![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
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)
I sent you email. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 15:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I declined his unblock. Can you say who the puppeteer is if he requests again, or is that confidential? Daniel Case ( talk) 04:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
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 Postlethwaite 23:47, 8 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? WjB scribe 00:28, 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 Postlethwaite 00:54, 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 Postlethwaite 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, you discovered in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen that User:Worklikeadog and User:Lillycottage are "likely" socks related to banned user User:Ronosen. After Ronosen was indef-banned, these two accounts have been tag-teaming in the article and a host of other Brahmoism related articles. Can you please take a look? Because of the threat of stalking from Ronosen, I'm not getting involved here. Thanks. -- Ragib ( talk) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Looks like we lost some parameters or something. Time to use those admin powahs on test.wiki, eh? ; - ) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have records on this? LaraLove| Talk 12:43, 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)
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)
I apologize if this has already been confirmed, but are you this user? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Home-Made Barnstar | |
Alison, you are truly an example to us all. Please keep up your good work. John ( talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
Just indef'd an unfriendly face. Look in your history. - Jéské ( v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 04:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
Best Regards,
Amerique dialectics 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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_Sibirian_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)
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 -- lucasbfr talk 06:57, 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)
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)
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! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What do you think of Greek Philosophy and its origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navelio ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 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)
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 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 Allie. Any chance you could weigh in here? Thanks, Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:23, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Question for you @ ANI thread. Viridae Talk 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd say hey. I'm Tommy. -- InvisibleDiplomat666 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison. I'm just wondering why you haven't IP range blocked him yet? He is freely editing with his IP and vandalizing and pushing his Afghan-nationalist POVs. Here is one of his IPs that he edited with recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/119.30.73.220. And with this other IP he is making personal attacks on others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/119.30.71.194.
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)
Nice. Sceptre ( talk) 08:54, 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)
The anonymous vandal who stalks my edits is back at it again. It seems another block is in order. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:21, 15 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)
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)
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)
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)
How do you interpret this? Avruch 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Re your block of 93.107.68.59 [3]. This editor appears to have a good deal of overlap with User:Bardcom. Do you have an opinion? Also, if you could point me to something explaining the User:Gold_heart connection, I'd be grateful William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
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 |
Hi Alison. 93.107.xxx is back [5] but only in a minor way, so I haven't bothered block. But I'm assuming this is more trouble-making by GH William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind looking into the deletion of Talk:John Train Salon? I think there has been some foul play. -- Terrawatt ( talk) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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 Postlethwaite 13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that this is the same guy, up to his tricks again. He is now a multiple block-evading vandal with no constructive edits. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, you've got mail! Now back to the grind... ergh. <3 -- Kyok o 00:24, 17 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)
Hate that job - and I have only ever had kitchen and bedroom stuff (student)! Viridae Talk 05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope your move goes well, Alison. And that your car looks better than this one.
Risker (
talk)
05:47, 18 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. Beam 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Tea isn't really...well..my cup of tea. I prefer coffee and drugs. I mean coffee, just coffee.... Beam 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Left a note for ya. Maybe an OP, but it's worth a look? Kylu ( talk) 03:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Requesting unblock - you once checkuserblocked this range. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Johnny. Gmail message 4u - Alison ❤ 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
72.146.76.95 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) *sigh* 2 lines of K 303 16:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You were outspoken at the previous discussion; you may wish to comment. Durova Charge! 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support your requests, see [7]/ — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the 199 range NisarKand? Kingturtle ( talk) 04:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
this user -- fits a known pattern pretty exactly. I took action -- let me know if I should reverse myself. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:53, 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 might want to comment on the discussion here regarding you know who and a possible rangeblock. SirFozzie ( 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. Mango juice talk 14:04, 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 Postlethwaite 14:34, 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? ~ Eliz 81 (C) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
So, after I blocked the range, I received an email from a user with no contributions ever. Coincidence?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 19:53, 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)
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)
Hello! Can you confirm the OTRS status of this image? Regards, Sdrtirs ( talk) 01:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Since I see you are active, I've got an outstanding RFCU that is rather complicated: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/QualityControl3533. - MBK 004 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, Wfgh66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked for personal attacks, has been caught by this hardblock of an IP you made a little while ago. Do you have any thoughts about this? Cheers, Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:09, 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)
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? Sticky Parkin 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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, Enigma message 07:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
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. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
--it's important. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:26, 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 wikisiesta 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You said one thing but meant your mother another. Thanks for the support with this anyway :)
Sceptre (
talk)
23:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ping. — Giggy 03:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how you blocked Sarah777's wikistalker recently, could you possible have a word with user:TharkunColl who is trying the same with me? Cooincidence? -- HighKing ( talk) 11:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_amount_of_Rangeblocks_by_Raul654 and comment. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 21:50, 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)
Change the locks. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ohai there Alison. Your about to be sent an email. :) Kthnxbai! -- RyRy ( talk) 09:25, 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.
By the way, in the past, a user with the identical pattern of vandalism was using 68.198.247.186 and 69.121.114.17. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
[11] Tiptoety talk 06:26, 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)
![]() |
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) |
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? GRBerry 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison. You have an email from me.
Steve Crossin
(talk)
(contact page)
03:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
linky. Enigma message 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
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)
I sent you email. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 15:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I declined his unblock. Can you say who the puppeteer is if he requests again, or is that confidential? Daniel Case ( talk) 04:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
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 Postlethwaite 23:47, 8 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? WjB scribe 00:28, 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 Postlethwaite 00:54, 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 Postlethwaite 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, you discovered in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen that User:Worklikeadog and User:Lillycottage are "likely" socks related to banned user User:Ronosen. After Ronosen was indef-banned, these two accounts have been tag-teaming in the article and a host of other Brahmoism related articles. Can you please take a look? Because of the threat of stalking from Ronosen, I'm not getting involved here. Thanks. -- Ragib ( talk) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Looks like we lost some parameters or something. Time to use those admin powahs on test.wiki, eh? ; - ) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have records on this? LaraLove| Talk 12:43, 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)
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)
I apologize if this has already been confirmed, but are you this user? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Home-Made Barnstar | |
Alison, you are truly an example to us all. Please keep up your good work. John ( talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
Just indef'd an unfriendly face. Look in your history. - Jéské ( v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 04:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
Best Regards,
Amerique dialectics 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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_Sibirian_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)
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 -- lucasbfr talk 06:57, 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)
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)
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! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What do you think of Greek Philosophy and its origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navelio ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 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)
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 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 Allie. Any chance you could weigh in here? Thanks, Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:23, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Question for you @ ANI thread. Viridae Talk 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd say hey. I'm Tommy. -- InvisibleDiplomat666 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison. I'm just wondering why you haven't IP range blocked him yet? He is freely editing with his IP and vandalizing and pushing his Afghan-nationalist POVs. Here is one of his IPs that he edited with recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/119.30.73.220. And with this other IP he is making personal attacks on others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/119.30.71.194.
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)
Nice. Sceptre ( talk) 08:54, 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)
The anonymous vandal who stalks my edits is back at it again. It seems another block is in order. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:21, 15 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)
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)
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)
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)
How do you interpret this? Avruch 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Re your block of 93.107.68.59 [3]. This editor appears to have a good deal of overlap with User:Bardcom. Do you have an opinion? Also, if you could point me to something explaining the User:Gold_heart connection, I'd be grateful William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
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 |
Hi Alison. 93.107.xxx is back [5] but only in a minor way, so I haven't bothered block. But I'm assuming this is more trouble-making by GH William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind looking into the deletion of Talk:John Train Salon? I think there has been some foul play. -- Terrawatt ( talk) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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 Postlethwaite 13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that this is the same guy, up to his tricks again. He is now a multiple block-evading vandal with no constructive edits. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, you've got mail! Now back to the grind... ergh. <3 -- Kyok o 00:24, 17 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)
Hate that job - and I have only ever had kitchen and bedroom stuff (student)! Viridae Talk 05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope your move goes well, Alison. And that your car looks better than this one.
Risker (
talk)
05:47, 18 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. Beam 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Tea isn't really...well..my cup of tea. I prefer coffee and drugs. I mean coffee, just coffee.... Beam 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Left a note for ya. Maybe an OP, but it's worth a look? Kylu ( talk) 03:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Requesting unblock - you once checkuserblocked this range. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Johnny. Gmail message 4u - Alison ❤ 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
72.146.76.95 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) *sigh* 2 lines of K 303 16:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You were outspoken at the previous discussion; you may wish to comment. Durova Charge! 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support your requests, see [7]/ — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the 199 range NisarKand? Kingturtle ( talk) 04:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
this user -- fits a known pattern pretty exactly. I took action -- let me know if I should reverse myself. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:53, 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 might want to comment on the discussion here regarding you know who and a possible rangeblock. SirFozzie ( 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. Mango juice talk 14:04, 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 Postlethwaite 14:34, 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? ~ Eliz 81 (C) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
So, after I blocked the range, I received an email from a user with no contributions ever. Coincidence?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 19:53, 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)
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)
Hello! Can you confirm the OTRS status of this image? Regards, Sdrtirs ( talk) 01:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Since I see you are active, I've got an outstanding RFCU that is rather complicated: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/QualityControl3533. - MBK 004 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, Wfgh66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked for personal attacks, has been caught by this hardblock of an IP you made a little while ago. Do you have any thoughts about this? Cheers, Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:09, 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)
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? Sticky Parkin 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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, Enigma message 07:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
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. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
--it's important. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:26, 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 wikisiesta 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You said one thing but meant your mother another. Thanks for the support with this anyway :)
Sceptre (
talk)
23:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ping. — Giggy 03:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how you blocked Sarah777's wikistalker recently, could you possible have a word with user:TharkunColl who is trying the same with me? Cooincidence? -- HighKing ( talk) 11:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_amount_of_Rangeblocks_by_Raul654 and comment. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 21:50, 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)
Change the locks. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ohai there Alison. Your about to be sent an email. :) Kthnxbai! -- RyRy ( talk) 09:25, 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.
By the way, in the past, a user with the identical pattern of vandalism was using 68.198.247.186 and 69.121.114.17. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
[11] Tiptoety talk 06:26, 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)
![]() |
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) |
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? GRBerry 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison. You have an email from me.
Steve Crossin
(talk)
(contact page)
03:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
linky. Enigma message 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)