User talk:Alison/Archive 48

User:Poetlister/Runcorn
Hi Alison! Do you think it's OK if I turn User:Poetlister/Runcorn into a redirect to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Poetlister/Runcorn? This would prevent a notice such as from displaying a red link, instead of a blue one. Cheers, theFace 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you like, sure. If you think it makes managing things a bit easier .... - A l is o n  ❤ 08:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... it may appear more logical I guess (e.g. at User:Ole.Holm). Or perhaps I'm just becoming alergic to red links. :-)  theFace 10:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Email waiting
When you have a moment. Thanks! Tvoz / talk 19:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks :) -  A l is o n  ❤ 08:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake...
I guess I shouldn't have ignored my gut instinct on that one and should have brought it up somewhere. jæs  (talk)   08:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to worry! You don't have the visibility that Checkuser has. Credible evidence had been supplied via email and right now, checkusers are still looking over it. Three blatant socks are now blocks - possibly more on the way. Thank again - A l is o n  ❤ 08:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unblock request, FYI. He's playing games, but meh. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He was always an eyebrow raiser. Is there anyway to know what accounts he was socking with. He was beating the same dead horse as another person on the shooting articles. There is no SPI. cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   03:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit
I don't know how that happened. I was only trying to remove the jelly comment. I bet it was some editing tool something. --Thebirdlover (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what's going on, but your edit there just trashed my page. Check your javascript, I'd say. It's Bowdlerizing everything & breaking links, usernames, etc - A l is o n  ❤ 02:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to help
Hi Alison. I stumbled upon your page through a series of wiki link hopping. I'm rather new here, but I'm gaining experience, as well as confidence each day. What impressed me most about you was your statements about BLP articles. I couldn't agree more with your views, and your suggestions hit the nail on the head. Do you have any suggestions as to what I, a relative newbie, can do to help implement the changes you have suggested? Thank you very much for your time. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As an Ali talk page stalker, my first suggestion is to check out WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons, and work there to help with sourcing and removing BLP's that don't belong. Also, some of the broader policy discussions will be there, or linked to there by those involved.  Welcome and good luck.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Alison, my name is DarkJak495. But you can call me DJ. I was wondering if you could read over and edit the article Ruins of Gorlan for me. I would gratefully appreciate it. Please contact me on the Ruins of Gorlan talk page, or my own talk page. Thanks! User DarkJak495  talk  orange 22:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Franklin.vp on the run
Hi Alison, may I please ask you to oversight the attack, block the account, protect the article in my user space, and check, if there are more user:franklin.vps on the run? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Two and three done, revision RevDel'ed, and don't have the ability to do item #4. Courcelles 00:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone. Attack is now RD2'd, per policy. Also, the following accounts are ✅ as being the one editor;




 * I've blocked them all and hardblocked the underlying long-term IP for some time. This is highly likely to be -  A l is o n  ❤ 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Alison! BTW what does "RD2'd" means, if I may ask please.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RD2. Courcelles 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope that's true, too.
If so, I'm sure we'll hear in the next half-day or so, I can't believe that wouldn't get coverage. *impatiently taps foot* ;-)  --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 05:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
Over on User talk:PhilKnight I asked them for some explanation of their closure.

I initially missed your comment. I hope you won`t mind that I have some questions of you.

You wrote:
 * “this was reported to the oversight team for suppression as being potentially libelous”

I am not familiar with the oversight team, so, can I ask where the oversight team derives its authority? Can I ask what its mandate is? Can I ask how contributors report concerns to the team -- are all such reports public, and if so can you direct my attention to where the report on this article was made?

I asked User talk:PhilKnight this, and I am going to ask you -- Could you please clarify as to whether it is your opinion that the topic of Jihadism in the Maldives or Terrorism in the Maldives or Suspected jihadists from the Maldives itself is not worth covering, without regard to how well referenced the topic is? Geo Swan (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The answers to the first three of your questions are at OVERSIGHT. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reports to the Oversight team are not made onwiki; users are directed to send the request via email to our designated email address. Requests can also be made directly to an individual oversighter. That answers the rest of your process questions. As to the reason for the oversighting, I've not reviewed that directly and will allow Alison and PhilKnight to address that question directly.  Risker (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to have that conversation here, but my understanding is that nothing was oversighted. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:)


Stemoc (talk) has smiled at you and showered you with WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Stemoc (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you
 Panyd has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thank you for your well-wishes. They were very much appreciated and made me feel a lot better during my time off. For your kindness I present you with a kitten! May it keep you company in the long nights of vandalism. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

AFD
Would you have another look at Articles for deletion/Andrew Krystal (2nd nomination)? It's been sourced now, most all of the problems were vandalism. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

IZAK
Despite the user's incredibly over-the-top overreaction to another user's ID, technically he has a point. Why was the "grandfather" clause removed from the writeup over 3 years ago? It makes it seem that the current policy has no exceptions at all: Shouldn't that be re-added to the policy in some way or another? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mjroots and some other editors have contributed to a new section in the user name guide called "Exceptions", which will, we hope, settle this matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My userpage
You are of course aware of the recent pagemove vandalism. I admin-revdelled the vandalism to my userpage, but would you mind suppressing it (because it has pinfo)? That includes the deletion log, move log (both ways), and page history (both ways). Thanks! -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, ✅ - A l is o n  ❤ 10:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you do that one and that one too, if you can? I jumped the gun before seeing someone else was there. -- Luk  talk 12:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A certain move request made at 9:00 today
I think you want to remove the page a certain users userpage was moved from. It's pretty damn insulting :(. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being cryptic. I'm on my iPhone and copy paste is crap. It's now fixed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ta
for. pablo 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday
Diego Grez (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A request made
Mav-TGIF (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Mav-TGIF

"A valid observation", etc.
Now the guy is screwing around with the ANI page. Can you block the socks and also hard-block the user somehow so he can't make any more socks? Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP speedy deletion
Hi Alison. You speedy deleted the article listed at Articles for deletion/Suspected jihadists from the Maldives after an oversight request. There is some contention at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo Swan over whether this was a valid BLP speedy deletion (see also Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8). Because you can view the deleted material and are experienced with the BLP policy as an oversighter, would you provide an outside opinion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo Swan about whether the speedy deletion was valid? If that userpage draft were submitted to oversight, would you have speedy deleted it like you did the article at the AfD? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cunard. I'll leave my comment here, if that's okay, though you can copy them over, of course. I've not much bandwidth for thrashing this back and forth, though. In my opinion, had the page User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim been reported to oversight, I would certainly have speedy-deleted it. 1) It's a living person's real name, 2) it categorizes them as a member of a criminal, terrorist organization with no sources, references whatsoever. This, IMO, is a violation of WP:BLP. I can see that User:Geo Swan had it hanging around userspace with a view to sourcing it and 'rescuing' it, etc, but it had lain untouched for years tho' I'm pretty sure he meant well. The NOINDEX tag went some way towards mitigating this, but it's still not okay for Wikipedia to mention a private citizen and label them as a member of a terrorist organization without as much as a shred of evidence. It's also my understanding that the inmates of Guantanamo Bay detention center are not de facto terrorists - A l is o n  ❤ 22:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And yes, while it's rather well-known that I'm strong on BLP matters, it's my opinion that the above delete is a valid deletion per our BLP policies and WP:CSD as they stand today. Per the letter of policy, I think it should be found that the deletion was valid. In particular, per the above case, "These [...] may include libel, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met." - A l is o n'  ❤ 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your illuminating outside opinion. Judging by your description of the userspace draft's content, I am inclined to believe that the speedy deletion per BLP and CSD is valid. I've copied your comments to the RfC talk page per your permission. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oversight request
Alison, can you oversight Hypocritepedia's newest attacks on my talk page under the IP and a username? I really don't want to see that crud when I go through my history. Thanks.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you muchly, and for the semi-protection too.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Zimbazumba
Alison Do you have any comment on this? I'm tending towards an AGF unblock with a very short leash but you may well disagree. Please can you comment on the user's talk page? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Email
Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fram's speedy
You are of course right in the requirements for negative BLP, but you might want to revisit the response you gave to cunard's question, in view of what I found & added at the RfC talk p. on Geo Swan.  DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * after a quick review of the rfc talk page and rfc, awful original research blp violating articles about fairly non-notable people should still be deleted, and still be nominated for deletion. I would encourage you, DGG, to go through the userfied and other articles and look closely at them for appropriateness for the encyclopedia.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ping
Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Another Sock at Chaz Bono
Alison, hate to bother you but there's another sock of BruceJenner over at Chaz Bono, this time it's Dwightthedroid. New user, first edits are to revert the pronouns on the article, and call reverts "vandalism." Same old attitude as numerous other socks, I thought I'd come to you since you blocked and protected after the last one. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, Courcelles got him. Thanks anyway! Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and semi-protected it for a year. I might not be able to stop him from disrupting BLP's, but I can damn well keep him off this one. Courcelles 07:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you! I've just ran the cleanup checks. Another possible rangeblock in the works there if he keeps that up - A l is o n  ❤ 08:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted revisions for the first time, so...
...Wanted to request you to kindly check whether the deletion of two revisionswas alright, both procedurally and vide policy. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  10:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just my 2cents - remember that you can specify whether to delete the text of the edit, the edit summary, or the IP/Username independantly, or any combination of the three. In both cases (the vandal edit and the signing by sinebot) I think only the edit text was really subject to deletion.  The edit summary contained nothing critical, and it is fine to show that it was that IP that made the edit.   7  23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my TPS reply put an overly early end to this conversation. Alison I suspect Wifione would still value your input, as would I.   7  01:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)