User talk:Alison Chabloz

Please feel free to talk to me. Alison Chabloz (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

I have removed usernames from the reference tags on your userpage. It made it appear that those editors made the edits that added your name to the article. I searched and confirmed that Widefox did not make the edit that had his name attached. I did not search for the other name but removed it any way. You need to make sure when you make edits that you do not attribute edits to someone that did not make them. As a suggestion, I would consider taking the content on your userpage down. Your name has been removed from the articles and you no longer have to point it out that your name is in those articles. ~ GB fan 16:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. There seem to be no clear instructions on how to fill in the 'cite web' templates. Apologies for my newbie error. However, I would like to point out that someone with over 60k edits to their name might have reacted sooner to what was a clear violation of BLP rules regards edits (made by others) to an article nonetheless published by this very same 60k+ editor. I will update my userpage accordingly, once I have digested the fuller implications of the past few days' events and learned the outcome of my present legal situation. Alison Chabloz (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, please see this link for what the article looked like when I created it 1 1/2 years ago [1]. Please remove the false assertion above that I "published" anything, WP:OWN it, or had any knowledge or duty for edits done by other editors since then. In fact, I'm the editor that put a tag on it notifying editors that it must comply with the BLP policy [2]. Widefox; talk 04:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox, others may of course make changes for which you are not responsible. As already noted however, a gross violation of BLP [3] and the article no longer being within its remit [4] should have been noticed long ago. WP guidelines[5] are quite clear on this. History also shows that the BLP tag was added almost a year after the first mention of me was inserted - you even made an edit to one of these mentions last December![6] Lastly, I have made no false assertions. If you wish to escalate the issue, then please feel free. Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told, and have checked the full history, you now know that I have nothing to do with any of this, so this is WP:DEADHORSE. So you understand how it works here, please see:

WP:OBLIGATION Because Wikipedia is completely voluntary, under no circumstances are editors obligated or expected to make any edits, respond to any messages, or to otherwise have any involvement.
Wikipedia:General disclaimer Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.
WP:VOLUNTEER
- There are no set crews or teams working on articles on any topic, just those who come along and volunteer information at any time they wish.
- Anyone can take a break for any period of time or drop out whenever they like.
- You can always stop working on one group of articles, take up working on another for a while, then resume the previous one, with no expectations from others. (emphasis own)

The false assertion is that any editor is in any way responsible or has any sort of duty for other editor's edits is preposterous, misrepresents, and misleads involvement and duties, especially when using the incorrect term "publisher". To clarify the role of a publisher, see publisher#Legal issues. I am sorry you have felt the need to get involved holding WP to its good standards, but I personally neither know, nor care about any of which you talk about. We do, however work by WP:CONSENSUS here, and two of us have advised you to remove what you put on your user page, which you have yet to do, as well as fix these false assertions. Widefox; talk 02:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What an extraordinary response! If I may make a suggestion, use of a patronising and somewhat aggressive tone reflects rather negatively on an editor who, moreover in this case, seems to be throwing proverbial toys because he's not getting his own way. I have been quite clear both here as in the section created on your talk page regards eventual changes to my userpage.[7] Any decent person would have politely accepted or declined my offer of a drink to discuss these issues face to face. Instead, you come back here yet again because Monsieur didn't get what he wants. Please either go away or else, as previously indicated, escalate this issue. Thanks. Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Alison Chabloz. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Campaign Against Antisemitism, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Widefox; talk 10:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding an on-wiki note for any reviewing admins that this user has made a legal threat towards me via email. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Alison Chabloz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25791 was submitted on Jul 03, 2019 12:02:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]