User talk:Alison

Nice to see another female face around. (not to mention a non IE user [I presume!] ) (with butter!)  talk to Toast  03:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, another IE despiser ^_^ Thanks for the welcome - not sure what I'm doing here, but may stick around. This editor amuses me greatly for a number of reasons. BTW this is my account on CP. Not sure why I'm there either :) - Alison 03:47, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 * Maybe because you're totally lame? Fall down
 * See what I mean? ^_^ - Alison 04:00, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 * Way to prove a point, Fall down! [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (with butter!) talk to Toast  04:10, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Oh you do have an account here, welcome. - User   02:59, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you ^_^ - Alison 03:01, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * You should hang around more, this place is a lot more fun than WP. - User   03:03, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * I might indeed. I'm basically retired from WP these days and mostly hang out on other wikis - Alison 03:06, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * You need a banhammer? - User   03:07, 7 February 2009 (EST)

&larr;?? Possibly!! Just how bad does it get around here? :O - Alison 03:09, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * zOMG!! Fastest RfA I ever went through! Thank you ^_^ - Alison 03:11, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Its not that bad everyone has one it makes blocking Fall down more fun. - User   03:12, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * I can't ever seem to get away with blocking Fall down. By the way, I'm his mortal enemy- I make socks to mock him. He makes socks to mock me. Go figure. --"CURtalk 16:25, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Bad? Define bad. Sysoping users who are "mostly harmless" is pretty much SOP around here. 03:12, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, thank you both! Nonetheless, I pledge to wield the thing with diligence and care, and will try to not, like, drop it on my toes or anything - Alison 03:14, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, there's also this, I'm sure it's all pretty standard. 03:17, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you! And thanks for the block, too, you big meanies ^_^ - Alison 03:24, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * You have been blocked and made a sysop, all you have to do is edit war with CUR and you are a full fledge RationalWikian. - User   03:45, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Look. I've attempted to reform. I've been doing pretty well. But you have to meet me part way. Okay? --"CURtalk 16:25, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Welcome much. Your fame precedes you. Anybody who has done so much to gain such profound hostility form Fd is much to be honoured. If you would like to know a little more of our strange ways then the RationalWiki:Newcomers¡ guide may help.--Bobbing up 15:55, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hi Alison, I'm another one of the female editors, nice to have you here, welcome! :-) Refugee talk page  16:54, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Real name
Please stop screwing with the archives to remove all traces of your real name. It's evidently fairly common knowledge. 15:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * I don't think it's unreasonable to remove her real name from pages. It may be "common knowledge" but I don't think it was her decision to "release" it.  Welcome, btw, Alison.   16:02, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Since User:[her real name] redirects to her wp user page, she has released it somewhat. 16:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Maybe so, but she didn't put it on RW, & if she doesn't want it noted here, especially given the unpleasant context it appeared on, I for one have no problem with that.  16:08, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * * cough*🇰🇪*cough* 16:09, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Cough, what about him? Has he ever objected to his name being on RW?   16:11, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Show me where he ever, ever, confirmed his name as being Kenneth DeMyer. 16:13, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why? That has nothing to do with a user who has objected to her full name appearing here & has tried to remove it from a page.   16:21, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * However, she altered archived posts by other users without their consent, a big no-no in my books, and she has already confirmed her real name on WP. 16:24, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Very well. I shall allow her to remove her real name if I can remove all instances of Fall down's name, as he never gave it here either. 16:31, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Fall down's name is, well, Fall down. We don't know his real name. --"CURtalk 16:33, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * We do, actually, and it was on the wiki in four places before I wiped it. 16:34, 7 February 2009 (EST)

(unident) What was it? Tell me! --"CURtalk 16:35, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Nope. It's still around if you look at recent changes, and it's still on RWW. 16:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Whatever. I don't think you do yourself any favours by siding with Fall down.   16:39, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * It would appear that he gave it when he sent the e-mail. --"CURtalk 16:42, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC)I'm not siding with Fall down, I'm being consistent, and Fall down and Ken were the only two examples I could think of offhand. Feel free to revert it, so long as you don't let Alison continue removing her name. 16:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * But neither of them has objected to their name appearing here & Alison obviously has. And no you're not being consistent: you put Alison's name back in & took FD's out for no reason, even though it was Alison's right to privacy we were discussing.   16:49, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Objection on its own is not enough; TK has never given his name, but when he requested it be removed, we did not comply. Saying that Alison has "more right to respect" than FD is no good either; Fall down still has a right to privacy. 16:54, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Tk did give his real name in the LA Times article on Conservapedia though, that releases it into the public domain, I think. Refugee talk page  17:01, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * I believe that the rule is: If a person's name can be easily found, then we may use it. Alison does not get privacy under these rules. Therefore, I do not see any reason to erase her name. If she does not want us to use it, we won't from now on. But we should not change the past. --"CURtalk 16:58, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC, reply to Hoover:) Why are you so determined to make wild comparisons to completely unrelated situations? TK's name appears in articles because we follow his activities at CP, & his name was published in the LA Times. His request to have it removed from RW was made in a private email to one user & not openly on the wiki. Alison's name was posted on RW in an obscene context by a vicious troll with a grudge against her. I think removing it is entirely reasonable, & not a cue to take loads of other people's names down for no reason. 17:03, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * I would support allowing her to remove it if she hadn't confirmed it herself on WP. 17:12, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Since it is easily found, I see no reason to remove it. If someone found my name, that would of course be different: In addition to being a minor, my name is not easily found. --"CURtalk 17:15, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * I have asked Fall down on RWW if he objects to having his name here. I will continue the discussion accordingly when he replies.  17:18, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Fine. Why not ask all of these guys too?  We're using most of their names without their consent.   17:26, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Given that you're the one supporting Alison's right to have her name removed as it was used without her consent. This could be solved if we left the name in the archive (let's face it, who even reads them). 17:29, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * When you "this could be solved", what the fuck "this" are you talking about specifically? As far as I'm concerned the only issue to be solved here is whether Alison has the right to remove her name from a nasty comment about her that a troll made in his user anme, & I believe that such a small change to an archived talk apge, which did not change the tone of anybody's comment, is entirely reasonable.  Rather than address the issue directly, you start quibbling about the rights of other people who are nothing to do with this.  What is to be solved now?  You already removed FD's name from several pages so why ask him afterwards if he objects?  Please see WP:WP:POINT & Don't feed the Troll!   17:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Are you so upset about a username which is obvious in the logs being in an obscure archive? Don't expect me to be back until tomorrow morning. 17:39, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Your attitude about this has pissed me off hugely for several reasons. I value new users, & making them feel welcome to the site, & I think particularly gaining people with wikiexperience &/or standing in respected sites like Wikipedia could be an asset to the site.  I don't like to see them alienated by a pedantic & unfriendly attitude, especially regarding their personal privacy.  I don't care that much in itself about people's personal names appearing on the site, but I do care about users' rights to object to their name being published here by other people, especially if their name is being abused (e.g. Alison's name used in a rape threat context).  In this case, removing her family name from an archive does not cause the site to lose anything; putting it back in might upset or alienate a new user.
 * Your response to my comments was particularly childish. You point to irrelevant examples  as an excuse for breaching the privacy of an editor who has obviously objected to it, & then make a lot of edits just to prove a point.  Obviously you didn't care about Fall down's privacy before this conversation, or you would have taken his name out sooner.  You did it just a petty response to this conversation, and, I strongly suspect, just to piss me off.  In fact, I really don't care whether his name appears here or not, but saying you were being "consistent" when FD hasn't objected to his name appearing here & you were still leaving Alison's name on display after reverting her edit was just pathetic.
 * One or two people here might know my real name from email correspondence, but if anyone was enough of a dick to post it, especially in a highly malicious context, I think I would be within my rights to delete it or to raise strong objects. If the response was "oh, we mention Karajou's real name, so it's fair game to mention yours too", I would be extremely pissed off, & I am similarly pissed off to see another user get that kind of brush-off.
 * And then asking Fall down's opinion. What the fuck?! You'd already taken his name out of any pages & nobody had reverted it or raised any objections, so why does it matter what he thinks?  Fall down is a troll.  His only interest in this site is causing unrest & being the centre of attention.  As long as people keep talking to him or about him or naming socks after him, they're just stroking his ego & he's just going to keep coming back & being an asshole.  Asking for his input in this discussion is pretty much the last thing I wanted.   19:34, 7 February 2009 (EST)

This dispute has sparked off on a smaller scale at RationalWikiWiki; I have weighed in on that part of the dispute here. 01:05, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I apologise for wiping FD's name, but I still think that she should still not be allowed to remove information from the archives, as Listener pointed out that it was not in violation of the privacy policy, and she has confirmed her last name on WP. 04:27, 8 February 2009 (EST)