User talk:Alison/Archive 46

Can you please redact an IP outing?
Hi Alison, I understand you have the rights to redact an inadvertent IP outing. It's not a matter of terrible importance but on the whole I've decided I'd like it fixed. This diff should be linked to my account (and thereby have the IP concealed), and this diff by Bulldog123 which calls attention to the outing should be redacted if necessary in accordance. Could you please help out? No urgency, but many thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help :) - A l is o n  ❤ 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that in the process you also completely removed (and did not return) my comment - which was totally unnecessary as the edit summary of the diff was/is enough to support my point. Maybe next time be a little more careful?  Bull dog123  04:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Bulldog, it is you, who should be more careful and never outing anybody again.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bulldog, but the suppression policy and non-public, personal information takes precedence here - A l is o n  ❤ 04:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Think you can do me a favor now? I screwed up and accidentally created Articles for deletion/List of Irish Americans (2nd nomination) instead of Articles for deletion/List of Irish American actors (2nd nomination). Any way you can delete the redirect? Bull dog123  03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Y'know, it's best if it's left the way it is right now. If you look at the linksto count, you can see that the redir is used quite a lot. I'd say just leave it - it's not doing any harm :) - A l is o n  ❤ 04:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Just didn't want to make it seem like I'm nominating the whole list. Bull dog123  05:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

JtV
Just blocked 4 more - want to check the IP? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorted. About a half-dozen accounts there, now all blocked. ✅ JtV (surpriiise) - A l is o n  ❤ 22:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with bad faith
Hi Alison, I know that you're one of the longest serving administrators here so I figured that you'd be able to help me with a question I have about dealing with bad faith. There is a lengthy discussion going on at Talk:U2 which is consistently being disrupted by one editor who is constantly throwing out accusations of bias and bad faith. The editor has been repeatedly asked to stop doing so by numerous others, both on Talk:U2 and their user talk page, but the behaviour persists. Since the requests are obviously being ignored, what is the next step that should be taken to try and get this user to discuss things more co-operatively and civilly? I'm unfamiliar with what to do in this sort of circumstance. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Confession of an admin with tunnel vision
Hi Alison. Afraid I've messed up something. I review this unblock request and since the editor is in good standing and the IP belongs to a university, I lifted the auto-block. What I didn't do was read the instruction you had appended to the request. Guess I was hypnotized by the pretty blue template. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be a way for me to revert the unblock. Terribly sorry about this. Favonian (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just looked at this one, as well - not sure how to go about reinstating the block, short of re-blocking the original account. That might reset the autoblock, which would catch this editor if and when they edit again. Maybe. Also, unrelated - well done. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Favonian. No worries at all - it happens :) No harm done - A l is o n  ❤ 07:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Hello, Alison. Thank you for reverting vandalism and protecting my page. Just out of curiosity, may I ask what was in the reverted and deleted diffs? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heyya There was this pic, along with "¡Estoy usando el Internet!" underneath. That's all ... - A l is o n  ❤ 00:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Quite funny, actually. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Warwickshire College
Thanks - you  mustbe a mind reader :) --Kudpung (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help :) I actually ended up over there as someone had complained to Oversight - A l is o n  ❤ 06:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Dramatica
Hi Alison, about your recent edit, they can say 'they are told' because they didn't receive the court order. The New York Times are also told about stuff =P Anyway, I read on your userpage that you are syop at Encyclopedia Dramatica, so I would like to know what really happened, if you know, and you are willing to tell me of course =P. (I know maybe this does not belong here, we can follow this by email) --Neo139 (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not about to discuss the matter nor speculate as to what may have happened to that article (and the Gawker article was clearly speculation). Either on-wiki or via email. Sorry. Besides, any information you obtained would be of no use here - A l is o n  ❤ 06:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I know about WP:NOR, I didn't ask for adding info to the article and maybe Gawker was speculation. I asked because I wanted to know ^^ (as a frequent ED reader). But if you don't want to tell its ok. --Neo139 (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Meiosis XY Female Syndrome
Hi Alison,

Meiosis XY Female Syndrome is up for AFD (see WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine, and you were suggested as someone who might know more than the average editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * O_o - okaaaay. I'm not an expert in genetics or endocrinology, but this seems really off to me. Either it's Swyer syndrome / XY gonadal dysgenesis / Pure Gonadal Dysgenesis by another name, or is so uber-new that it's as yet unnamed. If it's the former, we're already covered, and If it's the latter, we can't write about it without WP:OR issues. How does it differ from Swyer's? They're not really saying. And the bit in the article where they mention missing SRY - that's clearly Turner syndrome. Umm - and given they're talking about cross-over issues, that kinda rules out the actions of CBX2. I didn't explore that bit properly at the AfD. Anyways - I'm really not an expert at this stuff .. - A l is o n  ❤ 03:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

IRC
Can you come on IRC, please? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've just replied - A l is o n  ❤

UK
Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cowl head
A new editor is created, and within 60 seconds a since-indef'd sock "welcomes" that user, yet that user is supposedly not a sock??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkuser shows up clear. Seriously :| While not a sock, I wouldn't necessarily rule out meatpuppetry but there's technically no way to verify that, of course. Point being; that guy isn't FatMan. He's literally on the other side of the planet - A l is o n  ❤ 02:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which planet would that be? Alrighty then, we'll just see if it edits someday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with an SPI case
Hey Alison. We've got a case over at SPI where a bunch of editors made some edits that were oversighted, and we're trying to see if the editors are connected via checkuser. The problem is that whoever does the checksuser apparently also needs to have oversight. Bit of a tricky situation. Anyway, since you fit the criteria for this, I was wondering if you could run the CU. The case is at Sockpuppet investigations/JLP1996 if you could help out. If not, that's cool; there are a few other people I can contact. Thanks! —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's ✅ now :) - A l is o n  ❤ 05:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks so much. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jclemens found a user via wikistalk who has popped up since Benji left and who has a related signiture style and a very high page edit overlap. Could you confirm or deny them? - Schrandit (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Codyfinke
Hello Alison, I believe I have discovered another sock puppet of banned, long time user,. You have blocked Cody several times in the past for his issues. Could you please look into this user, as his behaviors are almost identical to Cody's:


 * He makes numerous, rapid edits w/o edit summaries
 * changes established facts with unsupported information
 * He works on articles concerning media, including movies, television shows (he loves game shows, Supermarket Sweep is one of his favorites and was edited by Adultnature1989) and media outlets such as TV and radio stations.
 * He never responds to posts on his talk page, despite numerous warnings.

I need some verification that this is in fact Cody or another long time abuser such as Mascotguy (One editor has expressed an opinion that Cody might be MG).

I would also like some help to setup a Long Term Abuse profile on Cody as this is going on for several years now.

Thank you, --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a sock. See Sockpuppet investigations/Darkness2005 - A l is o n  ❤ 08:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

 * And thanks for the Copyedit, you can tell I was too ticked on fixing the format I forgot my grammer. :P -- DQ  (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 03:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the card. That's very kind :) - A l is o n  ❤ 03:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

if you have time...
Could you take a peek at User_talk:OrangeLisa? Thanks, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Proxies all the way down! It's the same person that's making edits like this. I've about a dozen blocks to make - check my logs in a min - A l is o n  ❤ 11:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why am I not startled? Thanks again :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, all these --> 1 2 3 4 ... and so on. I give up. I'll just block them - A l is o n  ❤ 12:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I ever thought otherwise (behaviour has always been so utterly ducky), but that first one ties the technical side in with User:Freedom5000. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's quite a few. If you find any other socks, line them up here and I'll clean up. Bedtime now, tho' - A l is o n  ❤ 12:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Long time no talk, hope you're well. You've got mail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heyya Floq. Got that - looking into it. I'll email to let ya know either way ... - A l is o n  ❤ 07:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it that I was being paranoid? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OMG - sorry about the delay replying. Ugh! :( But yes - being paranoid :) Looks okay to me ... - A l is o n  ❤ 08:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oversight
I understand that you have oversight priveliges and it has been suggested that I look into have some of my contributions removed. I've been somewhat careless with personal information that has resulted in off-wiki harassment. I changed my user name but didn't realise how easy it was to still find my personal details. I'm not sure what is the best solution, whether to go for a new account or ask for oversight of some of my contributions. What would you suggest? 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs)
 * Sure - can you either email me directly or contact the Oversight team with the details and I'll get right on it? Thanks - A l is o n  ❤ 08:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a safe, happy and warm Christmas Season.....
To the Lulziest Checkuser it's ever been my privilege to know *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh - thanks, Foz! Have a safe and happy Christmas :) - A l is o n  ❤ 08:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For your timely and very kind intervention. I am very obliged. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Laurie Smith
Hi: I created Laurie Smith. I just checked my watchlist after returning from work and find you have protected it, "oversight issues" - am I to take it there were bad edits to it while I was AFK that have been oversighted? Just checking in case you are referring to edits I saw or even edits I made - I have tried really hard to be scrupulous with this one and would feel awful if I had let something bad be in the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Yngvadottir. Just to let you know that a number of edits were suppressed on the above article due to serious, potentially libelous and utterly unfounded accusations of criminal behaviour having been posted. There were in no way associated with anything you did, so don't worry! - A l is o n  ❤ 22:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Love, -  Dwayne   was here! &#9835; 17:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Awwww!! Thanks, Dwayne - that's very kind. And it's the most sensible seasonal wish I've seen yet; switch off the computer, kick back and have some time with our families. Wikipedia will survive without us for a bit :) Happy Christmas, dude! - A l is o n  ❤ 22:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Lilburne
To answer your question, he began here with too much knowledge for a newbie, and with a wise-guy attitude (in an ignorant comment directed at me, from out of left field). His comment about usenet and IP's pretty much answers the question I asked, so we're good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Endorsing edits of a banned user?
I don't understand why you unstruck Moulton's comments on Talk:cold fusion after Enric Naval struck them. The comments were off topic and not helpful to the discussion, besides being from a banned user. At least you didn't restore the one comment that Enric removed, but why remove the strikeouts on the rest? Now Moulton has posted on my talk page (as Montana Mouse and as Caprice) to suggest that I should look at the unhelpful comment that Enric removed. There's nothing useful in the comment that merited it being brought to my attention; the comment itself and the mention on my talk both seem to be simply an attempt to incite a dispute. Moulton should not be posting on Wikipedia; surely you're not endorsing his blatant flouting of his block? Woonpton (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll chime in here: banned is banned. Removing comments by banned editors is not petty: its the responsible think for an admin to do.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Kww. Regardless of whether the comments are helpful or not, a banned user has NO rights here and anything they do or write should be removed on sight (or stricken or covered with a hat). If what they wrote was useful, then a user in good standing can make the argument based on their own status, not as a proxy of a banned user. Banned users should never feel they have any sympathy from any member of the Wikipedia community. That would only encourage them. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but nothing says "zOMG!! READ THIS!!!111" more than strikethroughs, y'know? - A l is o n  ❤ 22:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your answer: strikethroughs call too much attention so you prefer to leave banned users' edits in place instead? With an edit summary calling the strikethroughs "petty"? How helpful is that? Not very helpful, because  when others later tried to remove or hat the banned users' comments, they were reverted by users citing your opinion that reverting banned users is "petty." Not helpful at all. Woonpton (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, both. Yes, strikethroughs can draw attention to edits you don't want seen - that is correct - and yes, Enric Naval was being petty in what he did. He's already knee-deep in the Cold Fusion talk page and article itself, which makes him very much involved. Next time, an uninvolved editor can redact accordingly and he won't be accused of being petty about it - A l is o n  ❤ 21:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Thanks :) - A l is o n  ❤ 22:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry.... Boxing Day?
I hope you had wonderful times with your family and friends this holiday season. All the best in the New Year. -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 22:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's very kind :) Best wishes to you and your family, too - A l is o n  ❤ 22:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If only I had a mistletoe. Happy holidays, Alison. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh - thanks :) - A l is o n  ❤ 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sussexman?
I return from a five minute winter holiday to find that you do not seem to want to argue strongly for Vintagekits to be unblocked, in fact the whole thing is hurriedly archived. What exactly do you find som much more appealing about sussexman (or whatever he is currently calling himself) who you fought to have unbanned, than VK?  Giacomo  11:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sussexman is not David Lauder and neither of them are Counter-revoultionary. C-R has never been a sockmaster. Maybe this needs to be explained to people. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would love to see you try, Kitty.  Giacomo   15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not for me to do. But obvious to those (including you) who have followed this. I think Sussexman is guilty of making legal threats but never of socking. He then handed over his password to DavidLauder. Counterrev was blocked for in effect leaving his computer on while online. Lauder was blocked for socking. Vk for socking, personal attacks,& disruption. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazing! I love it. Where do you dream these things up? Anyway, no matter, those that want to beleive these things clearly do - life is far too short to bother. You and Alison will doubtless continue as you both see fit and so shall I.  Giacomo   22:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, both of you are quite incorrect. Sussexman was socking up to the gills and beyond, and Counter-revolutionary was never David Lauder. He's in the wrong country for starters and secondly, I know his RL identity. His guilt lay in handing the keys of his account over to David Lauder - who promptly drove it off a cliff. C-R was never a 'sockmaster' - that much is certain. I have not, and will not, unban David Lauder. Not going to happen, least of all because he refuses to acknowledge his own culpability and I've no doubt he's get right back to business as before. As you can see from C-R, that certainly didn't happen there.


 * As for Vintagekits, all I did was provide the lone voice of dissent at his unblock request - a request that was clearly fait accomplée largely due to his own "screw you all, now unblock me"-style request. User:Black Kite was one of the few other voices to stand up and be counted. For my troubles, I got dinged by BHG for trying to hard, and dinged by you for not trying hard enough. And all that over the Christmas period when I'd better things to be attending to than internet drama. I see from VK's latest unblock request that you're now coaching him so at least he stands a better chance this time. As to my involvement - no thanks. While I'd like to help, I really don't need any more vilification from you or the community - A l is o n  ❤ 21:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alison, I'm sorry that you feel you "got dinged" by me, because that wasn't my intention. I did press you and other unblock-supporters to clarify how an unblock could be made to work, and why it was worth trying again. I don't think that those were unfair questions, and I am a bit surprised that they appear to have been unexpected ... so all I can say is that while I'm not persuaded you made the right call in seeing an unblock of VK, particularly after his very silly unblock request, I am horrified that you feel you have been vilified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi BHG. I'm sorry, I probably overstated that in making my point. I was kinda surprised when I got back online to find the whole ANI thread was done and dusted and I never got a chance to reply to your points. I have to say, they were reasonable questions & I even had answers cooking, but the whole thing was gone when I got back. Then Giano showed up to berate me for not doing enough to 'save' VK :( Can't win. Anyways - you were quite right in asking the pertinent questions and sorry for maybe stating it in those terms - A l is o n  ❤ 10:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's funy how quickly an ANI thread can be "done and dusted" where VK is concerned isn't it? Rather like the night of the long knives when he was indeffed while he slept. I se Kitty is down below - it must be nice for him to have at least one (I presume it's just one) of is friends back to play with. All that is requested is that VK is treated the same as his adversaries. That has not happened.  Giacomo   15:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just Giano's consistent way. Exaggeration, deflection, repetition, diversion and accusation - all with a flavour of looking down his nose. It is all your fault for having unleashed the forces of darkness. :). Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thinking back to that past ANI report concerning Vk's unblock request. It was strange that the ANI report had taken place at all, since VK was still indef-blocked. Hopefully such a report shant occur again in that un-timely fashion. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Notstalk
Hi, I have recently at times bumped into you and it is somewhat by design. I have tried to find a way to enjoy contributing to discussions. Sorry about the dramz just above, that is what I am disliking about the place. With a desire to enrich and learn in the same breath, I am approaching interaction with the .org via sideways alleys and paths, one being checking your contribs for interesting topics. So, notstalk but just nosing around. Nosey. Hope all is well with you. Sswonk (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I've seen you around the place recently, and in the past sometime back. Nice to meet you! You're probably better off following someone else's edits as I'm largely gone from here these days and don't really do much anymore. Burnout or something :/ As an oversighter, a lot of my stuff is invisible - you may see me making an edit to a random page where previous edits have been blanked, for example. That's usually someone who posted while logged out :) Anyways - good to meet you! - A l is o n  ❤ 07:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alison. It's not to say I don't also look at other editors' contributions and find great topics, I certainly do. Yet I think your approach is a good one, and you don't suffer from hubris. Burnout is pretty common; there is probably an entire science forming over studies of chatroom, forum and wiki psyches, point to something if you know of an authority. Wikipsyche, /ˌwɪkiˈsaɪkiː/, maybe already a word. Unfortunately many of the best people suffer from the sanity that ends in withdrawal from the project, and many who don't forge ahead like bulldozers. You know all too well. If it was not clear when I commented earlier, totally sober mind you just enjoying some semi-Joycean finger spewing, I liked your earlier user photo because I thought it told that story in the proverbial 1,000 words. But, the image did make me wonder while you were "pulling it off" and maintaining a high level of sysopdom: fascinating like something by Philippe Petit. I also relate to you via some RL travails as a long time App*e user/support guy, I should have bought it at $15&hellip; and, a passion for Ireland. Anyway, great to meet you as well – Sswonk (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser
It's the same modus operandi as so this might be Torkmann again. Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It's actually - MuZemike has already taken care of it. Here are some of the sock accounts;




 * Thanks again - A l is o n  ❤ 07:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

YGM
-- DQ  (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 20:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All ✅ - thanks for that! - A l is o n  ❤ 03:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Randygeorge
Hi, I see you blocked Randygeorge and theLuca a couple of weeks ago at the same time. I was looking to tag the accounts but couldn't see an SPI. Presumably they are socks of each other and you just figured it out without the need for an investigation? Please can you confirm so I can add the tags. thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no SPI and yes, they are socks of each other - A l is o n  ❤ 03:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I've added some tags.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)