User:Tznkai/desk/Reports/The Troubles 9-30-08 Sanctions/Appendix B

These are threads taken in their entirety from User talk:Alison. N.B some context may be missing.

More tag-teaming
Not got much time for WP at the moment and going back to enjoy my break shortly, but you might want to cast your eye over another case of Domer48/BigDunc tag-teaming... Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 15:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was just reverting your article degrading edits, which I pointed out here. Perhaps if Bastun assumed good faith more and did not blindly revert he wouldn't get involved in these predicaments.-- Domer48 'fenian'  16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could ask Bastun why was a perfectly reliable source that was properly formatted and that did source the sentence in the article replaced by a source that wasn't properly formatted and did not source the sentence in the article? -- Domer48 'fenian'  16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Several hours later it appears Domer is claiming his reversion is because the State Department website doesn't state the RIRA were originally designated as a FTO in 2001; I think there's a lot more of importance in the sentence than a mere date, which was all referenced in the change. In any case, it didn't take rocket science to address the date issue.  Instead, we got a tag-revert... BigDunc at least had the grace to admit he was wrong. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if Bastun assumed good faith more and did not blindly revert as happened, they would not now have their foot in their mouth. Still did not answer why was a perfectly reliable source, properly formatted, that did source the sentence in the article be replaced by a source that wasn't properly formatted and did not source the sentence in the article? I suppose answering questions is a problem for some editors? Dunc was not wrong, you have admitted that "the State Department website doesn't state the RIRA were originally designated as a FTO in 2001" and I'm claiming nothing. -- Domer48 'fenian'  07:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to consider this Alison.  I know these Irish issues are emotive but there's no need for the half of this.  We are supposed to be adults.The Thunderer (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

At 2:30 am, guys, I've little interest, I'm afraid. I'll have a look in the morning ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 09:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Reply to Domer) If Dunc was not wrong, why does he say on the talk page that he was wrong and that the State Dept. reference backs up the sentence? Domer's revert says "Per BigDunc" - nothing more.  BigDunc, like me, was referencing the effect of listing as a FTO, not the date.  Why was the reference replaced?  Because a State Dept. reference is better than a news report.  As per above, it didn't take much work to address both that and the date issue.  If Domer were to AGF instead of reverting non WP:IR members... Whatever, both references are now in, with more information.  Issue closed. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 11:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the date when I made my comment on the talk page. Surely this proves that no tag team action was taking place as myself and Domer were in fact reverting seperate things. Please stop this silly play acting now. I have semi retired on wiki at the moment as I don't need this BS about tag teams and edit warring it is frankly beneath me. And TU sending emails left right and center to anyone he feels is of loyalist sympathies as can be seen with the verbatim responses by the Thunderer and now Setanta, when challenged on anything. BigDunc Talk 11:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * you want to be careful with your use of language son. You also want to be careful with your lazy assumptions.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't patronise me you fucking gobshite. BigDunc  Talk 12:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That use of language is absolutely shocking and uncalled for on this medium. So is the accusation that there is some kind of conspiracy going on against you.  My invites to you to get involved with editing are manifold and you have consistently refused to do so.  I totally resent the implication that someone is "pulling my strings" or vice-versa.  My assessment of this is that you and Domer have been tag teaming for so long and been getting away with it that you thought you'd never be pulled up about it.  Now that you have your only defence is that others are conspiring against you - in the total absence of any evidence of same?   In the interests of the encyclopedia and your own sanity I appeal to you to stop this.   I certainly don't have anything against you and fully appreciate everything you've done to improve Wikipedia.   Please just settle down and stop the gaming.  It isn't necessary.The Thunderer (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So is the accusation that there is some kind of conspiracy going on against you. Thats rich coming from the biggest forum shopper on wiki. Playing the victim on every talk page, to anyone who would listen. The one thing you all have in common is that not one of you can put up the diff's to back up your arguements. Two editors, intrested in Republican articles, members of WP:IR editing the same articles! Shock horror! Now cry wolf all you like, policies over-ride opinion and accusations count for nothing without supporting diff's. Cop on, and spare us BS. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This insulting behaviour from you doesn't help anything Domer. Isn't it about time you discovered WP:Civility?The Thunderer (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Keep arguing on Alison's talk page, and make her grow more and more tired of helping any of you. I'd already have given up reading this thread if I was her, and maybe blocked a few of you. Perhaps you should thank her for putting up with you? --Deskana (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad Bot Cop-out
Ali, I think you should  block the bot "on my say-so". It is engaged in mass vandalism, regardless of what useful work it might be doing. Are you saying that because I create large amounts of useful content you (or Fozzie) won't block me if I engage in some mass reversions of edits? Can you explain why an action by an manual editor is bad and the same action by a bot is acceptable? Would you react to someone complaining I'm edit warring, vandalising etc by telling the editor your weren't going to react on their "say-so" and tell them to take it up with me? Sarah777 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't like my "say-so" why not look at the Bot yourself? It isn't very difficult. Then defend its actions if you still won't block it. Sarah777 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What is really  ticking me off here Ali is the Bot is doing exactly  what I was when your friend Fozzie gave me an indefinite block and you spent four weeks getting it lifted. (A block which we knew, in hindsight, should never have been imposed - still took 4 weeks to get it lifted). Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarah, I don't mean to be rude here, but please go ask someone else, okay? - A l is o n  ❤ 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why Ali? What is the problem? You are in the blocking business or you are not. Tell you what, as you seem to have a problem being even-handed here if you stop blocking Irish editors, (suspected socks or otherwise) then I won't ask you to be fair and consistent in your use of your Admin powers. OK? Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You block every suspected sock of Wikipiere on the merest complaint from an editor; no waffle about "your say-so" to the complainants. why has this Bot got immunity? Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll ask again; did you take this up with the bot owner? - A l is o n  ❤ 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Check his talkpage! I did, and was ignored (bit like here really). Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikieire
Alison,

User:SitNGo appears to be User:Wikipéire -- certainly they have not denied it. Djegan (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * User:SitNGo banned as a sockpuppet. Regards. Djegan (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To be accurate he did admit it when it was raised on the new talk page.  My gut feeling is that we might be able to redeem him this time and I have placed a comment/request on Jza84 talk page to see if there is someway forward.  I won't repeat those comments here/  However finding a rehabilitation route might might less costly than continued sock puppetry - and we might get a good editor.  He has done some good work.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - one more instance of this and I'm softblocking his second range ACB. I'm sure the guy is redeemable an' all, but this is wasting everyone's time now - A l is o n  ❤ 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked him to stay out of any response or edits and if he does attempt to edit under an IP then I'll confess I have been naive and back away. I'm going to try and work with him direct to create a statement and request from him (with conditions) for re-admittance.  Its probably got a low chance of success, but its worth a try.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see some else has blocked the Bot vandalising hundreds of articles while other folk get on with the really important work of censoring Wikipeire. Great to have yer priorities in order, innit? Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarah.. I've held my peace watching you do this.. and now, I have some harsh words to say. GET. OVER. YOURSELF. Alison, like myself, like every other administrator on here (well, except maybe Jimbo).. is a volunteer. We do not get paid to do this. We do this in our free time. If you want the ability to block bots who you think are disrupting Wikipedia, run for administrator yourself. Expecting Alison to be your puppet is one of the most-self centered things I've sen here.
 * There was a discussion on ANI about this bot, you could have participated there, instead of badgering (and yes, you ARE badgering her) Alison, whose been constantly in your corner throughout this whole thing to do your work for you. Enough! If it was me, instead of Allie (who has the patience of a saint, although even THAT is quickly dwindling) you would have been told a while ago that if you have something else to bring up, that's cool, but I don't WANT to hear about this issue anymore. SirFozzie (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Foz, when I detected this VandalBot there wasn't anything going on at ANI I was aware of. You ain't my favourite Admin Foz, to be honest, as you gave an indefinite block which it then transpired you couldn't/wouldn't lift. I might "get over myself" but in the absence of a grovelling apology I don't reckon I'll get over that. Still, I think this Wiki-world is divided between those who essence resides online and who reckon words are nastier than blocks; and real world folk like me who are indifferent to words but find blocks a bit of a nuisance.Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)