · contribs) is? Have all his alt accounts been blocked? MBisanz talk 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you, Matt :) Check the previous thread :) - Alison ❤ 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Oy! Thanks. MBisanz talk 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

Relatedly, is it possible for someone with CheckUser to tell User:Sting au that I am not User:Muntuwandi, which apparently is his latest accusation? I'm not amused by the accusation that I have orchestrated this whole mess on my own, which were it true would mean I should be permabanned from the Wiki. I'm not amused by any of Sting au's pot stirring, but this crosses the line. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty self-evident, but checkuser says PelleSmith is Red X Unrelated to Muntuwandi - Alison ❤ 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comment on the userbox deletion discussion. I am going to change my vote to delete. I still disagree these are horrible, horrible userboxen but your valuable insight into how the world sees up really changed my mind. Thanks. --mboverload@ 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Email

Everyone one else leaves you a message here when they send you email, so why not just tag along right? Tiptoety talk 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Back atcha :) - Alison ❤ 03:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
All in favor of renaming this page "Alison's Supplemental Request For Checkuser Page and Email Notification Board"? (you had an email, but the situation looks well in hand, although if you want to put .02 in, it'd be appreciated) SirFozzie (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ey! (Oh, by the way, I sent you another) Tiptoety talk 03:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alison

Hi Alison,

I have never vandalized any page in the Wikipedia, ever, period for any reason.

I have created several sockets primarily to keep my interests separated in regard to both topic and computer from which I am working.

These are legitimate reasons in compliance with Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts.

However, to be honest editing the Wikipedia without financial compensation has become so difficult owing to a variety of reasons the blocking of accounts I have opened for the reason that they are sock puppets is probably highly beneficiary for me since the less time I have to spend editing the Wikipedia the more time I have for others and for myself.

So if I am not concerned about having the user name I have created to facilitate edits deleted then why am I writing?

The fact is that in absence of a user name I can still edit using an account with a dynamic IP and if a range block is instituted then I need only switch IP accounts with servers on the other side of the country or world.

In other words if the intent is to vandalize or to disrupt, which mine is not although in the real world such things are part of life, then socks can be completely hidden and kept entirely independent from one another until the moment of illicit need; sock puppets being used for that purpose in voting or in article discussion only once per sock puppet.

Another issue is the bogus idea that a user name is important because it allows other users to establish a traceable and therefore trustworthy relationship with other users. No so. I know a user whom I collaborated with on a project not that long ago who now has the completely opposite regard and attitude about the subject matter. The very fact that I expected him to be trustworthy belies the fact that he was not.

However, bottom line is that what I have learned by having all of the accounts with user names I created blocked such that edits now must be signed with a dynamic IP address unless I desire to create yet another user name is that edits, questions and comments can now be much more about the topic rather than about previous posts.

Another issue I want to mention before signing off...

It is apparent that some users are also members of organizations like the IEEE and the ACM which derive revenue from articles they publish and from which they drive revenue. One such member I know is in fact a roboticist and is using offline bots to locate such articles for later manual deletion on behalf of the IEEE.

In my opinion this is of far greater concern than targeting benign sockets for no other reason than they exist.

Also, unless you respond here we will not be able to communicate further since I have given up on creating a user name to facilitate such correspondence and my current IP is dynamic.

Have a nice day.

P.S. BTW - very nice cleavage! I am interested! ;-}

"BTW - very nice cleavage! I am interested!". This should probably be entry #1 on Wikipedia:How to have a female administrator *not* help you. Anthøny 15:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL, nice comeback. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
...if those were mine I'd have a socket for each one! :-o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.88 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for your efforts at keeping the peace here on Wikipedia. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Aldrich Hanssen page protect

Hi, I noticed that User:Aldrich Hanssen's talk page was protected after he used it to attack another user during his block. Unfortunately, now I can't send him a message to try to defuse his anger and convince him to become a constructive editor in the future. Would it be possible for me to send a message to you to insert into his talk page? I guess I could wait until it is unprotected, but I would rather get to him sooner rather than later, and before he can start getting entangled with other users on his talk page again. I worked on several pages with him, and he would probably be most likely to listen to me. Thanks. --SecondSight (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind unprotecting the user's talk page? As blocking a user from editing their own user page is an extreme measure. And I had been intending to just now edit his page. Hoping that a message pointing out how far overboard he has gone from a user who has been a long time editor of those articles that he is interested in he would take more notice of, and thus cease what trouble he has been up to. Thanks. Mathmo Talk 10:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. Okay, I've lifted the protection, as requested. If he immediately goes back to what he was doing, I'll have to re-instate it. It is worth another shot, I guess, and he'd been okay up to recently. See if you can make him see sense ... - Alison ❤ 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :) He is a newbie, and it is wise to not bite the newbies. He has unfortunately been getting a lot of flak recently because he has been steering a controversial course for sure. A difficult start for a newbie indeed, hopefully with time he shall improve to carry on the contributions he has already made :) Thank you again. Mathmo Talk 12:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking out for him :) He works in a difficult area so he is bound to find the going tough and it's already hard for a newbie at the best of times. Can you please impress upon him that the attitude he displayed and his subsequent actions, are completely out of line and will not be tolerated for long on the project, new editor or not. I'm one of the more AGFy admins and will admit that his area of interest leaves me twitchy in the extreme, but I am willing to give anyone another shot - Alison ❤ 12:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this was an incredibly bad idea. Aldrich went beyond simple attacks, weaving a story of something that never happened between himself and the woman he was attacking. On top of that he not only exhibited no regret but went so far as to continue to add comments to the very end to illustrate how little regard he had for those reacting to his awful conduct. You have sent the wrong message to the wrong person. You have basically rewarded Aldrich for his combination of venomous anger and complete rejection of his responsibility for his disturbing words. Bite the newbies should not be applied to such aggressive and odious attacks. Rob Banzai (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ummm ... thanks for the barnstar earlier, Rob :/ Anyways - as an admin, though I loathe what the guy has said and done here, I cannot leave his talk page protected for too long. It's not right and it makes unblock requests difficult. See this log for another extreme example of an abusive editor where I had to repeatedly protect and unprotect the page. Rewarded?? He's indefinitely blocked and highly likely to stay that way. I've been asked by two editors in good standing to unprotect so they can try to reason with the guy, so I complied. Any further funny business and it goes back on permanently. I personally dislike the guy and what he stands for but as an admin, I'm obliged to be dispassionate here - Alison ❤ 18:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I see he has wiped all the bad stuff from his user page. Rob Banzai (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Might we delete the boast page now?

Now that he's been shown the door, might we finally remove this user page, nom'd for deletion a while ago? It sets bad example for noobs. Barnstars, self-awarded, take the eye off the ball; we are here to work for each other, and barnstars are the method by which we award each other for working politely and processionally amongst each other. Just my take on it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 Gone - Alison ❤ 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. Can you also convince the telepathic mind witches to beam the basics of organic chemistry directly into my brain? Come on, you are super-efficient enough to make it happen! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
lol -sure thing! Just as soon as I'm done with my day job. I provide part of the energy to drive Steve's reality distortion field and that really sucks my energy. Hence the Red Bull addiction :-D - Alison ❤

Tweekz

Thanks for updating my page, Ali. :) Hope you're well! GlassCobra 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Hello there stranger Texcarson (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one

Sorry to bug you, but I've sent another E-mail. Thanks. :) Acalamari 21:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Not related to anything on this page, either. Jehochman Talk 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Alison I have something I need to talk to you about could we possibly talk in private? DHMichaels 23:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You can email me in confidence, if you like, or you can contact me on AIM or Skype. Just let me know - Alison ❤ 00:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well.my e-mail is not accepted on Wikipedia (I never got the email) and I don't have AIM or anything like that what do you suggest? DHMichaels 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ummm. Can you get an email address that works - even a temporary one - and post it here? I'm not going to give my phone numbers to anyone due to previous issues, but can let you have my Skype ID. This work okay? - Alison ❤ 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah totally I wouldn't een think of you giving your phone number out. It's Zac1194@gmail.com DHMichaels 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Just incase you were wondering the above^^ is my email. I would like to talk soon please :). DHMichaels 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't ignore me I have something very important to talk to you about!! DHMichaels 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ummm - check your mail - I just emailed you 30 mins ago! - Alison ❤ 23:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

Mine and Domer's behaviour is disruptive? You seem to have it back to front, we are trying to prevent a disruptive editor from abusing this encyclopedia as will become clear in the next few days. Here is the situation as I see it;

A disruptive editor with a history of biased POV editing, adding of original research, use of unreliable sources, adding of copyvios and so on, was repeatedly warned about his conduct.

A "new" editor (or editors) suddenly appear with the same biased POV editing, adding of original research, use of unreliable sources, adding of copyvios and so on, and cause the same disruption.

Now it is clear to me that if the latter is in fact a new editor, then they need to be educated as to Wikipedia policy and fast. However if it is the same editor, then their treatment is very different would you not agree, hypothetically speaking?

Also It only took two admins and a checkuser to close it is incorrect. Enigmaman is not an admin, and he claims he closed it per User:Scarian's reasoning. Maybe I'm blind, but I see no reasoning or any post from Scarian at all prior to that talk page message in this history. So I think I'm more than justified in objecting to a non-admin initially closing it based on a non-existent reasoning, don't you? BigDuncTalk 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly, actually. Enigmaman and I work on admin things together via MSN actually. I did the work for all the SSP cases. He merely closed them. So... yeah... thanks. Case closed... as they say. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well not being privy to your private chats, and an non admin closes a contensious matter is it not reasonable for another editor to seek clarification? BigDuncTalk 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Not if that request is pursuant to the harassment of another user it isn't.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about TU? I am finding your constant accusations against me intimidating and bullying please stop or provide diffs of where I did these so called things. It is not harrasement to open a sock report, if you look you will see that the editor has not been cleared of being GDD just not of abuse. The matter of the sock report is closed now and by an Admin with a reason, not an editor who is supposed to have had an off wiki chat with an admin. Which was not even stated when he closed the report. BigDuncTalk 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

←BigDunc, it's way past time to drop the matter, speaking of "constant accusations". Yourself and Domer have been hounding this guy for quite some time now and, frankly, it's time to knock it off. Even after the SSP was closed, Domer was still at it.

Here's the deal; you're not going to find out any further connection between this editor and any other, not least of all from checkuser, so give up with the baseless accusations already. This editor wants to edit articles in peace just like anyone else, but is being hindered in doing so; in short, you and Domer are being disruptive to the project. Yes, that's right, and now is not the time to get indignant or wikilawyer-y about it either. If you both persist in messing this guy about, I'm going to start handing out blocks for disruption. What you did at SSP was waaay over the top and I'm surprised Scarian didn't take it further. And another thing: Enigmaman is one of the most active SSP clerks we have, and does an amazing job, but you treated him with disdain and repeatedly brushed him aside. Seriously. This has gone on far too long now. And another thing, don't bother trying to follow him around and hit him with every rule in the book, I'm wise to that too.

He's a new editor and he means well. You both need to work with him just like anybody else. Show patience, be kind and try to teach him the ropes around here. It's not easy for new editors & both of you are making it even harder. Much to your dismay, I'm sure, I'm surprised he's not quit the project already - Alison ❤ 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me how I have have been hounding this guy for quite some time now? BigDuncTalk 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No. You know what you've been doing and I'm not in the mood for endless rounds of wikilawyering with you today. I've repeatedly asked you to drop the matter but you've refused. In fact you're still at it right now - Alison ❤ 17:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't realised this dialogue was going on. I'm appalled at the nature of the complaining but also very pleased that an admin is placing faith in me. I've no wish to exacerbate the situation by making more comment than is necessary but I would appeal to my detractors to show a bit of good faith. All editing on the Ulster Defence Regiment page will be done with reference to the Regimental History by John Furniss Potter and to the Chris Ryder "Instrument of Peace" book as well as any other reliable sources I can find so that it doesn't finish up looking like an advert for those two books. The intention is to create a non-biased but comprehensive encyclopedic study of this very interesting and unusual regiment. If you have party political loyalties towards either side of the Irish "divide" there will be parts of it you don't like - that's tough I'm afraid, fact is fact. I would very much appreciate the help of anyone with an interest and sufficient knowledge stepping in and assisting, especially with regards to the verifiability of links and assistance with the prose. Photographs of UDR units are especially very hard to come by and the article would benefit much from a few of those. What I hope to avoid is anyone trying to force a slant on what I write because of their own personal views on the Irish troubles. Thanks in advance for any useful contributions or personal assistance.The Thunderer (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More Gaming

Hi Alison, I'm sorry to be a nuisance but I could do with your opinion. I managed to get the Ulster Defence Regiment article unblocked this evening and immediately the trouble has started again as far as I can see. The major abuse in my opinion is the user BigDunc trying to make quotes fit an agenda. The section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Targetting_by_the_IRA is a direct lift from Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 where the information seems to have been undisturbed since 2006. In this case BigDunc has decided the information should be augmented by the fact that a witness was later convicted of a sexual offence. My logic tells me that is because he wishes the evidence of this witness to be discredited. Also, if you look at the history page you can see him gradually dismantling things he doesn't agree with for no apparant reason other than to be disruptive. For example; his removal of the names of some of the professional soldiers: he has in fact removed the names of some of the more notable UDR Commanders who are mentioned in the history for various reasons; i.e Brigadier Logan Scott-Bowden who was the first Commander UDR. While I am sure I have some prejudice here because I am the major contributor to the article at the moment, it appears to me that BigDunc is not actually contributing anything. In fact if one takes a visit down the history of the UDR article he hasn't actually EVER contributed anything. His presence on the article seems to be to stand guard and removes edits which he doesn't like under the prextext of enforcing policy. As he is such a disruptive presence on the article is there any way I can officially ask for him (and Domer48Fenian) to be precluded from editing the page?The Thunderer (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I am being stalked too:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles_in_Portadown admittedly, and for the first time, this user has actually contributed something worthwhile to the article in question.The Thunderer (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I started an RFC on the project talk page, the wording was clarified, I amended the article per the new agreement, and I've still been reverted twice. BigDuncTalk 23:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I wish to point out that all my edits were attempting to bring the article in line with policy, edits such as, official Government reports do not "allege", the shooting of Gerry Adams is nothing to do with collusion, Even TU agrees that the shooting of Gerry Adams doesn't go in that section. Nobody has described the 1954 Omagh barracks raid as "collusion". And were the Royal Irish Fusiliers in collusion with the IRA? If so tell me more nevr heard of that before. And sources being incorrectly used I have opened a RfC on the talk page instead of edit warring, is that not what your supposed to do? And I take the point regarding notable members since he has added why they may notable.BigDuncTalk 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
actually official government reports do clearly "allege" as the content in one such report on the UDR pages makes clear. As to Sean Garland, if he was a member of the Royal Irish Fusiliers and communicated information to the IRA he was colluding with them in exactly the same way as IRA/UDA/UVF members who were in the UDR did. You didn't know why those brigadiers were notable? Then why didn't you ask instead of forcing the issue? You've also been doing your best to assert the conviction for sexual offences of Vincent McKenna and the only reason I can see for that is a deliberate and determined attempt to discredit his evidence. Frankly your edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment page continue to be unhelpful. You should stand down and let someone whose style isn't as aggressive take over. That way more will get done on the article with less fuss. You are also stalking me on another article which you'd never edited before I had. I don't know who you think apppointed you as the personal custodian of my edits but I didn't and I don't welcome it.The Thunderer (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulster_Defence_Regiment&diff=229034917&oldid=229034432 is not an agreement with your over enthusiatic editing. It was a change of heading and moving of the item which wasn't commented on by me because I agreed with the change and my silence indicated as much.The Thunderer (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser range block

Hey Ali, would you be so kind to comment on my talk page in regards to a rangeblock. The thread can be found here, thanks. Tiptoety talk 20:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep,  Done. Right now, I do not recommend that the rangeblock be lifted and I'll take responsibility for that call, if you like - Alison ❤ 01:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Oh, theres no need for you to take the responsibility, I mean I am the one who performed the block. ;) Tiptoety talk 04:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff's name

Making statements you know nothing about isn't the way to go on ANI. Jeff was open about who he is, through and through. --David Shankbone 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

David, please. That was well over a year ago. I only know what he told me, and that was three weeks back. Please, in everyone's interests, just modify the blog entry, so we can all move on. There are a lot of people hurting over Jeff's passing - Alison ❤ 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Alison could you sort this out for me here apart from getting the facts wrong it is a personal attack and he did it again here. And I say he as this IMO is a sock of the IP that has been editing the Kevin Barry article with the same addition of the age 15 to one of the dead soldiers. BigDuncTalk 22:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on their talk page, Dunc. Next attack gets a block - Alison ❤ 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alison :) BigDuncTalk 08:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Awareness

Is a long block of a /17 range reasonable?

Hi Alison. At WP:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x there is some data on an annoying editor who would most likely be indef blocked if he didn't hop constantly across an IP range. We would need to block 75.47.127.0/17 anon-only. This editor is not extremely abusive, he just imposes lots of cleanup work on others, who have to go around undoing his changes. Can you easily tell if there is a lot of good-faith IP editing from this range? Due to the editing pattern, a block of at least a month would be needed to do any good. My guess is this guy generates 50-200 bad edits per month. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I've weighed in at the RfC. Thanks - Alison ❤ 07:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc at it again

On Ulster Defence Regiment. Deletionism without prior discussion or concensus. There seems to be a tag team operating to remove material BigDunc has decided isn't suitable.The Thunderer (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment. I don't know why he's doing that - Alison ❤ 18:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I owe you an email or two!! Really sorry about the delay)
I don't know why he's doing it either. I'm glad you spotted the tag teaming as quickly as you did. I was very hopeful of a positive input from BigDunc after he said he'd purchased the relevant books. I even invited his comments on various aspects of the site to see if we could mutually correct things which might remove any inadvertant inconsistencies in my prose (I tend to be too flowery I know). Nothing's been forthcoming though which is very disappointing. If someone with more skill than I were adding and improving the content it would be a fabulous article. Like many things Irish, there is a remarkable tragedy about it all but the story needs to be told accurately in my view - in all cases. I don't want to make heroes out of the UDR any more than I want the same for the Provos. It all happened though and that makes it worthwhile from an encyclopedic POV.Thank you for your timely intervention and I'll look forward to your e-mails. From a historical POV I think you'll knock spots off me however, I've read some of your work. The Thunderer (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And having been warned, you go ahead reverting regardless. Not once but twice even admitting in your edit sumarry you were editwarring? Now please show us who the tag team are, because I can't see it? What I can see is five editors who disagree with you, and Alison warning me even though I've not edited the article since 24 July? Maybe Alison can tell me what paragraph she was talking about, because I pointed to the one everyone else was dealing with, and which I have not even edited. --Domer48'fenian' 07:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison come on is this editor just allowed to keep reverting as many times as he likes? User:Blueputtnam has given a valid reason for the deletion of content citing consensus on the talk page yet Thunderer reverts again 3 times since you gave him a final warning. You can not say that it is anything to do with me, I made one edit to the article yesterday which was reverted and I get accused of tag teaming him into a 3RR block, this is plainly not true and I find it offensive that any good faith edits I make are seen as an attempt to get another editor blocked. It has got to the stage were I daren't edit the article because of constant accusations by this editor on article talk pages, user talk pages and different noticeboards on wiki. Could you plese ask him to cease and desist from making further comments about me. Dispite what he says I have not made any accusations against him, maybe I am leaving myself open for a slap with that comment, but none that I am aware of, thanks. BigDuncTalk 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is more gaming. I'd already explained on the talk page that I was in the middle of adding further information when User:Blueputtnam deleted information from the piece I was working on. My new edit contains much more information than was orginally there and improves that piece considerably. The page history will show how much work I have done on the article today in addition to that.The Thunderer (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, I have made plea after plea to user BigDuncTalk to become involved in the editing of the article. I've asked him to assist in shaping the wording I've included. Thus far his only edits have been deletions however, made on the flimiest of premise. Another editor did join in last night and assisted in making my editing less emotive but retaining the very relevant, sourced information I had added. BigDunc claims to have the same reference books I have. I keep asking him to use them and join in - so far no result.The Thunderer (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
So that is another editor that is gaming now how many is that Domer, Max, JDorney, Blueputtnam, Valenciano and myself. So six editors are gaming the system as you say just to frustrate and get you blocked whould you please stop, removing policy violations is improving the piece. So any other editor who makes a change to an article will be accused of gaming and tag teaming you. BigDuncTalk 13:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Max made some good contributions last night and we had an interesting dialogue too. The rest of the names you've mentioned have not engaged in proper discussion but have all attempted to delete relevant information from the page. Information which has been further qualified and amplified today - something which could have been done by anyone who has a copy of the regimental history (hint-hint).The Thunderer (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This item, deleted from BigDun's talk page kind of sums it up:

:::Let's have a little ratioanale here. Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BigDunc#Helpful_Comments, now can anyone show me what BigDunc has done to improve the article apart from trying to delete things he doesn't agree with? Where's the collaboration asked for? Where are the comments requested from him on aspects of the material? Nice words for sure and if it were to come true I'd be dancing a fine dance but at the moment it all appears to have been hollow talk. It's looking very much like sincerity around here is as rare as hobby horse shite. Quit the gaming and start contributing wisely - with a neutral POV.The Thunderer (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorted again Alison. Block lifted. The Thunderer (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RR problems

Alison, I have no time to file a 3RR report, but this guy is out of control. He made seven "undids" in the article today. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Range block issues again

You may be interested in this. Tiptoety talk 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Urgh! Thanks, Tip. Myself and Daniel are working through this one off-wiki now. Sorry about all the hassle - Alison ❤ 07:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could use your assistance at ANI, when you get a chance

There's an ANI thread here about a user who claims you know her identity. She's accused of being a sock of a blocked user. Thanks. lifebaka++ 20:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison knows who I am, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she has to say who I am. I am willing to confirm the same information to any admin. who asks. If I am indeed editing in such a way which disrupts any Arbcom rules, she (or any other admin) may block me. I fail to see how adding names to a list of the French Prix de Rome winners disrupts anything. (Disclosure, I know all of the French Prix de Rome winners since 1950 and knew most of them from 1920-1941. This does not mean that I have a conflict of interest, only that I know something about the subject.) Now, can we get back to editing articles, please? Gretab (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Because, you are violating your ArbCom. You have also called for the death of Wikipedia at the Wikipedia Review, so why do you want to edit the site against your ruling? --David Shankbone 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like Alison to explain just exactly how she knows "Gretab". --Folantin (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said [6] the accusers should file a report at WP:SSP to provide a clear record of the evidence. I am ready to block any abusive sock puppets. If the user has edited with the master account recently, just go right to WP:RFCU. Jehochman Talk 21:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since Alison knows who Gretab is (curious since they haven't edited since April, and there is no evidence they have ever had any other interaction on-wiki with Alison) why go through all of that? Alison holds a high rank here, so she surely would not support a user in their ArbCom violations, right? It's instructive to those who do not have Checkuser that 1) this user doesn't deny any of these accusations; and 2) talked about "If I am indeed editing in such a way which disrupts any Arbcom rules". Alison should be enforcing ArbCom. --David Shankbone 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Jeeze, sorry for the spill-over here. Didn't forsee that happening. lifebaka++ 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I kinda did. The problem with processing an SSP or RfCU is that if the user has not edited in a while, and is editing from a different IP (in another town, or whatnot) it becomes a bit harder to track that banned user. We have to rely on those users who were pretty aware of the intimate details of the user, and their patterns. Something similar has happened with other users on at least four different occasions that just I can recall, and each time, it was a sharp-eyed editor who caught the banned sock.
David is right, it doesn't matter if the banned user edits well or craps solid gold nuggets of literature now; there is a process for banned users to petition to rejoin the community. it doesn't appear as if this user has followed that protocol. Without it, they cannot remain. There must be teeth in our bans for them to have any meaning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
To people posting here I'm not sure whether to post this or just leave Alison's talk page alone but here goes... AFAIK it's within a users right to start a new account/identity and to not provide any connection to an old account (i.e. to start afresh) provided they don't use this new account abusively, e.g. to go against existing blocks or sanctions. If a user has received some sanction before or was otherwise notorious, it would probably be wise for this user to inform a highly trusted wikipedian of their intentions to avoid any drama in case their old identity is revealed. Unless there is good evidence a user is using a new account abusively, then it is not within the right of other users to try and poke around into any connection between new and old accounts and it fully within the right of the new account to ignore/remove questions about their identity. Given who Alison is, I'm sure she will look into what's gone on, and take any action if it's necessary. Alison does not have to answer any questions about who Gretab is beyond clarifying whether there is any abuse going on here. If Alison says there is no abuse or that it has been dealt with, I suggest others accept that and if they are not willing to, they should bring it to the proper channels rather then continouing to make unproven claims on unrelated pages. Finally, if you have any questions about my comments, please bring them to me personally since they have nothing to do with Alison. To Alison Apologies for this mess on your talk page, I think it's partially my fault. I mentioned Lifebaka had asked you to help clarify the situation but perhaps worded it poorly. My hope was thet contributors to the ANI incident would take that as a cue to let things be until you responded but unfortunately it just resulted in this spill over. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Nil, Alison has been put in a place of trust by this community, and to say she doesn't have to answer to the community is flat wrong. Now, unless the Wikipedia Review has multiple Germaine Tailleferre-loving contributors who also edited the Paul Wehage page (before it was deleted for being thoroughly unnotable), who then come on here to edit opera articles with the same arguments that Musik Fabrik argued, then these questions of Alison are more than valid. They not only go to the enforcement of our polices and ArbCom rulings, but also to the trustworthiness of those who edit this site, but also play a key role in websites like the WR that do things like taunt people like User:Newyorkbrad, host the antics of Daniel Brandt and spread pedophilia rumors about Wikimedia staff (all of which Gretab has done over there). Paul/Gretab/The fieryangel is currently violating ArbCom, and has throughout their edit history. Wikipedia only works when the people who hold the tools enforce the community's decisions. It's that clear. --David Shankbone 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you've misunderstood what I'm trying to say since re-reading that I admit it was poorly phrased. (Note that my post was directed at Greteb as well since I wanted to reassure her other editors understand if she told Alison information in confidence, it should not generally be revealed.) I'm not saying that Alison has no responsiblity to answer to the community but that people need to understand her responsiblity to protect any private information revealed to her in confidence overules any desire the community may have for more information. In otherwords, while she should try to explain to the community as well as possible what (if anything) has been decided/done and why, she potentially cannot come out and say User:ABC is XYZ. If you are saying you believe her responsibility to the community outweights all else, I disagree entirely. Alison has a position of high trust from the community AND the foundation. While all contributors are expected to obey the foundation's privacy policy, people who are given checkuser and oversight privaleges have an absolutely duty to obey the privacy policy, regardless of what the community wants, and even if it doesn't directly involve the use of her privilages. If an editor has revealed his or her identity to Alison in confidence, Alison likely cannot reveal that identity except in exceptional circumstances. The way Alison has handled this below is right on what I expected. This should for now, be a matter between CUs including Alison & the Arbcom, and like it or not, the community is not entitled to overule the foundation's privacy policy and demand to know who Greteb is. The only way this is going to occur is likely to be if you can convince the foundation to change their privacy policy which I doubt, or the CUs/Arbcom/foundation decide they are able to reveal what they know without violating the privacy policy (which is possible I guess, privacy issues are always a tricky balance). Just to be clear, this doesn't mean someone can reveal who they are to a CU and then expect to have their identity permanently protected even if they engage in extremely obvious sockpuppetry. It just means that people need to understand there is a limit to what people (i.e. Alison in this case) can reveal about information told to them in confidence. Of course Alison doesn't need to be told any of this, she's handled it well on her own as she demonstrates below and explained it well herself. BTW, don't get me wrong, I understand why people feel so strongly about WR, I just finished reading the stupid, long discussion on tbe Bedford case and I've visited it before and seen what other (usually) junk they have and the way they attack certain editors. (Thankfully I'm still well under their radar.) I also despise other editors who abuse wikipedia and waste everyone's time, particularly those who just won't leave! But none of this excuses silly* behaviour (which started this mess in the first place with the Greteb talkpage edit war), attacking an editor in inappropriate places* (as I've mentioned repeatedly, there are various ways to deal with sockpuppetry, in the legitimate incident report Greteb raised wasn't one of them) and definitely no of them excuses violation of the privacy policy. This is why I've argued so strongly about this not because I think WR or abusive sockpuppetry is acceptable. *To avoid being misunderstood, I'm not saying anyone was delibarately behaving poorly, simply that a lack of knowledge of policy perhaps combined with a lack of thought of the matter resulted in a series of actions which didn't help anything. Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Níl Éinne - thanks for stating that as clearly as you have. You've said it a lot better than I could have. The crux of the matter is that this issue is a balance between privacy, disclosure, abusive editing, and the demands of others. I am entrusted with a lot of RL identifying information, and this happens on a daily basis. RtV cases, legit use of alternative accounts, harassment and stalking issues, etc, etc. Privacy is paramount in all matters, regardless of who's-doing-what and this has to remain to the fore at all times. I am obliged to give out as little personal identifying information as I possibly can when doing my job, and it's often a tough call to make. This case sure was and often, there are no instant answers to be dished out. It's a delicate balance and it's often tough to make that call. If I'm not saying something nor doing something that may appear obvious to a person, this may not be my failing to do my job as David repeatedly implied. It may simply mean that 1) I'm not aware of it. I may even be offline, 2) I'm in discussion with others in private regarding the matter or 3) it may be far more complex than others are aware of as I'm often privy to information that nobody else outside of CU has. It's a tough call and if I screw up with privacy-related information, I cannot unhappen it. It's done. Therefore, I have to be very careful and deliberate in these matters. Thank for the kind words and the support, Nil Einne - Alison ❤ 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Nil, Alison, I don't disagree with anything you all wrote. The issue was that I erred in inferring from these edit summaries[7][8][9] that you already knew who Gretab is; you are certainly familiar with the Musik Fabrik issue, since you were involved in that last May. Maybe it was the continual "Alison knows" that made me think that Gretab/Musikfabrik had your tacit approval to return, even though almost all of Gretab's edits are against very plainly stated, easy for everyone to understand what they mean, words. I've read most of that ArbCom, and understand it well, but the remedy is written in such a way as any common person could understand it. We're not the Law Lords here. I never wanted confirmation of who Gretab's identity was, and I never asked for that. I asked for accountability to stop what was a clearly problematic user, who off-wiki has actually created a cause of action for a high-ranking Wikimedia staff member to take them to court. And win. We aren't talking a garden variety IP troll, but someone who has abused this project in every way he could find through the years. I hope you appreciate the seriousness of that. There is no need to respond - I have your talk page off my watch list. But I also apologize for questioning your loyalty. I'm not sure if you mind having your name dropped every where by someone who has done little but try to hurt this project is something that you mind, but I would. Anyway, sorry again, Alison, for the bad faith.--David Shankbone 02:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
David, thanks for writing what you did there. It's been a hell of a day all round today, especially for you. I do understand the seriousness of the matter and I know that this issue has been going on for quite a long time now. At this point, I think we've all done what we can today to get this resolved as best we can. And .. well, I'm sorry for being so abrasive the other day, too. Let's sleep on it and start afresh tomorrow? - Alison ❤ 10:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (at 3am)

Well, I just got back on-line here to this mayhem and drahmaz. The first thing I notice is that David Shankbone is baying for someone's blood.

Ok, for the record, I had not known who User:Gretab was until 30 minutes ago when I checked my mail. I never had any dealings with them before on WP. Myself and a number of other checkusers are discussing the matter right now in pmail due to the privacy issues around this. Depending on what we come up with, I'll possibly take the matter to ArbCom for their appraisal. Or not. We'll see ....

In the meantime, I'm not about to reveal this person's identity, and for a number of good reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure I see any abuse here re. this person's edits. If this person is Musik Fabrik, I'm not even sure if they've violated any of these Arbcom remedies, as I've neither the subject knowledge to determine, and because remedy 1 is somewhat vague anyways.

In short, this is a privacy-related matter at best and an ArbCom-related matter at worst, and is not a straightforward issue at all. Nor, I hasten to add, David, is it a BADSITES issue. Now - this is likely all I'm going to say on the matter until it's been deliberated amongst checkusers and possibly escalated to ArbCom. We'll have to see. In the meantime, I suggest everyone ratchet down the drama and accusations just a notch - Alison ❤ 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, can we have a little more drama? Maybe somethingutterly Tori Spelling and 90210-ish? ;)
No! No Drama For You. You Come Back, Two Months! SirFozzie (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Lol.Okay, no intentional drama. We now return you to As the Wiki Turns... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The MFD

Hey Ali, I left a question for you at the MFD... and wanted your thoughts on the latest compromise proposal. –xeno (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Innocent socks

Hi Alison, I just wanted to congratulate you on the great job you have done weeding out some of MW's accounts. Unfortunately, some of the accounts are not related to me. As you know I reside in a place that has many people, and many of them are wikipedians. So MW is probably not the only person who is allegedly abusing multiple accounts in his town. Dynamic IPs are periodically shifted around from computer to computer, so there is a high probability of false positives. Anyway, here is a list of users who are have been attributed to MW but in fact are unrelated to MW.

I think its important that MW should take responsibility for his own actions and not the actions of others. What if one of these guys said something mean or nasty, it would be attributed to MW, when in fact that is not the case. Should MW's case be reviewed sometime in the future such would reflect even more negatively. Thanks and happy blocking. Mwaka umekwisha (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

66.99.216.2 is an innocent IP!

Why do you like hardblocking school IPs all the time, as you did to 66.99.216.2? That is in violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct. It says clearly that if blocking a school IP for any reason, you must use a softblock. 64.107.220.161 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback Request

Hi Alison,


I'm HappyCat12, and I'm requesting Rollback Permissions. Could you grant them to me? Thanks

HappyCat12 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Scare Quotes

According to the scare quotes article,

Scare quotes is a general term for quotation marks used for purposes other than to identify a direct quotation.

The term "Communications Director" was a direct quote from the reverted editor's talk page. -- Skaraoke (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

alison...

it's me... alison... what has happened to jeff? it can't be true... he wouldn't have... please... do you know something else? :( 89.240.110.172 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment - Proposed resolution

I have started a work page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Thunderer/Ulster_Defence_Regiment and also posted a set of objectives on the talk page. I've invited BigDunc and others to participate in an editing and discussion session to see if we can agree something which might resolve the issues which seem to exist. I would very much appreciate your examining the objectives and perhaps commenting or correcting anything which you think is inappropriate.The Thunderer (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

Hello, today you blocked my old user account for sock puppetry (according to the edit comment). Just wanted to let you know it wasn't a sock puppet, but I changed by username through WP:CHU on August 9, [10], which was done by Nichalp. I just wanted to make sure no one is after me for sock puppetry (As I have many things I am in the middle of and don't want blocked), and that I am a respectable editor and I do not, nor will I ever, engage in socket puppetry. Thanks Charles Edward 00:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Our old friend Grawp has found a new trick; re-registering accounts left vacant by name changes. It has nothing to do with you personally. Thatcher 12:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
OK! Thanks for the info. Charles Edward 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Sorry if this sounds like me being an idiot, but I'm just wondering. Why is it then when I send e-mails to you that they are being ignored? When other users have sent e-mails in the past, you normally reply within 24 hours, yet for some reason you haven't replied to my e-mail. Why is this? Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Put some socks on this guy's feet...

Sorry, couldn't resist. Can you run a check per this again? It appears the guy is back. I can't remember how long you hardblocked the IP, but if it's the same guy, it probably needs to be reblocked and all of the accounts blocked, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I was away for the last few days & missed all the fun. Looks like Sam Korn took care of it all ... - Alison ❤ 19:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

could you check if this IP's a blocked user?

I know this is a bit old but I only just noticed it. Can you check if this [11] can be proven to be User:Aldrich Hanssen ? Sticky Parkin 15:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi SP. No, it's not, sorry :/ - Alison ❤ 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I wonder who else has it in for me then.:) Sticky Parkin 12:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe you should remove that bullseye t-shirt, SP. ;)
Seriously, though, i have the same sort of clownage happening with me. I have an anon stalking my edits, and cannot seem to get them banned. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Do

Do you have kids? --Master of Pies (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That ... would be absolutely none of your business - Alison ❤ 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kanabekobaton

It's confirmed, but not yet in "Completed Requests". What happens next? I'm on the lookout for similar patterns, because it's almost certain that this person won't stop at two accounts. If only there were a way to search SUL for people who merged their accounts around the same time frame from the same general area. DarkAudit (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done - I just completed it myself, as the two accounts were already blocked by someone else - Alison ❤ 20:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL

God, I check my watchlist and am confronted with this. Too funny! I literally laughed out loud and scared my cat, who is(was) sleeping on my desk. Attacking admin like that=not that great of an idea. The potential for an undying record of the admin's ownage is too great, IMO. Actually, this reminds me of something similar... Have a good day (or evening, whatever....), and thanks for the laugh! J.delanoygabsadds 21:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty funny.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I saw that in the Recent Changes! SchfiftyThree 21:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
lol - think that's bad? Here's my worst log entry, if you'll pardon, EVAR! This little gem was done when I was a n00b admin, and before I'd explored deletion summaries properly. And yes, everyone saw it!! - Alison ❤ 00:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My favorite ever, though I didn't create it, was when User:The Random Editor's RfA was closed. The bureaucrat's edit summary was "Random Editor promoted" ... and I thought, well, that's one RfA reform method that might work.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

heh - it can't be worse than the one we have :) - Alison ❤ 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Primetime

Since you did the last checkuser on Primetime, let me ask again if there's any way of blocking some IPs that will stop his vandalism. Is he using open proxies or what? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied over on the RFCU page, Will. As it happens, there is one possible rangeblock, which might help slow him down - Alison ❤ 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I'm going to prepare a letter of complaint to his ISP, Comcast. To include the IPs while maintaining privacy the logical thing would probably be for me to send it to you. Then you can add the information you have and send it to the ISP. Is that OK? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Good plan! I can add timestamps and IPs, etc. Given the level of abuse, this is well-covered under privacy policy, but it's best to limit the info release if at all possible - Alison ❤ 05:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you receive the email? BTW, he's back again today - Jtjn6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
4n5kk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Crowdsales jokesone (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

←Will, yes, I got your email. Will followup later today - Alison ❤ 09:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. I've sent you an email intended for the CSU abuse department. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If it's not too much trouble could you please let me know when you've sent the abuse notices? Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Plyjacks

I'm not plyjacks and just because I'm his friend dosen't mean I'm his sockpuppet. This time please DO NOT block me. Timaroyhack21 (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


mail

Hey Allie - just wanted to be sure you got my recent email. No rush, I just don't always trust the internets..... 08:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I did. My inbox is overflowing right now but I'll get to it! :) - Alison ❤ 09:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
That's ok - but something has come up that makes this a bit more urgent - I just sent you a followup. thanksTvoz/talk 05:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Ow!! Okay - I'm on it - Alison ❤ 05:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course - share away. Tvoz/talk 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What should I do now?

ZACH 00:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold tight and wait for someone to close the thread with some sort of decision? - Alison ❤ 09:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A quick check shows that it's been archived already, I see. Well, the admin community doesn't seem to have a problem with you right now, I sure don't either, and nobody seems to want you blocked at this stage so I'd suggest you go ahead and get back to working on the encyclopedia (and not your userspace!) - Alison ❤ 09:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Alison, I have quite many pages on my watch list and as you can imagine it happens frequently that some jokers post rubbish. Well, then I feel responsible cleaning it up. I would appreciate rollback rights to facilitate this. On the other side, you can see from my contributions (C) that I am not overdoing reverts nor do I indulging in revert wars etc. So do not worry about exploitation. Cheers, Tomeasy T C 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course :) -  Done - have fun! - Alison ❤ 09:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Tomeasy T C 10:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More tag-teaming

Not got much time for WP at the moment and going back to enjoy my break shortly, but you might want to cast your eye over another case of Domer48/BigDunc tag-teaming ... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was just reverting your article degrading edits, which I pointed out here. Perhaps if Bastun assumed good faith more and did not blindly revert he wouldn't get involved in these predicaments.--Domer48'fenian' 16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could ask Bastun why was a perfectly reliable source that was properly formatted and that did source the sentence in the article replaced by a source that wasn't properly formatted and did not source the sentence in the article? --Domer48'fenian' 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Several hours later it appears Domer is claiming his reversion is because the State Department website doesn't state the RIRA were originally designated as a FTO in 2001; I think there's a lot more of importance in the sentence than a mere date, which was all referenced in the change. In any case, it didn't take rocket science to address the date issue. Instead, we got a tag-revert... BigDunc at least had the grace to admit he was wrong. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if Bastun assumed good faith more and did not blindly revert as happened, they would not now have their foot in their mouth. Still did not answer why was a perfectly reliable source, properly formatted, that did source the sentence in the article be replaced by a source that wasn't properly formatted and did not source the sentence in the article? I suppose answering questions is a problem for some editors? Dunc was not wrong, you have admitted that "the State Department website doesn't state the RIRA were originally designated as a FTO in 2001" and I'm claiming nothing. --Domer48'fenian' 07:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider this Alison. I know these Irish issues are emotive but there's no need for the half of this. We are supposed to be adults.The Thunderer (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

At 2:30 am, guys, I've little interest, I'm afraid. I'll have a look in the morning ;) - Alison ❤ 09:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Domer) If Dunc was not wrong, why does he say on the talk page that he was wrong and that the State Dept. reference backs up the sentence? Domer's revert says "Per BigDunc" - nothing more. BigDunc, like me, was referencing the effect of listing as a FTO, not the date. Why was the reference replaced? Because a State Dept. reference is better than a news report. As per above, it didn't take much work to address both that and the date issue. If Domer were to AGF instead of reverting non WP:IR members... Whatever, both references are now in, with more information. Issue closed. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the date when I made my comment on the talk page. Surely this proves that no tag team action was taking place as myself and Domer were in fact reverting seperate things. Please stop this silly play acting now. I have semi retired on wiki at the moment as I don't need this BS about tag teams and edit warring it is frankly beneath me. And TU sending emails left right and center to anyone he feels is of loyalist sympathies as can be seen with the verbatim responses by the Thunderer and now Setanta, when challenged on anything. BigDuncTalk 11:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

you want to be careful with your use of language son. You also want to be careful with your lazy assumptions.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't patronise me you fucking gobshite. BigDuncTalk 12:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That use of language is absolutely shocking and uncalled for on this medium. So is the accusation that there is some kind of conspiracy going on against you. My invites to you to get involved with editing are manifold and you have consistently refused to do so. I totally resent the implication that someone is "pulling my strings" or vice-versa. My assessment of this is that you and Domer have been tag teaming for so long and been getting away with it that you thought you'd never be pulled up about it. Now that you have your only defence is that others are conspiring against you - in the total absence of any evidence of same? In the interests of the encyclopedia and your own sanity I appeal to you to stop this. I certainly don't have anything against you and fully appreciate everything you've done to improve Wikipedia. Please just settle down and stop the gaming. It isn't necessary.The Thunderer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So is the accusation that there is some kind of conspiracy going on against you. Thats rich coming from the biggest forum shopper on wiki. Playing the victim on every talk page, to anyone who would listen. The one thing you all have in common is that not one of you can put up the diff's to back up your arguements. Two editors, intrested in Republican articles, members of WP:IR editing the same articles! Shock horror! Now cry wolf all you like, policies over-ride opinion and accusations count for nothing without supporting diff's. Cop on, and spare us BS. --Domer48'fenian' 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This insulting behaviour from you doesn't help anything Domer. Isn't it about time you discovered WP:Civility?The Thunderer (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Keep arguing on Alison's talk page, and make her grow more and more tired of helping any of you. I'd already have given up reading this thread if I was her, and maybe blocked a few of you. Perhaps you should thank her for putting up with you? --Deskana (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Alison,

Are you willing to oversight edits from usernames such as 1 2 3 4 5 6? I had been deleting and restoring the articles, but I got a complaint about database locking; she suggested that I ask for oversights instead.

Please let me know, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on - lemme check with the oversight team - Alison ❤ 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Oversight team says 'no', NW, as it's not covered by policy. Sorry about that - Alison ❤ 00:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Darn, there goes that doorbell again...

Ping. Risker (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Already ponged! - Alison ❤ 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser question

You declined Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Criminologist1963. Both editors edit the same very specific topic area, advocating the same positions, using the same tone of voice and one became active after a long fallow period when a lack of general patience with the other account was becoming clear. To be honest, I am not that familiar with checkuser standards and processes, so I'm a bit baffled by the decline. The indications seemed clear enough to me to justify a checkuser. I'm not trying to be a pain, but rather just ensure that I do not make inappropriate requests and provide sufficient information in the future. How can I better present my concerns in future requests? What was lacking from the request I posted? What lead you to decline the CU request? Be well and thanks! Vassyana (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Well, first off, it looks like a textbook 'fishing' case, where you have no concrete evidence or strong indications you can point to, and basically are operating off a hunch. Also, you filed under category "F" (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser). This relates to "Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community" - and I'm not sure how that applies here. Also, for category "F" cases, the requestor should "Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy" - I saw no evidence of remedy or otherwise. Indeed, there were very few links to diffs at all. Given that we're dealing with an editor's privacy here, I need a fairly substantial reason to compromise that, and in this case, I saw no concrete reason to compromise their privacy on the strength of a relatively unsubstantiated guess - Alison ❤ 05:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I did provide a link clearly showing the editor is under a topic ban.[12] (I could also have provided this and this, but the link provided leads to both places.) That said, what do you (as a checkuser) typically consider a substantial reason to undertake a check? What sort of evidence do you feel is necessary to justify the invasion of privacy? Thank you for taking the time to reply and explain things a bit better for me. It is sincerely appreciated. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the time to review a slew of past and present checkuser cases to see where the line gets drawn and generally what sort of evidence is usually required for a check. I have a much better understanding of how checkuser works and what (as a matter of course) will usually be accepted or rejected. In the future, I will endeavor to file requests that better meet the acceptable norm. Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry - I got completely snowed under with tasks & should have followed up. Thanks for looking into all this yourself, and going over previous cases. Any questions, just let me know - Alison ❤ 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem! I saw things were a bit busy for you (and I know myself how easy it is have things slide or fall between the cracks). Not wanting to hound you, I just went ahead and did the equivalent of RTFM. ;-) After reviewing a good hunk of past cases, a picture of what is and is not acceptable for a request came across fairly clearly. I definitely now understand why you felt that my request was "fishing", and given the precedent in checkuser, I would agree with your rejection of the request. I don't have any questions at the moment, but I will reserve the right to take you up on that offer if any come to mind. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Email sent to oversight!

And i think i broke wikipedia for a few minutes back there - thought we werent allowed to delete pages with more than 5000 revisions? Lar's talk page has 5500+ the server didnt seem to like it much. ViridaeTalk 09:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Signsolid

This newly created account, User:NoOneThoughtOfThis1, seems like another sockpuppet of User:Signsolid given the similarities of edit. He/she has reverted an edit I made, without any explanation, much like Signsolid used to do. Keizuko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.108.208 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to add: I saw I was blocked for allegedly being a sockpuppet of Signsolid, which is the most bizarre thing. If you check carefully my (Keizuko) edit's history, and then Signsolid's edit history, you'll see we never agree on things. Signsolid made several invented accusations against me on the administrator noticeboard a couple times, and personally I reported his/her possible sockpuppets to some admins, so it's beyond me how someone could think the two of us are sockpuppets, given that I brought him/her no benefit at all, and vice versa. I think there must have been some confusion at some point with all the confusing sockpuppets Signsolid creates all the time (sometimes even copying my own pseudonym, like when User:Kiezuko vandalized my user page, see [13], which I strongly suspect was in fact Signsolid vandalizing my page). I also noticed the creation of this account, User:Kazuko100, which is very close from my pseudonym, and oddly enough edited articles also edited by Signsolid, so again I am suspicious that it was another account created by Signsolid, using a derivate of my pseudonym. The guy is extremly shrewd and wicked, so God knows what he/she must have done behind my back that I am not aware of. The only way to find out that I am not Signsolid is if you check both account's history. One wouldn't create a sockpuppet to accuse onself of breaking 3RR and sockpuppetry, that doesn't make sense. Keizuko
Keizuko, can you email me on this one, please, and I'll see if I can unblock? - Alison ❤ 09:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is a list of other accounts and anonymous IP that I suspect are Signsolid's sockpuppets, based on my experience over the past months:

83.202.0.0/16

Hi Alison, gee, looks like you have prevented from editing, I don't know, France? Paris? Orange.fr customers? I just wanted to make a unlogged edition (I am not ashamed to say that I am ashamed of some of my interests), as an IP quoted above, and wasn't able to. If you have good reasons for keeping that ban, that's fine, but you should know that it concerns quite many folks. Cheers, ziel & 09:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that but yes, it has to stay. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Signsolid for just some of the accounts in that range. There are actually surprisingly few editors who use that range, however I did recheck to see if I can reduce it's breadth and I can't. Sorry about all this - Alison ❤ 09:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Chocolatechaos9508

Hello. That user has requested unblock. I'd appreciate your comment, because the reason why the user was blocked isn't quite clear to me either. His edits appear to be productive. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ariel'sCorner

Hi Ali! Just letting you know that Ariel is back on WP and has even logged onto IRC. :) Come on back to her room! GlassCobra 17:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I meant Kelly. Fighting on two fronts (VMware and Wikipedia). Guy (Help!) 22:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hey Alison can you oversight or what ever anything that has my E-Mail address in it? The reason I ask is because since I've given it out I've gotten A-LOT more soam and I can only think it came from here. Thanks Allie :). SteelersFan94 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Something for you

User:Prom3th3an/swiki

Oh! Thank you :) That's most unexpected! - Alison ❤ 05:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Plyjacks

Plyjacks is back, at Kegatic (talk · contribs · count) & Jimmknows (talk · contribs · count). Please take a look for me, thanks.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Checkuser says  Confirmed, the following accounts as socks of Plyjacks (talk · contribs);
  1. Kegatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Syjacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jimmknows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is  Stale - Alison ❤ 05:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Incoming email

check? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RfCU Strikeout Sister

Hello Alison. I don't wish to just drag you into this so I'm asking first. It's about privacy issues and the current RfCU case against me (Strikeout Sister). Could you please email me? Thanks.    SIS  12:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh.. it is enabled now. Sorry.    SIS  23:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You should have mail.    SIS  00:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep! Got it and read it. I'd already previously looked into the case and had pretty-much come to that conclusion already. Case has now been no Declined. Thank you for writing - I'm waaaay too busy to email right now but suffice it to say that I'm 100% okay with your explanation and, of course, will respect your privacy on the matter. Thanks again - Alison ❤ 00:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much.    SIS  00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb

In this diff, The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb wanted to vanish from Wikipedia. But other users are refusing to let The Bomb vanish. Could you please delete the page to fulfill his vanishing? -- Thanks, 92.21.163.135 (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the right to vanish, but this user was a block-evading puppeteer, so I think that the sock notice should be retained. Cheers —Travistalk 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my old user page

Hi Alison. You deleted user:Fred Chess, which is the user page of my old username. This page was a redirect because all of my previous signed posts linked to it -- they are now red links. Was that deletion within policy?

Fred-J 15:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In a manner of speaking, yes. Check the block log. Your old account was immediately usurped by User:Grawp for purposes nefarious[14], as were many others. This was discovered by checkuser, the account blocked and the redir deleted as a matter of course. Same happened to the other accounts. Feel free to re-add it if you like but bear in mind that the account is now blocked as being that of a vandal - Alison ❤ 16:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I understand the reason.
There is little point in me restoring it if it is likely to soon be deleted again; I suppose I'll leave it the way it is.
Fred-J 17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Abuse notices

Following up on the Primetime vandal: Were you able to send out those two abuse notices regardling Primetime? Which of us ended up as the contact person in this matter? I believe that there have been clear and repeated violations of their terms of use, so I'd expect them to act. Or at least hope they'd do so. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Block him!

Alison first of all thanks :). and second please look at this: User talk:Nudist1 and review his edit's I've warned him but I think he should definately be blocked! SteelersFan94 19:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked, no need to worry Alison. Risker (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Risker :) - Alison ❤ 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kevin j

Hi Alison, I saw your note re too much collateral damage blocking his IP, so I'm hoping that it isn't 75.72.233.213, which I blocked for 6 months as a static sock IP. Cheers Kevin (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not! :) - Alison ❤ 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Kevin (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For lack of being able to buy you a drink

The Special Barnstar
Since I'm not able to buy you a drink in the pub around the corner or a dinner in some special place, it's a barnstar instead. Thanks for everything.    SIS  01:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much!! :) Glad it all worked out okay - Alison ❤ 05:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:JarlaxleArtemis

We delete userpages of indefblocked editors as a matter of course. - Not saying anything about this particular deletion, I'm sure it was warranted, but just a reminder that this is not generally true of socks and they shouldn't normally be in CAT:TEMP. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yes indeed. However, the above editor is long gone at this stage and in the full of things, these pages do get deleted. While there's no statute of limitations here on WP, it's not right to brand an account forevermore, especially if it had that person's RL identity tagged on, as indeed, this one did. In the highly unlikely event that he returned, it can easily be undeleted - Alison ❤ 04:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, again, I wasn't judging this particular one, only pointing out that the comment might be somewhat misleading to editors (including many admins) who aren't familiar with the process. There have been some problems with admins cleaning out CAT:TEMP in the past (particularly when someone was tagging large numbers of pages with the old {{temporary userpage}} tag). I know you know this and I'm not questioning this nor any other speedies you've done.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

School of education

Hi again. I'm not quite sure what your vendetta against Linda Darling-Hammond is, but your constant edit-warring on the above article is going to get you blocked from editing. You are repeatedly inserting egregious BLP violations into the article. Problematic in itself, but you are also doing this against consensus of the community. This is a formal warning; if you persist in adding this without any dialog whatsoever, I will block your account from editing. Please consider using the talk page to state your rationale for constantly adding this slur against Ms. Darling-Hammond - Alison ❤ 00:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By "consensus" you mean a trio of admins who think that they can push people around by threatening to block people who make edits that they personally disagree with. Please refer to this article for a reminder of what your real place is, particularly the part about admins' not having an additional role in determining "consensus." On the other hand, I have an M.A. in Education. How many graduate degrees in Education to you have? My reverts have been directed against the edits of a user who's job is to positively influence the public perception of employees of SUSE. It had been way more than 24 hours since my last revert, so I am not violating any rules. If you continue to abuse your admin privileges in this way, I'll have no choice but to initiate a formal complaint against you. - Skaraoke (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I've already seen your repeated barbs on Ryan's talk page. Note that I have no personal interest in the article other than in performing my tasks as an admin (who knows her place). In this case, you are edit-warring and POV-pushing and have been doing so for quite some time. You've also been refusing to dialog on the issues in question and, instead, resort to intimidation of the sort that you are indulging in here. My academic qualifications are none of your concern and, frankly, are irrelevant to the situation in hand. Regardless of your own qualifications, all editors are obliged to behave properly and treat their fellow-editors with kindness, patience and respect. It's that simple. As for your reverts in 24 hours, I point you to the policy page which clearly states, "In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day [and editors] may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Your behaviour is clearly disruptive. There is no place for pushing agendas here; neither yours nor the SUSE. In particular, as you are targeting an individual and one where there have already been OTRS tickets filed, I strongly suggest you also read the policy on Biographies of Living Persons and reiterate that any further blind reversion of the kind you've been doing will result in a block. Discuss the matter on the talk page; provide reasons, cites, verifiable evidence and dialog with your fellow-editors. If this fails, we have dispute mechanisms that you can rely upon. But doing what you are doing here will not succeed. I'm sorry that you feel I have been "abus[ing] admin privileges" but I can assure you that this is not the case. In closing, I will say that if you wish to file a formal complaint against me as an admin, you can do so at the Administrators' noticeboard or the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where I will be happy to respond in full view of the admin community - Alison ❤ 05:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ding!

I sent you email. =) Can you read it fairly quickly? =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I happen to know she reads very quickly.. when we chat she beats me to the punchline of all my jokes before I can type it out! (which is just mean!). However, I assume you mean you hope she reads it soon.. that part I can't promise (she's a busy one, she is!) *waves to Allie before running off* SirFozzie (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
After I saved that, I wondered if I needed to fix what I said. I guess I should have. ;) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Nah, it's ok. Allie's page hasn't met her silliness quota this month, and we ARE getting towards the end of it :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
True. And we wouldn't want the quota to go down. Maybe I better dance around for a bit... la la la LA LA la la la LLLLAAAA!!! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
lol - you guys!! :) - Alison ❤ 04:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ever heard the Satanist riddle No matter how thin you slice it it's still bologna? I heard Billy Joel sang it backwards into one of his vinyls ;) -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 04:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Incomiiiiiinnnnng!! - Alison ❤ 05:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! =D More silliness, more silliness... Maybe if I bounce around a little... boing, boing, BOING, boing, boing, BOING -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's what Allie's page needs.. MOAR Pogo sticks! :D SirFozzie (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perennial

Thanks for confirming that (DY's latest) - cheers and keep up the good work SatuSuro 08:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

'ello

Hi, you might remember me from being blocked by Nishkid for asking Elonka to discuss something. Since then I have been blocked again for "disruption and being a likely sockpuppet" by an admin with whom I was in discussion without meaningful warning. Both blocks were endorsed by multiple admins. Both were terrible blocks. Do I have any recourse to checkuser in these situations?

BTW, I love the pic on your userpage. New? 86.44.27.219 (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - this deserves a response. To be honest, I've no idea as to the background behind both events. Checkuser can't really be used to 'prove innocence', really, but it can shed a little light, depending on the circumstances. Point me to the accounts and stuff & I'll take a peek. I know you're block evading right now, but blocking your IP is pretty pointless here. Still have to do it. My apologies, but I know you'll just grab another - Alison ❤ 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And thanks for the comment on the pic :) It's from last year, as it happens. I'm starting to recycle them :) - Alison ❤ 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, the first block was overturned, and the second ran out while I was off enjoying a good weekend, so no evasion. I never switch IPs deliberately, nor would I as of this date edit while under a block, whatever its merit, since i still still have a fair amount of respect for wp's processes and the majority of its admins. In future if I tell an admin to file a "suspected" thing or get a CU, and they refuse, ridiculously citing wp:duck or whatever, am i just fucked then? 86.44.30.227 (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MacBooks overheating

Hello, Alison. I have a late 2006 model MacBook, and lately, it has a tendency of running at temperatures near 190ºF when doing little more than my usual X-Chat/Firefox/iChat/Skype. Usually, the temperature is closer to 125ºF. What could cause such a runaway temperature, or perhaps a faulty temperature reading? --harej 21:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it may be a faulty reading. After having it shut down for several hours, I turned the computer back on, with the vent propped in the air, and it started out saying the computer was 105 degrees. Then it started escalating, and right now it says the computer is at 170 degrees, even though it's only kind of warm on the outside. The fans are operating with the assumption that the temperature reading is correct. (The hard drive's SMART status is "Verified"). --harej 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I need to really see it to know. Open up a terminal window and run 'top' and make sure you've nothing runaway which may be maxing out the CPU or memory. There are a plethora of temperature probes in that machine, it's really hard to know where to start; CPU (two off), HDD, optical drive temp, north bridge, etc, etc. Boot the install CD that you got with the machine, hold down the 'D' key for diagnostics (I actually wrote a bunch of that stuff), and run the logic board and System Management Controller tests. Make sure your SMC is up to the latest revision, maybe read this support doc. Also, try removing the charger and battery, then booting it from cold. Fingers crossed! - Alison ❤ 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Does that 'D' thing work for a G5 iMac too? Lately my fans are louder than before, and I've already had the logic board replaced twice. Thatcher 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Should do, yeah. Just make sure you have the install CD in the drive with the diags on it. This will boot the CD into EFI and snag the diagnostics suite instead of the normal bootloader. Let me know how it goes ;) - Alison ❤ 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC) (and duh - for PPC, substitute Open Firmware for EFI :) It all works the same for diags)

I put the install DVD in, I reboot so that it loads the DVD, I hold the D key for the whole time, and I get the install prompt instead of the diagnostic prompt... --harej 07:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmph! You should see a message on the install CD, "To use Apple Hardware Test, hold down the D key as the computer starts up" - make sure you have the right disk. It should be Install Disk 1 - Alison ❤ 07:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I figured out the culprit. It, was, that, evil, vindictive, Folding@Home, bloating, my, resources, and, throwing, my, computer, into, a, tizzy. I shut it off and my computer is at a nice, cool temperature now. Plenty of thanks for humoring me, anyway. --harej 07:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha! As I pointed out, "Open up a terminal window and run 'top' and make sure you've nothing runaway" - looks like you had! :) I hope those folks appreciated all those CPU cycles you burned through for them. Glad to hear you have it all sorted out, though - Alison ❤ 07:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually didn't notice the outliers until I used Activity Manager instead of top. Good thing there's always GUI alternatives which somehow figure out how to take a simple task and turn it into several megabytes of RAM (and several hundred megabytes of virtual memory). --harej 08:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That was unexpected (although it turns out that 'D' does nothing because the iMac G5 has the Apple Hardware Test on a separate CD); it gave me a MEM error in DIMM0. Which is odd because I almost never have the kinds of problems I would associate with bad memory. Question: as of now I have 256MB in DIMM1 and 512 in DIMM0 (from CompUSA, go figure). Supposedly the system will run better with paired DIMMs, but Crucial memory is $28 for 512M and $37 for 1G. Will I really notice the difference if I spend the extra money on this 3-1/2 year old machine? Tks. Thatcher 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Claris Emailer

With your Apple knowledge, could you have a look at this edit to Claris Emailer, specifically the removal of the Open Transport reference in the first paragraph. TIA ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - I tend to steer clear of Apple articles and almost never edit them. However, this edit is actually correct. Claris does support POP3 and the mention of Open Transport and PPP only confuses the issue. Post Office Protocol is part of the Application Layer, whereas PPP is part of the Data Link Layer. I'd suggest leaving it as it is right now - Alison ❤ 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I was not trying to draw you into Apple article editing but I assumed, correctly, that you would know the answer. I am still using Claris Emailer and have never found an email client with such a complete and easy to use feature set. Some of us just wish we knew where the source code is but apparently it went walkabout when FileMaker was demerged from Claris in early 1998. Anyway, thanks. ww2censor (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Borked diff

[15] won't work, but it came up in my watchlist as a diff link, I assume I know why, is page protection warranted here? MBisanz talk 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been oversighted already. Prot is up to you but I expect he may wish to address the issue of the o/s - Alison ❤ 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#User_talk:Thekohser_.28edit.7Cuser_page.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 MBisanz talk 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

In recent weeks, TFM recalls a series of exceedingly unpleasant interactions with User:129.133.124.199, User:P22575R15, User:Arrrgggh et al on the talk pages of Fraternity and Fraternity (disambiguation).

I knew there was something fishy going on, but lacked the energy or the technical means to investigate it.

I really wouldn't have minded the sockpuppetry, as long as the socks' edits were productive and the sockmaster's disposition collegial, but this guy is one belligerent and uncooperative (impolite epithet redacted). I guess I guess if he were a nice, unabusive guy, he wouldn't need the socks. Anyway, thanks for taking care of this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Me, again

More email...... Tvoz/talk 23:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you on now?

... J.delanoygabsadds 04:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayup. Sorta - Alison ❤ 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK good. /me sighs in relief. I know utterly nothing about rangeblocks, but I was worried that I would have to apply one. Can you look at my logs? Specifically, the blocks of 79.69.xx.xx. They are obviously all the same person. What would be an appropriate size /xx to apply? J.delanoygabsadds 05:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow! That a lot of blocks. The range is obviously 79.69.128.0/17 even though whois shows it up to be wider. If you really must, just softblock that range for a few hours at a time, as there will certainly be collateral damage. It's quite a busy range - Alison ❤ 05:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I just blocked one more, but he seems to be slowing down. If he shows up again, I'll soft-rangeblock it for 3 or four hours. Thanks for your help. J.delanoygabsadds 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I?

Can you grant me rollback? --eric (mailbox) 05:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not, sorry. Your userrights log shows it being repeatedly granted and revoked. Indeed, the entire debate is ongoing on WP:ANI right now, so granting it would not be appropriate at this time, sorry - Alison ❤ 05:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks anyways :(. I like your user page pic. tho :) --eric (mailbox) 05:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
How dare you edit conflict with me, Alison, on your own talk page. Here I was, trying to be helpful and provide you the ANI link, and then you have the gall to respond first... jeez, some people... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry! I apologize profusely and unreservedly, EVula. Next time, I vow to be much slower. Now block me please for my insolence, O master :) - Alison ❤ 05:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm feeling generous today, so I'll let you off with a warning... this time. (also, I'm about to go to bed) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Alison, only so you know, his rights log only shows it was taken away once (today). The other entries were for adding and removing account creation. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. True, that, sorry. However, they've just been removed and I don't think I should simply add them back right now, especially given the commentary on ANI. - Alison ❤ 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's why I said "only so you know." ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice

A user has posted about you on WP:ANI Exxolon (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - Alison ❤ 17:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison/Archive_25&oldid=1190122177"