Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:22, 9 January 2008

Archives

2004

Entire year

2005

Jan • Jun

Jul • Dec

2006

Jan • Jun

Jul • Dec

2007

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2008

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2009

Jan • Jun

Jul • Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2010

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2011

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2012

Entire year

2013

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2014

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep • Dec

2015

Entire year

2016

Entire year

2017

Entire year

2018

Entire year

2019

Entire year

2020

Entire year

2021

Entire year

2022

Entire year

2023

Entire year

2024

Entire year

Thank you!

Well .... where to start?

I just want to thank everyone - I can't possibly reply to everybody :) - for being so loving and supportive over the last few days. I said what I had to say and left for a few days, just to get some breathing space. I'd actually been thinking seriously about leaving over the last few weeks, as the unwanted attentions from certain people and the pressures of the current ArbCom case were beginning to wear me down. I truly wasn't expecting the kind of responses that came flooding in. I really don't know what to say. I've archived everything, my original message and all your responses, as well as a message to others at the top, at User:Alison/Depression. As I said, I hope others in a similar situation can read this, understand it, and take some comfort from it all.

Love you all, friends :)

-- Alison

PS: I guess I'd better get back to work, then! WP:RPP is calling out to me :)

PPS: Amit, it's lovely to see you back on here, too, with job intact!

Being a pusher

I thought a picture of scores of police "standing guard" on a Mayo road might require a little bit of explanation. But if you feel that strongly about it...

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What I feel strongly about is that you have been pretty-much pushing a pro-Shell to Sea POV on here for some time, basically creating lengthy, biased articles and trying to get it into various other pages. Same with the images and the Gardaí page, and the linkfarm that is Rossport Solidarity Camp‎ and Rossport Five. I've not paid much attention to it all until now, really, but right now the whole thing needs to be reviewed & it's something I intend to get around to doing soon. Misplaced Pages is not a place for promoting your own political agendas. BTW - I'm decidedly sympathetic to the campaign, too, and have been involved in the Glen of the Downs protest myself, back in the day. That's not the point, though; neutrality and balance is - Alison 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't feel I'm pushing any particular point of view. I have created very few articles. Those that I have created are not lengthy, and I remove any bias I find. I fail to see how you find the images biased, and I don't remember adding many links to the pages you mention. I'm happy to go over any of my edits with you, though you haven't answered my original point.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also

I forgot to mention: the hyperlink to the What is.. above the languages drop-down menu is a deadlink. El_C 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall criteria

Well, I wouldn't call them excellent; I'm flattered! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way—happy 2008! ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin question

Here's a newbie admin question, sorry to pester. (I'd say "I don't mean to pester you", but of course I do) Should I have blocked this? I just told him to stop. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation request

See this, please! --Agüeybaná 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done :) - take a look. As a special offer, you also get Commons:Template:Translated tag localized for free. Two for the price of one :) - Alison 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi im new here

I like your user page thing do you think you can tell me how i can get one? KCAL Weather101 (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagged his userpage. Probably a User:House1090 sock. Please let me know if not. Thanks Alison. Amerique 08:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - tagged and blocked - Alison 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one: User:SnowySalvadorian. Once again, thank for all your hard work. Amerique 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - tagged and blocked -Alison 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC on R. fiend

Were you planning on starting an RfC? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just commented on ANI. I'm off to bed here but if it's not resolved by the morning and if nobody else takes up an RfC, I certainly intend to, yes - Alison 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you probably already know but you won't be the only one commenting on that. I'll try and remember to check your contribs to see if one has been started. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wake up, sleepyhead (grins and ducks anything thrown at him). Just wanted to suggest we work with Padraig to try to get the RfC set up either today, or over the weekend :) SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would have started it myself, however I've never really been involved in the RfC process, and would like to know what I'm doing before I actually start one. Anyhow, the AN/I discussion was "closed" by somebody shortly after you left, with note that RfC will probably happen. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my note on John's talk page, and John's response. Like Rjd I've never done this before, so I'll wait another hour or so, and if nobody has objected I'll go ahead with the RfC. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this from afar for a week or two after Sarah brought it to my attention and would also like to contribute to a RFC. If there is anything I can do to assist in its formation, please let me know, otherwise I will make a comment as an uninvolved party. Rockpocket 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Rockpocket's suggestion. I think it is important that the behaviour of all involved editors is scrutinised, and that we remain focused on solutions to this problem as there is already too much drama in this area of Misplaced Pages for my taste. The risk will be, going forward, that the very uninvolved admins we need to attract to the problem area will be put off from doing so otherwise. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression this was going to be a User conduct RfC. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read my post four posts up, I referred you to my note on John's page, where I expressed my preference for an article RfC, and John agreed. I allowed two and a half hours for objections before going ahead. Scolaire (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess I read your comment wrong. That doesn't seem appropriate though, as the issue isn't really with the article, it is with the editor who edited the article. Okay then..... - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I'm just getting on-line here and playing catch-up. Unfortunately, this is not solely an article issue but a serious user conduct issue; specifically repeated misuse of admin tools. Please do file an article RfC, by all means, but I'm going to go ahead now and file a user conduct one. There's no reason why both cannot be worked in parallel - Alison 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am working on a draft RfC here in my userspace, if anyone is interested. I will put it live for comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/R. fiend when I'm done - Alison 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to move it, or just copy and paste? The reason I ask is, I see some people decided to sign it already. Now, we should keep the history of who signs what, when, so if you are going to just copy and paste, I'll wait to sign. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to move it in place, article history and all :) - Alison 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know there is an article issue too, but isn't entirely related to the users' conduct, which definitely needs the attention. I will be participating in the RFC/U only. Thanks Alison, and Scolaire for explaining this to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC should deal with the conduct of this editor as it spread over a number of articles not just one, where he has abuse his admin tools whilst involved in disputes.--Padraig (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Alison on this one. There may well be a reason for an article RfC (though it doesn't strike me as any more problematic than other disputes on this subject), but R. fiend's persistent use of tools while being very much involved, then ignoring the requests of others to stop, is deserving of a conduct RfC. This is what I would like to comment on, not the article. Rockpocket 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is I asked for advice before doing the article RfC and nobody told me I shouldn't until after I had done it. If there needs to be an RfC for R. fiend then there needs to be one for Domer48 as well. I was hoping we could discuss the issues without fingering one editor, but if one editor is to be commented on the other one has to be too. The goings-on there (and elsewhere, per Padraig) are ridiculous, and need to be dealt with. Scolaire (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My greatest concern here is regarding the repeated misuse of admin tools on multiple articles. Unfortunately, I was asleep while the other RfC got going (I did tell you guys what was going to happen!). Domer, bad an' all as he can be, is not an admin. By all means, do file an RfC on Domer - I'll probably weigh in on that one myself - but my primary concern here is about an admin abusing his position and misusing the tools - Alison 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I for one wasn't online when you ask for advice and only became aware after the RfC was posted, or I would have advised you to hold off on it. But no harm done both can run together.---Padraig (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done - RfC is now complete - I just need to add the dispute resolution stage. Can someone check things over here and add accordingly? The dispute resolution stuff is covered, but just not in that section. Diffs need to be copied from the section above it. Once that is done, I can put it live. Comments? - Alison 01:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um. Email, check. Thx. – Steel 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Steel, that's super! - Alison 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I'm moving this live now, please feel free to comment over there - Alison 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Go raibh maith agat Alison. I think I have this account almost as long as my Irish one - I just don't use it very often - updating interwiki links here is about all the editing I do on en. See you over on ga. Beir bua, Nmacu (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ná abair é. It's strange to see you writing in English for once :) - Alison 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

edit warring

Domer and BigDunc are editwarring on Orange Institution. They are portraying a non neurtal author's opinion as fact. Perhaps you could intervene to stop them breaking edit warring policies.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you do a check user on these two please? i still have suspicions that they are the same person, looking at recent contributions does nothing to convince me otherwise.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No you are edit warring you are changing reliable and verifiable refs to suit your POV. BigDunc (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem Alison you can check away stop him with these claims once and for all. BigDunc (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked a check user privately if its possible to set TU's mind at ease regarding this, let's take a step back and work towards getting the article right. It's quite possible that EVERYONE is edit warring, and therefore everyone is right about that particular "accusation" (and wrong at the same time, by edit warring themselves). Lets de-escalate things, k? (man, de-escalate.. I've devolved into Corp-Speak!) SirFozzie (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do Fozz the voice of reason as usual. BigDunc (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Shibumi2

Just wanted to draw your attention to this, in case you didn't have it watchlisted. Lawrence Cohen 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence - thanks for that heads-up. Shibumi2 has now been unblocked per email correspondence with myself. Thanks again - Alison 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I imagine that mess is now wrapped up, which is good. :) Lawrence Cohen 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alison. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on CU pages

Hi Allison, is it true that comments from other users should not be said on the Request's page like here? I had moved comments to the talk page but BlessSins has put them back. --Matt57 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best that these comments be moved to the talk page before things get out of hand. The main page is for the request only and for listing request-related information. Debate can happen on the talk page, by all means because if that happens on the main page, things will rapidly get overcrowded and will make the checkuser's job rather more difficult. I've reverted and asked them to be moved to the talk page - Alison 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that even this notice is a bit too excessive? I don't see how a note like this can crowd the page.Bless sins (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that message is just fine. I've restored it - Alison 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't Copy That Floppy

Edit war is spiking up again only eight minutes after you unprotected; might want to reapply. Will 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Alison, on the Easter Rising article, there were two occasions were the page was protected, and on both occasions the page block was breached. The first occasion was here, protected by Luna, the protection was then breached here, with this comment on the talk page. Having pointed that they were told not to edit the page I got this response. There was a storm of protest on the talk page, if you notice there were two changes made. There was no agreement at all on the first of them, and it materially changed the whole context of the statement. This is outlined here and here in a rather long thread. The thing is, they knew what they were doing. They knew there was no agreement, and made me out to be a liar. I explained this and Fozzie checked it out, and agreed I was right. So while Jj137 page protected the article again the somewhat trivial edits take on a whole new aspect? So you have two breaches of page protection, despite the problems created. I just seems on the RfC, that the two have become mixed up? Thanks again, and I left a post here for you as well. --Domer48 (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - Domer, can you add this verbatim to the talk page of the RfC. I think the others need to see this too, but it's a bit late to add to the main body as people have already endorsed what they see and it would be unfair to retro-edit it. This certainly clarifies the whole Easter Rising thing that was going on. As for the comment on Sarah's talk page; well ... I'm only sorry I didn't get to this sooner, but I was snowed under with CheckUser cases and didn't give it the attention it deserved. That was my mistake and it only prolonged your frustration. When I started looking into this in detail yesterday, I was shocked by what I found. You were right all along and I need to apologize for not dealing with it sooner - Alison 10:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I have now added a statement to the talk page of the RfC. It explains why I did not want the RfC to happen in this way. A very one-sided picture has been painted and the potential consequences of that are not good. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Now moved to the project page, on the advice of User:Coren. Scolaire (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Regarding a Checkuser Request

I want to know that after a user is confirmed by a checkuser for vandalisms at Wiki, will he be banned automatically or i have to bring this into the notice of Administrators?Sarmad (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for article delection

I just came across this were the subject of an article has apparently requested that it be deleted as he is under 18, so could you take a look and if necessary delete it.--Padraig (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Alison, I come here to ask you about your comment on my report. I'm not an English native speaker, so I don't get what you said "Deferred to - another checkuser due to nature of IPs and ranges ". Does mean you decline to examine the case whether the suspected users are using several account or not? Or do you want other sysop to take over the case instead? I think the suspected editor has been a long time wikipedian as switching from account to account to prevent himself from establishing his bad reputation. I know there are many stale account but weirdly, even though NekoNekoTeacher and ShinjukuXYZ turns out socks, their account and ip address are not banned. Therefore, I think mentioning the two account is helpful for clerks to compare KorenaShoriSenyou with them. I look forward getting your answer soon. Thanks. -Appletrees (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Appletrees. I think it's a perfectly valid case and I took a look around at the active accounts. However, due to the nature of certain things (I cannot say due to privacy), I feel I'm not experienced enough to handle the case and have referred it to a more experienced CheckUser to return a result - Alison 13:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I get now what "CheckUser" means (a clerk in charge of checking ip address, am i right?) And do you think I have to add more evidences for backup? I just reported in part because my report is very long compared to other short report due to the long history of the user(s)' disruptions. -Appletrees (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct :) Checkusers are just editors who have access to private data on the nature of edits and editors. They are trusted by the Wikimedia Foundation with handling private information; accounts, IP addresses, user agents, etc. Re. the evidence, I think there's more than enough there myself, but it will be up to the next CheckUser to determine if it's enough for them. If not, they may ask for more. See how it goes ... you've already put a lot of work into this! - Alison 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

IP anon

Hi Alison, you might want to check out this IP anon]. I have just left a welcome message on their talk page with a little advice. The two IP's would appear to be the same editor, as they responded to comments on the alternative account. I have cautioned them about the 3rr, but I'm not sure weather to post it on both accounts. It could get out of hand as they seem to be experianced enough on wiki? --Domer48 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering if this is also the same IP, and should I post welcomes on all of them? --Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Really getting confused now, compleatly different IP, now makes the same edit? Scratching my head now. --Domer48 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you! So much. :) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ray andrew

FYI, in case you need to follow up, I left a note there. --B (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U ---------> ArbCom (?)_ArbCom_(?)-2008-01-07T01:53:00.000Z">

I've added a note to clarify myself also. I, obviously rather this didn't go to AC, but if it is necessary, and at this point it seems like it, I am prepared to become involved in the Arbitration Committee case. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)_ArbCom_(?)"> _ArbCom_(?)">

Thanks for that. I want to give the guy every last chance, though, and this thing seems to be just "progressing" from talkpage → ANI → RfC without any resolution in sight. Furthermore, it looks like the community largely agrees and I was also surprised to see one bureaucrat weigh in with serious concerns, too - Alison 02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that WJB had chimed in as well. The people who have commented on this, specifically this section show that something needs to happen here, and it shouldn't just be shrugged off. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

allo

just pokin around, checkin out my watchlist and various projectspace goings-on... ;) ~Eliz81 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Alison, please consider reopening the ANI section, I was still commenting. And yes, the section was quite I'll-go-tell-mommy, but it prevented me from blocking DHM immediately, which would cause a lot more trouble. The dispute was utterly childish, but I wonder what would you do in my place. Thanks. Best regards, Húsönd 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, everything's fine now. Húsönd 03:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yayy!! Glad it's sorted :) - Alison 06:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RPP Backlog

Hi! Where do I go if there are stale protection requests and there's this user using dynamic IPs or open proxies removing tags? Thanks. —BoL 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure if I understand the question. Are you looking for previously processed WP:RFPP requests? - Alison 06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. It's just there's this sock using various IPs removing some tags. —BoL 06:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So just file a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection? If it's multiple articles, just file a sock report or a checkuser request, if it's really severe and unstoppable - Alison 06:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem!

What's this all about? I'm the one that produces comprehensive, easy to follow reports to facilitate witch burning, there may be a copyright problem here.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

*snerks* well, Hack, since your ISP has turned into a ISD (Internet Service Denier), Ali just figured she had to pick up the slack for you. *Grins, Ducks, RUN!* SirFozzie (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hackney®, you troublemaker™!! I have patent pending on that, I'll have you know. I'll see you in court, I will!! - Alison 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (uh oh. Foz will now block me for WP:NLT :) )

Speaking of seeing me in court, I thought "that certain day" (to coin a phrase) was approaching yesterday when a rather imposing gentlemen in dark clothing insistently rang my intercom buzzer for about 20 minutes yesterday morning. But after he went away I saw he'd left a card in my letterbox saying he was there from the landlord for a property inspection, and not a bailiff after all :( One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oversight question

Hey Alison, I've got a weird question that is mostly curiosity. Does "oversight edits" temporarily remove something from watchlists? Like as a "technical glitch"? I've noticed a "strange phenomenon" before where a page that I'm watching will have something that gets oversighted and its the entire page listing disappears from my watchlist. This happened just a few moments ago on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Keilana page where an anon list her old user name. I was going to do a regular revert and when my browser refreshed, both the page and the talk page was gone from my watchlist. When I looked at the article history, I saw that the edit must have been oversighted. Again, just a curiosity question so I know that I'm not going crazy in my old age. :p Agne/ 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't oversight: an admin deleted the page, removed the edit, and restored the page without the troublesome edits. I then repeated this process to remove some more bad edits. I don't know about oversight, but I know that a deletion followed by a restoration removes the page from the watchlist until another edit is made. I hope that helps. Acalamari 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! That does make sense. Weird, but makes sense. :) Agne/ 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help! :) (Sorry Alison :)) Acalamari 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

←Acalamari to the rescue again :) Yes, some people call it "admin oversight" and just involves deleting an entire article and then restoring every edit, less the ones you want to hide - Alison 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Acalamari 01:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC ArbCom IPs again

They're back at it. You probably recall this request from Sir Fozzie, and the "interesting" editors behind the attacks on the IRC page and Ryulong. Lawrence Cohen 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing at all this time, I'm afraid :( - Alison 21:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn. I guess you can only win the proxy lottery so many times. Lawrence Cohen 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're curious, they're now burning through a collection of socks for this silliness. Lawrence Cohen 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! I see this as being a good thing, given how petty this all is. They've also burned through a few open proxies, too - Alison 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

protesting a block...

how does one fight being blocked? i followed the problem with the paris hilton page and saw how an editor had a blocked a lot of people for being puppets. fine. whatever you guys do there is your business. but then i saw this person flag 2 articles for deletion because he did not like where they came from. wiki guidelines state that such a tag can be removed if someone objects to it for any reason. under a now-blocked username "SufferTheFools" i objected to them. the actor is notable and funny. the video is popular and hilarious. within a few minutes, i was myself blocked as being a puppet. how can disagreeing with someone and following wiki set guidelines make someone a puppet? the only claim that could possibly be made is that my account was new and those were the only 2 edits made. well, duh. he just got a slew of people blocked... and then he got me blocked before i could make any other contribution to wiki of any sort. i had to make an end run just to be able to get on and send you a message. i don't think these actions are right. i don't think personal feelings should interfer with what is right. if the article is to be deleted in 5 days, how can a newcomer come on and make a correction? if making any correction to this editors edits causes a person to be blocked, why would anyone long-timer come forward to fix anything under scritiny? you set the blocks, so you make the call. read the articles... and do not consider who put them up. read the articles. if they are suitable for wiki, please tell this editor to use a cooler head and not use interest in the video as cause to block any newcomer trying to save it. and yes... i know that my own name will be up for blocks within a few minutes... and for the same reason. and king made edits to lots of places on wiki. why single out only the video and one of its actors? SufferTheFools as Everydayanothersin email:esotericvisions@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayanothersin (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, you've yet to understand that it's not okay to keep creating accounts again and again to get around a block. I checked and you're one and the same person as all the other accounts blocked, as well as the three more I blocked just now. You can come on and make corrections, etc, as a newbie but if you break the rules and get blocked, you don't get to just press the big reset button, create a string of new accounts all at once (as you just did), and start up all over again - Alison 04:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New socks of User:L.L.King

This user registered two new socks today to revert edits to articles they had started at Paris in Jail: The Music Video and Michael Q. Schmidt (actor). As they wrote directly above, this user has said they will continue to register new accounts to circumvent this block and so an IP block should be instituted to prevent more abuse from sockpuppet accounts. Thank you for all your help in this matter, I really appreciate it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I blocked another half-dozen accounts and hardblocked some IP addresses. That might help ... - Alison 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just protect the pages in question? As long as the socks aren't sleepers, he won't be able to do anything. HalfShadow (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not, as that just shuts out others. He's largely hardblocked now, so we'll see how things go. If it persists, protect time - Alison 04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhinoplasty

Hi allison

I posted something new in the discussion section of the rhinoplasty under "non surgical nose job" when you get a chance could u have a look at it and give me your thoughts. thanks so much. happy new year. --72.211.194.188 (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your work

Hey Al, thanks again for your swift response in dealing with sockpuppets. You've probably got a million barnstars for this already, so I'll just say that I respect all the work you do here. It looks pretty demanding to deal with such things constantly. So yeah, keep it up! Spellcast (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, it's not over yet. I did some more checking and there are hundreds of accounts over there, all on the same narrow range and all the one guy. I think I'm going to extend the rangeblock to a few months, with ACB. I'll put them into the checkuser report, so you can see they're all the same, so you can tag them or whatever - Alison 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This is for all your hard work in various aspects of 'pedia, just to show you that it has not gone unnoticed. Viridae 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

confirmed meatpuppetry on Waterboarding

FYI, it's gotten rather messier. Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

*hug*

Hi Alison! Thanks for your many greetings and everything else! I hope your holidays were great. Two things: when you can, would you mind removing the move protection from my talk page so that I can archive it? I also sent you some mail. I hope you're doing well. Love, Kyoko 02:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Move protection request handled by yours truly. :) Acalamari 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I made a mistake. My talk page isn't very large yet, so no need to archive. Would you mind reprotecting it? Thanks, and sorry for the mix-up. --Kyoko 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) Acalamari 03:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mention

I have mentioned your name here. Perhaps you can shed light on the discussion. Cheers, Jehochman 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey you

<frmph> mail landing on shagpile... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hey you / out there in the cold / getting lonely, getting old / can you feel me? * Pink Floyd - Hey You. Sorry, I had to. This thread title made me sing it. Viridae 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tireless Vandal barnstar

Ali; check out User:195.7.41.218 (see Manorhamilton) - this IP has been making the same bizarre edits for months. Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

M33ps!

Please note, I have acted on the consensus I have seen on the main RfC page, and opened a Request for Arbitration. You may add (brief, 500 words or less) statements Here. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)