User talk:Alison/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

Amazon Eve

How is an article that she wrote (that includes both her name and her picture) and a documentary where she (face is unblurred and her name is given) discuses it in detail considered "unreliable"?--Craigboy (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• For an entire myriad of reasons, and I've gone into it in detail on AN/I. WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:OR - just for starters. We're not here to perform original research, using flimsy sources (and they are), on someone biography, where that information could be seriously damaging. There is no reliable source which puts all those pieces together - and we'd need multiple, strong ones. And as an aside, "outing" LGBTI folks on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) is pretty heinous unless those people are clearly out already. And this one is not, whichever way you choose to slice-and-dice-it - Alison ^❤ 03:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How are these sources flimsy? Please don't just relink me to the page on reliable sources because I have read it many times. WP:BLP is not applicable because in those sources she bluntly states she is transgender. I am not 'outing' anyone, I don't think you can be considered in the closet if you've publicly discussed being transgender in magazines and film.--Craigboy (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• And you don't get to pull up webarchive, compare faces and say "LOOK!! SEE!!". It doesn't work like that - Alison ^❤ 03:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Compare faces? They have the same name. Do you need me to find a source where she reads off her Social Security number? --Craigboy (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's still absolutely unacceptable. WP:SYNTH (what you're also doing) covers the whole concept of having two sets of data, and conflating them to make a third point; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". That's not even going there re. WP:BLP and WP:RS. As an aside, there's something decidedly unpleasant about someone editing using a pseudonym while making highly controversial and potentially damaging edits relating to an identified public person, particularly in the face of complaints from a representative. Would you do that if you edited under your RL name, as I and many others do? - Alison ^❤ 22:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not WP:SYNTH because she explicitly states she is trangender in both sources. Can you please elaborate how these are not reliable sources? Thank you for continuing to assume good faith. --Craigboy (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see discussion at [[1]]. I am getting nowhere. Thank you.Greenwayfriend (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Demiurge didn't do it

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't me! I didn't do it!

What?

Oh, I've been cutting back on my use of templated notifications - apparently some people find them insulting. You don't need to be quite so hair-trigger to get in first, John. Not like I can notify Ali before I mention her, that would be silly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A mention

Hey Ali, how's tricks? As you know, there's a thread over at WP:ANI where some guy is described as being involved with a site that made fun of murdered children. Just to provide a little context for the doubtless terribly dramatic discussion that will follow, I mentioned another website that does so, and your (past?) involvement with that website. So, not that it's needed, but this is just to let you know you were mentioned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy criteria/personal info of minors

Hi Allie. I hope you don't mind my asking you for advice. Yesterday I came across a userpage put up by a 15 year old boy giving his full name, birthdate, location, school, and the full names of several other minors. See User_talk:JamesBWatson#User:Nathan_James_Taylor. I see these kinds of userpages, and even pages in mainspace, relatively often, where a minor puts up personal info of themselves/others that isn't a good idea or really a safe thing to be doing. JamesBWatson has suggested proposing a speedy deletion criteria that would address pages like this directly, so that they can be attended to/deleted as quickly as possible by an admin. I would think a new G14/15 criteria, something close to G10, that blanks the page and notifies the user/creator of the danger of posting such personal info, would be what's needed in cases like this. What do you think of this idea, and are there any particular fellow admins you know of who'd be good to talk to regarding advice/suggestions/help with such a proposal? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, then it would be logged as G14 and someone with viewdeleted could go around hunting for those pages... best to send it right to OS> --Rschen7754 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A good point. But couldn't oversighters regularly monitor pages deleted via G14 and suppress them once they're deleted? We have a lot of admins and only a small number of oversighters, so admins could probably get to these G14 pages quicker and get them deleted quicker. It would also probably be easier/simpler for regular users patrolling new pages to tag a page for G14 than to report it to oversighters. INeverCry 19:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, we have a lot of new page patrollers who are usually familiar with speedy deletion criteria, who may not be familiar with oversight or what needs to be reported and how to do so. G14 would perhaps be a more sure way of getting pages like this attended to/deleted/suppressed. INeverCry 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have on one occasion had a request for suppression of personal information on the userpage of a barely 13-year-old declined on the basis that, IIRC, "they're 13 and they seem fairly sensible". (It was not Alison who declined it.) 15 year olds are that little bit older, so there is a big grey area here (though a minor naming other minors as well is alarming to say the least).

Rschen makes a very good point, and TBH I don't have total faith in a productive overlap between new page patrollers that are too inexperienced to know how to contact the oversight team, and the oversight team (who are quite busy) subsequently monitoring a category that gets filled up by such inexperienced new page patrollers. Based on extensive experience, I do have confidence in the oversight team dealing with material that's emailed to them, so I always suggest doing so in any cases that cause concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably isn't viable to have a speedy criteria like this. It's a catch 22: you want to find these pages and get them hidden/suppressed to protect these kids, but drawing more attention to these pages is problematic too. If only everything was as easy to deal with as spam! INeverCry 21:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

76.105.96.92 or 71.59.58.63

I noticed you gave some blocks and warnings to 76.105.96.92 and 71.59.58.63.

This user is still creating multiple RfMs under the different ips with word-for-word rationales such as this one from 71 compared with this one from 76.

The rationales given for some of these RMs are directly contradictory with others (Use the legal case name/don't use the legal case name) so I think it's a lot of WP:POINT.

I don't know if they discussed their reasons with you for spreading their contributions around after their block, but I figured you'd know more about what to do (if anything) than me. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And it might not even be that big a problem except for cases like this one where they nominate as 76, and then make arguments in defense as 71. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Block of Sportfan5000

I see you indefinitely blocked Sportfan5000 as being a sock of BenjiBoi. But I looked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi/Archive and I see no mention of an investigation of Sportsfan5000 or that account being checked. I'd think this information would be logged in before an indefinite block was handed out. I don't have Checkuser information at my disposal, I was just very surprised to find this user getting an indefinite block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Liz. Per policy, not all Checkuser investigations are carried out via SPI requests. It's common practice and, as in this case, if a checkuser receives strong, credible evidence that an editor is a sock of a banned editor, they can and will run a check. So, many but not all checks go through SPI and if you check the list of confirmed socks of Benjiboi, many of them do not have corresponding SPI cases. And in this case, Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs) is very  Confirmed as being Benjiboi, and I fully welcome any other Checkuser to double-check my work here - Alison ^❤ 00:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Alison. I wasn't questioning your ability, I was just not aware that some Checkuser investigations are private and undocumented. This doesn't seem like a very transparent policy but it's not a question about you, it's about how Checkuser operates. I don't understand why this information would be kept secret.

On a somewhat related note, I've been meaning to ask, how do you balance being a checkuser, oversighter and administrator? Do you concentrate on one role at a time or juggle them? It seems like a lot of different roles to have although I know there are several other editors who do all three. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz, Alison documented her checkuser findings in both the block log and in her block message at User talk:Sportfan5000. Could you clarify what information you believe is being kept secret here? MastCell ^Talk 03:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I expected to see documentation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Benjiboi/Archive. I was anticipating this useraccount to be listed on that page with a date and the name of anyone who could vouch for the review. I do not know how these things work but without that much documentation, my wiki-instinct is to perceive that some protocol about transparency is being transgressed. If this is not commonly done then I would not propose starting something needless or unorthodox. I know nothing about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this about a month or so ago. Notice somewhere near the bottom of the page Sportfan 1234 and Sportsfan5000? Note the extra "s" on the latter. Might all 3 accounts be related?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC). Oh, I made a mistake. That is Sportsfan5000, who was also a puppet according to drmies, Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, there's a deletion discussion (specifically, Fox Attacks) that I'm half-tempted to do a non-admin closure on (as there seems to be a consensus to keep). The only problem is, one of the major arguments to keep was made by Sportfan5000. Should I ignore the argument because it was made by someone who wasn't supposed to edit? Or should I close as keep anyway? ChromaNebula (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Hello, in your unblock you noted WP:AGF. I'm curious if anything about my edits to date would imply bad faith. I'd like to correct anything I may be doing incorrectly. MlaneNYIT (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for acting as a peacekeeper. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan5000

Are you sure he's a sock? I'm only asking because he's not mentioned in the SPI for Benjiboi, the supposed sockmaster. Jinkinson talk to me 13:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Read a few sections up, it covers the angle that not every CU is done publicly. Also, IMO one telling sign of a sock is that they never post again after a block; not a peep, not an unblock request, nothing. If this person was genuinely a standalone innocent, one would expect protest. They know the gig is up. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably using another account already. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Most certainly using dozens of additional accounts. I noticed not long ago that he/she was associated with a large number of new articles like this where Sportfan5000 would add a category. If you look at the creator of that article, they have exactly two edits. Now this is not to say that this article should not exist, but it is clear from looking at SF's history that they either have dozens of accounts or are part of a larger sock farm. another and another likely sock Arzel (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)