User talk:Alison

Archives

2004

Entire year

2005

Jan • Jun

Jul • Dec

2006

Jan • Jun

Jul • Dec

2007

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2008

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2009

Jan • Jun

Jul • Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2010

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2011

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2012

Entire year

2013

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2014

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep • Dec

2015

Entire year

2016

Entire year

2017

Entire year

2018

Entire year

2019

Entire year

2020

Entire year

2021

Entire year

2022

Entire year

2023

Entire year

2024

Entire year

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)

Encyclopedist and Depression

Hi, Alison. I saw a recent edit by an editor here who I was familiar with and his concerns that a vandal assuming my old name was actually me.

I would like to verify that, yes, I am Encyclopedist...as you can see my contributions have been productive on this account and I have absolutely no intention to vandalize.

As a further note, I believe clinical depression is a serious problem and one I would not dare make fun of, seeing as how I wonder if I have it at times too (yes I read your note about it and comment that "WikiStalkers like Encyclopedist love to make fun of...")

You are a brave, wonderful woman and I only wish you the best in your future...keep going to check yourself up, I personally support you...

Thanks for all of your contributions and work here...I am on my way to Georgetown U. in a few weeks so I don't have time to edit, let alone vandalize. I acted as "CIyde" mostly as a joke...after reading about your personally plight I feel really bad about that now.

I hope this account isn't blocked or banned, but these are the rules so I can see how this would happen. Thank you for bringing light to the fact that many have assumed my name in the attempt to vandalize while disparaging me... In just two years I have seen how stupid that really was.

Keep up the fight, and Go Hoyas!Ulises Heureaux (talk) 02:02, 4 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? BigDunc^Talk 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. Scarian^{Call 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? BigDunc^Talk 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. BigDunc^Talk 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? BigDunc^Talk 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. BigDunc^Talk 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.BigDunc^Talk 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)

Clodagh Rodgers

I rewrote an article, Jack in the Box (song), the song by Clodagh Rodgers. I think it would be an interesting DYK hook but I think it needs more sources. I was wondering if you knew anything about it; it was rather interesting to me. Mike H. Fierce! 09:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Tissues.JPG

Hopefully these will help! :) ~Eliz81^(C) 09:39, 11 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. BigDunc^Talk 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 :) BigDunc^Talk 08:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Awareness

• Hi Allie. I thought you might be interested in this? I made it in light of, well, you know... Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Good idea, Steve. I've just added it to my user and talk pages. Once again, I'm really sorry that you had to go back over all that shite again but hope that this is finally over now. Beir bua is beannachtaí, a cháirde - Alison ^❤ 12:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Can you jump on Skype? :) And..er, what does Beir bua is beannachtaí, a cháirde mean? O_o Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 12:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • On! I'll tell you in person :) - Alison ^❤ 12:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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. BigDunc^Talk 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 BigDunc^Talk 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. BigDunc^Talk 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)

Proxies

Hey Alison, I was wondering if you could give me some information on how you catch proxies. That is if you have time, you can email me about it if you don't want to reply at your talk page. Regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure! Let's take it to email :) I'm just about to go off-line here but will get back to you later today - Alison ^❤ 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, just gave you an email :) --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to leave you another notice Alison but I haven't got a reply back from you, hope you can get back to me. Thanks. --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you have forgot this, but I still haven't got an email back from you. --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:44, 22 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 [1] 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[2][3][4] 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.

• User:AlphaAnarchy
• User:Ladiicarter
• User:Darnydb
• User:Raufual

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)

• ^ I'll be damned if that guy isn't Muntu himself... FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 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, [5], 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 [6] 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)

User:Fclass

Hi Alison, when/if you get time, would you be able to do a CU on User:Fclass/User:Auto Racing Fan? See my talk page for more. Thanks, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Already done --> Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Auto Racing Fan - way ahead of ya, today :) - Alison ^❤ 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ta! I knew it was him but at least now nobody need give it a second thought. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:34, 19 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.delanoy^gabs_adds 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)

What should I do now?

<font-family:"Tahoma">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 ... Bastun^{BaStun 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. Bastun^{BaStun 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. Bastun^{BaStun 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. BigDunc^Talk 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. BigDunc^Talk 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)

Welcome message

After seeing the name in my watchlist, I just had to check out the blue link at the user's talkpage, which led to the (expected) great discussion over usernames, and the mention of compilerbitch - which I'm glad I checked out too (marvelous pictures (hopefully soon at Haughton-Mars Project!)).  :) Anyhoo, I did just want to mention that your (I presume) welcome template is decidedly low-contrast and hence hard to read. I'd strongly recommend changing the colour scheme somewhat (dark text on a light-background is universally recommended). (There are some good colour-blindness simulators linked at Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles too). That's it, sorry to bother ya :) -- Quiddity 01:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Compilerbitch (yes, she's here, too) is awesome, isn't she? I know her in RL, as it happens. Either way, you're absolutely right about that hideous welome box. It's a mess, and I intend to change it soon as I have a chance here. Thanks for letting me know :) - Alison ^❤ 05:57, 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.[7] (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)

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. Viridae^Talk 09:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• A couple of 4chan attacks ago, I moved my talk page (just under 5000 revisions) to User talk:Thatcher/Alpha and fully protected it, so my active talk page history now has only a few dozen edits, making it much easier to delete. Thatcher 10:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea - the problem being, that this let me delete it! As I said, server didn't appear to like it much. Viridae^Talk 11:30, 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 [8], 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

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:

• User:Lad32145
• User:Cardiff123098
• User:FusionWarrior (this one I have only mild suspicion, contrary to the other ones listed here where I have strong suspicion)
• User:88.110.187.148
• User:88.104.103.91
• User:88.111.17.212
• User:88.108.29.235
• User:88.110.59.44
• User:88.110.118.229
• User:88.108.32.178
• User:88.110.235.147
• User:88.110.235.240
• User:88.109.195.218

Please oversight...

edit -- reveals a user's real name, and is libelous. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)