→Hi!: heh |
→RFC on R. fiend: reply |
||
Line 348: | Line 348: | ||
::If you read my post four posts up, I referred you to my note on John's page, where I expressed my preference for an article RfC, and John agreed. I allowed two and a half hours for objections before going ahead. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
::If you read my post four posts up, I referred you to my note on John's page, where I expressed my preference for an article RfC, and John agreed. I allowed two and a half hours for objections before going ahead. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Guess I read your comment wrong. That doesn't seem appropriate though, as the issue isn't really with the article, it is with the editor who edited the article. Okay then..... - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
:::Guess I read your comment wrong. That doesn't seem appropriate though, as the issue isn't really with the article, it is with the editor who edited the article. Okay then..... - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
: Guys, I'm just getting on-line here and playing catch-up. Unfortunately, this is not solely an article issue but a serious ''user conduct'' issue; specifically repeated misuse of admin tools. Please do file an article RfC, by all means, but I'm going to go ahead now and file a user conduct one. There's no reason why both cannot be worked in parallel - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Need some help == |
== Need some help == |
Revision as of 20:54, 4 January 2008
Archives | |||||||||||||
2004 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2005 | Jan • Jun | Jul • Dec | |||||||||||
2006 | Jan • Jun | Jul • Dec | |||||||||||
2007 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2008 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2009 | Jan • Jun | Jul • Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | ||||||||
2010 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2011 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2012 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2013 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2014 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep • Dec | ||||
2015 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2016 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2017 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2018 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2019 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2020 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2021 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2022 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2023 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
2024 | Entire year |
|
Thank you!
Well .... where to start?
I just want to thank everyone - I can't possibly reply to everybody :) - for being so loving and supportive over the last few days. I said what I had to say and left for a few days, just to get some breathing space. I'd actually been thinking seriously about leaving over the last few weeks, as the unwanted attentions from certain people and the pressures of the current ArbCom case were beginning to wear me down. I truly wasn't expecting the kind of responses that came flooding in. I really don't know what to say. I've archived everything, my original message and all your responses, as well as a message to others at the top, at User:Alison/Depression. As I said, I hope others in a similar situation can read this, understand it, and take some comfort from it all.
Love you all, friends :)
PS: I guess I'd better get back to work, then! WP:RPP is calling out to me :)
PPS: Amit, it's lovely to see you back on here, too, with job intact!
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. If you decide to use mine (or someone else's) I suggest you give a history link to a specific version like Cacharoth did. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
- What an excellent and pro-active idea, Lar! Thanks for sharing this. I'm going to do exactly that ... just as soon as I finish this checkuser-case-from-hell :) Thanks again - Alison ❤ 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Initial copy here for my own info & hacking about - Alison ❤ 02:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Guys, good stuff! Don't forget to add them to this table as a resource for the benefit of all.
For a final version of this message see User:Lar/catmsg... Note alsos... 1) since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table (if you have one) to validate that it was you that added it. 2) Since you're using my criteria/process, you may want to give a link to a specific history entry version of the page, heck I may change mine to say that admins that start with A only need 1 petitioner to get recalled or something :) Cacharoth's entry is an example of how that was done. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, I've raised a topic for discussion in this section of the RfCU talk page. Also, I nicked your/Luna Santin's header, hope you don't mind ;) I just liked it so much! Anthøny 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Just for a confirmation: did you check User:GooseCreek against the others and is he unrelated? Thanks :) -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note that there is a linked request at the bottom of the page, can you have a look? -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yep - s/he's Unrelated to any of the others - Alison ❤ 19:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Being a pusher
I thought a picture of scores of police "standing guard" on a Mayo road might require a little bit of explanation. But if you feel that strongly about it...
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- What I feel strongly about is that you have been pretty-much pushing a pro-Shell to Sea POV on here for some time, basically creating lengthy, biased articles and trying to get it into various other pages. Same with the images and the Gardaí page, and the linkfarm that is Rossport Solidarity Camp and Rossport Five. I've not paid much attention to it all until now, really, but right now the whole thing needs to be reviewed & it's something I intend to get around to doing soon. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting your own political agendas. BTW - I'm decidedly sympathetic to the campaign, too, and have been involved in the Glen of the Downs protest myself, back in the day. That's not the point, though; neutrality and balance is - Alison ❤ 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't feel I'm pushing any particular point of view. I have created very few articles. Those that I have created are not lengthy, and I remove any bias I find. I fail to see how you find the images biased, and I don't remember adding many links to the pages you mention. I'm happy to go over any of my edits with you, though you haven't answered my original point.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For all your hard work at Requests for checkuser, and especially this nightmare case. Best wishes for the New Year. WjBscribe 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
Was just looking at the RfCU page for the first time since I stopped clerking it to free up time for bureaucrat work and taking over the MedCom chair from Daniel. I'm impressed that anyone managed to sort out the mess at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice :-). Thought I'd swing by and make sure you knew your hardwork as a checkuser isn't going unnoticed. Happy New Year, WjBscribe 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh! Thank you so much, WJB - and thanks for the vote of confidence :) That case was by far the hardest I've ever had to do & took hours to complete. Ugh! There's sooo much work in checkuser cases - Alison ❤ 05:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Happy New Year to you and yours.Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
HEY
Easyway ithway ethay Obertray ethay allsway avehay earsway.
Congrats on checkuser! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk • contribs) 06:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you :) Sock-puppeteers beware. BTW - I've not forgotten. New Year is around the corner ... - Alison ❤ 07:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you check . . .?
Hi Alison, the Global warming page is under a sock attack, and has been for a while (see history). They all appear to have been created at around the same time frame, and the accounts were obviously created to get around a semi-p solution. I've noticed that most of them have been blocked as "generic" sock accounts, but at least one has been blocked as a sock account of Obedium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They should all have tags to a specific blocked/banned user, but it appears that some of them don't. Also, is there any more that can be done (other than revert/block, ignore)? I assume that the underlying IP is also blocked in situations like his, but is that the case here? It doesn't appear that way. As an uninvolved admin (and sorry for involving you) any advice you might have would be appreciated. R. Baley (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there. If you can gather up as many of them as you can identify and file a case over at WP:RFCU, that would be great! I'll get on it as quick as I can. Just provide the text above with some diffs as evidence, collate the accounts as shown over yonder and file it under category "C". I'll get to it ASAP. Thanks - Alison ❤ 09:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- working on it now. . .R. Baley (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- done [1]. I'm going to check back over it now. Let me know if I can do anything else. (and thanks!) R. Baley (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sorry if the block notices weren't clear enough (I blocked about 8 of them). I put Obedium in the comment on the block but I couldn't find the right template. I noticed that Raymond Arrit also did 4 or 5 without templating the users which I have rectified where I have seen it. Obedium is a skilled sock master and the IP is roving. --BozMo talk 11:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are a few others about I think like User:Captain mercaptan. No way of generating all new userids from that IP range created since 20 Dec is there? --BozMo talk 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Alison (and BozMo!) I've added Capt. Merc. (and a question for Alison) to the report. Bozmo, if you know/suspect any others that haven't been included, can you add them at the bottom as well? Oh, and the first date that I've seen was as early as 17 Dec. R. Baley (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lately I've been blocking the accounts without tagging per WP:DENY, but will start tagging them again if folks think that will help. I've been keeping an informal account of the names of the socks, the date and time that the account was created, and the time of their first edit. He's obviously got a whole drawer full of these things which he continually replenishes. The one thing that scares me a bit is the possibility that I'll accidentally block someone who's a legitimate newbie -- we've all seen what happens to admins who make a mistake like that. I'm not thrilled by the possibility of becoming another Charles Matthews "test case." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alison, it appears your input is desired here. Got the time? Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
GK is still at it
*sigh*. Anthøny 12:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know - I've blocked a number of his accounts in December. I left a comment on his dad's page here, but the guy is incorrigible - Alison ❤ 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Also
I forgot to mention: the hyperlink to the What is.. above the languages drop-down menu is a deadlink. El_C 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alison,
You declined this RFCU because Freedom skies is now stale.
However, the first edit of the RFCU should contain all the IPs you need to understand the usage.
Thanks and Happy New Year!
JFD (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, JFD. Unfortunately, the IP address is Unrelated to the ones stated there. It's quite different, in fact - Alison ❤ 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alison,
Just wanted to give you the heads up about another suspected sockpuppet of this user.
JFD (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001
Thanks. Have a Happy New Year. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Nrswanson collusion
Voceditenore (talk · contribs) has defended these three editors very faithfully in 3 different forums, exhibiting off-wiki knowledge of these editors. I was tempted to add him to the Checkuser, but didn't because his writing is clearly not by the same person. Now that the charge is collusion, I'm regretting not including Voceditenore in the RCU.
I hesitate to hammer a good editor; however, if this is collusion, and Voceditenore is involved, then Voceditenore would be the most likely ringmaster. Any suggestions? / edg ☺ ☭ 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've no idea as to what to do with the guy, but the checkuser case didn't show up his name - Alison ❤ 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Anon edit warring
We have another one here on the bobby sands article, seems to be the same one that was adding the same pov earlier in the week.--Padraig (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Alison
On a personal note, thanks for everything this year, Alison. I am very glad that I met you. :) Acalamari 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
80.229.9.98
Hi Alison. I wonder if you would have another look at User talk:80.229.9.98 and consider whether unblocking to permit him to discuss on the talk page only until his block would expire? If you don't think so, thats fine. The reason I ask is because his reasoning struck me as being a little above a garden variety troll, and he got me thinking that he might actually have a point (so I did a little research and put some sources on the talk page for discussion). Happy New Year to you, when it comes. Rockpocket 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unblocking for a clear breach of 3rr, what they had your sympathy? So now we have a new policy. --Domer48 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- They breached 3RR, made no attempt to justify the insertion of a sectarian rant to the article, yet you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and unblock then to make their case on the talk page of the article, if he has a case to present he is well able to do so on his talkpage.--Padraig (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The guy has agreed to stop his edit-warring, had never been warned about 3RR and now he agrees to stop. As blocks are meant to stop disruption and this is hir first, let's see how it goes - Alison ❤ 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I warned him on his talk page and ask him to self revert.--Padraig (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have you checked out his contribs for today, Battle of Culloden, Battle of Dunkeld and Jacobitism hes not adverse to edit warring and personal attacks in his edit summaries either, he also seems to think he is above providing sources as well.--Padraig (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have explained to this editor that those edits are unacceptable and, should he continue along this path, he will be reblocked and for longer this time. Instead of attacking IPs for their "POV" edits, thereby fostering an atmosphere of conflict, its much better to attempt to explain why their edits are problematic and pointing out how to make them policy compliant. Assuming good faith is important, but not indefinitely. He has been pointed towards policy a few times now and if he doesn't take up the opportunity to learn to be a better editor in policy then there is little positive that we can take from his contributions. Rockpocket 02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you checked out his contribs for today, Battle of Culloden, Battle of Dunkeld and Jacobitism hes not adverse to edit warring and personal attacks in his edit summaries either, he also seems to think he is above providing sources as well.--Padraig (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I warned him on his talk page and ask him to self revert.--Padraig (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks
Is this the part where I get accused of being a sock or something? Or just have people keep their eye on me.. Hmm. Well my last edit was back in August and I've only ever been blocked once, sooo I reckon I'm safe for a bit. You can email me and I'll tell you who I am if you like. Thanks for the welcome. Hope you're having a good NYE :) CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: 80.229.9.98
Prior to the 3RR violation on Bobby Sands, this same user made a series of edits to Jacobite-related articles which seemed highly POV and were, to boot unreferenced. When I reverted those edits and asked him to provide references for the changes he made, he simply reverted again. Earlier this evening, he did the same, and went so far as to make insulting comments in his edit summaries (see these diffs [[2]], [[3]], and [[4]]). I am not asking you to take any action on this now, given that this is now several hours old, but wanted to bring the matter to your attention. Clearly, this user could use some lessons in assuming good faith and not attacking other editors. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that at 02:59, 31 December 2007, RepublicanJacobite removed both text I had added to the Jacobitism article & the top-quality reference that I'd provided that supports my edit & at the same time accused me in his edit summary of never providing references. My harsh words were in response to this vandalism & provocation.80.229.9.98 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
TTW
May I have admin and/or crat status on The Test Wiki please? Confirmation is on my TTW user page under this name. Thank you! --GalaxyGuy (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Really sorry, but I don't know you at all and your account is only a day old. Sorry :( - Alison ❤ 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Recall criteria
Well, I wouldn't call them excellent; I'm flattered! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way—happy 2008! ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
69.131.155.237 (talk · contribs)
FYI, 69.131.147.72 (talk · contribs) has left an unblock request on 69.131.155.237 (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I have declined the request, obviously, but wanted to let you know in case you need to do a range block (since apparently this is a dynamic IP or this user has access to other IPs) or follow up in any other way. --B (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's User:Green Kirby, block evading again. He just won't get the message (in fact, I've reverted him on this page just now). I've left some comments over there - he's basically community-banned at the moment for severe disruption and sockery. Wore everyone down. If he persists in this, I'm rangblocking. As it is, checkuser is catching accounts & IPs all the time now - Alison ❤ 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin question
Here's a newbie admin question, sorry to pester. (I'd say "I don't mean to pester you", but of course I do) Should I have blocked this? I just told him to stop. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Translation request
See this, please! --Agüeybaná 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done :) - take a look. As a special offer, you also get Commons:Template:Translated tag localized for free. Two for the price of one :) - Alison ❤ 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, for an RFCU
This relates to one that you did. Sorry this has gotten out of hand. Lawrence Cohen 01:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
problem
Alison can you look at this this editor is interfering with reference and changing the wording of the referenced text to push a pov. I have ask him to stop on the talk page and also his talk page, yet he is accusing me of POV editing, when I have provided a WP:RS. I have reverted him twice so I can't revert him again.--Padraig (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
- Happy New Years straight back at you! Cheers, Daniel 03:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Page protection due to expire
The page protection for Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (the venue for an edit war that led to the current arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC) is due to expire at 09:01, 2 January 2008, which is just over 4 hours from now. Some discussion is going on on the talk page, but I'm raising this issue now so people can consider whether to extend the page protection, or allow careful editing to resume, or to leave things as they are and re-protect if needed. You would think people wouldn't be so stupid as to resume edit warring over this, but I'm not so sure. Cross-posting to the following places: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and User talk:Alison (the current protecting admin). Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Protection expired. Protection tag removed. Note left at the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning note. As with these things, unprot ran out while I was asleep, but so far, eveything seems okay over there ... - Alison ❤ 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
B9~hummingbird~hovering
Graciously accepts the 'Original Barnstar' for belated work on Holy well.
Speech: "I thank God..." *hehehehehehe*
Blessings in the Mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
RFCU
Hi, first of all happy new year and may 2008 be better than 2007 (as great as 2007 was)!
Back to earth, I just wanted a clarification on the Freedom skies rfcu. Are the accounts related to Freedom Skies, or is it a different user?
On a side note, can you have a look at the mess at Tajik? I'm not sure of what happened there either. Keilana added a comment by Anoshiravan39 (now blocked by Dmc as a sock of NisarKand). -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, crap, didn't know that. Go ahead and delist it unless the claim is valid. Sorry for creating a mess; I was just trying to fix the formatting. Keilanatalk(recall) 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, guys! I think we can go for close on this one now, though - Alison ❤ 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
(In)Sanity Check
Heya Ali, I know you're "awesum" with the checkuser... how good are you with determining proxyhood (open or otherwise), I recently semi'd The IRC ArbCom Workshop TalkPage for 24 hours because of two IP's insisting on putting something in with a link to a RfC on Ryulong from August of this year, and calling for him to be de-sysopped. I THINK there's a possible of open proxys (the IP's look to be Virginia and Germany from a quick whois look). Can you wave some of that magical pixie dust over those IP's and determine if they need to be blocked as proxies? Thanks. I owe ya one ;) SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at the main workshop page, I see at least one more IP (this one from Taiwan) doing it before THAT page was protected, so I'm fairly certain it IS a series of open proxies, but I would still like someone to look over it before blocking as a proxy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Tajik
Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Carl.bunderson_reported_by_User:65.94.218.24_.28Result:_.29. Can you check to see if AntiFascism (talk · contribs)/65.94.218.24 (talk · contribs) is one in the same with this banned user? Thanks. --B (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I replied over there. Looks like you're right - Alison ❤ 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks like the user has already been blocked. This user also edited this page from 65.95.147.37 (talk · contribs). Can you tell from checkuser evidence what range to block? Whois says the range is 65.92.0.0/14, but I'm a bit nervous to block a whole ISP. --B (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Season Greetings
Dear Alison, on behalf of my snow-buried Canadian region of Ottawa, I would like to wish you a Safe and Happy New Year 2008.
JForget 02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
May I ask a favour?
Hi Alison - I have finished a significant but partial rewrite of an article, James Blunt, in my userspace at User:Risker/blunt. It's also had some light copy editing by another user, so I know that there has to be a merge of the history. Can you walk me through the procedure to transfer the rewritten copy to the existing article and then get the history merged? Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- lol!! You know, I'd really love to help - honest - but I'm absolutely hopeless at history merges and avoid them like crazy because I always, always mess them up! Really sorry. Can anyone else help Risker do a history-merge?
- Well, we can't have that messing up thing happening now, can we? ;-) While we search for an admin who's got the secret decoder ring, do you think it will be okay for me to move the actual information into the article? I am hoping that won't violate the GFDL too much. Your thoughts? Risker (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
History merge: delete old article (James Blunt); move new copy into its place (User:Risker/blunt?); undelete old article underneath the new; if the most recent version is not the new article, then revert to the appropriate version. ViridaeTalk 23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For no particular reason
Hope you have a good day! --Nengscoz416 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi im new here
I like your user page thing do you think you can tell me how i can get one? KCAL Weather101 (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged his userpage. Probably a User:House1090 sock. Please let me know if not. Thanks Alison. Ameriquedialectics 08:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Alison, Shibumi2 has emailed me and asked me to contact you. He says that he has emailed some personal details to you, so please check your email. Neutral Good (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Myself and Shibumi2 are in email discussion on the matter right now. Currently, the discussion is with him - Alison ❤ 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
RFC on R. fiend
Were you planning on starting an RfC? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just commented on ANI. I'm off to bed here but if it's not resolved by the morning and if nobody else takes up an RfC, I certainly intend to, yes - Alison ❤ 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I would have started it myself, however I've never really been involved in the RfC process, and would like to know what I'm doing before I actually start one. Anyhow, the AN/I discussion was "closed" by somebody shortly after you left, with note that RfC will probably happen. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have been watching this from afar for a week or two after Sarah brought it to my attention and would also like to contribute to a RFC. If there is anything I can do to assist in its formation, please let me know, otherwise I will make a comment as an uninvolved party. Rockpocket 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I endorse Rockpocket's suggestion. I think it is important that the behaviour of all involved editors is scrutinised, and that we remain focused on solutions to this problem as there is already too much drama in this area of Wikipedia for my taste. The risk will be, going forward, that the very uninvolved admins we need to attract to the problem area will be put off from doing so otherwise. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. [5] Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was under the impression this was going to be a User conduct RfC. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, I'm just getting on-line here and playing catch-up. Unfortunately, this is not solely an article issue but a serious user conduct issue; specifically repeated misuse of admin tools. Please do file an article RfC, by all means, but I'm going to go ahead now and file a user conduct one. There's no reason why both cannot be worked in parallel - Alison ❤ 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Need some help
The noinclude tags don't seem to be working on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peterjohnbrennan. Could you please help me out here? I don't want to accidentally transclude the resolved case. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jéské! I just got on-line here but it looks like someone else got to it in the meantime :) - Alison ❤ 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Go raibh maith agat Alison. I think I have this account almost as long as my Irish one - I just don't use it very often - updating interwiki links here is about all the editing I do on en. See you over on ga. Beir bua, Nmacu (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ná abair é. It's strange to see you writing in English for once :) - Alison ❤ 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
edit warring
Domer and BigDunc are editwarring on Orange Institution. They are portraying a non neurtal author's opinion as fact. Perhaps you could intervene to stop them breaking edit warring policies.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could you do a check user on these two please? i still have suspicions that they are the same person, looking at recent contributions does nothing to convince me otherwise.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- No you are edit warring you are changing reliable and verifiable refs to suit your POV. BigDunc (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have asked a check user privately if its possible to set TU's mind at ease regarding this, let's take a step back and work towards getting the article right. It's quite possible that EVERYONE is edit warring, and therefore everyone is right about that particular "accusation" (and wrong at the same time, by edit warring themselves). Lets de-escalate things, k? (man, de-escalate.. I've devolved into Corp-Speak!) SirFozzie (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Shibumi2
Just wanted to draw your attention to this, in case you didn't have it watchlisted. Lawrence Cohen 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lawrence - thanks for that heads-up. Shibumi2 has now been unblocked per email correspondence with myself. Thanks again - Alison ❤ 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I imagine that mess is now wrapped up, which is good. :) Lawrence Cohen 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)