User talk:Alison/Archive 49

previous account
Hi Alison - this abusive user clearly existed previous to july 2010, and likely won't go away because of this setback, and likely has multiple other accounts equally disruptive - its a disruption often imagined to be multiple users when single opinionated obsessives is more reflective of  reality - can we look at this and try to find the user behind it so as to report them to the relevant authority or at a minimum range block them and every proxy in the www. Are there any connections to the blocked user User:Shuki - These nationalistic, religious and genetic single issue disruptive IP addresses and accounts need to be treated as attack addresses and blocked and banned at first opportunity and for as long as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rob, from what I know of User:Shuki, I'd say it's that they are related. Having said that, I'm sure it's not the first nor the last we've seen from that other editor and it's certainly something I intend to watch closely. What they did there was pretty nasty overall -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
BTW, could you please record the ban in Sol's block log? This link, please. Thanks again! --Dylan620 (t • c) 04:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dylan. Thanks for the barnstar - I appreciate your kind thoughts :) One point tho', I have redacted the word 'criminal' from the ANI thread closed message, and from WP:LOBU as it is quite inappropriate. It has a specific legal meaning and is not the place of the WP community to make that determination. Furthermore, the account hacking was based on allegations with certain evidence and we cannot say for certain that the person behind those accounts actually did that. I can certainly say that they posted off-site links to images of these emails but would be reluctant to brand them as having committed criminal acts. I've updated their block log to indicate the community ban and once again, thanks for the barnstar ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 05:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alison, I'd like to thank you for linking proxy to the real IP. It was a great job!
 * I'd like to steress out please that the hacking om my email account is true,the whole true, and nothing but the true. It is not "allegations with certain evidence". I could repeat the same under the oath in any court of law, and it could be easily proven by Google's gmail records.
 * Having said this I am 99.99% sure that user:Sol Goldstone was not the one, who hacked my gmail account. I believe user:Sol Goldstone could have been the author of the email I got from somebody, who impersonated user:PhilKnight or they might have known about existence of this email.
 * I agree with you that there is no reason whatsoever to call user:Sol Goldstone "a criminal".
 * And I am going to send you email. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mbz1! Thanks for the clarification & I think we're both in agreement on the details of what happened here. Yes, I've no doubt from what you are saying here, and from your email, that the email hacking occurred. I can agree with that. Also, like you, I'm reluctant to pin the specific act of hacking on the person behind the accounts now blocked. We don't know that at all. I can certainly stand over the charges of socking, proxy use and posting links to the emails which is certainly egregious enough behaviour. Best regards - A l is o n  ❤ 05:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Should Have Posted This Hours Ago
-  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
These admin tool can be dangerous... :-) -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Help me please
A user, Supreme Deliciousness has been repeatedly OUTING me. He's done it to me three times already. He is a recidivist offender and doesn't seem to recognize he's done anything wrong. Please refer to this thread I am contacting you because you were the first to recognize the obscene conduct by Sol Goldstone and acted accordingly. As a point of irony, Supreme Deliciousness was the last user to post a comment on Sol Goldstone's page encouraging him to, "come back." The saying, "birds of feather flock together," rings true. I would greatly appreciate anything you can do to address my privacy concerns and issue the appropriate sanctions to deter any similar action from unscrupulous users. Thank you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy Woman Day!
 Alison I wish you a Happy International Woman Day! May I please ask you to accept a small present - I took this image today for you, Alison, and it is Spring herself refracted in a rain droplet. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A request
Any thoughts about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wikipe-tan_in_swimwear.jpg ? The British Wikipedians are worried about its legality.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

O'Scolaidhe
Hi Alison,

Long time no wiki. Does this name mean something like "Son of the Scollar"? see Jcwf (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Check email
Bielle (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

More Ying attacks
Any possibility of an effective rangeblock? See this user and this one. What an abhorrent bully. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmph :/ Kinda not really - he's using a narrow range of Singaporean IPs, which form a gateway from a cable internet system. You can see some of it in your block here, but widening it at this point will cause a bit too much collateral damage, sorry :( - A l is o n  ❤ 04:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Another stupid user:franklin.vp sock on the run
. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked, thanks. Using a mobile IP range but there don't appear to be any other a/cs there - A l is o n  ❤ 05:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is this possible to oversite its rant?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Actually, I can't as it doesn't come within policy, sorry :( I've redacted it from the discussion, though - A l is o n  ❤ 05:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Boyceville, Wisconsin talk page
Hi-Would you please take a look at the Boyceville, Wisconsin talk page? Someone left a message looking for someone. I could revert the page to User:Gimme Danger who assess the article for WP-Wisconsin, but the history would still be there. This is a BLP issue-e-mail/phone nuber are listed. Please let me know the outcome of this. Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It's not so much a BLP issue as a privacy issue, so I've gone ahead and suppressed those edits, per policy. Good catch! :) - A l is o n  ❤ 01:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for doing this-RFD (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Another sock of user:franklin.vp
Hi Alison, could you please take a look here here. It is either franklin or user:Sol Goldstone. In any case there's no doubt it is another dirty sock. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock is obvious :/ Blocked now - A l is o n  ❤ 04:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your block on 220.255.2.0/24
Although you have a valid reason on your block on the IP address range, it means you are effectively blocking everyone from Singapore connecting from the ISP Singnet/SingTel. About 80% of singapore use these ISP and the collateral damage caused by the block, including the fact that creating of accounts is also blocked is too high. I would appeal for you to not block creating of new accounts for the IP range. Anyway, thanks for making wikipedia better! I really do appreciate all the work you put into wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbstransitbuses (talk • contribs) 08:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Four years
Hi Alison, it's been four years to the day that you passed your request for adminship! :D I can't believe that the time went by so quickly...it seems like it was yesterday that all happened! Happy adminship anniversary to you. Acalamari 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Same from me. Congrats! :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 22:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL - oh wow, has it been that long already? I'm shocked!! Thanks, guys  -  A l is o n  ❤ 03:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of your hard work! It helps keeps the wheels running smoothly, or as smoothly as they ever do run. kencf0618 (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

PC
Well! I know the RfC is full of DRAMA, but I didn't know it was quite that dramatic :-) (And yes, I know, you undid yourself)

Slip of the mouse? Hee hee.  Chzz  ► 11:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's nearly 5am - my coordination is gone all weird. Editing under the influence (of a lack of sleep) -  A l is o n  ❤ 11:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bah, you're only doing it deliberately, so that we're fooled into thinking functionaries are human :-)


 * Have a good sleep. Take care.  Chzz  ► 11:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad that I'm obviously not the only one who clicks that button by mistake on occasion! My own excuse is fat fingers on a touchscreen device… &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

More seriously though - whilst yes, it is serving to protect a very tiny number of BLPs (currently), it is also protecting crap like Gout - whilst we are unable to add it to other important BLPs, because of the deadlock. There's no way we'll get any kind of agreement for expanding the scope, if we can't even agree on this most basic of proposals. As I just noted to another user - I'd be quite happy to compromise, if anyone can see any way to get any kind of agreement. Any ideas? My somewhat facetious comment was, "Remove it on half the articles? Don't add it to any more, until we get agreement? Only allow PC on Tuesdays, Thurdays and Saturdays? I don't care. I'm absolutely willing to discuss, for consensus; frankly, anything is better than this utter, utter madness we have now." . Anything - really. This is desperate.  Chzz  ► 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gout's only been under PC for a month and the reviewers seem to have been doing strong work actually. I note that at least one reversion was for a BLP violation (if that's the most important thing to you.) If you really think it deserves a different level of protection then perhaps you should discuss it with User:Jmh649, the admin who set that level. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that, Alison; the problem is, we're stuck. We can't come to any agreement at all - on where to use it, if we can use it, or anything. The situation is completely deadlocked, and it is incredibly frustrating for all of us. Please can you read WP:PCRFC, and see if you've any ideas? Thanks,  Chzz  ► 17:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Chzz: Would you support a compromise of not adding new articles to PC while the data is reviewed? I don't subscribe to the infinite loop theory that SoWhy is claiming on the Talk page (that because PC is active, by natural law we are FORCED to keep adding data, and thus can never review data. SirFozzie (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would - for the sake of any kind of agreement - as I said.
 * Even though I think it is a bad call. Reasons I think it a bad idea are,
 * What does "until reviewed" mean - after (some considerable time, presumably) of reviewing data - then what? Will it be declared that the data supports some certain policy? I can't see that; so, once analysed, then we'd presumably have another proposal to consider - or, several proposals; or proposals that fail, are amended, and more proposals. That could take years, literally.
 * The result of agreement to "not add it to any more" is, actually, exactly the current situation - in theory, right now, nobody should be using PC on anything new. So, agreeing to it wouldn't actually make any progress
 * Whilst PC remains on 900+ articles, I'm sure some admins would ignore any such decision, and do what they wanted. For example - and note, I'm not trying to "pick on" a specific case, or complain about it - but it illustrates; I questioned when EVula used PC, on 24 Feb - and xe quoted IAR - see . Other admins have said they would "use the tool if it is available in their toolbox".
 * I don't think such a proposal would have more chance than the current one; it'd be open to the very same misinterpretation, and bickering.
 * That said - yes, I'm good to my word. I'd support it. Best,  Chzz  ► 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

RevDel
Hi. Could you please delete this? It's absolutely gross. Jsayre64  (talk)  01:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

LTA
Per your request --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

JtV
Hi Alison. Could you help me out a bit to get a more info on something I'm investigating. It's regarding. Do you mind if email you sometime?  Elockid (Alternate)  ( Talk ) 12:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Email away :) By the way, that account is JtV. Blocked Boston yet? :D - A l is o n  ❤ 01:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Email sent.  Elockid   ( Talk ) 02:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

ooh - new template! (new to me, that is)
Tvoz / talk 01:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Progress?
Is there any progress regarding what we discussed last week in our email correspondence? Cunard (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

may have missed one...
was tagging a bunch of accounts as sally forth. Syrthiss (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)