User talk:Ahhhlehhh
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Doireann
I think I've finally reached the end of the road as far as her article goes, and I am more than happy to proclaim it finished. Whenever you have a free few moments, you can start translating Doireann Ni Bhriain to Irish. :) Mike H. Fierce! 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel better
Since u have all the purdy pictures...
- ...here's a few questions:
- I am starting to accumulate some GA and FA articles, and have seen folk line them up all nice an purdy along the top of their user page. I am not sure how to do this and would like to learn.
- There are several Wikipedians who I admire, and some of them have apparently retired from WP. I know there is an image of a 'retired' stamp out there that I could shrink down and put by their name. Have you seen such?
- I am unsure how to size pictures down, as they never seem to obey my input lowering their dpi. Could I trouble you to explain how to do this? I promise to pass on the learnin' once I possess it. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"Age on Userpage Patrol"
- Hey Allie (is it okay if I call you that?) I was randomly broswing userpages, saw this, and I think it's time to pull out oversight or whatever the hell you used on my userpage. Thanks! Shapiros10 contact meMy work 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Link redacted, don't want to call attention to it. Shapiros, I've put in a request via email for oversight of that page. Allie is a bit overwhelemed at the moment, but we'll get it taken care of :) SirFozzie (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see just saying one's age as a huge problem (birthdate a little bit, but even still). It's when you release age, real name, exact location (i.e. school, town), appearance details... any combination of that and is when it becomes an issue. –xenocidic (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I got to concur with xenocidic here. Oversight is for truly private information such as telephone #'s and addresses. Using Oversight for edits like this is a bit abusive. I understand the desire to protect, but wouldn't it be better to discuss it with the user in question? I'm afraid that you and SF might be caught up in the whole moral panic that Peter Damian is trying to cause. I find it pretty helpful since it reminds me to put in extra WP:AGF and avoid WP:NPA at all costs. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- my age was oversighted. So I think this should be too. Or does everyone just have something against me? Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your age was oversighted along with a whole bunch of other very specific information. I think Alison just took it all out in one fell swoop. It's the combination of several pieces of personal information (allowing someone to piece together a profile) that presents a problem. I'm sure she wouldn't mind you putting just your age back on there (though you should wait for her to weigh in on this). –xenocidic (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know, as I saw his previous page as boarder-line. I still think that as long as address and telephone aren't given (along with other id numbers), it is generally fine. However, talking about your school and what's going on there isn't really needed on Wikipedia, unless you are giving a reason for being on wiki-break. What seems to be the norm for most editors is to create a short intro with name, age, city, state, country, e-mail/pm contact info (not really needed due to Special:EmailUser and IRC), and personal website. They usually then add more general things about themselves, such as likes, dislikes, reasons for editing, etc. Beyond that, you are really treading in myspace territory. Like xenocidic, I'll leave Alison to comment further. I do think that we must avoid paranoia and be careful not to be drawn into rash action due to excessive drama-mongering, though (*cough* tar pit threads *cough*). --Dragon695 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your age was oversighted along with a whole bunch of other very specific information. I think Alison just took it all out in one fell swoop. It's the combination of several pieces of personal information (allowing someone to piece together a profile) that presents a problem. I'm sure she wouldn't mind you putting just your age back on there (though you should wait for her to weigh in on this). –xenocidic (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- my age was oversighted. So I think this should be too. Or does everyone just have something against me? Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I got to concur with xenocidic here. Oversight is for truly private information such as telephone #'s and addresses. Using Oversight for edits like this is a bit abusive. I understand the desire to protect, but wouldn't it be better to discuss it with the user in question? I'm afraid that you and SF might be caught up in the whole moral panic that Peter Damian is trying to cause. I find it pretty helpful since it reminds me to put in extra WP:AGF and avoid WP:NPA at all costs. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see just saying one's age as a huge problem (birthdate a little bit, but even still). It's when you release age, real name, exact location (i.e. school, town), appearance details... any combination of that and is when it becomes an issue. –xenocidic (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Link redacted, don't want to call attention to it. Shapiros, I've put in a request via email for oversight of that page. Allie is a bit overwhelemed at the moment, but we'll get it taken care of :) SirFozzie (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The block on Counter-revolutionary
I'm afraid that I still cannot understand the reasoning behind this block. Please can you explain in more detail why the two accounts are 'likely' to be the same. Am I correct if I say that the only evidence linking the two is the result of a check-user enquiry? If that is so, that requires us to over-rule the empirical evidence, which Counter-revolutionary refers to, that the two accounts edit in different ways.
Please be assured that this isn't a criticism, it's just that I don't understand how this conclusion has been arrived at. Thank you for your help. Major Bonkers (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The block was made by User:WJBscribe. Perhaps you should ask him instead of Alison. Risker (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Very well, although it's a question about the check-user evidence, which was provided by Alison, rather than the reason for the block. Major Bonkers (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Based on my independent review of Counter-revolutionary's contributions and checkuser evidence, an indefinite block is warranted. While initially observe and defer until later made sense, the evidence of abuse of this account is now too strong to ignore, so I agree with the block. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Very well, although it's a question about the check-user evidence, which was provided by Alison, rather than the reason for the block. Major Bonkers (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The technical evidence has shown that the account was Template:likely to be User:Counter-revolutionary and this has been corroborated by a number of independent checkusers now. I have also discussed the matter with ArbCom and a number of Arbitrators have upheld the block. Unfortunately, the "edit in different ways", is exactly what good-hand/bad-hand accounts do and the circumstantial evidence tends to support the technical here, given the article he'd just edited - Alison ❤ 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for yours. I am in the process of replying at greater length on FloNight's Talk page. I point out that you haven't actually answered my question; what you've stated is that a number of independent checkusers have simply replicated the original result, just as anyone would have expected. I'm afraid that my response is still 'So what?'; frankly the preponderance of evidence, so far as I can see, is that these two accounts are not linked. Is there some reason why secret discussions are taking place on this? Is it really desirable, given the suspicions that it raises? Major Bonkers (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Checkuser evidence, per the privacy policy, must be discussed only among those who are privileged to view it, which does not include me or you, much less any passing reader of the encyclopedia or its mirrors. So yes, there absolutely is reason the discussion must not be in public. GRBerry 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- That may be correct, but it has nothing to do with the posts that I have made on this subject. Major Bonkers (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Major, you cannot actually make a determination whether the accounts are linked or not as you're not privy to all the details. It's that simple. The 'preponderance of evidence' is definitely not in their favour, whatever about the evidence that you may be aware of. Secret discussions are, of course, taking place - mostly between the Lauder person, Counter-rev, myself and the Arbitration Committee. A number of arbitrators have been involved for quite some time in all of this; FloNight being just one of them. The reason they're secret is that the data is a matter of privacy. Trust me, I'd dearly love to blab the technical evidence from February's checks all over the Wiki, especially from the 24th of January - it's irrefutable and would get me completely off the hook here. But I can't.
- I can show you this, though:
- That may be correct, but it has nothing to do with the posts that I have made on this subject. Major Bonkers (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- This unblock request was made by Sussexman at 7:37am and this edit was made by Counter-revolutionary at 7:44am.
- This edit to Sussexman's talk page was made by Chelsea Tory at 12:10pm, and this edit was made by Counter-rev less than a minute later.
- All of the above edits were made from the exact same computer on the exact same IP address. Over that few days, this would happen again and again and again, swapping and changing within minutes of each other. Even Immanuel can't got a look-in at times.
- This is just one tiny example. There are many, many more - some even relating to a certain UK university where a number of accounts shared a common gateway IP. See what I mean? - Alison ❤ 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The independent checkuser that I did in April showed similar patterns to the one Alison describes. Another arbitrator reviewed account contributions on specific dates and saw obvious links WITHOUT checkuser evidence. These accounts have been looked at independently repeatedly and every time the same conclusion, these accounts are linked and have been used abusively. With each review the evidence of a link gets stronger. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've finally arrived in Poland and I had hoped that this matter might have been resolved, at least to some extent, by now. It is quite right to say that I cannot make a determination as to whether the accounts are linked or not because I do not have the evidence; that is why I have asked you, FloNight, and WJBscribe, to explain it to me. Frankly, a week later, I'm none the wiser: WJBscribe's response is a fob-off, and FloNight's responses raise more questions than they answer; both have archived their discusions. Given that two editors, yourself and Thatcher, decided that the evidence was not strong enough to warrant a block (let alone the de facto ban that we are actually talking about), I still do not understand why the block has been imposed.
What I do have to go on is the public evidence, which you have provided. That consists of a single check-user report, which no-one has tagged as being more than 'likely', coupled with the circumstantial evidence of his 'contribution history'. Unfortunately, I draw entirely the opposite conclusions to you from the same evidence; I have kept a weather eye on Counter-revolutionary's contributions for two years or so, since the beginning of 'the Troubles' on Wikipedia, and what he writes in his defense is quite correct: he has no history of behaving abusively, even through 'sock-puppets'. Whilst I don't defend his playing silly buggers through sock-puppets, it is indisputable that the accounts that you have linked to him have behaved entirely differently to the vandal account.
Instead of dealing with the specific issue of the vandal account, which he was blocked for, the arguments are now ranging over various other accounts, including Isabela84, BScar23625, on the one hand, and David Lauder and Sussexman, on the other. The 'evidence' for widening the issue in this manner contradicts some of the previous evidence given for banning C-r initially: he is said to edit from a generic British Telecom IP address with no other users on it - widely reported as extremely easy to hack into, incidentally [1] - whilst some of the other accounts relat[e] to a certain UK university where a number of accounts shared a common gateway IP.
The more I look at this episode, the more disturbing I find it. It's based on loose forensic evidence which directly contradicts what we know of C-r's editing; any evidence supporting C-r's position is wished away. This is the same mind-set which assured itself that there were WMDs in Iraq and that the Guildford Four were guilty; you are persuading yourself, not me. I do not think that anyone could look objectively at the circumstances surrounding his blocking and say that C-r has been treated fairly.
Finally, if petitioning various others is intended to mean that C-r has been contacting me to lobby on his behalf, I'm afraid that's wrong. I don't link my e-mail address to my Wikipedia account: W. Frank's experience put me off that idea, and in any case, I have been driving across Europe for three days and I do not have the ability to pick up my e-mails from someone else's computer. Major Bonkers (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Major B, let me just update you. While I'm not a Checkuser myself, I can say this. Multiple Checkusers and ArbCom members, (FloNight, Thatcher, as well as Alison) have repeatedly pointed to an identifying feature amongst the accounts that made these accounts a match (or to be precise, Template:likely if not quite the level of Template:confirmed that the Lauder/Sussexman/C-r trio was matched earlier (where it was vote/log out one account/log in with other account/vote).
- Again, I'm not a checkuser, so I don't have access to the "fingerprint" that clued them off to this, but for them to independently point out that there IS a fingerprint that convinced all of them separately that they were a match, says to me the level of strength involved is rather high.
- As for the "Someone's impersonating C-r", I find that highly dubious, because while I do not know EVERYTHING that gets recorded for the checkuser to capture, I do happen to know it tracks some rather esoteric stuff, such as browser type, certain settings , etcetera (I learned a lot from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. Talk about dry, mind you!). For someone to impersonate C-R, not only would they have to "hack" the same IP data range that C-r uses (and to the best of my knowledge, that's not publicly known), but they would have to install the same browser, with all the same tweaks that C-r uses to get it to match. THAT is the foresnic evidence that CheckUsers go on, not just the surface stuff.
- I Appreciate your feeling that this needs to be investigated and open to the fullest, but I'm afraid we're at the stonewall here. Even if Flo, Thatcher, and Alison wanted to show us the gory details that led to MULTIPLE checkusers concurring that they're a match, their hands are tied by the Wikipedia privacy policy. At some point, you have to trust that there's no great conspiracy at work here, but that multiple people, from a variety of backgrounds and locations, have independently reviewed the evidence and found that these are a match. SirFozzie (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I hate to be blunt about this, Major, but you're not getting the technical evidence - it's that simple. I am forbidden from revealing it per the privacy policy. In the paragraph above that you've not acknowledged, I've come as close as I possibly can re. the Sussexman technical evidence, and I may have even overstepped it a bit then. BTW - where did I comment that I "decided that the evidence was not strong enough to warrant a block" - I can't seem to find that. Also, the decision behind this block lies with User:WJBscribe and the Arbitration Committee - Alison ❤ 11:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sheikh Ahmad Jami
hi there.I had created a wrong page many months ago about Sheiks Ahmad Jami and now i am going to repair the whole article.they have tagged a sppedy deletion on it.please help me.Bbadree (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit to CR talkpage
How do you interpret this? Avruch 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- That is useful for background, I think nobody has a clue who is who when it comes to the Sussexman sockfarm any more..... One Night In Hackney303 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bob needs to be careful with the personalised comments, as he's already implicated in a lot of the shenanigans which have been going on here. ArbCom are already aware of his role in all this - Alison ❤ 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
93.107.68.59 / User:Gold_heart?
Re your block of 93.107.68.59 [2]. This editor appears to have a good deal of overlap with User:Bardcom. Do you have an opinion? Also, if you could point me to something explaining the User:Gold_heart connection, I'd be grateful William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Gold heart has admitted it on WikipediaReview this morning. See here (account required as it's "tarpitted") - Alison ❤ 19:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, the rotters won't accept gmail for some weird reason. GH has admitted what? Being the admin? I'm not questionning that. Being Bardcom? That would be of interest: he denies being the anon. Could you quote whats on WR? Or email it to me, if you don't want to pollute wiki with it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, Gold heart is the anon editor, and is not Bardcom. Bardcom is Template:unrelated to the Gold heart accounts Quote below from WR];
- Sorry, the rotters won't accept gmail for some weird reason. GH has admitted what? Being the admin? I'm not questionning that. Being Bardcom? That would be of interest: he denies being the anon. Could you quote whats on WR? Or email it to me, if you don't want to pollute wiki with it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, which very helpfully clarifies things William M. Connolley (talk)
- Looking for reasons to justify your block, after the fact, makes the block seem even more churlish. Ali, it would have been nice if you had responded and taken a closer look - but I understand why not. --Bardcom (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bardcom - I'm on-and-off-line all day here. RL stuff is simply getting in the way, so I don't have time for Wikipedia. I'd like to state again for the record though that your account is Template:unrelated to the IP address. It's just Gold heart trying to get people into trouble again. He did the same with Domer48 two weeks back. Sorry for not replying sooner - Alison ❤ 21:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ali, I could do with a little help though, if you could advise. (or is it worth it?) If you could quickly review the "block" I was given. It's important to me - it was an abuse by the admin, and I very much feel that this is exactly the behaviour that Sarah777 refers to. --Bardcom (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bardcom - I'm on-and-off-line all day here. RL stuff is simply getting in the way, so I don't have time for Wikipedia. I'd like to state again for the record though that your account is Template:unrelated to the IP address. It's just Gold heart trying to get people into trouble again. He did the same with Domer48 two weeks back. Sorry for not replying sooner - Alison ❤ 21:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looking for reasons to justify your block, after the fact, makes the block seem even more churlish. Ali, it would have been nice if you had responded and taken a closer look - but I understand why not. --Bardcom (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bard, you had your block reviewed with the unblock template, then you went to WP:ANI and had it reviewed there, now Alison too? How many reviews do you want? 1 != 2 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bard, I just got back here. You've been unblocked and the thread is closed right now. I've taken a look over it and it appears that WMC blocked you for disruption and not for socking re. Gold heart's IP. Is this correct? I notice you both have the same "British Isles" POV, so there may have been a bit of confusion, too. Did I miss anything else here? - Alison ❤ 05:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ali, yes you've missed a fair bit. Without me putting words or ideas in your head, just take a look at the circumstances surrounding the block. Note the following points:
- William claimed he blocked me for vandalism. Which edit?
- You claim it was for disruption. What sequence of events is regarded as disruption?
- William was an involved editor. Should he have blocked?
- I claim I did not receive a warning. I didn't acknowledge it, I didn't see it.
- Thank you --Bardcom (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ali, yes you've missed a fair bit. Without me putting words or ideas in your head, just take a look at the circumstances surrounding the block. Note the following points:
Hi Alison. 93.107.xxx is back [3] but only in a minor way, so I haven't bothered block. But I'm assuming this is more trouble-making by GH William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's Gold heart again, evading his ban. Checkuser certainly isn't required here as he's admitted to it himself and I can tell you that nobody else edits from that entire range right now. In fact, I rangeblocked it two months back and while he claimed I had "rangeblocked Ireland", we didn't have one single complaint the whole time - Alison ❤ 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I blocked that one (93.107.72.250) for 24h as it kept editing, but I suppose it will come back William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
A talk page deleted for all the wrong reasons
Would you mind looking into the deletion of Talk:John Train Salon? I think there has been some foul play. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Let me get back to you on this one. It looks like the deletion was done okay, but could be problematic nonetheless. I'll restore it no problem if there's a reasonably good reason why it needs to be. ArbCom evidence? - Alison ❤ 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Prom3th3an
Hello there Alison, I see you gave back Prom3th3an the ACC flag. The initial removal was for the wrong reasons - he shouldn't have lost rollback or the flag because of what happened, he didn't abuse them. But the reason why I didn't give the ACC flag back is because current practice is to remove the flag if it isn't used within a month, so we can easily keep a monitor on who's doing what with the tool. A few admins are currently going through the logs and removing the flag from people that don't create accounts. Prom3th3an has created 6 accounts, the last one being at the start of June and he's never broken the limit set by the MediaWiki software, so per standard practive, he shouldn't have the tool. Please can you look into that for me? Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, it looks like his rollback was taken away again and I don't have a clue why. I'll go and find out. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- lol rollback was given back, however it's yours and Ryan's decision in regards to ACC. I know i asked for it back earlier but whatever makes you guys happy cause in light of new info don't really need it. Also, Im taking an Enforced wiki break untill the 22 or 23rd. Kudos «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Stalker, part 2 (or is it 3?)
It seems clear to me that this is the same guy, up to his tricks again. He is now a multiple block-evading vandal with no constructive edits. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Republicanjacobite started this entire mess by vandalizing articles that I edited with his opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.79.202 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alison, you've got mail! Now back to the grind... ergh. <3 --Kyoko 00:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Big Dunc and Domer38
Can you ask these editors to stop wikistalking me and undoing my edits? I am working up the Royalty articles on Lady Sarah Chatto and they keep reverting my edits. Thanks Astrotrain (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's because her sons were merged to the Lady Sarah Chatto article back in April per AfD, and Astrotrain keeps undoing the redirect. Astrotrain has been blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing on this and other articles, see WP:AE for more. Sorry Allie to have this dragged to your page :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Have fun with the house moving
Hate that job - and I have only ever had kitchen and bedroom stuff (student)! ViridaeTalk 05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Good luck with the move :). Hope you all settle in well in the new place. WJBscribe (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope your move goes well, Alison. And that your car looks better than this one. Risker (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, good luck Alison. You're moving such A LONG way ;). Steve Crossin (contact) 06:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Good luck! 15 cans of Stella303 09:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
–
