User talk:Alison/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Marknutley SPI

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley

I have restored my request, leaving out the off-wiki evidence. There is also a response to you. I do not know why TFD asked for check user. It is totally irrelevant to this case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I ask you to restore the page to this version. It contains absolutely nothing that needs blanking. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact I never asked for a checkuser in this case, which I thought was irrelevant. Could you please explain why you believe thst your checkuser can prove that mark nutley did not use an open proxy. Petri Krohn has surely proved that open proxies were used, and only behavior can show whether or not mark nutley is behind them. TFD (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already commented on the SPI case page. Please direct the conversation there - Alison ^❤ 05:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

nutley spi

Hi Alison, I think you have more details than me, but is there an outcome on the horizon for the SPI, Mark got upset and has now been indefinitely blocked after a No legal threat thread at ANI and then from what I can gather he told one user to f off and it is a mess a more and more typical wiki mess.. any news, updates, thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

update - its been closed and deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Rob. Yeah, we've been working this one off-wiki. Thanks for the update - Alison ^❤ 00:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

Replied to your mail :) Sophie ^(Talk) 18:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also

Im just wondering, when you perform a check user, how can you tell if someone is using more then one account, does it like go like this:

• Searched username
  • IP 1
  • IP 2
  • IP 3
  • Username 1

and how do you check them all with a list of big IP's, like this for example?

Thanks :) Sophie ^(Talk) 13:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bhuel bhuel bhuel..

Conas tánn tú? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornálaíocht (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Shout out for volunteers:

I noticed you served here, would you be willing to repeat the performance this year?. I ask because there's a call for help at the election talk page, and because you have the tools we need. Cheers, Sven Manguard _Talk 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure - no problem - Alison ^❤ 01:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:I hate whitespace

I have blocked the user, since I believed that it was a single-purpose account created to mass-remove whitespace formatting from articles. Feel free to change the block if you believe otherwise; I would recommend leaving the user blocked and asking him to return to his original account (or, if Beyond My Ken was wrong about the accusation, to create a new one), though. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ballybeg3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ballybeg3.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ballybeg4.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ballybeg4.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

List of banned users

Why did you remove the record from the banned list? The usual practice is to use the "nowiki" thing rather than totally remove it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• emailed to explain ... - Alison ^❤ 05:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Alison, do you remember that User:Abisharan? He created many sock accounts to wikihound me on wikipedia and now he moved to commons too. Because it is know, where he's working or studying I wonder, if there is a way to contact this place because the socks are becoming more and more abusive. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser block

• 93.97.59.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This user is back and editing in full force. You known more than I do if this user is banned or just was abusing multiple accounts. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorted, thanks, and unblock declined. There was a handful of socks hiding under there, too - check my logs & you'll see 'em - Alison ^❤ 21:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Above and beyond the call of duty

I realise that this may not be your area of expertise, but just in case it is... pablo 22:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Kendall

I've put in a WP:OVERSIGHT request to have that info fully removed. - X201 (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, yes. I've just oversighted it. Can you followup with that anon editor & explain why their comment was removed? (1:15am here!) - Alison ^❤ 09:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. Pleasant dreams. - X201 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Counter-revolutionary

Please see the bottom of his talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 02:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Commented there, Kitty. Feel free to email me off-wiki if you've stuff to add. I'm largely not around these days ... - Alison ^❤ 07:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being fair as usual. What info can he now provide to climb off his hook? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, two things. I think he's doing the right thing by going to ArbCom about this. I just want to weigh in and say that I"m not opposed to unblocking, and I'm saying that as one of the checkusers involved (I think Thatcher is retired now). Secondly, I really wish he'd come clean about the Lauder stuff - the checkusers know exactly what he was at - and just move on from it. It's still hanging over his head. At the very least, being 100% honest with ArbCom over the Lauder Christmas Affair would work in his favour as it's likely that if he doesn't, ArbCom will know he's withholding. You know, I know and they know, Kitty ... right? Privacy policy forbids me from elaborating further. C-R was always one of the more even-tempered and reasonable Unionist editors on the project & I think having someone like him back editing would be an asset. I know I'll catch hell from certain quarters for saying that, but I firmly believe it. He's never been anything but polite and reasonable when dealing with me - even when blocked. So - in short - he has my support. Over two years is more than enough, IMO, and the Corseillis comments were so out-of-character that they can easily be construed as a Joe job, as they say - Alison ^❤ 10:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If CR is unblocked, I only hope your confidence in him/her won't be dissapointed. GoodDay (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope so too, GoodDay, and I'm sticking my neck out a bit here. He knows he's being watched, though, and is unlikely to make the Lauder mistake ever again. If there are any shenanigans, rest assured that I'll swiftly re-apply blocks as necessary. I know you're not too happy with this right now, but I am trying to be fair throughout & have tried to be faIr to all sides in this interminable battle on here - Alison ^❤ 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll give him room to proove himself, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reactions in the user creation log

Please note that currently, in the user creation log, when a person creates his/her own account, the "Action and target" is just "new user account". Since there's nothing offensive or degrading ther, there's no reason to delete such content. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oh okay - thanks! I'd not noticed that I'd done that, there. I;m more used to running suppressions. Thanks again - Alison ^❤ 10:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

ma-diff,-she-dunn-gone-away ;)

Hay (is for horses;)... my diff went away, too... I saw all... and nothing was surprising. and I get it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. Just had to leave a note so folks know there were no shenanigans. Well, no more than usual :D - Alison ^❤ 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Saw it; I'll stipulate that I saw nothing untoward, just two edits while logged-out. Someone needs to make the login process always do both en.wikipedia.org and secure.wikimedia.org to avoid such things (not you, teh udder one;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Per edit on User talk:Nascar1996

I understand why you changed it, actually I added the explanation on one of the edit summaries. Thanks for removing it. (I like to see people following the guidlines, even though when I first became an editor, I made several mistakes. Also its nice to meet you. (I also replied on my talk page) Nascar1996 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, Alison. This is about your unblock of Counter-revolutionary. Please see my post on Ani, currently at the bottom of the page. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC).