User talk:Alison

From RationalWikiWiki

Welcome to RationalWikiWiki, Alison!!! Please see our policy on editing your own article, and why not tell us how you found the site. Any questions? Please see RationalWikiWiki Help.

I take it you are the famous Alison C - the proud owner of Usher's (rather small) manhood, pop over to www.rationalwiki.com so we can all line up to congratulate you. 219.90.133.165 07:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have it in a jar here on my desk. Gatorade-flavored formaldehyde ^_^ - Alison 07:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have scared the boy for life. Oh well it probably wasn't much of a life he had anyway given the amount of time he puts into wandalism. 219.90.133.165 07:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to the amount of time you pur into your fantasy of being a cheetah or whatever? Fall down 07:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done dickhead I am not CUR, Epic Phail. 219.90.133.197 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is his problem here? I only discovered this socking and RL name stuff by accident, as it happens. It's not like he'd actually caused me any distress, given I was blissfully ignorant of its going-on. Is he still butthurt over being banned from Wikipedia for egregious sockpuppeteering or is it because he keeps getting pwnt by teh wimminz? *shakes head* - poor ickle guy - Alison 07:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he just doesn't like women, couldn't get laid as a teenager or something, and so takes it out on any women he perceives having a high social standing them him as though they have personally slighted him. 219.90.133.197 07:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

← Holy crap! Someone over there just handed me a big evil banhammer™ That's like being handed a stun-gun on the way into a nightclub - Alison 08:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we give the banhammer to everyone who isn't a vandal or troll. Phantom Hoover 09:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Contents 1 Question 2 We wuv you Alison 3 Janitorship 4 you can fuck right off, actually. I don't do blackmail 5 Last name 6 The Evil Female Cabal™ behind Wikipedia 6.1 Checkuser 6.2 Oversight 6.2.1 Letter of the law, again 7 Seriously

[edit] Question

Hey! The Alison of Fd fame? The one and the same? You are most welcome. Actually I've got a question for you. Fd fantasises about WP being secretly run by a some evil cabal of nefarious female sysops who have been obliged to close his mouth because he alone is prepared to reveal the truth about them. (Or something like that, can't remember all the details.)

Could you tell me all about this cabal? You know, secret meting places, passwords, recognition signals and such like? I am, in fact, female, so you can tell me in complete confidence.--False Flag 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But you're not a female sysop on Wikipedia. 92.235.204.231 18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would make much difference to the answer.--False Flag 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't join a cabal of female WP admins without being a female WP admin. 92.235.204.231 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No surprise women run this place too. Fall down 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Being the one who, for the longest time, actually ran the place, I kind of resent that. I dominate a tiny little wiki, only for someone to accuse a nonexistent female cabal of running the place, and not me? I just can't win these days... Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 07:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was being slightly sarcastic, you know. Fall down

The problem is that, given that claim - with apparent seriousness - that women run WP, it is easy to imagine that you imagine that the same thing happens everywhere. How can we tell when your claims about women being in control are to be taken seriously and when they are not? A disinterested observer might leap to the conclusion that, when challenged on your claims, you maintain they are sarcastic or not to be taken seriously, but if you are not challenged you are happy to let them stand as true.--False Flag 20:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] We wuv you Alison

No really, we do! There are very few words I can think of as to how much we at RW admire you, in part because you are the opposite of FD. Cheers! User:Javascap]

[edit] Janitorship

You are a janitor now, Alison. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 07:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] you can fuck right off, actually. I don't do blackmail

But apparently you wiki-stalk yourself and demand other wikis edit their archives? I smell two drama queens chasing each other across the internet, to the lack of amusement of everyone whose paths they cross. human^{be in} 04:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Human: I'd like to know why you object to the removal of this material. I understand that site policy on this issue is a matter of debate, but surely it's the right thing to do? And aren't the rules on RW all loosey-goosey anyway? The Michigander 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I came to RationalWiki to edit seriously, a right which you denied me. I never expected her to stalk me here, but apparently she searches around for any mention of her name. Fall down 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And who mentioned who first, pray tell? Who went to ED to write shite about me and was horrified to find that not only was I already there, but that I was very active indeed? Tsk - Alison 05:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You disclosed my IP on Wikipedia. I should think that's more significant than any words I have used. I did not first visit ED to stalk you; I found your page by accident (I can't remember how). Fall down 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Last name

Get rid of this redirect and I'll start taking your requests seriously. Phantom Hoover 20:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you have... Now, tell me why we should remove your name when you have obviously freely given it out in the past? Phantom Hoover 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell you later, when I get the chance. Some of the details are here, on Wikipedia Review, and on wikipedia-watch. Basically, my information was revealed and publicized against my will. This ultimately resulted in an on-line and RL stalking incident which ended with someone going to jail for 6 months. I can't 'un-out' my RL name, much as I'd like to - Alison 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, and the username and redir were created to prevent impersonation and abuse; something that's rife on WP, especially for admins and checkusers - Alison 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And the reason I have my name, general location, pic and place of employment on WP now is because 1) all of these were previously released against my will in a very public manner on a website dedicated to , 2) if I'm to avoid that again, I'm obliged to state them there; it's the so-called "hivemind requirements". I don't like that, but what can ya do. Once it's out, it's out and all I can do is try to manage the damage from pseudonymous adolescents like the Fall Guy :( - Alison 23:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Evil Female Cabal™ behind Wikipedia

Let's take a look at the numbers, shall we? Currently, there are 1,623 administrators on Wikipedia - about 5-600 are 'active' at any given time. It's not known how may of these are female (or of those, are card-carrying Feminist Cabalistas).

[edit] Checkuser

For the other jobs, it's easier. Of the 35 checkusers on the English Wikipedia, there are a massive three that are female, and one - FloNight - has been inactive for at least 18 months. Clearly, the wimminz are taking over

[edit] Oversight

Of the 33 oversighters, three of them are female and again, FloNight is inactive.

Yes, I'm both a checkuser and an oversighter on Wikipedia. I spend my days dealing with defamation, potentially libelous edits, sub judice commentary and various other issues. I work on issues around stalking and harassment - not so-called 'wikistalking' - but the real deal. Everyone pretty-much knows this and it's largely public knowledge. However, as a result, I end up dealing with a lot of nutjobs and because I'm in an alleged position of authority, some people seem to have a real problem with that. C'est la vie

- Alison 01:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I clarified this already at my talk page: [1]. Fall down 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh Fall down is a grand scale nut job we are already aware of that. Human just doesn't like the fact you showed up to RW and started setting your own rules. We understand why you don't like it but we have a pseudeopolicy about transparency of history, which stems from CP's almost minitrue like approach. 192.43.227.18 01:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that - sure - but the site also has the worst of Wikipedia's problems; you let pseudonymous editors mouth off about very real people (be they one side or the other). Now, given the nature of your site and its intent, you're not really covered under Section 230 immunity here. Ergo, some of these things could become problematic. Hey - I don't particularly care myself. My concern is that jerkoffs like Fall Guy don't make puerile sexual slurs against my real name and then have someone else tell me about their existence here. As, indeed, what happened. See my problem? I feel for ya when you talk about 'pseudeopolicy' and whatnot, but when you dink around with people's very real identities and hand-wave away issues around defamation and stupid, juvenile comments, well .... you're setting yourself up for a big problem, is all. My problem ends when they're redacted, frankly, and your own records are 'pure' as you also have a full edit history to refer to. It's as simple as that - Alison 01:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're admitting that this is all about my 'puerile sexual slurs' and not any real danger to you? Fall down 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore, if you have a policy on keeping personal information on RL people, especially non-public individuals yet forbid them any recourse to address inaccuracies, then things are worse than I've detailed above. If you insist on keeping RL full names yet publish false information in full knowledge and having been informed, well ... - Alison 05:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat? Fall down 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that perhaps we should consider Alison's points. It is possible that we will need to review our procedures. On the other hand the server is based on Canada not in the US so it's not clear that US law would apply. But still, it might be best to be safe rather than sorry, and the points she makes might be well made - law or no law.--False Flag 22:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is all nuts. Is she the only Alison in the world to have that last name? Heck, I'm not even the only Huw Powell, surely a rarer combination. human^{be in} 00:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several Huw Powells on Facebook alone. Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Letter of the law, again

I am no legal expert, so one should read the following with a skeptical eye.

1. I believe that there is nothing in the policies of RationalWiki that would require us to keep any libelous material, or material disclosing private information, posted. Indeed, I seem to recall a stir when TheoryOfPractice broke the database in his eagerness to wipe out all traces of a disclosure concerning Karajou, a figure for whom no love is lost here.
2. Libelous material anywhere on the Wiki is fair game for removal (by any sysop in the non-user namespaces, and in the user namespaces as a "common-sense exception" according to our Community Standards). As the database incident shows, this applies equally to disclosure of private information.
3. Although, as was pointed out to me, RationalWikiWiki is not RationalWiki, there would probably not be serious objection if portions of the RationalWiki policy were imported to this Wiki.
4. It is unreasonable to claim that one has no recourse here to counteract libel or disclosure of private information because they are discouraged or disallowed from personally editing articles of which they are the subject, or in which they are mentioned. Does not Wikipedia expressly prohibit this? Is this not why we have talk-pages?
5. To qualify as libel, information must not only be false, but stated in a factual way, so that a reasonable person might read it and think it possible. To qualify as disclosure of private facts, information must not be previously published or at all part of the public record.

In Alison's case:

1. Most reasonable people would realize — and she admits, above — that most of Fall down's remarks about her were of a puerile, insulting nature — not stated in a factual way.
2. Alison has made it clear that her primary objection is to the use of her last name in these statements. I say made it clear, because she declined to use talk-pages to make her complaint known before making the disputed edits, as both Wikipedia policy and our policy encourage.
3. The only factual statement of Fall down's concerning Alison that I have observed here is the statement on his user page claiming that Alison got him banned from Wikipedia.
4. Although I regard this as libel within the context of this Wiki, within a community that despises banhammers and bureaucracy, the proposition that it constitutes libel in law is a much more tenuous one. Even if Fall down cannot provide proof of his claim, more people would probably be cheering Alison on than condemning her if the statement were true.
5. We should obviously take into consideration Alison's statement that she only posted her personal information on her Wikipedia user-page in response to it being posted elsewhere.
6. Nevertheless, according to the letter of the law, the fact that she posted this information herself — under the GFDL — invalidates any claim that this information is private in any way.
7. Taking down any of this information does not make it private again, just as taking it down does not revoke the public's rights to it under the GFDL; once published, always published.

— ListenerX 05:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the GFDL trump libel law or the letter of any other law? (hint: no, it doesn't.) Jes' saying' is all ...

But yes, appeals to common decency generally fall on deaf ears when wikis are concerned, and this one appears not to be any different. Maybe it's time for RWW to grow up just a bit - Alison 06:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My question regarding the GFDL was whether or not your releasing information publicly under it invalidated any claim that the information was still private. Is this not the case? — ListenerX 06:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Licensing is not a reflection of privacy or otherwise; it's just a license. I can publish private information under the GFDL - it happens on Wikipedia every single day and I get to deal with it - but it doesn't license it for public dissemination or 'validate' it in any way - Alison 06:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

From the text of the GFDL:

This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein...

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.

Publishing information on Wikipedia, especially under the terms of this license, is shouting it to the world. Now obviously if one publishes personal information about someone else under the GFDL, that "doesn't license it for public dissemination," but only because the person who published it had no right to put it under the GFDL in the first place. This does not apply when publishing information about oneself.

I suggest that before you make any claims about the users of this Wiki being devoid of "common decency," you take a look at your own edit history. Had you done as our policies suggest and raised your disputation on a talk-page, explaining the situation about being compelled to spill the beans on your Wikipedia user page due to disclosures elsewhere, you would likely have found us much more accommodating from the start. — ListenerX 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And your point is what, exactly? "Punishment"? Now that you know the original disclosure led to a police/stalking issue back when it happened, does this change matters somehow? You suggest it does. And I'd disagree about publishing anything under any license and its impinging on legal issues. Licensing of text does not change any law regarding the matter - Alison 06:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We (or I, at least) do not seek to punish you for your actions. But your withholding certain facts and taking matters into your own hands caused us to react rather differently than we would have if we had known the entire situation from the start.

Your telling us that you put your personal information on your Wikipedia page under pressure does change the situation, very much; before, some of us had assumed that you put it there entirely of your own accord, but now we understand that this is not the case.

And, although you are correct that copyright law and privacy law are two very different things, and that the GFDL does not change any law, your granting those very liberal terms (under copyright law) for the use of that personal information further undermines any claim you made that the information was "private" for the purposes of privacy law. Even the fact that information has been published by its subject — GFDL or not — is, I understand, a defense against disclosure charges. — ListenerX 07:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And as the pseudonymous entity known as 'human' has pointed out below, and as you mention above, I'd actually withheld information and, indeed, you stated that in absence of that, you treated the situation differently. In addressing that, I was obliged to reveal the police/jail connection. Do you think it's reasonable to demand that sort of detail from a person, just to redact information? I sure don't. Then again, you guys for your own reasons, still persist in re-inserting that information, again and again and again. That's certainly playing an active role in all this, and is just serving to compound the problem. Here's a bunch of pseuds on some podunk wiki, reinserting defamatory comments on a very real person, whilst spouting on about copyright law and 'pseudo policy'. Are we spotting the problem yet here, class?? - Alison 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're just going to insult us, we won't listen to you. BTW, Human's real name is well known. 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to me, it isn't. And stop being petulant - just who's being insulting here? You think I want to be here?? O_o - Alison 08:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up, it's been on your talk page for three days. human^{be in} 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's making you be here Alison, if youve got such a thin skin about your surname that you have to editwar on a "podunk wiki" that's YOUR problem. GuyIncognito 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it the 'podunk wiki' bit that hit hardest? You've a problem with your wiki being disparaged, but have no qualms about publishing defamatory and overtly sexual comments about real people? See the problem yet? - Alison 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I must congratulate you on your strategy, until you showed here removing your name from everything it was only on a sub page on Fall down's user page where people were unlikely to look. Now it is all over a main space page which is rapidly moving to become frontpage material. What a brilliant way you have gone about things it has been so effective. </sarcasm> 192.43.227.18 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

EC Didn't LX already say it wasn't deafmatory Alison? And if you want a wiki that'll have a hissyfit when someone says a dirty word go on over to CP, they'll roll out the red carpet. And BTW it's no secret RWW is tiny, that's no insult. GuyIncognito 00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously

Are you that concerned that some idiot runs around the internet saying nasty things about, presumably, you? All you do is bring attention to your real name, and make yourself look petty. You are chasing this on what has to be one of the world's tiniest wikis - why? human^{be in} 04:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll figure it out ;) - Alison 05:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)