This is an archive of past discussions about User:Alison. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Alison, I know you're on "admin wikibreak" so sorry for this (it's not contentious though), the above IP user is under a rangeblock and their past contributions appear fairly constructive. How should I proceed? Anyone else watching this page feel free to respond here or at my talk. –xenocidic (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It's one of dozens of vandalism-only accounts which originated from a particular university. Please do not unblock - Alison❤04:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Come on
Seriously Alison, you were the wrong person to do that. I think it's slightly unfair to the people who feel harassed from WR comments to glamourise it on our front page. Ryan Postlethwaite23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryan - don't go there, please. Of all people who've dealt with harassment - real harassment, I've had my fair share from Mr. Brandt - and delivered via the WR forums. Yet here I am. Please don't judge an entire site by a handful of rotten apples. It's a DYK entry and it will be gone before it's even noticed. That is, unless drama is stirred as a result - Alison❤23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I know you've had your bad times over there, but you've also had your good times. I don't want to shout out "COI" but I really think you have one here. Yup, a lot of good stuff is said there - but it doesn't stop the fact that Wikipedians have had crap said about them there, and it's still on the site for all to see. It's a smack in the face to some of our contributors. I know the shit you took with Brandt, but you've got a strong personality and can bounce back - others can't. Also, If I'm going to be pedantic, it's very much self referential and these type of articles don't generally get onto DYK. Ryan Postlethwaite23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
And where exactly are my "good times" there? I get to deal with one particular other banned editor who made my life really difficult and is still messing me about over there. I answer questions and I listen to all comers and do what's best that I can for the project here. So don't give me that "good times" crap - Alison❤00:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to judge the level of anyone else's harassment or whatever, but pulling a stunt like that on me, Ryan, is not appreciated here. Nobody's "glamourising" anything. I can't believe you just said that - Alison❤23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I obviously don't mean that it was your intention to do that - Of course I know you better than that and know you'd never do it, but it did give that effect, regardless that you didn't mean to. Ryan Postlethwaite23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I'm taking a break off-line for a few hours. Your "smack in the face" comment really doesn't help. Cooling off time - Alison❤23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryan's comments and flawed reasoning aside, WR would not exist if not for WP; therefore, to include it in a DYK update is overly self-referential and should be avoided. DS (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Alison, Ryan - come on guys. Neither of you should be making decisions about whether WR belongs at WP:DYK, anymore than I should. We have plenty of people with no involvement with that forum (negative or positive) who should be able to assess this dispassionately. Sometimes appearance of bias can be just as bad as actual bias. I think this is just one of those situations where the decisions would be better left to someone else. Cup of tea anyone? WjBscribe00:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I am so annoyed, Will. That DYK entry went right through the process, got chopped around on the talk page - as they do - and was accepted by the community. Poor Neil even got his DYK award. And then Ryan comes along and unilaterally pulls it from the live page??!! That's just not on. Nobody gets to foist their opinion on a community decision like that because they don't like it. That's not what Wikipedia is about. And to use sysop privs to override the full protect only compounds the matter. I simply reverted to consensus when I saw how he'd run roughshod over DYK with his unilateral decision. Now, I can respect DragonflySixtyseven's opinion here regarding its being self-referential, and just about concur, especially given the manner in which he presented his opinion. Then Ryan has the audacity to show up here and dare to try to patronise me and try to guilt-trip me into submission. I don't buy that for a second, nor do I buy the rather naked insinuations that I am either complicit in, or somehow condoning any off-site harassment. Actually, I'm sickened on a whole number of levels as a result of this event - Alison❤01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, and if I'd been a little quicker I would have gotten to it before Ryan did it with his ill-considered edit summary, and this whole mess would have been avoided. As it was, I got edit-conflicted, and now you're upset and he's upset and both of you are all stressed out. This is ridiculous. DS (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Patronise you? I was merely giving my honest opinion on what the DYK entry for WR on the main page did. I haven't for one minute suggest you're involved in off site harassment. I didn't try and make any guilt trips - not one. This isn't a community decision at all - people nominate pages and one person decides to add it, no way is that community consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
How about you pop on over to Neil's talk page and explain what you just did. Don't leave it to someone else to do - Alison❤01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Alison, I apologise if I offended you - I hope you know me well enough to know that it was not my intention in the slightest. It looks like my comments above were a little mis-worded. I know your feelings on harassment and know you hate it - I honestly wasn't trying to suggest that you were promoting harassment. I hope you understand Alison - I've got a lot of respect for you and would hate to think you're upset by a comment I've made. Ryan Postlethwaite00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, you may, as you say, not have "meant it", but that's exactly how it came across. It was pretty targeted, was patronising and was a pathetic attempt to project guilt upon me. Even the thread title and this subsequently redacted comment show exactly where you were coming from. I'm not just upset, Ryan, I'm angry and disappointed in the extreme - Alison❤01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Alison, I've taken this to AN/I here so we can get some outside comments. I think WJB was right about that neither of us were the best to act here. Feel free to comment. Ryan Postlethwaite01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's sure to bump the drama levels, given that we've already achieved consensus amongst us three already. Have you explained to User:PeterSymonds as to why you interfered with his DYK update? I see that DF already has ... - Alison❤02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly be better to get outside opinions on this. With respect to Peter, DS had already contacted him before I had chance so I didn't think there was any need. Ryan Postlethwaite02:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's just it. You "didn't see the need" to defer to others or to even ask the admin who did the update, before you yanked it out of live DYK. Then you didn't see the need to explain to Neil why the article that he worked so hard on got removed from DYK. DF did that, too. Then you didn't see the need to retroactively explain to the admin why you undid his admin action in updating DYK. DF also did that. Am I seeing a pattern here? - Alison❤02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No pattern at all, because DS got there every time. When you pointed it out that I should have talked to other users, I went to their talk pages and he'd already commented - no need to duplicate the same posts. Ryan Postlethwaite02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, you're not getting it. DF can only speak for himself and has now taken the time to give his rationale to those involved; Neil, PeterSymonds, and myself. You, however, have not seen fit to address the others involved, especially Peter. You really need to do that - Alison❤02:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So you finally did that, but you still put in the "smack in the face" comment. That's apologising while berating him for being so ... inconsiderate to all the hard-working editors. Ugh! Ryan???? - Alison❤03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made it more neutral, but what explanation do you honestly expect me to give? That's the reason why I removed it - because I thought it was a smack in the face to put it on our main page. It's nothing against Neil who has created a well written article. Ryan Postlethwaite03:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
smack in the face", "smack in the face" - that's what - three times now? You've now said that to both of them as part of your apology. You really can't help getting a dig in, can you. It's nice that Peter now knows that his DYK inclusion was a "smack in the face" to hard-working editors. Same with Neil; his hard graft on the article - well, that's a smack in the face, too. Yeesh - I give up. Sort out your own mess - Alison❤03:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What reason do you want me to give to them? Do you want me to lie? I told them why I removed it - I'm not going to say I removed it for other reasons because I didn't. I stated clearly that it was my opinion - I didn't word it to suggest others thought that, because they clearly don't in retrospect. Ryan Postlethwaite03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps more gently wording things, for example "didn't feel it was appropriate for the main page given the strong feelings many Wikipedia editors have about WR..." would have been more helpful. Risker (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, with the greatest respect, it's 4am here and perhaps I wasn't thinking quite as I would do at 1pm. Still - there's no way it's fair to lie to two respected contributors about why I removed a DYK. Perhaps "smack in the face" wasn't the best wording, but I had to be honest to them. Ryan Postlethwaite03:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I deny tag teaming charge. Is it crime to edit Brahmo article only? I see the checkuser request. How you can say I am likely sockpupett, just because a new account of User:Shiben_Dutta is making allegation. Please check my recent edit at Keshab Chandra Sen, I am being tag teamed harassed by User Shiben Dutta and User Shovon76. Note similarity of names (in Bengali language "B" = "V", ask Mr Ragib), check them also, and also user SeeJee. Now they are also threatening me on my Talk page to prevent me from filing complaint to Arbitration Board, saying I will be ban for sockpuppetting. They are abusing me for poor English knowledge also on Talk:Keshab Chandra Sen. Then Ragib is instigating other editors like Shovon76 and Priyanath on their talk pages to revert my edits using words like "laundry list" from checkuser. Please checkuser this matter very properly with all IP address and see why Shovon76 is now undoing my constructive edit at Keshab Chandra Sen after Ragib tells him and if he is linked to "Shiben Dutta" (who is very well knowing Wikipedia for new user) or "Seejee" or "GDibeyndu", who are unconmfortable with other POV to theirs.Lillycottage (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The claim about Shiben=Shovon sounding similar in Bengali is absurd :), those are two distinct names in both spelling and pronunciation. As for the other users in your list (except for the Shiben Dutta account), they have all been using Wikipedia for quite some time (and are active in other language wikipedias), unlike your single purpose account. --Ragib (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ragib on everything he says here. Add User:Gayatrisavitr to the list, as he says above. Further, Lillycottage is not-so-subtly taunting Ragib on his talk page. It appears these users have brought their fight (and tactics) from their yahoogroups to Wikipedia. I think this mess needs an uninvolved admin who is willing to be strong and proactive. This has the potential to snowball, otherwise. Thanks, ~ priyanathtalk21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I welcome neutral adminstartor. You must see what "Shiben" Dutta is writing on his User page. He is defacta admiting he is open proxy user from Yahoo group gangs. I not tauning Ragib, but help him identify Ronosen. These same Yahoo group people undo many edit of mine at Adi Dharm so I stop editing that article and research on them. Now they are stalking and undoing my postive edits. I have already track down Ronojit Sen and "Bikash" Sen by very easy method. Lillycottage (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks For Offering Help Alison
Thanks for offering help Alison, but I don't think I'll be on Wikipedia for a long time. Whenever I try to prove something that's true and I have hardcore facts it just either gets into a big fight that a lot of times I didn't start or someone tries to get an Administrator to block me when I am correct. There are a lot of things I know that many Wikipedia users don't, and when I try to fix an article people try saying the information I provided is not true when I basically throw the hardcore facts and many resources into their faces and they don't want to listen, they just get lazy and don't read it, they also have no intelligence in the subject, and then they get a corrupted Administrator to try and block me when the Admin doesn't even take the time to read it. For example the Marlon Brando article, they said his sexuality was in question and it has been listed in numerous things, the link they gave to try to prove that he was gay wasn't even about him, it was about someone else, so I removed that part of the article because there was no facts, I am a big fan of Marlon Brando and I have never heard that he was gay, then they got an Admin because I guess I violated the 3RR policy, WikiDon was the one who got the Admin and the Admin was his friend, the Admin was MBK004, and then WikiDon was going to every page I edit and then edit it, there's no problem with editing the pages I edit but when doing that constantly I felt violated, harassed, and stalked, I asked him nicely to stop but he wouldn't, then they got other Admins involved and you know the rest of the story, but anyways back to Brando I have never heard of that policy before, the Admin wouldn't even look at anything, I'm getting sick of people becoming friends with Admins and then when the normal users get into an argument they get their Admin friend who takes care of it because the Admin is the user's friend, another thing I did not use my MI General sockpuppet account to abuse anything, I did use it to try to get myself nominated for Adminship which I guess was abuse of the account but I did not use it when myself and WikiDon were fighting. I'm getting very tired of Wikipedia users causing me stress, I just want to leave, I have been in a lot of pain lately from stress, my chest injury, my asthma, and my arthritis. I just can't take it anymore, I'm leaving until Wikipedia can get better users and better Admins and stop letting anyone edit, which probably won't be until Wikipedia gets sued again, anyways I wanted to say goodbye and thanks for getting my block reduced, and I'm sorry if you took offense about the whole Italian vs. Irish thing since I'm Italian and you're Irish, I didn't mean to be offensive, I was overreacting and thought they were getting an Irish Admin on purpose since I'm Italian and they knew back then Italians and Irish didn't get along, I'm sorry and I did not mean to offend you. General Mannino (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
greetings from Dublino
The Italians and Irish don't get along?! That's news to me - (I have personal connections here!!). Must be an American thing - here in Old Europe we get along like a house on fire (as they say). This young guy reckons he'll be the first to reinstate Maldini's No 3 shirt at Milan (don't ask me) and be Irlanda's new Paul McGrath - Ciao!! Sarah777 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Username change
Hi there,
I have registered at the English Wikipedia some time ago. I couldn't use my normal user name (BeŻet), because the system rejected it as too similar to a completely different nickname. I thought, "Oh well, I'll just add pl at the end of the name".
However, I have recently learned that it is possible to have a universal account on all wikimedia projects. I need the same username everywhere though. Is it possible for me to change my nickname from BeŻet pl (talk) to BeŻet? To clarify, I am asking you this question because I've chosen a random admin from the admin list ;) Cheers! BeŻet pl (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. It was switched off in MediaWiki then it suddenly got activated. I only found out when emails started coming in from unblock requests. Demon has gone ahead and baleeted it for the moment, so we're in the clear. I'll take it to test.wikipedia later today and fool about with the args and see if I can make any sense of them - Alison❤18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Thanks, Demon. I think when the thing was first implemented, we had something like 5. Thus when it was offlined, some of them got pruned back .. I think! - Alison❤20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ooo-kay. I see that IP address now, yes. Do you have enough evidence of abuse to warrant possibly linking the Schmidt guy to that IP address, given the privacy issues involved? - Alison❤12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this sums up the concern at the present time. If this user is attempting to claim a fresh start, should it be granted? There is no current evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. What current edits are disruptive enough to justify breaching the privacy policy? Thatcher17:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to concur with Thatcher here. Is this guy abusing policy right now, given that he also appears to be claiming a fresh start. I can confirm right now, though, that the Schmidt account does not appear to be indulging in abusive sockery nor, AFAICT, has it ever - Alison❤17:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Alison. Sorry to bug you. At least it's not admindrama! I am trying to make sense of this Irish stuff. Does it mean anything to you, or do you have an idea who'd be able to help? I know it's not modern Irish, but being as how I am not an expert, I have no idea how (in)comprehensible Middle Irish is or isn't. I asked Sarah but I see she's on her hols for a few weeks. All right for some. Thanks a million in advance, Angus McLellan(Talk)16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Angus. I can barely, barely read it by turning it into phonetics. Phew! For example, the first few words, "I ciunn bliadan" = "I gceann bliain" = "In a year's time". Try asking Moilleadóir over on ga.wiktionary as he's a bit of an expert on Irish words in general. If you like, I can possibly snorkel through it, but am likely to make a complete mess of it - Alison❤17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have a theory about what the story is about, but I didn't want to bias the results :-) I have asked Moilleadóir if he can confirm what I think it is, or give me a few clues if I am wrong. Thanks again! Angus McLellan(Talk)18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Get back to me with the answer, if you can! I'm way curious at this stage :) I'm going to take another dig through it with a bare-bones dictionary I have here and see if I can make some sense of it. Check out dil.ie, BTW - Alison❤18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Moilleadóir came back to me with the answer. Hurrah! Don't look here if you don't want to know! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. All the best, Angus McLellan(Talk)14:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Might you check this before it goes stale?
I filed an RfCU on a number of anons who keep posting disruptively to the Persian Gulf article, and am somewhat concerned that the matter might grow stale in the interim. Could you please put that on your Things Ta Do list, so I can take the results to ANI, and let them take appropriate action? - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This is of course, discounting the fact that the same person who registered the test-wiki account might have hax0red Allie's account, right? *ducks the Alliewrath and runs off giggling* SirFozzie (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
More like the undead. He shows up in the middle of the night - strikes! - and fades off into the darkness. A mysterious character indeed! - Alison❤20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's Wikzilla. How nice :) Nice of him to tip me off about his latest little nest of socks, too. He thinks he's watching us? I'm watching him ... - Alison❤04:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I just wonder if this guy plays Diablo 2 or TF2. If he does, I'd be more than happy to carry out a vendetta on him there (so long as he isn't a Paladin or Sniper; I *loathe* facing those classes in their respective games...). -Jéské(v^_^vMrrph-mph!)04:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, another House sock
I thought I would wait awhile for House's latest sock to significantly screw up again before reporting him, but he seems to be already making trouble for this guy: User:Gb, so I thought, why let him create more clean up work? Requesting your special touch, once again, on this "Mountcan" account.
Hmmm. While Salcan and MountCan are both the same editor, I've not enough old data to make a definitive ID. However, given the geolocation of the IP addresses here, I'd say it's Likely that it's House1090 again - Alison❤06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. His typical pattern, other than producing articles on non-notable topics based on blatant plagiarism, is to make a series of benign or otherwise useless edits to established articles, then start in with idiosyncratic page moves of major cities and Latin American countries. He's not a huge problem otherwise, but definitely an annoyance.
Thanks for dealing with all this crazy WP stuff. You are definitely one of the people that make the site run better, to the extent operating conditions allow, that is. Ameriquedialectics14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Anon
Although this appears on-wiki a couple of times a year, it does seem to be a vandalism-only account, and I don't know if it's a sock of someone else. So thought I'd let you know about it so you can check and deal with it accordingly, if you don't mind that is.... :) Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not quite sure what I can do here, given the low-level of editing, and that it's an IP address. Checkuser won't tell us much here, and besides, CheckUser is not for fishing Sorry I couldn't do more - Alison❤06:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ping
Yes, I know. That email user function should probably be abolished. Sorry, another one en route to you. Risker (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Risker. I need to answer your mails. In short, yes - that's absolutely fine and if you need me to followup on anything, just let me know. I have all the details to hand. Feel free to mention what you see fit - Alison❤06:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Barefoot question
Hi,
You asked for info regards Creepy Crawler, the barefoot sockmaster. In this edit, I've linked to three sections that give the biggest collection of info and links on Creepy. It's a weird set of links and edits, and I wonder if two different sockmasters have been pegged to the same person. Irrespective, whenever I've found a barefoot perv, I've linked to this guy. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Creepy Crawler probably works too, as that's how I tended to tag the accounts as I found them. WLU (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok..
Puppy doesn't like it when his friends argue with each other
Darn. I had a picture of a puppy and was going to post it and say "Puppy doesn't like it when his friends argue with each other".. but I can't figure out how to resize it so it wouldn't take up poor Allie's page.. so, pretend I put this picture here, (Image:Keeshond Siberian Husky crossbreed puppy.jpg) and look at him, and say "I don't want to make the puppy sad"... :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for staying up waaaayyyy too late to track down all of those barefoot socks (that was really weird typing that). I suspected the list was huge, but I didn't think it would be that big. Wow. =\ -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's time we put our foot down here!Glad to help! Anything to prevent them ... y'know, getting a foot in the door. Or a toehold on Wikipedia. Ok, I'll shut up now :) - Alison❤07:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
OH HAI! Do you think the full protect is still warranted? I was thinking of lowering it at edit=autoconfirmed,move=sysop I know you're on a break, but I don't really feel like putting it on an noticeboard, so I guess someone will have a second look from here :) And it's not urgent at all anyway -- lucasbfrtalk06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ohai Alison. :) I replied to your completed request at WP:RfR. I'm not sure what you think, so feel free to comment. I was in an edit conflict by the way Alison. -- RyRy (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I was replying to your comment as you were typing this. I'd say the guy should be okay, really, but feel free to undo if you like - Alison❤08:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Avril stuff
I can't seem to find the subpage for said individual at RFCU. I've left everything there unless someone can actually direct me to the proper page (as people are complaining as of several minutes ago that there are still articles affected).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I found another one and blocked. It either helpfully - or vandalistically - dropped a long list of other names (100?) (252!) on the checkuser page. Anyone have time to dive into that list? GRBerry 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Counted, and changed to the checkuser template in case someone runs it on some or any... GRBerry20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like these are all his previously blocked accounts. Looks like someone is trying to get recognition. Thatcher21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've now found time to go through all of them. 249 blocked, 1 invalid username that I quickly found the blocked username for, 2 invalid usernames that the "error" was unclear. Some of them were blocked as socks of others, so there may be related CU cases for a clerk to merge. GRBerry21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Urgh! I see that it's been fixed up in my absence, someone has dumped a collection of socks in there, and that Thatcher has yet again beaten me to it and sorted out the mess :) I guess it's RBI time - Alison❤07:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Stalker
Thank you for reverting the edits of my charming wiki-stalker. I would not have thought myself important enough as a contributor to merit such a thing, but there you are. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad to help. And RJ, you're "important enough"!! Any editor who's editing peacefully but gets set-upon like that is important enough! - Alison❤07:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What I meant, really, is that I tend to steer clear of controversies, and the articles I edit are outside the mainstream... maybe that's what I meant. Hell, I've not had enough coffee to be thinking about this right now! At any rate, my real point is that I appreciate your help. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Courtesy note
Hi. You should probably be aware that you're being discussed on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents here, as a result of this checkuser case - Alison❤07:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Whatever what be indicated by checkuser, I'm unequivicably not the AlmediaManger user. I edit during breaks at work and I work at a big place. This is silly. I shouldn't consider this a big deal, correct? - House of Scandal (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you make a statement on the matter, given that both accounts edited from the same IP address, there are a total of three accounts on your IP address and one is completely unrelated. You edited the same page, replying to your sock account within a minute of its posting, from the same computer. Please take a moment to consider this case, note that it's pretty cut-and-dried as checkuser goes, and make a statement on ANI. While what you did was abusive sockpuppetry by definition, and was particularly cowardly, it wasn't *phenomenally* abusive. Being honest about whatever indeed happened is the best option right now, IMO - Alison❤07:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Alison. While there is some evidence that multiple computers do indeed use that IP address, the edits of AlmediaManger are technically indistinguishable from yours. At most, perhaps three people edit from that workplace, with 96% of the edits coming from you; the next most frequent editor being someone on a different PC who edits while logged out. The explanation that you were just "venting" and so some co-worker (who must have close to zero experience editing) would create an account to harass your opponent, and so neatly dovetail with your own edits, is not credible. Thatcher10:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for opining in a non-nasty way, even if it's in my disfavor. A guess about who AlmediaManga might be agrees with the notion that he's an experienced, (young) adult user with an interest in Japanimation that I don't share. For what it's worth, if I was going to assume a "masked identity" I would hide my tracks a little better than admitting to be a puppet and thereby initiating a checkuser! I also would have changed by "voice" to something a little more different than one that was articulating the same things I was already pretty much saying to Collectonian before and after the incident. I'm just waxing rhetorical, not trying to build a defense or anything. AlmediaManga's relatively mild personal attack on Colletonian would probably merit at most a 1st warning if not for the puppet issue. I understand how the timing of everything does seem total baloney from your end, and I'm also in tune with the "admit it and we go easy on you, deny it and we'll act with maximum prejudice" vibe. Not much I can do but relax. - House of Scandal (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Question
Does checkuser evidence stay for over a year, or does it go stale way before that e.g. a few months after the original request? I was wondering whether you could checkuser the Landev (talk·contribs) account as someone at my current RFA believe I am a sockpuppet of him despite the fact I am not. I haven't left a new topic at WP:RFCU as it would probably get rejected. Can you checkuser him for me? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Damn, got a difficult sockpuppetry situation, where a user thinks I'm a sock of this guy when I clearly not. See realted discussion here and here. I've managed to find out Landev's IP address (based in Canada), yet the user still thinks it's lying saying I have no proof. I live in England, and have no relation whatsoever. There's no chance an IP address can get redistributed 500+ miles across the ocean, is there? 72.xxxx IP address are Canada based, aren't they? D.M.N. (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: User:Nandesuka/Young Zaphod Sockpuppetry
No problem. The page served it's purpose, so it's fine to remove it now. (The purpose at the time was the incessant sockpuppetting and vandalism coupled with the sockpuppet's "You can't block me, you have no evidence!") Nandesuka (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't Panairjdde? He was identifying himself as Pan in one of his edits, and he took the trouble to seek out my old /PPP subpage (where I once organized a volunteer patrol to facilitate faster identifications of Pan's socks). I don't know JtV, but if he's not the same person as Panairjdde, I'd wager that they know each other. Dppowell (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely Johnny the Vandal. Checkuser Confirmed. He loves impersonating other vandals and had everyone going for a while, pretending to be encyclopedist. Ignore and move on - he's trolling you - Alison❤04:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
CU work! Oh noes!
Heylo! Sorry to pester, but could you check for collateral damage/undetected socks in CIDR 166.190.32.161/24 please? Tawker blocked the range as anon edits from 166.190.156.180, 166.190.32.161, 166.190.86.9, 166.190.62.224, and 166.190.79.228 were appearing to be User:Prester John, apparently banned a couple weeks back. Thanks! :D Kylu (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kylu. Quick rangecheck shows it to be absolutely clean - no socks whatsover - indeed, the only edits are from 166.190.32.161 - Alison❤07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been doing quite a bit of editing with Twinkle, which although slow, I suppose shows my want to help with vandalism. I was wondering just how many edits you believe I should make before re-applying for rollback. Thanks. --tj9991 (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. It's not so much 'edits' as 'time spent'. We need to see how you are at decision making involving vandalistic edits. Can you give things another two weeks and if all is well, I'll grant the flag myself? You've been doing great to-date :) - Alison❤17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have commented over there now. My opinion is that, while he has been just fine on this project, there is no technical reason why he should have the flag on enwiki at this time - Alison❤17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the username of Chris19910 and chemistrygeek. If you do a checkuserblock on wikipedia you will be abusing your powers as a checkuser because this is not part of the wikimedia foundation. But if you do on here then I am sure the Ombudsman would love to hear about how you have abused the power blocking someone who is using another site other than wikipedia for editing. As for wikipedia I will be taking a wiki break and will be leaving. As for the block on the main account on the wiki i dont understand and would love to see the logs and as for the abuse then I would love to see the server logs. I have performed a check on my IP address and at the times and dates visited and the sites that have been visited and the search showed that I was on the site last night between 18:00 GMT and 19:00 GMT. Please reply Chemistrygeek (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been extremely careful in dealing with this case. Given that your name came up repeatedly before while checkusering Chris19910 (talk·contribs) socks and I chose to AGF and give you the benefit of the doubt, I don't think you'll get very far. However, please do feel to contact the Checkuser Ombudsperson - that's well within your rights and I'm 100% fine with that. No abuse of 'power' here. I have had more than adequate reason to checkuser your account on the IPBlockExcemption rule alone, whatever about the other issues - Alison❤20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Allie, you're going to need to weigh into the ANI thread again. Regarding the block of Chemistrygeek, a user isn't convinced about the link between the accounts. Could you connect the dots? Steve Crossin(contact)21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem with image in Mainspace TFA
Correct me if I am mistaken, but the image of Ian McDiarmid, the subject of a BLP article is being used in the TFA Palpatine. The image is not, in point of fact, even in the Palpatine article. I am guessing that Mrs. McDiarmid and all his young-uns would be mighty disappointed to know that the chap they have been calling Daddy all this time is in fact a force-abusing megalomaniac from Naboo. Maybe we should reinsert a more appropriate image from the Palpatine article, instead of damaging the actor's reputation by equating him with a character he finished portraying over three years ago?
How did this mistake happen? - Arcayne(cast a spell)04:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arcayne, excuse me for butting in here but I think Alison will be AFK for a while longer so I thought I would respond. The reason this image is being used is that none of the images in the article proper are free use. This is a free use image of the actor who portrayed the character. I'd urge you to take this up on the talk page of the article, or alternately at WT:TFA, but the choice would be between having no image and having this one, I think. Risker (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I will take my concerns there, but if an image from an TFA candidate isn't free, and the TFA in the mainspace needs a free image, then it wold seem rather clear to not use the article with no free images. Maybe that's just me, as I am not an admin. Thanks for speaking up, though. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)04:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with you, to be honest; we've had several mainpage articles that appear without images before, and I can't really see why this should be different. I'll be honest enough to say I have no idea how that photo is being attached to the mainspace blurb, or I might have tried to remove it myself. You might also want to say something at WP:AN, because there's bound to be someone there who would be able to actually remove it. Risker (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Taken to TFA and AN. Someone will weigh in, I am thnking. Gads, i hope this isn't yet another proxy fight over fair use. That whole drama over whatsisname disappearing was worthy of a Tony Award. - Arcayne(cast a spell)05:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops - looks like I kept away until the work disappeared missed all the fun :) Thanks, Risker, for watching out while I was away - Alison❤05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
There's still a little work you could do. Might you pull the image of McDiarmid from the Mainspace? It doesn't appear to be in the Palpatine article itself, and is only present in the non-FA article for the actor. - Arcayne(cast a spell)05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I would suggest that you might wish to check time stamps a bit more closely, Xenocidic. I made the request before you deigned it wasn't a problem, and in fact, was recommended to the AN aftercoming here in the first place. Could I maybe get you to squeeze out ust a wee bit more good faith? - Arcayne(cast a spell)06:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You had plenty of people disagreeing with you as of your 5:37 request to Alison to pull the image, and at 5:19, I suggested it was a solution in search of a problem (which loosely translates into: this is not a problem). The part that I see as "forum-shoppery" is the fact that you didn't even point her directly to the ongoing WP:AN thread or tell her you had no one in agreeance with you at the time. –xenocidic (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Again respectfully, that was a pretty unpleasant assumption to make on your part. Alison is on of the most involved admins we have here; that she wouldn't be fully aware of an ongoing AN discussion is hard to swallow; that she would act without checking out matters is ever more so. That you would assume that I would expect Alison to simply delete the image on my say-so is either an incredible compliment regarding my powers of persuasion, or an disappointing display of cynicism on your part. As I don't that high of an opinion of my skills as an orator, I must assume you intended the latter. Either way, you put yourself in a bad light by assuming hte worst.
I should also point out that you appeared to be the most significant voice of resistance in the discussion, so I would submit that your recollection of the number of folk resistant to the idea is a bit skewed by actual events. In point of fact, it was eventually agreed that the image had to go, and that the article was just dandy without the procured image from a non-featured article.
I don't want to crowd Alison's page with out commentary (and am totally willing to discuss this further with you on your talk page or mine), but I think it speaks volumes that folk were initially resistant to removing the image, even though it was right to do so; it tells me that those articles currently looking at too-narrow interpretations of NFC#8, etc. criteria have considerably more difficulty in convincing candidacy to FA and TFA that they are worthy of promotion since, without images, they are likely to face considerable resistance for failing to have visual components. And the argument that a related image can be culled from somewhere else is a poor - and frankly disingenuous argument. articles are featured in MainSpace because they are the very best of the FA we have. If we cannot even find an image from the article to use, it isn't really the best for use after all, now is it? - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
My comments stem from these words "Might you pull the image of McDiarmid from the Mainspace?". A more appropriate comment would have been "Might you review the WP:AN thread regarding the TFA". Anyways, my apologies. In the end, it's no big deal, but you might consider your phrasing when you've sought opinions from multiple venues. But I agree, us ruffians should shuffle off of Alison's talk page now. Unwatchlisted. –xenocidic (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the previous case is not archived, I am not well-versed in doing so. This guy is back with the name Mayamistake, but the case in main RFCU page is also displaying the previous request. I cannot fix it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually on the case right now. Dozens of socks. Don't worry about the archiving - I'll take care of that :) - Alison❤18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to a WP:AN thread, I believe there may be some less-than-glorious activities concerning the articles at this AFD and this AFD, particularly with the verbose nominator and this equally verbose newbie. There may be quite a bit of unscrupulous behavior in this area, and I find it odd that a user who blanks a section of one article and writes a hell of a lot signs comments the same way as an established user who also writes a hell of a lot (I also don't know if this is something that we should really bother with, but damn look at those AFD deletion reasons).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Everything looks in order, Ryulong. Unless there's some off-wiki campaign going on or something - Alison❤00:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Viridae, without saying too much, there's some information regarding IP addresses that makes him instantly identifiable, even if previous accounts may be stale - Alison❤00:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
How can you expect Beh-nam to accept his ban if you are still allowing NisarKand to edit? Especially when it was NisarKand who got Beh-nam banned by making sockpuppets and getting him into 3RR trouble. I don't think Beh-nam will accept his ban as long as NisarKand is allowed to edit because that would not be fair. If NisarKand is IP range blocked also then Beh-nam will accept his ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.18.75 (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Beh-nam, please stop referring to yourself in the third-person - you're not fooling anyone. For those interested in NisarKand, please note that I have just placed two narrow rangeblocks on his ISP - basically both these ranges are nothing but NisarKand and there should be little or no collateral damage[1] - Alison❤00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Is it possible to request a checkuser? I suspect User:Beeellecee and User:Flettonian of being one and the same. Both accounts have just been created and the users appear to have a knowledge of the site. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have now filed a request at rfcu. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am starting to accumulate some GA and FA articles, and have seen folk line them up all nice an purdy along the top of their user page. I am not sure how to do this and would like to learn.
There are several Wikipedians who I admire, and some of them have apparently retired from WP. I know there is an image of a 'retired' stamp out there that I could shrink down and put by their name. Have you seen such?
I am unsure how to size pictures down, as they never seem to obey my input lowering their dpi. Could I trouble you to explain how to do this? I promise to pass on the learnin' once I possess it. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)06:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I will, honest!! I'll get to it over the weekend sometime. Still at the day-job here and it's midnight. I'll get to it (and the above stuff) soon - promise! - Alison❤06:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"Age on Userpage Patrol"
Hey Allie (is it okay if I call you that?) I was randomly broswing userpages, saw this, and I think it's time to pull out oversight or whatever the hell you used on my userpage. Thanks! Shapiros10contact meMy work22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Link redacted, don't want to call attention to it. Shapiros, I've put in a request via email for oversight of that page. Allie is a bit overwhelemed at the moment, but we'll get it taken care of :) SirFozzie (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see just saying one's age as a huge problem (birthdate a little bit, but even still). It's when you release age, real name, exact location (i.e. school, town), appearance details... any combination of that and is when it becomes an issue. –xenocidic (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I got to concur with xenocidic here. Oversight is for truly private information such as telephone #'s and addresses. Using Oversight for edits like this is a bit abusive. I understand the desire to protect, but wouldn't it be better to discuss it with the user in question? I'm afraid that you and SF might be caught up in the whole moral panic that Peter Damian is trying to cause. I find it pretty helpful since it reminds me to put in extra WP:AGF and avoid WP:NPA at all costs. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Your age was oversighted along with a whole bunch of other very specific information. I think Alison just took it all out in one fell swoop. It's the combination of several pieces of personal information (allowing someone to piece together a profile) that presents a problem. I'm sure she wouldn't mind you putting just your age back on there (though you should wait for her to weigh in on this). –xenocidic (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, as I saw his previous page as boarder-line. I still think that as long as address and telephone aren't given (along with other id numbers), it is generally fine. However, talking about your school and what's going on there isn't really needed on Wikipedia, unless you are giving a reason for being on wiki-break. What seems to be the norm for most editors is to create a short intro with name, age, city, state, country, e-mail/pm contact info (not really needed due to Special:EmailUser and IRC), and personal website. They usually then add more general things about themselves, such as likes, dislikes, reasons for editing, etc. Beyond that, you are really treading in myspace territory. Like xenocidic, I'll leave Alison to comment further. I do think that we must avoid paranoia and be careful not to be drawn into rash action due to excessive drama-mongering, though (*cough* tar pit threads *cough*). --Dragon695 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I still cannot understand the reasoning behind this block. Please can you explain in more detail why the two accounts are 'likely' to be the same. Am I correct if I say that the only evidence linking the two is the result of a check-user enquiry? If that is so, that requires us to over-rule the empirical evidence, which Counter-revolutionary refers to, that the two accounts edit in different ways.
Please be assured that this isn't a criticism, it's just that I don't understand how this conclusion has been arrived at. Thank you for your help. Major Bonkers(talk)13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Very well, although it's a question about the check-user evidence, which was provided by Alison, rather than the reason for the block. Major Bonkers(talk)07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on my independent review of Counter-revolutionary's contributions and checkuser evidence, an indefinite block is warranted. While initially observe and defer until later made sense, the evidence of abuse of this account is now too strong to ignore, so I agree with the block. FloNight♥♥♥13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The technical evidence has shown that the account was Likely to be User:Counter-revolutionary and this has been corroborated by a number of independent checkusers now. I have also discussed the matter with ArbCom and a number of Arbitrators have upheld the block. Unfortunately, the "edit in different ways", is exactly what good-hand/bad-hand accounts do and the circumstantial evidence tends to support the technical here, given the article he'd just edited - Alison❤18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for yours. I am in the process of replying at greater length on FloNight's Talk page. I point out that you haven't actually answered my question; what you've stated is that a number of independent checkusers have simply replicated the original result, just as anyone would have expected. I'm afraid that my response is still 'So what?'; frankly the preponderance of evidence, so far as I can see, is that these two accounts are not linked. Is there some reason why secret discussions are taking place on this? Is it really desirable, given the suspicions that it raises? Major Bonkers(talk)13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser evidence, per the privacy policy, must be discussed only among those who are privileged to view it, which does not include me or you, much less any passing reader of the encyclopedia or its mirrors. So yes, there absolutely is reason the discussion must not be in public. GRBerry13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Major, you cannot actually make a determination whether the accounts are linked or not as you're not privy to all the details. It's that simple. The 'preponderance of evidence' is definitely not in their favour, whatever about the evidence that you may be aware of. Secret discussions are, of course, taking place - mostly between the Lauder person, Counter-rev, myself and the Arbitration Committee. A number of arbitrators have been involved for quite some time in all of this; FloNight being just one of them. The reason they're secret is that the data is a matter of privacy. Trust me, I'd dearly love to blab the technical evidence from February's checks all over the Wiki, especially from the 24th of January - it's irrefutable and would get me completely off the hook here. But I can't.
This edit to Sussexman's talk page was made by Chelsea Tory at 12:10pm, and this edit was made by Counter-rev less than a minute later.
All of the above edits were made from the exact same computer on the exact same IP address. Over that few days, this would happen again and again and again, swapping and changing within minutes of each other. Even Immanuel can't got a look-in at times.
This is just one tiny example. There are many, many more - some even relating to a certain UK university where a number of accounts shared a common gateway IP. See what I mean? - Alison❤20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The independent checkuser that I did in April showed similar patterns to the one Alison describes. Another arbitrator reviewed account contributions on specific dates and saw obvious links WITHOUT checkuser evidence. These accounts have been looked at independently repeatedly and every time the same conclusion, these accounts are linked and have been used abusively. With each review the evidence of a link gets stronger. FloNight♥♥♥21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've finally arrived in Poland and I had hoped that this matter might have been resolved, at least to some extent, by now. It is quite right to say that I cannot make a determination as to whether the accounts are linked or not because I do not have the evidence; that is why I have asked you, FloNight, and WJBscribe, to explain it to me. Frankly, a week later, I'm none the wiser: WJBscribe's response is a fob-off, and FloNight's responses raise more questions than they answer; both have archived their discusions. Given that two editors, yourself and Thatcher, decided that the evidence was not strong enough to warrant a block (let alone the de facto ban that we are actually talking about), I still do not understand why the block has been imposed.
What I do have to go on is the public evidence, which you have provided. That consists of a single check-user report, which no-one has tagged as being more than 'likely', coupled with the circumstantial evidence of his 'contribution history'. Unfortunately, I draw entirely the opposite conclusions to you from the same evidence; I have kept a weather eye on Counter-revolutionary's contributions for two years or so, since the beginning of 'the Troubles' on Wikipedia, and what he writes in his defense is quite correct: he has no history of behaving abusively, even through 'sock-puppets'. Whilst I don't defend his playing silly buggers through sock-puppets, it is indisputable that the accounts that you have linked to him have behaved entirely differently to the vandal account.
Instead of dealing with the specific issue of the vandal account, which he was blocked for, the arguments are now ranging over various other accounts, including Isabela84, BScar23625, on the one hand, and David Lauder and Sussexman, on the other. The 'evidence' for widening the issue in this manner contradicts some of the previous evidence given for banning C-r initially: he is said to edit from a generic British Telecom IP address with no other users on it - widely reported as extremely easy to hack into, incidentally [2] - whilst some of the other accounts relat[e] to a certain UK university where a number of accounts shared a common gateway IP.
The more I look at this episode, the more disturbing I find it. It's based on loose forensic evidence which directly contradicts what we know of C-r's editing; any evidence supporting C-r's position is wished away. This is the same mind-set which assured itself that there were WMDs in Iraq and that the Guildford Four were guilty; you are persuading yourself, not me. I do not think that anyone could look objectively at the circumstances surrounding his blocking and say that C-r has been treated fairly.
Finally, if petitioning various others is intended to mean that C-r has been contacting me to lobby on his behalf, I'm afraid that's wrong. I don't link my e-mail address to my Wikipedia account: W. Frank's experience put me off that idea, and in any case, I have been driving across Europe for three days and I do not have the ability to pick up my e-mails from someone else's computer. Major Bonkers(talk)10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Major B, let me just update you. While I'm not a Checkuser myself, I can say this. Multiple Checkusers and ArbCom members, (FloNight, Thatcher, as well as Alison) have repeatedly pointed to an identifying feature amongst the accounts that made these accounts a match (or to be precise, Likely if not quite the level of Confirmed that the Lauder/Sussexman/C-r trio was matched earlier (where it was vote/log out one account/log in with other account/vote).
Again, I'm not a checkuser, so I don't have access to the "fingerprint" that clued them off to this, but for them to independently point out that there IS a fingerprint that convinced all of them separately that they were a match, says to me the level of strength involved is rather high.
As for the "Someone's impersonating C-r", I find that highly dubious, because while I do not know EVERYTHING that gets recorded for the checkuser to capture, I do happen to know it tracks some rather esoteric stuff, such as browser type, certain settings , etcetera (I learned a lot from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. Talk about dry, mind you!). For someone to impersonate C-R, not only would they have to "hack" the same IP data range that C-r uses (and to the best of my knowledge, that's not publicly known), but they would have to install the same browser, with all the same tweaks that C-r uses to get it to match. THAT is the foresnic evidence that CheckUsers go on, not just the surface stuff.
I Appreciate your feeling that this needs to be investigated and open to the fullest, but I'm afraid we're at the stonewall here. Even if Flo, Thatcher, and Alison wanted to show us the gory details that led to MULTIPLE checkusers concurring that they're a match, their hands are tied by the Wikipedia privacy policy. At some point, you have to trust that there's no great conspiracy at work here, but that multiple people, from a variety of backgrounds and locations, have independently reviewed the evidence and found that these are a match. SirFozzie (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I hate to be blunt about this, Major, but you're not getting the technical evidence - it's that simple. I am forbidden from revealing it per the privacy policy. In the paragraph above that you've not acknowledged, I've come as close as I possibly can re. the Sussexman technical evidence, and I may have even overstepped it a bit then. BTW - where did I comment that I "decided that the evidence was not strong enough to warrant a block" - I can't seem to find that. Also, the decision behind this block lies with User:WJBscribe and the Arbitration Committee - Alison❤11:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sheikh Ahmad Jami
hi there.I had created a wrong page many months ago about Sheiks Ahmad Jami and now i am going to repair the whole article.they have tagged a sppedy deletion on it.please help me.Bbadree (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Bob needs to be careful with the personalised comments, as he's already implicated in a lot of the shenanigans which have been going on here. ArbCom are already aware of his role in all this - Alison❤17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the rotters won't accept gmail for some weird reason. GH has admitted what? Being the admin? I'm not questionning that. Being Bardcom? That would be of interest: he denies being the anon. Could you quote whats on WR? Or email it to me, if you don't want to pollute wiki with it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Gold heart is the anon editor, and is not Bardcom. Bardcom is Unrelated to the Gold heart accounts Quote below from WR];
And Alison, you are targeting me again! Why don't you just ignore? [4]
You would make a great police-person, or border-guard. Just obeying orders. Eh?
Read some Utilitarianism, not Rand!
You should be putting TharkumColl in his place. - Gold heart
Looking for reasons to justify your block, after the fact, makes the block seem even more churlish. Ali, it would have been nice if you had responded and taken a closer look - but I understand why not. --Bardcom (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom - I'm on-and-off-line all day here. RL stuff is simply getting in the way, so I don't have time for Wikipedia. I'd like to state again for the record though that your account is Unrelated to the IP address. It's just Gold heart trying to get people into trouble again. He did the same with Domer48 two weeks back. Sorry for not replying sooner - Alison❤21:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ali, I could do with a little help though, if you could advise. (or is it worth it?) If you could quickly review the "block" I was given. It's important to me - it was an abuse by the admin, and I very much feel that this is exactly the behaviour that Sarah777 refers to. --Bardcom (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I need about an hour, though, as I'm away right now (on my phone here). I'll check it over ASAP - Alison❤21:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Bard, you had your block reviewed with the unblock template, then you went to WP:ANI and had it reviewed there, now Alison too? How many reviews do you want? 1 != 221:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Bard, I just got back here. You've been unblocked and the thread is closed right now. I've taken a look over it and it appears that WMC blocked you for disruption and not for socking re. Gold heart's IP. Is this correct? I notice you both have the same "British Isles" POV, so there may have been a bit of confusion, too. Did I miss anything else here? - Alison❤05:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ali, yes you've missed a fair bit. Without me putting words or ideas in your head, just take a look at the circumstances surrounding the block. Note the following points:
William claimed he blocked me for vandalism. Which edit?
You claim it was for disruption. What sequence of events is regarded as disruption?
William was an involved editor. Should he have blocked?
I claim I did not receive a warning. I didn't acknowledge it, I didn't see it.
Yes, it's Gold heart again, evading his ban. Checkuser certainly isn't required here as he's admitted to it himself and I can tell you that nobody else edits from that entire range right now. In fact, I rangeblocked it two months back and while he claimed I had "rangeblocked Ireland", we didn't have one single complaint the whole time - Alison❤20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool! If he comes back to cause more trouble, feel free to block the range /16, as there's nobody else in there. He's just constantly getting other editors like Domer48 and Bardcom into trouble - Alison❤20:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me get back to you on this one. It looks like the deletion was done okay, but could be problematic nonetheless. I'll restore it no problem if there's a reasonably good reason why it needs to be. ArbCom evidence? - Alison❤20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I know there's an ArbCom case, but I'm not a party to it. Let me ask this: doesn't there have to be a damn good reason provided to delete an article and talk page without the usual debate? Was there a suitable reason, that can stand up to scrutiny, provided in this case? May I ask what the reason was? --Terrawatt (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Prom3th3an
Hello there Alison, I see you gave back Prom3th3an the ACC flag. The initial removal was for the wrong reasons - he shouldn't have lost rollback or the flag because of what happened, he didn't abuse them. But the reason why I didn't give the ACC flag back is because current practice is to remove the flag if it isn't used within a month, so we can easily keep a monitor on who's doing what with the tool. A few admins are currently going through the logs and removing the flag from people that don't create accounts. Prom3th3an has created 6 accounts, the last one being at the start of June and he's never broken the limit set by the MediaWiki software, so per standard practive, he shouldn't have the tool. Please can you look into that for me? Ryan Postlethwaite13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
lol rollback was given back, however it's yours and Ryan's decision in regards to ACC. I know i asked for it back earlier but whatever makes you guys happy cause in light of new info don't really need it. Also, Im taking an Enforced wiki break untill the 22 or 23rd. Kudos «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)14:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you ask these editors to stop wikistalking me and undoing my edits? I am working up the Royalty articles on Lady Sarah Chatto and they keep reverting my edits. Thanks Astrotrain (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That's because her sons were merged to the Lady Sarah Chatto article back in April per AfD, and Astrotrain keeps undoing the redirect. Astrotrain has been blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing on this and other articles, see WP:AE for more. Sorry Allie to have this dragged to your page :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
lol - thanks, guys. Nearly all done now. We've moved into the new place now since yesterday and I've just got to clean out the old place and move a bunch of boxes and stuff (as well as do a day's work!) Should be all sorted by next weekend as the new tenants are ready to move in - Alison❤16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to personally let you know I didn't appreciate your needless and condescending input on Lar's talk page. You had to have made more than one assumption to make such a statement, all of them wrong. But I do hope it made you feel better though. Beam21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
But I wasn't being condescending!! :o You never did take that advice about the tea, neither. Where I'm from, we drink more tea per capita than anywhere else[6] so we know a thing or two ;) - Alison❤21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually you've been overtaken by Iraq now apparently. Must be all those British soldiers there pushing the average up....also this is the only reason Ireland were top for so long! 2 lines of K30321:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
lol - her powers of persuasion are second-to-none. Thanks goodness she doesn't edit the wiki :) - Alison❤22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)(Go on go on go on go on go ON!!)
It has recently been pointed out on the talk page that the article contains a completely unsourced accusation that LaRouche is a holocaust denier. Under BLP this should be removed instantly. CBerlet claims there are sources but has yet to provide any. I have a feeling that he is eventually going to propose himself or his buddy DKing as a source, which I would oppose. An accusation of such gravity demands a mainstream source. I am asking you to take a look at this because the only admin around is Will Beback -- he knows the rules, but he overlooks them because of his alliance with Cberlet. --Terrawatt (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to look at this and the other issue later today. I need a bunch of contiguous time to deal with it, and that's something I've not got much of right now and am only popping into WP for a few mins at a time. Just to say that I'm not ignoring this but am rather busy in RL. Thanks for being patient - Alison❤16:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for this... I keep hoping this fellow will find some other hobby, but, alas, no. Your efforts, though, are appreciated, and reaffirm my faith in what we (well, most of us) are doing here. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Rlevse. I just want to hold off until Astrotrain gets back to us, or not. I'm willing to support a conditional unblock, so let's see what happens here - Alison❤04:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(Chuckles) I have an email to ya, Allie (although if you have Skype we can pick up our discussion there, re the current RMS situation) :) SirFozzie (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Alison. Gold heart is shifting into high-gear, I believe. Would it be alright for editors to delete his posting on discussion pages (by his numerious IP accounts)? GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You confirmed that this account is linked to User:Internodeuser by checkuser. Dyinghappy is protesting the block, demanding to see evidence, et cetera. You marked this as "confirmed" -- is there any reason to doubt the conclusion? Dyinghappy has said he doesn't care about the privacy issue: I think, no need to reveal much, he might be trying to learn how to better evade next time. Mangojuicetalk14:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A request for arbitration which you commented on has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Bummer about the RMS unblock. There really is no path of redemption for banned users, especially unpopular ones. Seriously, how was Vintagekits any different, other than having friends? The glimmer of hope I gleaned from the discussion is that Robert can still prove himself by both restraining from editing Wikipedia for a while AND apologizing for his actions thus far. (Robert, I know you're reading this, and I hope you're taking this to heart.) So we talked about before that the community ban and the indef block are different. Does the discussion have any bearing on the community ban? ~Eliz81(C)18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
RMS
Talk to him some more and consider advising him to ask ArbCom for a review with voluntary but enforceable restrictions, maybe in a month or two. I think you probably know him well enough by now to be better informed than the average denizen of AN whether he has really learned. Or maybe he's proxying his sock edits to troubles articles and pulling the wool over all our eyes... Guy (Help!) 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryulong, ummm - GH is the only anon editor on that range. There are a small few editors who are registered. Right now, I recommend you reduce that rangeblock to softblock only. Hardblock is going to have some fallout and it's not fair to the good editors that GH has to interfere with their editing here - Alison❤23:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ali, would you please ask John to recuse himself from the Irish/British dispute if he cannot even feign some semblance of neutrality? Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Astro 2
When can we get input from Astro? How long do you need? More comments on that AE thread. It needs to be resolved. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rlevse. I've left a comment over on AE. It doesn't look like Astrotrain is interested in addressing my questions, sorry. I think maybe it's time to go for close. Sorry about the delay but I was holding out for an answer from him - Alison❤05:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. The image is approved for use both on the Italian and English Wikipedias. Authorization was granted by the mayor of Meda for itwiki, and this was later extended to enwiki. However, no license whatsoever has been stipulated, so that's a bit problematic. I'm probably not the best person to deal with this as the ticket is in Italian but yes, it's been authorized and no, the license wasn't specified. I'm sure the latter can be fixed. For the original itwiki authorization, you can quote OTRS ticket #2007102510010866 - Alison❤05:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
For future reference
Thank you for your speedy response to the deletion of the sensitive personal information. I originally looked at various oversight users to see if they were active and would be around. I noticed your wikibreak notice at the top and thought better. So, for future reference, I wanted to know if you normally watch AN/I, or if I should attempt to contact you via your talk page, among others, in such situations? Its one of those strange situations that I doubt many people have had enough experience with to know the proper decorum. :) Once again, thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad to help :) In future, if you have something like that, you can email me here and I'll get it pretty quickly. If it's an oversight issue, I tend to deal with it straight away whether I'm on-wiki or not. Or you can send requests to the oversight team email address. Either is good! - Alison❤05:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see Image:001.jpeg, especially what links to it. While no license plates are visible, I continue to be concerned about our young friend's privacy.
All in all, I think his participation in Wikipedia is destructive to the project and possibly a danger to himself, but I don't really feel great about asking for a block (yet). Still, I just don't see any good coming from this... :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
someone revealed their IP
On [8] and the diff by the same IP, my young adoptee accidentally revealed his IP, could you possibly get someone to oversight it please? StickyParkin20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi SP. It's already been done by someone else :) Next time can you possibly email either myself or the Oversight mailing list if it happens again. Not only will I get it quicker, the diffs won't appear on my somewhat busy talk page! Thanks again, and sorry for not being quick enough :) - Alison❤07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Request for checkuser assistance
I know you're busy, but please take a look at this if you can spare a few minutes. Permanent AN/I link. I'm convinced this is a sockpuppet. As nasty and disruptive as they come. Vicious personal attacks on two different users, accused multiple established users of vandalism, and made veiled threats. Please see if a check turns anything up. Thanks a lot for your time, Enigmamessage07:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, also the following accounts, already blocked. All of these are coming from a corporate range and if vandalism persists, it could possibly be blocked with a very narrow /24 or /25 hard rangeblock.
I know that this is tiresome, but I wanted to bring this message from my stalker to your attention. Is there such a user as NobodyLikesRepJacobite? Has said user been blocked? If so, then he is, obviously, evading the block---shocking!---and stalking my edits again. Can you please protect my user and talk pages again? I will be away for the next week to nine days, and would prefer they not be vandalized. Thank you very much. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The user does exist, but he's been blocked. I'll protect your user and talk pages, RepublicanJacobite. Oops, NawlinWiki beat me to it. GlassCobra16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The sex offender BLP concern you assisted on at WP:ANI#Brian Peck just got a little more complex. The allegations of the offenses have been replaced, but are now cited. I think AfD is probably the easiest way to solve this, as the subject of the article is of questionable notability. Your thoughts? caknuck°is back from his wikisiesta18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the article. The only sourcing was with relation to the conviction, but there was no sourcing indicating that this person is notable. Wikipedia is not the place to house reports of non-notable sex offenders. There are plenty of other places to do that. Risker (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. But mine was grammatically correct. Well, actually, no it wasn't, since I used some wiki-speak. Oh wait, that might make mine cooler. Risker (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ali, as Fozzie has noticed I only discovered this site a few days ago when someone emailed me that I was a topic of conversation there. I've been reading a lot of stuff there but what caught my attention just now was a section that said "if you join here don't use your Wiki name" (too late for me!!). They said that folk were banned from Wiki for posting there. Is this true? I took the fact that you are there as meaning it was totally acceptable, but the site says that only Wiki Admins should use their Wiki names 'cos (I assume) they are there to defend Wiki and are part of the Wiki "club". So - in summary: can being a member of WR and/or making comments there get you into trouble here? Please reply to this - (you sometimes ignore my messages). Regards, Sarah777 (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, let me put it this way; it's a "bad site", per the failed policy WP:BADSITES. People tend to be vilified for posting there and, for that reason, many folks post under a pseudonym. I don't, nor do I have any issues with Wikipedia editors posting over there. That's my personal opinion. And yes, an admin was desysopped for being associated with the site and having made a statement there which was taken badly. My personal rule, as an admin/cu/oversighter is that I never discuss privacy-related matters off-Wikipedia. If someone causes problems for you as a result of your posting there, please let me know immediately. There is nothing inherently wrong with posting there but be careful, mm-kay? - Alison❤04:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Can I ask a few questions on the side? You mentioned that my request was malformed (which I suspected). What is the preferred format for such a request? Second, what is ACB in this context? Thanks.
lol - yep! That's it. As for formatting, you can take a look at some of the other cases. Using templates to list the accounts - esp {{checkuser|Example}} and bullet-listing the editors to be checked really, really helps clarify things. Also, including diffs like this[9][10], as evidence makes it a whole lot easier to read. Don't worry though - all the necessary data and stuff was there. Well, mostly! Either way, it gets easier the more you do and if you run into trouble, one of the awesome, hard-working clerks over there will likely help sort it all out. Thanks again - Alison❤06:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers. I do hope, however, not to get enough practice to ever be good at that process. That level of vandalism patrolling is not my preferred work on the project. Thank you for taking it on. Rossami(talk)20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered that there's a user on commons with my name, and although it only uploaded one image (since deleted) last year, I don't want an imposter account to exist at all. Since you're an admin on commons, could you block this user and leave a note that it's an imposter? Everyking (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. on Commons now. I'll see if I can find a Commons bureaucrat to rename it so you can claim your own account using SUL (you have activated SUL, right?) - Alison❤09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That isn't necessary; I'm not interested in participating on Commons. I just want it to be clear that that account isn't mine. Thanks for making the block. Everyking (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
My talk page is open if you need help with a rename (I'm a 'crat there). You might not really care about it now but it'll need to be done if you ever want to use an SUL. —Giggy02:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
RfB Thank You spam
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What does this log entry mean?
With regard to a recent CU, what does "created automatically" mean (in place of the usual "New user account"). Is this individual now creating accounts elsewhere and coming here through SUL? Or is something else going on? If it is SUL, how should we manage - involve other project CUs? GRBerry17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, created automatically means someone created an SUL account on another wiki and then logged in here. You can use the SUL tool to find their home wiki. If you need the IP where the account was created checked or blocked, you need a local CU or a steward. Thatcher17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. It is a new tactic for this vandal. I see two other accounts, already blocked here, based on checking the two other wikis visible via the latest CU results and that tool. Hopefully they are covered in Alison's comment of "... and a bunch of other accounts, already blocked." GRBerry17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Alison. Unrelated, just noticed your user page: good luck with the move, and associated hassles: it's always a surprisingly big deal. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)05:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) It's taken nearly two weeks, all told. Final moveout day is tomorrow, though we've been in the new place over a week now. It's all go :) - Alison❤05:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
Done - Alison ❤ 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Likely that it's House1090 again - Alison ❤ 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
CheckUser is not for fishing Sorry I couldn't do more - Alison ❤ 06:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed. He loves impersonating other vandals and had everyone going for a while, pretending to be encyclopedist. Ignore and move on - he's trolling you - Alison ❤ 04:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. - for a lot longer this time - Alison ❤ 20:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated to the Gold heart accounts Quote below from WR];
Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 03:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)