User talk:Alison/Archive 35

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Míle maith agat, a chara. An rud céanna dhuitse agus do chlainne :) - Alison ^❤ 04:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two accounts there ("WossOccuring" and "WossOccurring"). –MuZemike 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep -   Done - Alison ^❤ 00:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While were are talking about that, do you want to close this as speedy keep? It was started by Woss, but everyone seems to want this kept other than Woss. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I asked Fences. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have found your user-page because you are an administrator who grants rollback privileges. I am performing academic research and I am particularly focused on usage of the rollback feature. I have imported en-wiki dumps into MySQL for analysis, and flag RBs by parsing revision comments for the "automatic comment" left by RB edits.

My question: In February 2009 and the months preceding it, about 200k RBs were being performed a month. Beyond that, usage of the RB feature seems to decline sharply; in September 2009 I show only 1k RBs. Can you help me understand this? Did the automatic revision string change? Did the use of anti-vandalism bots (with their slightly altered RB strings (which I don't try to parse)) become so prevalent that no one does it 'manually' any more?

My current research has found no reason for this 200x change, and I hope you can help. Of course, your help will aid my research -- which in turn will help the Wikipedia community in combating vandalism. West.andrew.g (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could run a quick checkuser to determine whether the blocked user ModTheRod and Drsjpdc are related. We just did a SPI for Drsjpdc, and you discovered one puppet, but the last posting here makes me wonder if there is a link. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't because it's   Stale - Alison ^❤ 04:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just tag it with the suspected sockpuppet template instead. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

With your evil cuteness. But I see past your false image! Evil!--Misortie (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 04:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I love you! <3 --Ventimocha (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And you are made of win and awesome!!! <3 - Alison ^❤ 04:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Did you get my email? Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Yes, I did. Hold on - I'll reply - Alison ^❤ 06:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For the removal. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! - Alison ^❤ 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:ANI#Users_Collectonian.2C_and_SchmuckyTheCat... My gut feeling is that a liberal use of checkuser and/or open proxy detection may be needed—see my comment in that thread for my rationale. Pcap ping 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Liberal use of checkuser" isn't necessarily a good thing, mind. Can you please file a case at WP:SPI so we can have more eyes check it over? Thanks - Alison ^❤ 22:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I redirected the case to the sockmaster, but Lar saw it before the job was complete and undid my edit. As a result, the case continues at Stetsonharry and Copyedeye was duplicative - it was deleted by NuclearWarfare, so its currently (as of this moment, give it 10 seconds and who knows!) a redlink. That's why I delisted it (Stetsonharry is still in the CU section). Nathan ^T 22:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay - thanks :) Just note, though, that the Copyedeye case is still ongoing ... Thanks :) - Alison ^❤ 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you Irish but just living in the USA or American of Irish decent??? (Irish-American???) Also, why do so many people hate you!?--Misortie (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm Irish-born, now living in American. And they hatin', because they see me rollin' ;) - Alison ^❤ 06:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But Alison is too fly to be caught ridin dirty. ÷seresin 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Zackly, and because I'm young and I'm beautiful - Alison ^❤ 06:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now livin in American? Tsk Tsk Tsk.. Allie's been in the usquebaugh again! [1] *grin, duck, run!* SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I could read that soooo many different ways ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 06:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Shoots Alison. --Caesar Augusta (Hail Caesar!) (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As you were the checkuser in an earlier related report, the above discussion may be of relevance to you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry,   Declined as it's pointless from a technical perspective due to the TTL of each IP address - Alison ^❤ 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The same IP range is nevertheless still attacking User:Dream Focus with such edits as adding "fuckwit" to his user page, whoever is behind these IPs is not letting up. Please see the edit warring at this userpage with the IPs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it's a massive range - there's nothing I can do here. Possibly can you collect up every IP someplace and I can see if the IP block can be reduced any? You're free to ask any other checkuser, of course, but there's really not much that can be done here. I have protected Dream Focus' userpage, though - Alison ^❤ 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of my concern is knowing whether or not the IPs are indeed socks of Dalejenkins, i.e. so that in the future should any unblock requests, arbitration, etc. come about we are able to adequately indicate the full extent of what happened at this point in time, or if the person behind the IPs is not Dale, but someone else, then it is perhaps equally important that someone not be tarnished incorrectly. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you look into User talk:Jpat34721. Scibaby doesn't often complain like this, he just abandons the sock and moves on. Could you look into this a bit further and see what's what? Thanks! --Jayron32 02:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron. It's sorted now :) - Alison ^❤ 08:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Think you could take a look at User_talk:Watchover? Is there any other explanation for the confirmed results, or was it a slam dunk? Nathan ^T 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Given the results of your checkuser, could I ask you to please consider my comments here and if appropriate relook at this? Thanks. If I have to (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a response to my post above. Thanks. If I have to (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If possible, I want a copy of 2004 US election in progress with its full history under my user space. I want to read the history of the page during the election day, then I will request the page to be deleted again. If restoring the history is not possible, there is no need to restore a single revision for me. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. That page only ever contained a redirect, which was deleted. You can find the actual content at U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline - Alison ^❤ 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I need you to restore the above page that you have deleted just now. I am not the creator of the article and I don't know if the article contains copyvio material before you deleted it. I just don't think that it is appropriate for you to delete an article before bringing it to AfD. Plus you have never provide notification on the talk page that it was going to be deleted, and I didn't get a chance to protest or to fix it. Hunny Madu is a famous figure in Malaysia and I can prove you that she passes WP:N. Please restore the article and delete the part which you think violates Wikipedia rugulations or copyrighted. Thanks in advance.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 12:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't wish to restore the page, per Wikipedia:Copyright violations as it was, IMO, non-salvageable and I did check page history first. However, I'll gladly mail you a copy of the text, plus the edit history if you like so you can check it and/or rewrite if needs be - Alison ^❤ 20:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to have those sent to my email ASAP. Thanks. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What the... The AFD deleted the article, not a redirect to an article that is relevant to the subject and that has a mention of the website... Is it possible that you restore it and send to RfD, or do I need to go to DRV? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not seeing any valid reason to restore it at this time, given this clearly went thru AfD already and there certainly was no consensus nor any agreement to create a redirect (unlike Google Watch). By all means, bring it to DRV as you see fit, but I'll be unable to comment until later. On my iPhone here ... - Alison ^❤ 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There you have Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_9#Wikipedia_Watch. Enric Naval (talk)

YOU THERE? I need you to block a POV pushing troll! I thought I would give you the honour. But it’s still early…--大輔 泉 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aww, my fun is over. I didn't want to get into trouble, I mean what would you think of me!!! A TROLL? Never!--大輔 泉 (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alison, please could I request your help for a moment, there is a certain editor User:Dbachmann being very uncivil toward me and harrassing me. I'm very concerned with his behaviour toward me, as you can see on my talk page and his, and the article History of Iraq. I noticed you are an eguor admin and appeal to you in confidence. Izzedine 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So your comment here, that there's not much to know, means that there is no failed RFA under a previous account? Because I can't see how one could honestly make the claim that there's no information on whether or not someone is qualified to be an admin if the actions of the previous account caused them to fail an RFA. "Never failed an RFA on my previous account" tells us next to nothing about the past account, so I can't see why we can't have an answer on that. --JayHenry (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's a damned if you do/don't scenario, really. I can't answer that either way without narrowing down the candidate's past account. What I have done, though, is let a Bureaucrat know the previous name, so at least they will weigh that up once the RfA ends. But, in fairness, it's beyond my remit to comment - I hope you understand - Alison ^❤ 03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If the account never failed an RFA it's one of millions and there haven't been any lies of omission. There's no damned at all in that situation. --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, since Alison, a respected and trusted administrator, has confirmed that Flo abandoned the old account for legitimate security reasons, isn't it only reasonable to respect the candidate's wishes and not seek further information? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't know Alison very well and I don't appreciate the attitude that she's "respected and trusted" so therefore don't ask any more questions little wee Jay Henry. --JayHenry (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Jay, Alison's hands are kind of tied here, and I've had to put her (and my nominators, and you too I suppose) in an awkward position. I asked her not to provide any more information than she has, and she's respecting my privacy by doing so. If you don't know Alison very well, and can't automatically trust her word without question, I 100% understand that. I asked Alison to be the one to review because she is widely trusted, but I never thought she was universally trusted, and I expected opposes based on this. If this lack of info causes you to oppose, that's cool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
        • What attitude? I was trying to be as pleasant as possible and offer my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, a lot of my concern is this entire mentality that due to alleged "legitimate security reasons" that are known about by apparently three people, we're not allowed to seek further information. My question could easily be answered without compromising security. In the scenario that Floquenbeam failed a previous RFA, then at best his "legitimate security reasons" are also politically convenient in they hide the behavior that caused the failure of the previous RFA and also throw up a shield where respected and trusted administrators know the story, at Flo's behest they can share select parts of the story, and asking further than this is a security violation. That one of his nominators has a history of sockpuppetry is not confidence inspiring.
          • Or, think about it like this. Some people don't like me, say, because of my willingness to mention Majorly's old sockpuppet Aillema that went through an editor review back when that was a common step toward adminship. What would stop me, if I decided that I wanted to be a respected and trusted administrator from saying "I'm tired of people knowing I'm Jay Henry - it's a security thing. I wish I had signed up as HippoGuy from the beginning." So I get a new account, lay low, run for adminship, tell a respected and trusted person to disclose only the positive aspects of my account (he wrote FAs! He has no blocks! Both true!) and omit the negatives ("my hands are tied" about whether he failed an RFA, whether he clashed frequently with editors x, y, z, etc) and when anyone questions, "what's the deal?" I just say, "oh, legitimate security reason, stop violating my privacy" to cudgel them into silence. Were it hypothetical. It's actually an old script here on Wikipedia. Seems we're trying for a remake. --JayHenry (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
            • I think that you should stop assuming the worst with no justification to. And BTW, I wouldn't care less if you got adminship under a new account. I don't hold grudges, unlike you it seems (clearly you hold one against myself, for whatever reason). I understand it's all political for you, but it shouldn't be. It's about whether the encyclopedia would be better off. Majorly talk 14:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
              • I'm not playing politics. My concern is also with the project. It's just, look, you ran a sockpuppet through editor review. Pedro has the whole incident with his "brother in law" Missing Ace (which I was just reminded of since this sort of thing happened at WP:RFA/Panyd). Alison, who I don't really know, but seems to do good work, agreed to the ground rules of "you are authorized to disclose only the positive things about my past account". And then anyone who expresses concern about this process is being "political" or "stirring the pot". I hadn't even opposed, just asked a question. Come on, imagine you're not on the inside of this -- this process is rotten. --JayHenry (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Indeed I did, over two years ago. Maybe consider why I'd do such a thing, or why anyone would choose to sock.I think you are making assumptions that you don't know about: where were these ground rules about what Alison published? Do you know if the candidate had a bad reputation, or if they did terrible things? Of course you don't, but why assume they did? I think Alison would have mentioned it if the candidate was a bad egg, and certainly wouldn't have given her endorsement. I don't believe you when you say it isn't political - you seem quite desperate to know the previous account, and are assuming it was a bad editor unless proven otherwise. And it is a legitimate privacy concern, unlike in your analogy, where you seem to be taking the piss out of it. Majorly talk 21:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • I'm referring to this thread where Alison first says a number of positive things and then says it's not her "remit" to say what can and cannot be revealed. Therefore she agreed to the ground rules of only providing positive information. I don't care who this editor was. At all. I'm not trying to sleuth it out -- since when have I been big on the cloak and dagger bullshit? In three years I've never sleuthed anything and am not about to start. My frustration is that this process is rotten and it appears a great deal of people are being lied to and borderline bullied. If Alison's statement "editing was uncontroversial" is true, then surely he never failed an RFA. Odd, then, that we can't get an answer to that. --JayHenry (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is being lied to, but some facts are being omitted from public record for the candidate's privacy. I know you may not be a stalker, but even giving hints about whether the candidate had an RFA can help lead those who are. If I was the candidate, I'd probably mention if I had run at RFA or not, and there we agree. But they have chosen not to, and made this clear. What they don't need is people pressing for an answer, which I consider borderline bullying. Alison's statement is certainly true, and you're free to interpret it in your own way. Most other voters have done without a complaint. You are free to voice your opinion about the candidate however you like (as long as it abides by policies) and I encourage you to do so. Coming here asking questions, while good-intentioned, is not going to get you far because the candidate just isn't comfortable with it. Majorly talk 00:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not realise you were active here again but noticed that you blocked User talk:Dubhtail. Od Mishehu declined a block removal and I left a note on his his talk page because I see he is evading the block by using at least 2 anonIP accounts, but he has not been online since. This diff to my talkpage clearly shows it to be him modifying his signature. This diff shows him replacing the same anonIP address signature with his own username after the block was imposed. Now he has also used another anonIP per this diff and this diff to my talk page. Whatever you can do to help is appreciated. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  déanta - sorry about the delay - I'd another crisis or two to deal with. We blocked some socks earlier today and locked down some open proxies he was using, so should be okay. Let me know when the next wave of pointless socks hits - Alison ^❤ 05:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you're one of the few that I know with the Checkuser tools, you are naturally who I am going to reach out to. I was wondering if there is a timetable on closing this. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to e-mail you some stuff as you are neutral and I really don't know who to trust on the SPI anymore. Hopefully you can sort this out since you know a lot more than I do about Wikimedia stuff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted Fences, but feel free to chime in if you would like to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it went to ANI and that a community ban was imposed? - Alison ^❤ 05:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have questions for you. Caspian blue 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked Dubhtail (talk · contribs) on 11 Jan as a sock of Garydubh (talk · contribs). Today Ww2censor (talk · contribs) drew my attention to GarDubh (talk · contribs), who I have blocked per WP:DUCK as another sock, and to IPs 213.94.234.52 (talk · contribs) and 62.40.32.14 (talk · contribs), both of whom have been signing their posts "Dubhtail", see [2] and [3]. This is a new area for me and I would like advice:

• There does not appear to have been an SPI case raised for Garydubh, I guess because his socks are so obvious; now that IPs are coming into the scene, is there any point raising one?
• WP:SPI/AI says, for IPs, "In the following situations, a block should not be necessary... The autoblock placed on the sockmaster is going to take care of the IP." How can one tell whether an IP has been autoblocked?
• I blocked 213.94.234.52 for 24 hours - it has done nothing since Feb 08 except obvious Garydubh stuff like Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses; I left 62.40.32.14 for the moment as it hasn't edited today and has edited on other subjects recently (though not very constructively). Was that right? How should one decide about blocking IPs used as socks?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Another one today at Philatthelee (talk · contribs). I don't think we're really inconveniencing this guy much - he just sets up a new account each time and goes on signing his posts "Dubhtail". JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

John, I'll take a look in a min, but I'm not sure what Checkuser can do here. He's so blatant right now that you should just block per WP:DUCK at this stage - Alison ^❤ 05:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - couple of open proxies used to evade the soft rangeblock. Blocked and tagged now - Alison ^❤ 05:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Should all the new socks, including anonIPs, be added to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Garydubh? I'll report any more I see here if you tell me you are around, otherwise I will notify User:JohnCD. I'm watching this page again for a while. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is another category, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Garydubh - it depends what tag is put on - and I think they are all in one or the other. Both are linked from User:Garydubh. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It should have occurred to me to delete the userpage and seek oversight at the same time I blocked her--my bad. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'sokay :) You did okay - Alison ^❤ 05:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to talk to User:Fred Bauder about that.©Geni 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, Geni, but we've had a bunch of complaints via OTRS. Let's not take chances on that, and bear in mind that WP:BLP also applies outside mainspace - Alison ^❤ 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting yourself on the line for this one. You did the right thing. hydnjo (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm ... what did I do? - Alison ^❤ 05:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been added as an external link to the end of Semenya's article. It is certainly an interesting read, but I don't know enough about the subject to say if it is appropriate here. What think you? Bielle (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Umm - have to recuse here, for numerous reasons. Over to you - here's a link to her biog page - Alison ^❤ 06:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

it's true . . . I am a  . Don't OUT me! ^Bongo_matic 07:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thought as much!! :) - Alison ^❤ 07:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sending you warm wishes, back after a long pause myself. Let's catch up, but in the meantime, I have created a new BLP, for record producer Barb Morrison. Would you mind taking a look? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: My faith in the holy word of Alison had better be justified — or there'll be hell to pay. LoL Cheers. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow!! That's a lot to live up to :o - Alison ^❤ 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely someone with such obvious heart (^❤) shall not falter. ;-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been more than a week now but I've never received any copy of Hunny Madu page text, plus the edit history from you. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 01:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been kinda busy :/ Hold on - I'll mail it here now - Alison ^❤ 01:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok,   Done. If you can make something of the article & try to get sources, etc, we can possibly restore history on it. I notice that you've an unsourced stub there at the moment - Alison ^❤ 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 09:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you undid my reversion of Press's BLP violation and personal attack. Note that BLP covers all living persons, including Wikipedia editors. I didn't write "BLP vio" in my edit summary because I hit the rollback button by mistake. There I was with no edit summary window. That happens occasionally when I edit too quickly. I need to change the screen size settings so things aren't so small! Then again, I wouldn't be able to press so much information on it if things were bigger. I often have up to 20+ windows open at a time. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there.Thanks for the note. To be honest, I'm not seeing a BLP issue there, as no real names or publicly identifiable people are mentioned there. Yes, it's strongly worded, and it's clear that he's annoyed, however, a warning may have been more appropriate, IMO. Rollback is really only for blatant vandalism really, and blatant personal attacks or BLP violations, and in cases like this, it can appear as that 'final slap in the face' to a banned editor. Banned editors, bad an' all as some of them are, should still be treated with respect and a certain kindness, IMO - Alison ^❤ 03:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In a certain sense I agree that kindness is appropriate, but respect must be earned. This guy is violating policy and doing what he's been banned for doing, and that's now being allowed? We usually clear the talk pages of banned users when the talk page contains policy-violating rants. Only requests to be unbanned are tolerated, and only for no more than three attempts, after which the talk page is protected.

There is one interesting piece of information which he relates there, which he didn't relate when it would have helped him, and which thus reduces its credibility. (It is similar to the balloon man's "explanations" which he's come up with after getting arrested, but which would have prevented him from being arrested in the first place. No credibility to such stories at all.) That is the explanation of how he and an editor 3,000 miles away could share the same IP address, self-admit that he technically might have been guilty of socking, and yet not have "intended" to violate policy. He could have explained that at the outset when it might have helped him.

Well, as to the rant, since he's told these lies before, I guess I can tolerate it a short while longer, but not more than a few hours. Please delete it then. Editors in good standing deserve more respect than editors who have earned a community ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have fixed this matter. Much appreciated. Respect! -- Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving it up there as long as I did. Point is, he can't come back and claim censorship or that he wasn't allowed speak, much as we may disagree with his words and tone. And in truth, it clearly didn't cast him in a favourable light - Alison ^❤ 07:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alison :) I've posted a new proposal here. Your comments would be invaluable. Do drop by there and suggest changes. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, good evening, wanted to consult it if I upload a couple pics my to my user page. (I was watching your user page and you are very beautiful). I say this with great respect. Ccrazymann (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

lol, well, thanks. That's very kind :) As for images, it's kinda not a great idea to upload pics of yourself, especially as you're still a minor. They have a habit of propagating farther and wider than you could have imagined & people can use them for nefarious purposes. Mine are well and truly 'out' years ago, but if given the choice, I'd have been more circumspect. Probably best off not uploading identifying pics, IMO - Alison ^❤ 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this, this very interesting, I just finished reading jee:). I have reviewed your the history and is very successful contributions. I hope one day can be a great editor like you. Regards. Ccrazymann (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's because I laid off the coffee for too long that I'm irritated. The music playing in the background over here isn't helping either. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mhm - know that feeling well, too :) Prolly best to step back from the internets for a break, then have at it again. That editor is just a newb kid trying to find his feet - Alison ^❤ 07:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't want to start anything (because your obviously a great editor and know what your doing), but can you maybe delete the word 'Christ' in "Christ, Jéské, would you ever..."? Its sort of unsettling for me. Sorry if I'm make something big out of it... =]C.Kent87 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ufff - sure :/ - Alison ^❤ 07:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, push your religious views on others much, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't actually. Trust me - you'd likely not approve - Alison ^❤ 07:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't referring to your response or original comment, didn't mean to start this mess, apologies. Will go now. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, your a very respectable person for that. I don't want to push anything on you either, just felt odd reading it...C.Kent87 (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, C.Kent87 more freedom of expression. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

← Ok, thanks guys. I think we're done here now, yes? - Alison ^❤ 07:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alison~! Can you please take a look at this image file (File:Shaming Pillar.jpg) over at commons, seems to me like a copyvio taken off a website or something. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vetting, the followup explanations/discussions, and for putting up with the accusations of shennanigans (which I never expected). Sorry to put you through that. You have my deepest appreciation. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

... if his say wasn't always screaming that someone libeled him.[4] I think when someone accuses you of libel on wikipedia, you might want to remove it, particularly when it's someone who's also screaming about lawsuits doing the accusing. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See here. Nice to hear from you again! NawlinWiki (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, NW. Guess now you know who that was! - Alison ^❤ 04:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alison. I just looked at the essay and am wondering about something that isn't mentioned there, possibly because it's a slightly different topic. What about the mentioning of the ages and names of children (under 18) of the subjects of articles? I often see them listed when it's totally unnecessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, I kinda agree with what you're saying there. And most of the time, it's seems like unnecessary trivia. If they're totally unsourced and in a BLP (as they generally are), then I guess they can be removed - Alison ^❤ 07:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I do remove them occasionally and I've noted that others do the same. If the children aren't notable, then it only brings them attention, often unwanted, because of their parents' mistakes. That's awful. It's bad enough that they may suffer in real life because of such things, but Wikipedia shouldn't be adding to it. There should be a policy regarding this matter. Children do need to be protected. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that widely noted, if non-notable, children shouldn't be mentioned. Certainly readers are keenly interested in the personal lives of politicians and entertainment celebrities, and such are often covered frequently in secondary sources even if not up to N. If the information is widely reported—even if not in significant detail, I think omitting it here does readers a disservice. ^Bongo_matic 15:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I totally agree with Bongomatic above. --Cyclopia^talk 15:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to some degree that for celebrities it is often a different matter. They often bring their children into the spotlight. My main concern is for ordinary people who somehow are notable enough for an article but who don't have celebrity status. Their families aren't celebrities, unlike the families of many actors, singers, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just added above that I am mostly concerned about young children, IOW under 18. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Should a non-admin attempt to volunteer for OTRS?

(Unrelated aside: I created an account re open source software today, due to your example.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Stepping into Alison's page, OTRS really has nothing to do with adminship, it is all about customer service. Where admining involves maintaining the encyclopedia, OTRS involves dealing with non-editors seeking customer service in dealing with Wikipedia. There are OTRS people accepted who are admins and non-admins accepted to OTRS, there are people who have been desysopped on OTRS and people who pass RFA after having worked on OTRS. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, MBisanz. I had the impression (from reading something) that they wanted people with admin experience (perhaps so they could handle some classes of problems better), but perhaps I was reading about the Stewards election. LoL ... So, I'll assume it would not be utterly presumptuous to simply try to volunteer for OTRS, and if they don't siteban me for asking, perhaps they'll let me. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 05:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Here's the requirement I thought I read:

So, I didn't make that up. However much it may be not a firm requirement. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 08:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I know it's belated, but I think if we're still in January you can get away with saying Happy New Year late. I'm trying to fix some of those bare reference links on the Brown article, but I'm going offwiki now. Re Brown: "El es muy caliente", if you know what I mean. Slan. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is a policy page and that discussion was added to CENT less than an hour ago. Perhaps policy pages should have demonstratable consensus before bold changes are re-inserted? If you are unaware the discussion apparently started at ANI where those pile-on supports were added. With more community input perhaps a more thorough discussion will result in better decisions. -- Banjeboi 09:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I support Alison's changes and my support is echoed on ANI and the Prod talk page. Given the immense and overwhelming support for this change, how long do you think we should wait, Benjiboi? JBsupreme (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More than a few hours at least. How many hours/days do we apply for policy changes? -- Banjeboi 10:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alison, my apologies that I never actually reverted the content on Blossom_(TV_series), and thanks for taking care of it. I had honed-in too much on the edit filter itself and saw the IP user reverted it, and didn't bother to continue on and see that it was un-reverted. Thanks for addressing the issue. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 10:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay :) No need to apologize. It got reverted awfully quickly thanks to your oversight report! - Alison ^❤ 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice you blocked him indefinitely for socking. How do I find the record of the Sockpuppet investigation? I'm surprised he was socking, 99% of his edits were simple vandal fighting, I'm not seeing a lot of participation in editing disputes or the like. I can't find any records of the investigation on the January or December history of WP:SPI/C. I'm just trying to figure out what happened. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There is no SPI case associated with this account. It was caught during the investigation of another incident, and multiple checkusers were involved and endorsed the findings. Note that not all sockpuppet investigations are done on-wiki, especially when privacy-related information is involved - Alison ^❤ 21:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That explains it. I don't know the sock policies and procedures very well. I was mostly checking to make sure there wasn't a mistake. Granted, he hadn't edited in the past month and a half at the time you blocked him, and if he comes back and has a problem with it, he could always request review of his edits for "sock-y" behavior. I just figured it was worth checking, since the account was a sort of "WP:NOTDUCK" for a sock (no sock typical behavior, at least that I noticed on reviewing his contribs). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Love your edit to the above-captioned. To tell the truth, I almost never look at categories at the bottom of wikipages unless I am editing them (the cats, that is), so, until you deleted it, I hadn’t noticed that it had been categorized with Category:Wikipedia drama. Too bad the category doesn’t exist, ’cause I’ve never seen anything that would fit it better than this. :) — SpikeToronto 07:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

heh - sounds like something we should create. Maybe sub-categories of Category:Pointless Wikipedia drama and Category:WikiLulz? - Alison ^❤ 07:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Allie. Can the above article (Patricia Feerick) be restored, as my status has changed since 2007, as we are both aware. I would normally recreate from scratch, but it was pretty difficult and intricate in the first place if I recall correctly. (New York Police Department-related, not The Troubles.) Would that be OK? Review it first if you want. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Here you go :) I've added a reliable reference for the criminal act and conviction, else I would not have restored. Have at it! :) - Alison ^❤ 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The article had no references?? In that case I apologize, and you would have been right to put it back in my userspace for me to get citations. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Check it out now. I think it's pretty good. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You Havn't been on latley...I miss you!--大輔 泉 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Day-job is killing me here :) - Alison ^❤ 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Alison.

I've emailed you a couple of times about this one, but since my first e-mail bounced (but not until a couple of days after I sent it), I'm not sure that's a good method for communicating with you. :) You obviously know something more about the background here than I do. Is an extension of protection, as is being requested, appropriate? Alternatively I can reassure that we will take additional steps as needed if problems persist after it expires. It's an odd one! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiyya. I only got the one email from you - the late yesterday one. You'd been mailing Alison Wheeler :) Either way, we've averted the crisis & I suppressed the offending edits. Assign the ticket to me, plz, as I'm actively working this one. The corporation involved had a PR person call me & we worked out what was going on and how to deal with it. Check the ticket later & I'll have added some explanation .... Thank! :) - Alison ^❤ 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Guess it's a good thing my letter bounced! :D I'll happily hand it off to you. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alie, Possible to get rollback rights? thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done - have fun, but use it for blatant vandalism reversion only and never in a dispute or in reversion of good faith edits! - Alison ^❤ 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

January 22, 2010

Since a week ago, I have not been able to access Wikipedia and cannot log in anymore because it no longer accepts my password either. I am not a member of Church of Scientology and therefore should not be deleted or prevented from accessing Wikipedia (according to recent news I read).

Can anyone contact a user to somehow get me back in? I really don't know why I was bumped.

My e-mail address is AT4023@aol.com, but the sender address must be wikipedia.com in order for me to receive it.

Thank you very much.

MY USER NAME IS: jmtremg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmtremg (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That Texas Instrument vandal was disturbing. It's sad people say things like that. Seriously, those people he was threatening, I feel bad for. Why do people do that? It's just sad and pitiful that this great site is plaqued by people like that. Don't you agree? Tech43 (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well I've seen waaaay worse than that. You get inured to it all. It's only /b/tards & they're just following the directions pasted - I'm on there myself betimes. The real perp, of course, is this guy :/ - Alison ^❤ 05:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that's[5] a left handed compliment or, um, vice versa, but I imagine we agree on 99.44% of policy. Mostly soap, and just an eeny-teeny bit of rat droppings. :-)

Since you are a fellow old soul around here, I'll spare you my stemwinder about exactly why policy should reflect practice, what the role of policy is in the project in light of WP:IAR versus WP:5P, etc. Although I wouldn't mind doing a dry run of it at some point before trying to explain it all to the folks at WT:DP, if that's still necessary, as I forget the way the discussion always runs. Does it jump right into liberty versus security, i.e. but what about the vandals, etc.? I can't recall, but if I work back through it for once, then it should be an essay; heck, it probably is an essay, but you can't find anything down there since four years on now. (It was a PITA when there were, maybe, 100+ essays, but there are 1,200+ now!) But then again, there's a tendency in any society that no one bothers to document the zeitgeist; certain understandings are just considered common sense until you wake up one day and suddenly they aren't.

(Oh and, if you happen to notice, please remind me, the next time I am blocked for a month or so, to request hard labor instead, as sorting out all those essays has been something I've wanted to get to for, like, forever. If I had the mop I'd have a whole chain gang out there breaking rocks 24/7, unless, as is known to happen, the relevant policy which permitted doling out penance changed when I wasn't looking....) -- Kendrick7^talk 19:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I meant it as a genuine compliment; were it not, I'd have stated it pretty clearly. No, I think we're in accordance on the whole 'policy-needs-to-be-dynamic' thing :) Just surprises me, as we're at opposite poles on BLP and AfD :) It's a good thing! ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 07:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then: thanks. As for our disagreements, such as they are, I suppose it is like Meister Eckhart said -- sometimes the devils are really angels. And while that sentiment, perhaps, cuts us both ways, we can worry about which one of us is the heretic somewhere down the road. ;-) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alison, I don't understand this edit you made to my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amatulic&diff=prev&oldid=339162636 -- something about how I can't see the edit because it's been deleted. Near as I can tell, I replied to a comment without logging in, and for some reason that set off an alarm? What's going on? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the confusion but someone reported to Oversight that you'd edited while logged out & they were concerned that your IP address revealed far to much personal/locating information on yourself. We decided to suppress the information for your privacy - Alison ^❤ 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, okay. I wonder who reported that. I don't particularly care if someone sees my IP address but I guess it was nice of someone to report it. In the past I have edited without logging in, but this is the first time a "correction" occurred without my involvement. Today I seem to have gotten logged-off in mid-edit so my signature appeared as an IP address. but I corrected that myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh - I did that one, too, just now :) But if it doesn't bother you, that's fine too - suppression is allowed within policy for logged-out IP reveals. MediaWiki had some issue recently after SUL was enabled, where people would get randomly booted off. Dunno if this was ever fixed, though ... - Alison ^❤ 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL - Jarlaxle's Personal Army failed hard ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 03:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lawl.--大輔 泉 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like this isn't going to get resolved without either an ANI thread or an RfC. Unfortunately, Benji has had related problems in the past including being very sloppy with source citations. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm not impressed. Last time there were issues, he claimed 'personal attacks' while blanking the comments. This time, he doesn't even try an excuse until a few reverts later where he claims the matter had been resolved. Clearly, it hasn't and he's showed both a lack of understanding of the gravity of the problem and a strong disregard for the concerns of others - Alison ^❤ 03:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that he hadn't read the the TV.com site from which the material was drawn (or another site from which both he and whoever wrote the TV.com entry got it). Viridae^Talk 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

SCrap that. Wasn't aware he wasn't the person who originally added the material. Viridae^Talk 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  Hello Alison! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 154 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Douglas Ousterhout - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the correct reply here is "ROFLCOPTER"!!! Terrible, Alison, just terrible! GTD 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[6] If the addersses are blocked, why can users still edit from them? — goethean ॐ 17:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Goethean. Here are the blocked ranges associated with that group of IPs. As stated, most of them are from these ranges. Probably a good idea to check these ranges, too, to ensure they're blocked properly

• 76.238.16.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 76.202.192.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 75.5.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

- Alison ^❤ 18:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it. These kids need to L2troll.--大輔 泉 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rank amateurs ^_^ It's always the n00bs on /b/ that follow through on the instructions - all the regulars either know me or are already bored beyond words with Jarlie's 'Personal Army' shenanigans. Boring troll is boring - Alison ^❤ 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Alison, my userpage was semi-protected too & I enjoyed every minute of it. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you could take a peek at this. If you could find a few moments, could you respond to my comments? Happy to correspond there, here, at my usertalk or by email. Thanks very much. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at the blocking admin's page reveals he's not averse to an unblock. Do you have an opinion? --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm starting to get tired of the whac-a-mole; in fact, I've got an AF up specifically for this Kentucky-Fried Sockpuppeteer. I just wanted to make sure he didn't have anything further presently on tap. And with that, I'm off to bed. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He's got a Crackberry™ and just roams around creating accounts, it seems :/ - Alison ^❤ 10:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I doubt his puppetry will help him now. :P —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 06:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JI Hawkins... Would I be justified in taking this to WP:AN for a community ban request? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. I've updated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garydubh. Thanks for your tireless work. — Richardguk (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read his comments? lol - what a sexist ^_^ Guess I must have hit a nerve or something - Alison ^❤ 10:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some misanthropy among that misogyny, if that's any consolation. Anyway, at least I've stopped trying to teach you [Gaeilge] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help).   — Richardguk (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be fair to assume that all the accounts in your logs blocked between 1:55AM EST and 2:08AM EST are the other socks you mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/X4n6? Just for my listing and tagging purposes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. See also: User talk:South Bay‎ - Alison ^❤ 00:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure whose. HalfShadow 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there ya go. His profanity certainly didn't work in his favour, given I blocked his other accounts and his rather familiar IP range - Alison ^❤ 05:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you've blocked that character as a sock of John254 or some such. One oddity I noticed when looking at 1015's contribs was the quick posting of newly-created users over to AIV - almost like he was running tests of some kind, like maybe creating them and then nominating them for block soon after. He also showed a peculiar interest in both Axmann8 (who was socking not too long ago) and South Bay or something like that, who was just blocked today. I just wonder if there's any connection among any of these guys, or if (1) it's stale; or (2) it doesn't matter because they're all indef'd anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll look into this some more, however I don't think there's any direct connection between this account and, say the South Bay account, even though he (incorrectly) tagged the pages. I thought it kinda weird at the time but just undid and moved on. Hmmm - Alison ^❤ 05:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible he was following somebody, to try to create a false trail (which is what the Axmann8 impostor did last summer). Or it's possible he's just a weirdo. It doesn't pay to dwell on these characters too much, since they get a thrill out of the illusion that they have some impact somewhere. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's alive. And it claims you and J.Delanoy both are mistaken. I wonder if he's the author of that user "J.Delanoy is a..." from earlier today. (FYI, if I seem especially nannyistic on this one, I'm sensitive to any situation where a user appears to be impostoring me, although in this case it might be coincidental). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of impostor accounts from yesterday, possibly connected with Baseball1015, Axmann8, CENSEI, Pioneercourthouse, or maybe even Ron liebman (I doubt the latter). Or maybe someone wanting to send us on a wild goose chase. If you feel like pursuing it vs. if you want to invoke WP:DENY, that's up to you: De insectos de béisbol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Calcetín (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note that "De insectos de béisbol" is Spanish for "From 'bugs' of baseball" and "Calcetín" is Spanish for "Sock". (FYI, "Bugs" in the case of Bugs Bunny means "crazy", not insects.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - just one or two proxies, is all :/ - Alison ^❤ 06:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not enough of a techie to know exactly what you mean by that - but I'm guessing it means there is no specific underlying IP to block? If so, then it's probably PCH, who is known for IP-hopping, and turns up every so often, like kidney stones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

About two years ago you decided to forgive Ulises Heureaux (talk · contribs) after he admitted to you that he was previously banned as Encyclopedist (talk · contribs). However, I always had a feeling that others in the Wikipedia community would not be as forgiving, and my suspicions were proven true when I just discovered that UH was sockblocked earlier this month. Is there anything you'd like to say about this? TML (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sure. It became abundantly clear, on an entire number of levels, that 99% of the socking and vandalism that was attributed over the years to Encyclopedist was actually done by Johnny The Vandal / The Italian Vandal. JtV admitted as much a number of times. I'm disappointed now, in fact, that his 'Ulises' account has been blocked, given that he had been involved in zero sock abuse since, AFAIK, about mid-2007 or so. Seriously, we now have WP:OFFER for this kind of thing these days, and there has to be forgiveness at some point, y'know? I had been monitoring the account, as had two other admins, since Ulises contacted us, and there was no abuse whatsoever. He was blocked on Jan 1 by Muzemike after making this edit, a month previously. Seriously - do we hold onto these things ad infinitum? Should we?? He's not even been socking in the last number of months, and I checked just now. I totally don't know what's to be achieved by this block given the guy had completely reformed - grown up, if you like - years back. Given I was one of the targets back then, yes - I can forgive. Bring it to ANI or to the greater community, by all means, but this is ancient history here. Where exactly is the problem with this editor? At least afford the guy some dignity - Alison ^❤ 05:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Nobody told me of anything regarding situation that allowed Ulises Heureaux to edit. If somebody would have informed me about such forgiveness, then I would have acted differently. (If I did block, then I may have been inclined to unblock.) I can only dig back so far in my memory and the hundreds upon hundreds of administrators' noticeboard archives as to what has went on with Encyclopedist (in which I have not heard of this person). Contrary to popular belief, I do not have a magic crystal ball, nor do I have ESP. Whatever you folks decide to do, that is fine with me. Regards, –MuZemike 23:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Unblocked. Next time, somebody, anybody PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON so I'm not hung out to dry and looking like a freaking ass like you all have done!!! –MuZemike 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually think it's a bad idea after what he did to Phaedriel. If it was just sock abuse, I wouldn't have an objection to the unblock, but the constant harassment makes me object to it. That said, I'll be willing to give him a chance, to see if he has really reformed. Also, regarding Johnny, there's an email in oversight-l's inbox. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just sent you an e-mail, on a different topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied! - Alison ^❤ 06:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw, and sent another question. Meanwhile, I see you have a colorful signature and this page is in a larger font. So what do you think of my proposed new signature? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I hate it!! Sorry :) Nice font, but the super and subscripting is making me dizzy - Alison ^❤ 07:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I had better not use it. :) Here's an alternate idea, except the powers that be might not like this approach:

←           → 07:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's inventive, I'l grant you that!! :-D - Alison ^❤ 07:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... "Inventive" things that "the powers that be might not like"? ... Sounds good to me. :-) _{(Images, of course are explictly against the rules, which I would never support — since I'm actually never guilty of things like that, despite my reputation LoL ... So I'm talking about the big pretty bunny cursive script, of course)} -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 09:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the script version would fail certain people's criteria of "too long in code format" (trust me, I've felt their wrath). Fortunately the pictorial format is only two lines even in a small edit window. I think it's a keeper.  ;)  7  09:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Airplaneman ^talk 05:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any advice on starting a Wikiproject? I want to re-cat all the innumerable essays into sub-cats, but I need to generate feedback, buy-in, etc. Or at least the pretense thereof. Any advice appreciated. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - it's been ages since I looked into that stuff (I founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Maritime waay back). I'd say start with Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and take it from there. They can be created really fast from pre-cooked templates, so I'd suggest hacking one together in your userspace, then start recruiting interested folks until you get some momentum up to put it live. Sounds interesting and wikignomish - count me in :) - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone appears to have begun reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Essay Categorization and/or Classification which sounds like what you are looking for. And as mentioned you could check with the WikiProject Council if you run into issues. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(a) thanks, Alison, exactly what I was looking for, and my Irish pirate ancestors appreciate your efforts otherwise. (b) Good to hear and nice catch Optigan; I generally don't mind being the hundredth monkey. Since the creation of that project occurred around when I was complaining about there being a mere 600 essays I am going to try and get things done there. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alison, do you know if anyone from oversite got my email? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think you may have been or still are a mentor of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Recently this editor has been making swathes of edits without using edit summaries, often removing tags or making apparently random changes. Notes and warnings left at the talk page are routinely removed for the editor's talk page, but the behaviour, which verges on the disruptive, continues. I would imagine that this editing pattern may lead to further blocking. I wonder if you could have a word. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Silverlife? The checkuser seems to have skipped over the case and only took care of the nominator which is also a sockpuppet. When I clicked on What Links Here, it is listed on a page of closed nominations. Joe Chill (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for unblocking my account! I really appreciate it! I seriously doubt that I will edit here often again since I am a grad student at the moment though! But thanks!Ulises Heureaux (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need one picture of her, much less two? She's not mentioned anywhere in the ED article; the pics are just decoration. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you know who I’m talking about (Look to Elonka’s talk page). There only here to push a POV. And that’s it.--大輔 泉 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And I suppose your behavior towards the same editor when you called him a fuckwit, twat and a cunt all I might add without any restrictions being placed on you shows how neutral you are in this matter, this behavior was atrocious. BigDunc 09:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you I apologised for that. So please don’t bring up the past. Domers attitude towards anyone who disagrees with him is rather abrasive to say the least, how can you not agree with this?. And I still stand by what I said, that anti-English propaganda on his user page is against the spirit of this project and should removed. Using crude cartoons from punch to slander the entire English race by trying to make us feel guilty every time we go there, as if I should feel “Guilty“ about past misdeeds some English had against the Irish (Well I suppose that also makes me a “Victim“ considering my mothers side of the family is half-Irish). And before you question my agenda in regards to Ireland, lets just say I feel the same way about North and South Korea, united. --大輔 泉 (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well don't throw stones then at other editors, you went around 3 editors trolling in a matter that you know nothing about and had nothing to do with. BigDunc 13:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

3 editors? And also, how is offering my support to Elonka trolling? And know nothing about what exactly? --大輔 泉 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: "Opt-out" question posed to Fareed Zakaria (BLP subject) by Proofreader77.
(With same proposal as SmashTheState) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm hearing quacking... could you check User:Macalirua and User:Ephemeri when you get a chance, please, as socks of User:Garydubh? Thanks, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall now (Meaning soon) take a Lulz photo of socks spilling out from a draw in honour of this.--大輔 泉 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)