Jump to content

User talk:Alison/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Rangeblock discussion

FYI, I'm attempting to raise discussion of the rangeblock of Smart Telecom, here. Smartiger (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok - thanks for the note. I just got on here an hour ago & found your email :) - I'll respond over there - Allie ❤ 04:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for the possible impatience, I thought you'd perhaps decided not to respond to the email. I don't think there's anything super-sensitive involved, so hopefully public discussion is in any event OK. Smartiger (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I've just taken a good look into it again, and replied over there - Allie ❤ 05:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"Again!" indeed. A whole ISP, for a fortnight? And with that "can only be reviewed by a handful of people, which we're giving you no feasible means to contact" template, to boot. Admittedly I didn't see any dissent from this last time, but to me it seems highly unsatisfactory. Short of prohibiting anon editing entirely, and having meaningful registration all 'round -- a fairly good idea, but like several other messes around here, would seem to required a RequestForDeGodKinghood first -- there has to be a better way of handling this. Smartiger (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I know! :( Really sorry about that again. I've commented over on your talk page (and yes, I agree about the anon editing) - Alison ❤ 06:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It just seems that we're in danger of ending up with the worst of both worlds, if anon-blocking gets ever-wider, but with no proper registration in place. I was only being affected by it as I'd been editing anonymously (the "logical punctuation" and the like in between the vandalism would be me), which caused me to sign back into this account again, so no hard/soft problems, no.
I'm surprised it didn't effect more people, too: maybe given ST's multiple run-ins with bankruptcy, most of the remaining hardcore Wiki-addicts have jumped ship just in case. (One person on their messageboard did mention being a logged-in user, also having no problems on that basis.)
Is there at least something that can be done to loosen that vanishingly tight "review loop"? Your actions may have indeed been the best available in the circumstances, but it would be somewhat reassuring to feel that there were multiple eyes on such decisions, in the general case. Not that there'd ever be sudden copious wikidrama involving anyone with CU privs, of course. :/ Smartiger (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and you're welcome. I'll endeavour to try and not make it a bigger theoretical problem than it is a practical one, which may, objectively, be fairly small. I suppose that short of "outing" any and all accounts involved -- thereby opening them up to an Opus Dei hitsquad, and what's worse, you being traduced by PK on The Frontline -- meaningful review is indeed rather difficult, unfortunately. Given the size of the pool of non-imploding, non-goldbricking CUUs, can hardly reasonably expect multiple-handling treatment on these. It would be comforting to think that there was any chance of the ISP itself taking this in the least seriously... Smartiger (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh gods NO. Not Pat the Plank!! Is it too late to change my mind? :-) - Alison ❤ 07:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to give a link or two to any recent anon vandalism in said range? In theory it would seem to be public information, though if there's a way of listing contributions from that wide a range, I've long since forgotten what it is. I ask because one of the ISP's admins seems to be showing some signs of looking into this. (Much to my shock and surprise...) Smartiger (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Whew. That may be notable enough to get its own Wikipedia article... —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Careful, you might scare the horses before they've even got up to a canter! Smartiger (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Another (apparently) innocent user (potentially) affected by the block: [1]. Smartiger (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
See also my mail to you on the topic. Can you give me further input on this, or are we "moving along"? Smartiger (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope I'm not being unduly impatient here, or indulging in "forum shopping", but I've tried to tease out the policy issues here, and have posted some thoughts over at the village pump. Just so's you know. Smartiger (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JuliaHavey

Hi Alison. I was just wondering why you blanked this SPI.[2] It's my understanding that courtesy blanking is only to be done based on "the judgment of the community or the Arbitration Committee".[3]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs)

Yes, I courtesy-blanked the above SPI case. Note that as a checkuser, I'm well accustomed to working on WP:SPI and am well within my remit in blanking it. As an oversighter on the project, I'm also acutely aware of privacy issues and have blanked this in deference to the privacy of the person mentioned in the SPI case above. Not only is she identified by her real name, which is also her account name, but you mentioned members of her family, where she currently lives as well as where she has lived. This goes well above and beyond my comfort zone when it comes to the privacy and safety of people on Wikipedia, especially those with an existing BLP. In future, if you wish to inform a checkuser of such information, it's probably best if you make a note of it on the SPI case page, and either email a checkuser directly or the Arbitration Committee with the information. This case has now closed, the information is still available in the history for those who have a need to see it, yet this is kept out of search engines, etc, in deference to the privacy of the individual involved. Yes, they may be an abusive sockpuppeteer and yes, they may have been incivil, etc, but we have an obligation to them regardless of the circumstances - Allie ❤ 02:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Understood. I thought maybe that the case would be unretreivable, which seemed fishy. Thanks for explaining. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

further consideration of the actions of Rhode Island Red might be warrented if one wanted to understand WHY any of this happened. He has exhibited a beyond usual interest in JuliaHavey, from editing her BLP to a very nominal page, calling her "marginally notable", slamming chiropractic saying that a degree and license of such doesn't qualify calling a chiropractor "Doctor/Dr." referring to the husband. It stems from a deep seated obvious anger over initial edits on the Juice Plus article, of which Rhode Island Red as a SPA for over 1000 edits before taking the advice of editors and branching out to other articles. However, editing other articles doesn't change the obvious, extremely obvious and blantant bias that this editor has against Juice Plus. He refuses to allow ANY content that in any way is neutral or even remotely "positive" about this product or company. Even referring to a non-paid, uncompensated, unsolicted mention by the very respected and reknown Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld (twice!) on Fox News saying that "if you can't won't or don't eat 7-13 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, take Juice Plus", he insists that is an "advertorial" yet he puts a unnotelyworthy, unpublished, unremarkable hospital nutritionists OPINION 'against' Juice Plus on the article and touts it as credible reason NOT to take Juice Plus--yet the opinion of a DR. respected enough to have his own show, HouseCall w/ Dr. Rosenfeld on Fox news EVERY Sunday isn't credible? It is ridiculous that Rhode Island Red is continued to control editing on Wikipedia completely uncensured to the point where it escalated to him posting personal and private information that put another editor "at risk of harm" and then lied about doing so, defended doing so despite the written policy that posting ANY information on Wikipedia is harrassment, he feels that somehow he is entitled to do so, and then "was just wondering" why you blanked the smear campaign that he obviously relished having public? I hope that your curiousity will lead you to looking into WHY someone would become so incivil against this editor. There are reasons for every action. One has to wonder why reasons there are for the action of over 3000 edits on the Juice Plus article by ONE editor that ALL slant the article to a unfounded negative slant, despite wikimedia objective to have a neutral and free source for knowledge. One certainly doesn't want or expect an advertorial to be part of wikipedia but nor should they have to accept a smear campaign because it is the obsession of ONE editor.

I thank you in advance for your fair consideration of the points made. I think that is all that anyone has asked for since 2005 when this farce started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.17.163 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have another sock to block. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Allison, today the "Ban" against my IP expired,the reason I was banned for "legal threats" is that RIR posted my HOME address, spouses name, work emails, fax, phone numbers on Wiki.I said it needed to be removed: A to follow WikiMedia policy to protect editors and B to avoid invasion of my privacy or legal steps to ensure such end would be taken(to protect myself I have to point out it is against the rules and say if not removed will use legal means but that gets me banned and the editor who keep posting MY HOME information AGAINST WIKI rules get barnstorm awards?) . Thankfully you Allison blanked it yet now, admin TipToety did it again but on December 12th and now, days later am I finally able to bring it to your attiontion!

Saturday a box arrived at my house from California, plain wrapping and no return address. Why are RIR and his mininions allowed to continue to harass me, including calling another schmuck who posted ONE comment on Juice Plus MY sock puppet. I do not control the millions of people with free will who may or may not choose to post on this site and I am getting really sick of my name being unnecessarily dragged through this ridiculous process.

I am getting totally sick of this harassment and it is called harassment by YOUR rules! Tiptoety (see below) harrassed me by AGAIN placing the information YOU blanked on this page, in his "here" click. Again MY personal and private information was and is there for the world to see. (NOT hidden in history as you had provided for). I am asking that this be completely and totally removed from this site. I have minor children living in this home. This is unacceptable and a complete and total disregard for Wikipedia's rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JuliaHavey

for CheckUser Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion ) Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. 

Clerk endorsed with the understanding that the master account is stale and a CU will have to be ran against the accounts listed here. (this clicks directly to the page that Allison blanked because it gives MY HOME ADDRESS and personal information~! WTF!!!!

Behavior evidence appears strong, but I would still like technical evidence. Also, I have a suspicion that there is a sock farm involved here. Lastly, recommending looking into other possible IP/range blocks. Tiptoety talk 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 

Doing... Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The only IP that is a Confirmed match to the old accounts is 68.52.212.221 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip) - I did find Vermont Blue Beauty (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • checkuser) on that IP which appears to be a sleeper. The other IPs listed here appear to be Unlikely at very best, and there are no accounts being operated on those IPs. This is, however, similar to the last check Dominic ran, in that the IPs are spread across a large geographic area, but not one so large as to rule out the possibility of off-wiki collaboration or travel. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments 

In progress - Tiptoety talk 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk)

Oversight disagreement

Hi Alison. I still haven't received your reply to my email of 13th November in which I gave my reasons for disagreeing with your decision not to oversight a comment made by another oversighter. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'll check into that and get back to you. Sorry about that - Alison ❤ 12:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You may as well not bother now, I doubt anything you would say would make me any less unhappy with this place or the behaviour of your colleagues. It only takes a few seconds to email a "will be dealing with this at a later date", but apparently editors who disagree with you after their families are attacked by your colleagues don't deserve even that. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to do this, as it seems rudely impatient, but... you got email yesterday. I don't need immediate action or anything, but I do want to make sure you saw it, and it isn't languishing in a spam folder or something. Thx. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Got both of them, yep. Will reply later - crazy-busy right now - Alison ❤ 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. As long as I'm in the stack somewhere, I don't mind being bumped to the bottom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Random Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your long-standing work in clearing out BLP junk and trolls out of the project, I'm glad to reward you the Tireless Contributor barnstar. Secret account 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

usefy request

please userfy Chali_(slang) page for me.It was a funny piece and i dont intend to repost it on wikipedia... may be uncyclopedia (if not userfy is there any option i can get the text back?maybe u can copy paste it for me...i assure you i wont repost it)Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunwheeler (talk • contribs) 13:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


AfD

Hey Ali, mind coming over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stack magazine and take a look? And while you are at it, is it possible for you to give your frank opinion on whether to delete or to keep this article? Thanks in advance. --Dave 1185 10:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Irish lace

Could you take a look at this discussion, please? It's about a new editor who appears to very knowledgeable about a particular style of Irish lacemaking. A dollop of COI, but also appears to be sincere about an encyclopedic piece of cultural history. You seem to have a good touch with people; might be up your alley? Regards, Durova371 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

BLPs (drive-by user page praise)

Although anytime there is a cat on a user page (especially a photo of a wild variety held by the user who appears to be growling:-) one should probably be wary of commenting casually on the associated talk page ... but nonetheless I will take the license of the holiday season to say that it good to see good sense about BLPs expressed by someone who clearly has the full respect of the community. As for the aforementioned holiday season, have a happy one. And, as always, cheers! Proofreader77 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

When you get a chance...

Can you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CheckUser&user=Thauros?

I'm not very familiar with this person. J.delanoygabsadds 06:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Check your email. Privacy-related - Alison ❤ 07:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ron Livingston and Rosemarie DeWitt

You might want to consider protecting Rosemarie DeWitt's page as well, per this edit. With even minor publicity that has ensued from this case, this kind of vandalism is going to increase, I'm sure. No need to have the newly married couple have more worries than they already have.

Is there any way to support all BLP to be automatically procted from editing by non registered users? It seems to make a lot of sense. XinJeisan (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


just being registered doesn't ensure that an editor has Wikis best interest, I would protect these people. Also, you recently blanked an article involving Rhode Island Red/Juice Plus and Julie Havey and a sockpuppet investigation. he is not tying me to that investigation and has opened it up again. I really seems like a witch hunt to me, and on a related subject, I think he may be opening Wikipedia up to more trouble by accussing Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld of lying on the Juice Plus talk page. I think wiki will be a better place when random phantom nameless editors can't edit whatever the heck they feel like on these pages. This is suppossed to be factual, fair, balanced and nuetral. Not place for petty personality fights and bias. It's very disappointing to see how it works. Disagree with someone, be victimized (he "WP:Bite) bit me after my first edit in over a year. it's plain wrong. Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.134.3 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Matching socks

Thanks for fixing the faulty identification of user:Dunce with a blade.[4] I made that block and assignment at the same time as I was reviewing User talk:Tisiphone redux, which is clearly not HK, and filled in the wrong name. Once the WMF installs the biometric keys we won't have these kinds of problems. ;)   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

'Grats on the new ops.

Well done. Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh - thank you ^_^ BTW, you seem ... vaguely familiar, somehow :-D - Alison ❤ 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
uh oh.. it's the classic showdown.. Checkuser Vs Sockpuppet Troll... (plays dramatic music from Rashomon.. *hides* SirFozzie (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Socks? I see no socks... owait there's one on that picture. Anyways, congrats Alison on the sysops. Only you can troll better than us, --McJombo Sails // ... // past great blue whales // 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know whether you're open to recall. :P MastCell Talk 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not. Not in a few months, since my interest in certain areas would lead groups to try to recall me on frivolous charges. This happened before with others and I could see the writing on the wall, y'know? - Alison ❤ 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hah, my bad. I meant it as a bad joke about whether you were open to having your sysop bit on ED recalled. Sorry for the misunderstanding. You would be the very last Wikipedia admin I'd consider recalling. :) MastCell Talk 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, but you'd want her recalled on ED? *glare* Them's fightin' words there, bud! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
ED? Experimental Deletion? :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I rather thought the sufficiently ambiguated editor would mistake ED for ED. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks... (But surely each occurrence of the [latter] ... may appear to be worthy of an entry in the [former] ... to a member of the affected gender. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Just today I removed some BLP material, and was accused of completely overreacting ... and other less complimentary thing. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice on setting up some restrictions in a dispute

Hi, User:House1090 had some more issues with edit warring on the Inland Empire (California) article and after an Edit warring noticeboard post, it went back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#Handling House1090 where I suggested a voluntary 1RR for him, which everyone agreed to. Now at this point I'm wondering:

  • Should I suggest any length of time or another general way to determine when to end this?
  • Should I stay out of the content end of things so I can remain a neutral party if more noticeboard issues come up, etc.?

I'm just hoping since you've got some history with House1090 and wiki problems in general you could give me some advice on this. I feel like I've somehow become some weird quasi arbitrator role for that issue on top of my weird unofficial coordinator role for that project. In return all I can offer is to try to get the name of a pizza place I heard was good in Campbell (read your above notice), and thanks for rollback way back when. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to stay out of the content side things on the whole dispute and set up some loose time limits. Either way, thanks for the rollback way back when and keep up the good work, I know you're pretty busy on here. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Optigan - if you think you can mediate w/House1090, then give it a try :) He's actually a good editor and means well, though he's pretty headstrong. 1RR is probably a good thing - you can let him know too that I approve and if needs be, I'll enforce it with blocks if needs be. They won't be necessary, though (right, House? :) ) Sorry for not getting back sooner! - Alison ❤ 09:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Stony Brook University Unblocked

Hi. Is there any chance of getting Stony Brook University unblocked from making edits on Wikipedia? For some reason the university has been banned for almost 6 months... Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

I blocked feline1 and Azuer1234 for 48 hours each for edit warring on Personal lubricant. As you were the previous blocker (and Feline1 stated that he tried to communicate via the edit summary but didn't start discussion thread), I felt that you should probably chime in and see whether you think my block was excessive/needed/. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 15:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Penwhale, I'm definitely with you on this one. In fact, 48 hours is pretty easy going, given both editors just finished 31 hour blocks each and immediately went back at it again. Good call, IMO - Alison ❤ 02:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Well, hey there!!

Is it yourself there Alison, how's the crack? oceeConas tá tú? 08:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gan dabht, a bhuachaill. An bhfuil tú ar ais anois nó an é seo ach cuairt ghearr? Ní dhearna mé dearmad faoin 'ghnó' a bhí eadrainn an bhliain seo caite. Tá fearg orm fós, as sin :( - Alison ❤ 08:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ni dearnas do teachtaireachta go dtí so - a dath ar bith beith i gcás faoi a chara, ní dúirt mé go ransaigh a wiki píosa beag. No le rúm urchóide go follasach, haha! Nollaig Shona! oceeConas tá tú? 22:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

page

can you unblock unprotect the page of artist Matt Farley as I want to redo the musicians page I've got the nessecary details and Ive read the requirements for the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Media2kf (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry - it's actually been deleted something like seven times - mostly in 2008. I can provide you with a copy of it in your userspace if you'd like to see it or maybe try work with the references you have. Would this be okay? - Alison ❤ 08:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Its still saying its protected can you help me? Media2kf

Tá tú an-tapa, daor Alison

Maoirsiú is mó i wiki! Mar sin ní, google a dhéanamh i gcomhair poist réasúnta Béarla a aistriú go Gaeilge? -- Avi (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Go raibh míle maith agatsa! Nil fhios agam cad atá a rá, a Avi. Agus ní fhaca mé an focal 'Maoirsiú' roimhe. Seo comhsúil le oversight, shílim :) Bua 's beannachtaí, a chara!! ^_^ - Alison ❤ 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Google theip go holc ag iarraidh a aistriú cuid de do abairt. Thuig mé an scéil, mo chara, agus tá áthas orm :). -- Avi (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
<3 <3 - BTW, I didn't use Google Translate. Did mo chuid Ghaeilge break it? :) We ga.wikipedia admins don't allow it as a rule, as it's so b0rk'd - Alison ❤ 08:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
With my knowledge of Gælic at absolute 0, I had to use it :) I'm glad you took it in the vein it was meant, as a sign of respect and homage to your 133t 0\/3r5ight 5ki112orz -- Avi (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Once in a time, a friendly question

Leaving our AfD's skirmishes aside , I am here for a friendly and silly question. What is exactly Encyc? I mean, it looks like a fork of WP, but has it a different scope/viewpoint/whatever, or is it simply another encyclopedia-like wiki? Seems to have much more relaxed rules, and this is interesting. Can you give me some reference link? Cheers. --Cyclopiatalk 15:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cyclopia. Encyc is a similar concept to Wikipedia, though with looser rules for inclusion. It's run by a guy called Emperor - you can find him on here as Sole Flounder (talk · contribs). You'd be very welcome indeed to participate there :) They sometimes mirror articles from WP that have been deleted, etc. Go check it out! - Alison ❤ 18:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! --Cyclopiatalk 00:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MarineMeat (2nd nom)

Hi. I improperly closed the previous AfD, and there is a second AfD going on. Since you commented on the first, maybe you are interested to comment in this one. Thanks. --Cyclopiatalk 21:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyclopia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) has moved my previous comment over there now - Alison ❤ 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity

Question for you. I thought that if User:A wrote "User:B is Alphonso Q. Floquenbeam, Jr. of Sticksville, GA", and then Users:C through Z added text to completely different sections of the same page, and then an oversighter arrived on the scene, you would have to suppress both the version saved by User:A and all the versions saved by Users:C through Z, meaning their comments are lost. I assumed the content from C thru Z wouldn't be able to be re-added by the oversighter. I still sort of think I understand the general idea, but now I assume what you did at RFAR is remove the offending text from the then-current version, save as a new version, then RevisionDelete the content of the intervening versions? In theory there's now no way for mere mortals to verify that User:C actually wrote what was signed by User:C, but in practice that's a meaningless quibble, since we know from the unsuppressed portion of the history that User:C said something, and there are still comments signed by User:C on the page, and we can assume there is no vast conspiracy of oversighters trying to trick us.

Is that about right? If so, I probably got someone's nose out of joint unnecessarily a few days ago, blanking their comments when it appeared another editor might want to have them oversighted, to limit the number of versions to be lost. Especially since there ended up being no oversight request. But it was with good intentions, so {{self-minnow}}.

If this had been an article instead of RFAR, where people don't sign their comments and therefore each change isn't as directly attributable, will oversighters generally do it like you did it here, or more like how I originally described it?

Finally, while I'm here... (/ me waves meekly, subtly reminding you I asked you a favor a little while ago /). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly it. That's a consequence of how revisions are stored in the database more than a conscious design decision (especially since edit revision wasn't contemplated when the database schema was constructed). — Coren (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent one. Thanks, Alison. Acalamari 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to let you know...

... that I just stole your recall criteria, as they seem very sensible. FYI. Ucucha 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Going postal

Republic of Ireland postal addresses is seeing some activity... User:Dubhtail wouldn't be someone you've come across before, by any chance? ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

again my peronal home, phone, fax, email is public on wikipedia

Allison, today the "Ban" against my IP expired,the reason I was banned for "legal threats" is that RIR posted my HOME address, spouses name, work emails, fax, phone numbers on Wiki.I said it needed to be removed: A to follow WikiMedia policy to protect editors and B to avoid invasion of my privacy or legal steps to ensure such end would be taken(to protect myself I have to point out it is against the rules and say if not removed will use legal means but that gets me banned and the editor who keep posting MY HOME information AGAINST WIKI rules get barnstorm awards?) . Thankfully you Allison blanked it yet now, admin TipToety did it again but on December 12th and now, days later am I finally able to bring it to your attiontion!

Saturday a box arrived at my house from California, plain wrapping and no return address. Why are RIR and his mininions allowed to continue to harass me, including calling another schmuck who posted ONE comment on Juice Plus MY sock puppet. I do not control the millions of people with free will who may or may not choose to post on this site and I am getting really sick of my name being unnecessarily dragged through this ridiculous process.

I am getting totally sick of this harassment and it is called harassment by YOUR rules! Tiptoety (see below) harrassed me by AGAIN placing the information YOU blanked on this page, in his "here" click. Again MY personal and private information was and is there for the world to see. (NOT hidden in history as you had provided for). I am asking that this be completely and totally removed from this site. I have minor children living in this home. This is unacceptable and a complete and total disregard for Wikipedia's rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JuliaHavey

for CheckUser Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion ) Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Clerk endorsed with the understanding that the master account is stale and a CU will have to be ran against the accounts listed here. (this clicks directly to the page that Allison blanked because it gives MY HOME ADDRESS and personal information~! WTF!!!! Behavior evidence appears strong, but I would still like technical evidence. Also, I have a suspicion that there is a sock farm involved here. Lastly, recommending looking into other possible IP/range blocks. Tiptoety talk 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Julia. I'm on my cell here now (just back from a weekend in Reno). I really want to sort this matter out for you. I'm also taking on your OTRS case. Soon as I get some time in front of a computer, I'm on it. There's a lot to sort out here, on all sides of this. Tiptoety is a Checkuser clerk, by the way. He's a good guy, I know him to be trustworthy, and he's really only interested in doing his job here. More later when I get a chance :) - Alison ❤ 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Doing... Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) The only IP that is a Confirmed match to the old accounts is 68.52.212.221 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip) - I did find Vermont Blue Beauty (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • checkuser) on that IP which appears to be a sleeper. The other IPs listed here appear to be Unlikely at very best, and there are no accounts being operated on those IPs. This is, however, similar to the last check Dominic ran, in that the IPs are spread across a large geographic area, but not one so large as to rule out the possibility of off-wiki collaboration or travel. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

In progress - Tiptoety talk 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk)

Alison, I am sure he is a fine person, all tiptoety did was reinstate what you had blanked, when you click his "here" it went "live" again vs that you blanked it. I am not patriot, jackieSP, wild woman, etc. someone made ONE comment the other day and were accussed of being my "sock" this is ridiculous! I am sick of being made the whipping boy on this article. If one took a look at my day, it would be very clear how little Juice Plus involvement I have, yet to read the history of this article one would think I am a ubber distributor. I am a minor player at best out of 25,000 others! I just made the mistake of creating my own BLP and making a positive comment on the JP article in my first week at wiki and since then, well, it's been hell!

I watch MY BLP on Wikipedia as RIR did a hatchet job on it out of clear vendetta against me. I will protect myself, my image and most importantly my family. He crossed the line posting my home, etc and HE should be at the very least made to once and for all stop ever typing my name on this site for ANY reason, stay OFF of my BLP and leave me out of HIS obsession with Juice Plus. It isn't my obsession--I don't have over 1000 edits on the article!!! RIR does,(why is that ignored?) and RIR also has far more than necessary on MY BLP. This editor stalks me and is clearly harassing me, and I want to be protected, not banned for mkaing "legal threats" when I am the one being harassed by RIR.

I want any/all references to my name totally erased off of the Juice Plus article, ban him from EVER bringing me, name, my business or anything about ME into his arguments about Juice Plus! and forever banned from editing my BLP (would pefer to have it locked or delete it, I really could care less if it is on here or not, but I do care greatly if this stalker types so much as "hi" on it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had just about enough of these personal attacks. This type of disruptive behavior is exactly why a major SPI and blockages were so badly needed. It is ridiculous and has to stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
RIR, while I understand your concerns here, can I ask you to hold off engaging with Julia for the time being? I'm playing catch-up here with the case, which has now also gone to both Oversight and OTRS. Please do not post locating information on this editor again. I can somewhat understand the rationale, but please don't do it. If you must, then post it directly to any checkuser (hint: I'm one), and leave a note on the SPI case. But I have to ask you to back down, at least for the moment. Delegate to someone else if you like, but I'm seeing you as being far too personally involved right now - Alison ❤ 05:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "back down" and "delegate". I delegated the case to SPI and I'm sitting on the sidelines waiting for action to be taken. I'm personally involved because I'm being personally attacked -- this is the crux of the issue and it is chronic. It's unacceptable and must stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Alison, This is only one of numerous times RIR has reported me and I imagine it will happen again anytime that anyone dares edit Juice Plus, it must be me! Khilorhn? recently made an account, ONE edit and it was reported as a puppet behind me! I think that in and of it self is attacking ME! That delegation to SPI is ridiculous, as were the others made--especially JackieJP who clearly identified herself. Just anotehr attempt to attack me and get rid of me because I disagree with an individuals strong opinion. Please note the over 1500 Juice Plus article and talk page edits referenced below (I think I only grabbed two years worth), as well as the literally hundreds of times MY name has been used in these edits by the editor in question, as well as over a dozen edits by him on my BLP page--all by the editor who claims that it is I who is attacking him? I would say I am clearly on the defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=500&target=Rhode+Island+Red

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20070411144220&limit=500&target=Rhode+Island+Red

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20070812044244&limit=500&target=Rhode+Island+Red

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20080825063558&limit=500&target=Rhode+Island+Red draw attention to: 15:20, 25 June 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Julia Griggs Havey ‎ (→Small notable event: reply) 02:38, 23 June 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Julia Griggs Havey ‎ (comment) 15:39, 22 June 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Julia Griggs Havey ‎ (reply) 14:46, 21 June 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Julia Griggs Havey ‎ (/* Assessment of Article Quality *comment) 04:18, 20 June 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Julia Griggs Havey ‎ (→Assessment of Article Quality: reply) 03:39, 20 June 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Julia Griggs Havey ‎ (→Assessment of Article Quality: reply) 01:00, 20 June 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Julia Griggs Havey ‎ (reply) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Julia Griggs Havey ‎ (→RHODE ISLAND RED: Comments on article quality) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Rhode Island Red ‎ (→Regarding Julia Griggs Havey: reply)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20090811193009&limit=500&target=Rhode+Island+Red —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.212.221 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Talk:Alexander Chancellor‎

This discussion may interest you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the season!

Help with Mac sources

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeLight_Software and comment if the allegations of "bought reviews" in MacWorld etc. ring true or not? Thanks, Pcap ping 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc. first, but their talk page is red... Stillborn, I guess. Pcap ping 04:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC) a

Hi. Sorry, but I can't and won't edit Apple-related articles. Too much COI and insider info - Alison ❤ 04:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Just to tell you I've sent you an e-mail about something I don't want public yet :) --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million for doing the oversight on LikeTreasure. I knew he was a Wikipéire sock, but I didn't want the public to know yet just in case I was seen as being a bad-faith editor. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 21:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
"Pónaire faiseanta" ??? --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Literally. "Cool beans" :) - Alison ❤ 02:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Lol cool beans! Thanks anyway, and Happy Christmas. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 14:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Alison22

Before being blocked, this user made at least a thousand minor edits (removing a template from redirects). Do you happen to know if these were bad and need to be rolled back? Also, I'm curious how a user only 4 days old could even do this... as far as I know this can only have been possible with AWB, which the user shouldn't have permission for, or if the account is an unflagged bot account. (Maybe it's possible with Twinkle, I don't really know how that all works.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of bot or script to me, yeah. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

These edits are fine, but irritating because it's a task a new bot-owner wanted to cut their teeth on. There are some others which are not, minor problems but I am on them. Alison22 is an experienced bot-operator so could be using pywikipedia, perl framework, custom code, javascript or indeed AWB. (Also people can use multi-tabbing for this kind of edit, open day, 200 tabs with edit windows, make a fast edit and hit save, next tab.) Alison22 does not generally create problems per se, which is why I hesitated to report/block (and in fact didn't as she got blocked). Rich Farmbrough, 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Merry Christmas!!

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  344° 5' 0" NET   22:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.


In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.


Best, Risker (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And now... yes, you've guessed it

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock info

User:Alison22 (quite active at AfD) has been indef blocked as sockpuppet, after playing as User:Crimp It! a while back. [5] Pcap ping 02:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

question

LAST question, I promise, and this may seem like a dumb question, but why was there the need for such a battle regarding changing the image used for the bottles of Juice Plus? The current image used on the Juice Plus article was uploaded in 2007, RIR uploaded a picture from a distrubutor's website not some offical copywrited proper source image? https://juice-plus.liha-shop.de/ https://juice-plus.liha-shop.de/shopinclude/images/jp_kapseln.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Juice_Plus_Orchard_and_Garden_Blend.jpg

yet when via an identified, forthright and transparent representative of the company that actually makes the product provides Wikipedia with an updated photo of current bottles of the product it was argued that it wasn't good enough? Why is a dutch distributor's websites image more authoratative and wikiworthy than an offical one? so confused by the rules here. I just can't wrap my head around WHY this is such a big deal worth dozens of edits, investigations, blocking of the editor, etc. Things that make one say "hmmmmm?" 68.52.212.221 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)for further communication, can you email me (off wiki) or call, I believe you have my contact information68.52.212.221 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SJP Bio

Sorry, I did not realize the issue you explained in your note. Will not re-post that comment as is. That was NOT why the rather overzealous editor removed it. He only said it was too long, and apparently didn't like that I offered to resolve the non-issue like gentlemen, and in an amicable way. I think you realize why I failed to realize the "outing" matter. This was a total oversight.

Regardless, It looks like someone intelligent has now seen this mess, and I have no fear that any reasonable person reviewing the facts in an orderly way will exonerate me and the other editor involved of any collusion in this matter. Though, as I wrote, I can understand why, someone who was ready to jump to that conclusion could have done so. Thanks.Д-рСДжП,ДС 16:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Alison, as the clerk in the related CheckUser, can you comment on whether you actually performed an IP-check, or whether it was completed based on behaviour alone? DigitalC (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually checkuser, and yes, I checked the IPs related to the two editor - Alison ❤ 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Help

Yeah hi! I would like to report an admin who's been accusing me of uploading images from my own flickr account, he keeps sayin the images are not mine, yet he has no proof and everytime i ask him where's his proof he says stuff like "You can't fool me!" . could you perhaps looks this over please, user's name is Martin H. Thank you.--Cerezita Negra (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI investigation issue

Alison, you said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drsjpdc, "Please do not re-instate it. Firstly, it's non-public personal information and complaints were made to Oversight. Secondly, it's irrelevant to the investigation, which has now concluded." I don't understand. While the investigation is complete, the consequences have not yet been determined, and what Drsjpdc said was posted by him, himself, on his talk page and seems very relevant to me as to the consequences. I'm not arguing with you, just trying to find out why what I said was wrong. I was just trying to help. (Please reply here, I'll watch this page.) TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What he said could just as easily relate to others. The information he provided about an editor's RL name and location is not publicly available nor stated on-wiki. It's now been repeatedly posted on here & you'll note that Drsjpdc himself had agreed not to repost that. See the comment higher up on my talk page - Alison ❤ 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ding!

You've got mail. J.delanoygabsadds 06:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have? Where?? O_o - Alison ❤ 06:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I can send you that Phising scam I got in the mail today, then you will have some!--Misortie (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
oh joy - lol ^_^ - Alison ❤ 07:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You've Got Mail!

See the above header. :-) Schfifty3 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m sending her a puppy bought on the streets of Seoul air freight! THEN SHE WILL HAVE MAIL!--Misortie (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Got another one? I think you do. (not to Misortie) Schfifty3 20:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The time has come, the Walrus said

Hi Alison,

Hope the holidays went, and continue to go, well for you. I think I'm going to get try to get my RFA rolling in the next week or so, once I recover from Christmas and become more active again. If you've still got time, I've made a home for your comments here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam#Alison's review of my previous account. If you're busy, I'll pester another Checkuser/Oversighter/BigCheese instead; just let me know. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All  Done - good luck :) - Alison ❤ 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Alison. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you do the honours please?

YellowVase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is as transparent as a particularly clean window, but I'm sure there will be some sleepers as well. Perhaps a longer rangeblock will be needed to discourage the tedious tw@t? 2 lines of K303 14:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's him again, though he's moved around a bit - calling this  Likely here - Alison ❤ 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. No sleepers?! 2 lines of K303 13:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Sorry, hackie - Alison ❤ 04:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison/Archive_34&oldid=1190134148"