User talk:Risker/Archive 10

Peers and hoaxers

The fighting there is getting beyond a joke. [1], perhaps you would like to quell them. Giacomo Returned 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I need a response and a clarification.

Giacomo wrote [2] "I have explained (privately) to an Arbitrator, Risker, the problems and impossibilities of Wikipedia trying to rule on this, and trust that she will relay this to the Arbcom and checkusers. I think you would all be best advised to simmer down before you are all blocked for edit warring. If Wikipedia was forced to take a standpoint (and you all seem hell bent of forcing it to do so) it would have no option, but to take the stance that the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source. " .

I have request a clarification about this assertion: "but to take the stance that the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source"

I, however, after 40 years of study about and on heraldry and genealogy, I've never read this news or some similar infos.

Giacomo don't reply to my precise question.

Now I asked to you a clarification. In the discussion seems to have you give this undocumented information.

Could you confirm me if it is a your information and where it was taken?

I'm still waiting a documentated reply to this assertion posted above:on 12:20, 12 May 2011.

Anyway I think that who gave this information has confused two repertoires:

I repeat: in Italy there are two repertories titled "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana" , one is official register of the Italian State, the other is only a private publication.

All people can now see the difference between these two repertoires:

In order to see the cover of the official register of the Italian State named "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana"AND the comparison with the same name book, that really is only a private initiative, you can see this link: [3] and the discussion on 21.10. 2010 ore 11:36 (photos of the covers of two Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà: in brown is the official register, in blue the private book).

I think that here you have confusing the Official Books of the Italian State called the "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana (Golden Book of Italian Nobility) always manuscript and today in the National Central Archive in Rome [4]

with a private publication that have simply the same name.

The "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" published in Rome from 1910 to today by the Collegio Araldico has nothing to do with the official register entitled with the same name "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" that is also today a official directory compiled by the Consulta Araldica, from 1896 to 1946, that was an official office of the Kingdom of Italy.

In Italy there is a private publication with the same name that plagiarizes the name of the official register manuscript, on today and for almost a century, and has been already convicted at least once for this reason by a official italian decree [5]

Now I ask if you must specify the sources of this information (bibliographic and/or documentary) about this bizarre news about the Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana that, as you wrote, was individuated (by you?) as the only accredited directory about the italian nobility.

Thank you very much. I'm waiting yours precise answer.

Please reply. Thanks. --A curious reader (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry to but in here, but it's all very well you people claiming to have titles, but how can one possible be expected to know, if the "Libro d'Oro" (or whatever Debrett's is called in those foreign parts) is published in some unintelligible language - is there an English version? One of my favourite husbands was a Marchese; a fine figure of a man in most respects, but I did sometimes feel he overestimated the length on his pedigree.Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lady Catherine, you're right.

I can understand the difficulty of anyone who reads only English.

But it is obvious that the books about the nobility of a Country is compiled in the language of that country.

The nobility recognized by the Kingdom of Italy, because a lot of noble families still already exists in the pre-unification Old Italian States (before 1860 year), or created by the Savoy, amounts to a total of about 12,000 families, in addition to these there are those wasn't recognized by the Savoy (another 10,000 families) , most now extinct. In the U.K. there are only about 2000 titled families (Earls, Dukes, ....) but in Italy there are today about 7000 titled families recognized by the old Kingdom of Italy (1860-1946) with a title nobility (Counts or Earls, Barons, Dukes, ....) . The others are only decorated with the title of noble or patrician of .....

However, effectively, there are some little books that had published some lists, from time to time, about the main Italian titled families, with some biographical information, among them I know: "The Royalty, Peerage and aristocracy of the World" (also titled "Annuaire de la noblesse de France); see "http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2319202

Obviously, in this book isn't put a lot of families of small and medium nobility, which are in the majority in the Italy, as I wrote: however, the ducal families, princely families and families decorated the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire there are for the most part on this book.

Please, be careful though!

This book, which I mentioned is not complete! There is only a book that is almost complete about the italian nobility: this is the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" and only in the XXXI edition (2010 year, 8400 pages, 4 volumes, 23 kg or 51 lbs as you prefer) !!!

I hope that who wrote here about these arguments is an expert.

But if I read what was wrote here I have my doubts ....

Anyway I'm always waiting for a response from Risker..... --A curious reader (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just don't see what all the fuss is about; it's not as though they are proper British peers, like my own dear father. Most of these Italian ones are descended from bank robbers, poisoners, highwaymen and manufacturers of intoxicating liquor - the sort of people a more enlightened society would have sent to populate Australia or some such place. I can't think why anyone would ever want to claim descent from such people let alone buy books about them. Cradle of Civilisation? The place is more a den of iniquity. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your response qualifies you for who you are, my gentle Lady.

As repeated in his times, day by day, Cato the Elder "Carthago delenda est ", after I said goodbye to this great lady above, much more modestly I insist on asking here: I'm always waiting for a response from Risker . --A curious reader (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Still no any documented answer? --A curious reader (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect you wil have to wait a long tme for Mrs Risker to respond, extraordinary woman - Canadian you know; funny race - no sense of urgency or timing, probably stuck in a snow hole somewhere. I remember when my late husband was Governor General of Cananda and I was mistress of that dreadfull house with the overinflated pediment one would ask the natives for drinks at 6, and they would turn up at 6.30 having already eaten and then decline the drinks saying they were dry - no wonder they were dry, if they don't drink - jolly unhealthy if you ask me. I can't say I care for foreigners greatly. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Rideau Hall is a dreadful house. And I am indeed a remarkable woman - so much so that I have more pressing things to do on my Friday evening and Saturday morning than trying to sort out claims to Italian nobility. If I start digging here, the results may not be pretty; I will not hesitate to block sockpuppet accounts (regardless of who operates them), put articles up for deletion, and remove claims (positive or negative) about people that are not clearly and obviously supported by sources. I'll start working on it in a few hours, I still have some time-sensitive matters to attend to first. Risker (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well I have time sensitve maters too, if my beloved nephew sees Rideau Hall's daft info box stating "Architectural style Regency, Norman Revival, Florentine Renaissance Revival" he will have appoplexy and we all know what happens then - what pray is "Norman" about what appears to be a 1910s geriatric home somewhere on the North Orbital and is there some other form of Renaissance Revival other than Florentine? - not that Rideau Hall is is in anyway any form of Renaissance. One despairs of this project - one really dies. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• If anyone cares how this all ended, please see Talk:Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana. There were enough socks there to supply a small rugby team. Including the one who opened this section of my talk page. Risker (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

More sock[s]?

User:Ulwencreutz (contribs) seems likely to be a sock of user:Contebragheonte, judging by this edit, which refers to this prod. Presumably the prodded article is on the noble title which his enemy claims. By the way, I reverted the latter edit not because I have any view on the notability of the Dukes of San Donato—an AFD on which I would be unlikely to !vote could decide that—but because I was suspicious of the edit. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

mea culpa on SPI Giovanni33 page

Sorry about invading the wrong turf - Jehochman and V7 are both specifically involved in the SPI accusation with V7 just coming off an edit war block. I have no horse in the race at all, just get annoyed at folks who routinely make accusations with zero evidence (the material at issue does not appear idiosyncratic to one editor, to be sure). Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Collect, with respect, I couldn't disagree more...when looking at the POV pushing at the same articles, the same material, the same problematic issues. same series of IP originations, these editors have all the trademarks that I well knew Giovanni33 to have...--MONGO 00:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Collect, no worries. I understand everyone's frustration there; it's a difficult situation. MONGO, I'm not entirely sure how much of it is POV pushing anymore; rightly or wrongly, and different from some of the other "alternate" views of history out there, this one appears to be gaining support in the academic community rather than being relegated to the fringe - or at least that's the case outside of the US. Our earliest prolific contributor wrote hundreds of articles spurred on by his university studies. There's cause to be suspicious of the accounts, I'll grant, but CU won't help in this case, and I'm not terribly certain that SPI will either. For the record, I'd venture to say that at least a third of the duck blocks I review ultimately reveal penguins. Risker (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The academic community seems to reward oftentimes far left viewpoints and revisionist history and condemns those that disagrees with them as bigots, nazis or idiots...its unfortunate the manner in which academia rewards like thinkers and undermines contrary thinkers. But I concur that regardless of whether this is Giovanni33, its only an admin issue if they fail to follow policy...however, SPA's and POV pushers here solely to promote an agenda still need to dealt with. I'm sure if I broke down these accounts edits it would be pretty convincing this is Giovanni33...it wasn't hard to demonstrate patterns in the Seven of Diamonds case.MONGO 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the person issuing the allegation furnish any sufficient evidence at all? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your incessant lobbying is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 17:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I don't think any of you are lobbying, I think you're all trying to look out for the best interests of the project and the appropriate content and sourcing of the project. You're just all coming at it from different angles. Here's a suggestion (and it's a suggestion only): At AfD, they have a method for calculating the notability of an academic that involves how often their works are cited; it's discussed at WP:PROF. If the author of the sources that are proposed for inclusion has a high "number", it's more likely that it is considered a significant academic source, and the fact that several editors try to include it is as likely because it's significant as because it's a POV-push. On the other hand, if the author has a low "number" (i.e., not a lot of citations of his/her works), the likelihood that multiple accounts trying to insert the information are operated by the same person is much higher, and the more likely it is a POV-push. This might be a helpful way of killing two birds with one stone: ensuring the sources we use are as academically accepted as possible while also looking for patterns to eliminate SPA pushers of theories that are not well accepted within the academe. Risker (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Kind of like the way Google uses PageRank to rate sources. Fascinating that academics have decided to copy Google's methods. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Why have I been oversighted here

Could you please find out whu i have been oversighted here:

• 19:41, 11 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana ‎ (edit summary removed)
• 19:40, 11 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana ‎ (edit summary removed)

I am aware that someone claimed to have been outed in that thread (I think some were playing with fire and shouting when they became burnt), but my edits and the debate in which I was involved in no way pertained to that. The oversight appears to have been more than heavy handed and smacks of unexplained censorship. I would like my comments restored or at least a very good explanation form whover has removed them.. Thank you. Giacomo Returned 09:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Giano, when edit 1 adds improper material to a page that needs to be oversighted, and edit 10 removes it, then edits 2 through 9 need to be oversighted as well so that the bad content isn't visible in the history. This is no reflection on the editors who contributed edits 2 through 9. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree. It was a valid conversation relevant to the subject, that one sentence (which had little to do with the debate) which contained the "name" could easily have been removed - sledgehammers and wallnuts rather spring to mind - don't they? Giacomo Returned 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into this (or arrange for someone completely impartial to do so), Giacomo, but I think most of what was removed was information linking an account to a real-world identity; if you commented on that then your edit may have been removed. If not, then your edit was probably left in place. It would not be, in any way, a reflection of your edits, but on the edits made by others who made an inappropriate link. Risker (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I made no comment or reference to the "name", my comments were completely unconnected with that (as was almost all of the thread), and I require them to be restored. Giacomo Returned 19:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Giano, your edits cannot be restored without restoring the suppressed material to public view. That isn't going to happen because you require it, as you know, which leads me to wonder why you are pursuing this request. AGK [•] 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• To clarify: the content that GiacomoReturned added to that page remains accessible and visible. Only oversighters, however, can read the specific "diffs" from the history of when the information was added. That is because someone else added personally identifying information to the page which remained there when GiacomoReturned made his edits. Once the personally identifying information was removed, all of the "diffs" between the addition and the removal were suppressed. Non-problematic information, including GiacomoReturned's edits, were left in place fully visible on the page. Risker (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Board elections

I have just been looking here Category:Board elections 2011, but it's so complicated I can't see what I want to know, and you are sure to know the answer; is there just one page where all the candidates are listed? - obviously I won't be voting for Coren (any editor so small and inadequate that he can only cover his errors and subterfuges by declaring other editors mad, should be sent packing, not voted onto the board), however, I would like to know who else there is to vote for, without going through dozens of alphabetical pages. Giacomo Returned 20:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Try here. Risker (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, well, I suppose it's not supposed to be a beauty contest is it? Even so...! Middle-aged men in baseball caps are generally to be avoided as are men who wear short sleeved shirts. Ms Richardson looks worryingly familiar as though she's a long lost American relation of Lady C, and ErrantX (who I may vote for) needs a hair cut. Ferdinando Scala looks OK and intelligent and so does the one from Jerusalem. The one from Holland looks a little too healthy for my liking (I'm always cautious of healthy, smiling people). One or two of the others look OK, and one looks a little unwashed, I shall have to peruse them carefully. Thank you. Giacomo Returned 20:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've not formed any firm opinions, and I expect there will be a few more candidates before the closing date. Myself, I'm kind of leaning toward Ms. Richardson, who is possibly the first Board candidate whose real life accomplishments justify a proper Wikipedia page, while still understanding both the purpose of Wikipedia, and having experience at an international level in non-profit executive positions. It will be interesting to see how it all ends. The one thing I am disappointed about is the voting system, which is the Schulze method, because there is no effective way to oppose a candidate. When voting, rank only those candidates you could live with on the Board; if you do not believe they are suitable candidates, do not rank them in any way. Even ranking someone in "last place" places them above candidates who receive no ranking at all. Risker (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there going to be a "None of the above" option? not a snipe at the candidates, although I do think it's a poor crop—but at the moment it seems to be "you're getting some permutation of these people even if you don't want any of them", and I don't really like that. – iridescent 21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Ms Ricdardon too because she's the only woman - well (knowing Wikipedians) half the others could be women too, but she's the only one confessing to it. Needs a few more, I like women on the whole, I wonder what Bishonen is doing - you and Iridiscent could always run too, that would liven things up. Giacomo Returned 21:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Iridescent, the best I could suggest is to find the least objectionable candidate and rank them in "last" place, leave the rest unranked, and register your vote. That's about as close to "none of the above" as I think the system will permit. And Giacomo dear, I'm flattered, but I think my chances of success are pretty well non-existent. Risker (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Astrononomically better than mine though, so clearly not zero. Malleus Fatuorum 06:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would vote for you Malleus, assuming that you are not a middle-aged baseball cap wearer. Giacomo Returned 06:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have an irrational loathing of all hats, especially baseball caps, and even more especially when they're worn backwards. And wearing a hat indoors is just so ... yuk! Interesting to put a face to Coren though, it explains so much. Malleus Fatuorum 06:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think one must be charitable: perhaps it is the middle of the Canadian winter and the elderly have to wear caps indoors to save on fuel costs. I agree with you though, my mother used to swipe us around the back of the head if we wore hats indoors and knock then off; I got swiped quite a lot which probably explains things. Giacomo Returned 07:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

More of the same

I seem to have been able to attract your attention to Nancy Cartwright - perhaps this discussion might be of interest. It is completely unrelated. Or extremely similar. Sometimes it is hard to say. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to note I commented there. Risker (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dukedom of San Donato

Just a quick note to say "thank you" for your effort in sorting out the sockpuppetry issues at the above page. It is appreciated. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks too. I have found quite a bit more information ans some portraits etc, but would editing the page be red rag to a bull - I don't think time and waiting is the solution - any ideas? The inference is that the page should not be deleted, but what do we do with it? it can't be left like that; it's misleading. One family who held it briefly for 50 years amost 400 years ago cannot be alowed to monopolise and hold it to ransome from the family who held it very uneventfully from the mid-1600s to the 1970s. Giacomo Returned 11:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There was further socking yesterday, which makes 5 accounts in just a few days. Therefore, I have taken the unusually harsh step of blocking a rather wide range of IP addresses to prevent further accounts from being created and to permit legitimate editors of the article to regain control of it. If you have the information to improve the article, now would be the time to do so. Risker (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have started a big re-work. If it gets too hot, I can take it into userspace and complete it there. Giacomo Returned 15:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Results

See here. Should be everything you're looking for. Let me know if you have any questions/issues, but I will probably be out for the next 8 hours or so at a tournament. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance, Shirik. This will provide the community with the tools to review the appropriateness of any changes in protection, now that the pending changes trial is being devolved. Risker (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP and flagged revisions case

I would like to ask you to re-read the comments at the "BLP and flagged revisions" case and reconsider your decision to decline. In particular, I would draw your attention to:

Statement by SlimVirgin

Comment by Sjakkalle

Comment by Eraserhead1

Comment by Guy Macon

...and if you don't re-read anything else, please at least carefully consider the points made in:

Comment by TotientDragooned

Statement by Will Beback

Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that I arranged for another administrator to provide the full list of all BLP articles that had ever been under pending changes protection for review by the community, and that this matter has now become moot as the articles involved have been reviewed in accordance with Arbcom expectations. Risker (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

please undelete gymnast sandbox page (nofollow is OK)

As discussed in your offer, please undelete the sandbox page and add the nofollow notice. I understand the sensitivity and even the snap judgement that the page must be pedophilia or promotion (it is neither, though). Unfortunately female gymnastics is a sport where the top athletes are minors.

Subject is notable (real sources including NBC network television (when she won the Nastia cup), national team-member, international meet medal winner, probably in the top handful of female vaulters in the world...all despite her age) and the draft article already shows some of the reasons for notability. Wiki tends to have a very good understanding (and low bar) for soccer players and video games, but because of the male demographic, less understanding of sports like gymnastics. In any case, I can handle that kind of discussion fine after the page is done as part of a normal AFD with the overall community if someone is inclined.

Definitely add the no-follow.

TCO (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done (Belatedly) and a message left on TCO's talk page. Risker (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mad! Mad! Hihihi!

Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 20:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

• Mad? I doubt you know the meaning of the word. Poor little Mr FT2 is a little verbose, I grant you, but which of the Arbs are not? One can't expect civil servants to behave as one does oneself - what does it matter? it's not as though one is going to meet them anywhere. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ha, are you there, Hamlet's father's ghost or whatever you go by these days? One may unfortunately meet them — recollect the encounters under the sign of the cupcake of Bedlam! Have one, they're delicious, hihi! Bishonen | talk 21:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC).

This was resolved by closing the request. But yes... Risker (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Bad image list

Hi there,

I saw your edit on the bad image list, but noted that it was put in alphabetical order as the rest of the page is, therefore I alphabetised it for you, but just thought I'd let you know for the future! :)

Hope this helps,

The Helpful One 12:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Thehelpfulone - duly noted! Apologies for not responding directly sooner. I've taken your message to heart and my most recent addition to the list was properly positioned. Risker (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Clarification

I've stayed far away from this as I tired of being called a "troll" by Barong and his pals, but I have been watching the situation closely. Since Motion 5 seems to be the only one that passed: is he allowed to simply switch IPs and edit even more "semi-anonymously"? Because that is what he has done.[6] Does the clarification need further clarification? It would seem that since most knew that 125.162.150.88 was him, he was at least going to remain as that IP until it's all been decided, if not actually comply with the restriction and create yet another named account. It's not like his recent edits are disruptive, but the strange quiet from the first IP doesn't mean he's been taking a "breather". Good luck to the AC sorting this one out... Doc talk 22:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I believe someone else has blocked one or more related IPs. It's a difficult situation; Barong has made some useful contributions to the project, but also seems to have made a good attempt at trying to rewrite history in order to justify the actions that led him to be banned in the first place. There's no winning (for anyone) in some cases. Risker (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

bad-faith BS. love the implication of ac-infallibility. 222.124.91.230 (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack/Barong/IP, you know my position, which is that I see no reason to lift the restriction on alternate accounts, a standard restriction that has historically ALWAYS remained for reinstated editors who were banned at least in part for abuse of alternate accounts. Complaining here about it is rather pointless, particularly as you have spent the last several months illustrating exactly why that historic retention of restriction has been appropriate. This is about your behaviour, which has been far from exemplary. I am very well aware of your personal situation; indeed, I have experienced similar events in my own life during the time that I have been on the Committee. My expectation of people who are in this situation is for them to take a break, not to go about acting as if they are so indispensable to the project that any degree of bad behaviour will be tolerated. None of us is indispensable. Your primary complaint seems to be that the continued existence of the restriction to one registered account without IP editing means that you're being treated differently than other editors. You are entirely correct, you are being treated differently, because most other editors don't go around creating alternate accounts to continue battles with other editors to the extent that they were banned from the project; you've tried to frame the behaviour that resulted in your original ban as having been part of the valiant fight against deletionists, but you'd put that argument forward contemporaneous to the case and it was not accepted then, nor is it accepted now. Your deliberate compromising of your registered accounts, and continued taunting posting as an IP, does more to reinforce the appropriateness of continued of restrictions than anything Arbcom could say or do. Perhaps you should consider some serious self-examination to figure out what is truly motivating your behaviour here. Risker (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Moar bad-faith. I've meant well all along. John gets this. You, however, are enabling a host of trolls and assorted other unimpressive editors. I've given up on this failed community and am merely taking the piss to demonstrate what you and too many others are abetting. People see this, and are leaving. Examine your own behavior here, and that of my detractors. They are the future of this site, and that's pretty sad, really. 222.124.91.51 (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you've given up on this site: leave it and stop your definitive trolling. No one's begging you to stay except some users whose user pages you've gussied up and whose pet projects you've improved; consensus be damned if the colors chosen aren't to your liking. This "failed community" gets along just fine without your disruption, you'll be shocked to know. You are not nearly as important as you believe you are to the success of this site. We have bots for that stuff. You should appeal it to the community. Or ArbCom. Or even Jimbo. Doc talk 07:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you, Doc. You think I care what you think? You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. 222.124.91.51 (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As is anyone that doesn't want to hunt pigs all day. Steal their glasses and blame them for being wrong. Disgusting, really. Doc talk 08:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Okay folks, this is quite enough on this page. Jack/Barong/IP, you have been informed that you may edit from a registered account of your chosing - at least one that you've not already compromised. So either register an account or go away; it's your choice. Doc, I'd appreciate it if you'd allow this to be the last word on this subject, at least on this page. Risker (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I know you said enough but I just want you to know I just blanked my user page and plan on leaving due to this editor harrassing and stalking me without anyone stopping it. I just thought you should know this since I am the second editor now leaving for the same reasons. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Juice Plus and Rhode Island Red

User:Rhode Island Red is back in ownership mode at Juice Plus, in spite of the requests made prior to his 6-month ban that he stop editing the article altogether. The article is a travesty, as many have remarked over the years, and a blot on Wikipedia's reputation. I would suggest an admin investigation into the neutrality of the article, leading in all probability to a permanent ban on his activities there, but I have removed the article from my watchlist instead. --TraceyR (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tracey R, I am very concerned about your conduct with respect to Juice Plus and the campaigning that you are now doing, insinuating article ownership, misstating that I was banned in the past, and absurdly asking for me to be banned from WP in the future.[7][8][9] The time has come for you to stop this harassment, as I have had to endure more than enough of it in the past and it is becoming a serious hindrance to the project and my editorial freedom. If you aren’t willing to refrain from such inappropriate conduct voluntarily than I suggest that we take this to the highest level of dispute resolution in which we can discuss COI and you connection with Juice Plus. As a distributor, you should have revealed your COI long ago, but instead you lied about it and have been skirting the rules all along. This harassment, and the contentious editing on Juice Plus, must stop. How do you want to proceed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I shall reply to Rhode Island Red on his talk page. I see no need to maintain several parallel threads. --TraceyR (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It would seem prudent for this user and I to disengage from direct contact going forward, as direct contact is more likely to inflame the situation than resolve it. Comments from this user would best be posted elsewhere than on my Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red deleted my reply to his attack, so I have preserved it on my talk page. It can be found here. --TraceyR (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at WP:RfPP.
Message added 00:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Trying to persuade you to semi-protect. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 00:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Given recent events as indicated on your talk page, it's probably best to just leave things as is right now until you've come to a decision about what you'd like to do within the project. Risker (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse

I'm guessing that's not a username you wanted to hear of again. However, she's started what appears the self-same behaviour over on Wikinews.

I note from the block log you tweaked the final block to also prevent sending emails; since Mattisse emailed the administrator managing a dispute resolution between myself and her, I'm soliciting your input. You'll find some of the drama at n:Wikinews:WC. My opinion is this is a continuance of the same disruption as took place on Wikipedia. If I get that confirmed, I'd expect she'll simply be banned as too disruptive. --Brian McNeil /^talk 06:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)

Hi Brian; I've read the DR and the Water Cooler posts at Wikinews. The blocks on various Mattisse accounts on this project were changed to include email blocking because of the nature of the emails; their content would have been well over the "personal attack" line if posted onwiki. From our experience, Mattisse has considerable difficulty in letting go of disputes and has continued some of the same battles for years; in fact, it is the way many of her socks are identified, by repeating the same behaviour. Several of her socks have been good contributors, but then they return to old battles or are identified when a different sock behaves inappropriately. This is ultimately why she has been removed from this project.

Having said this, I think Wikinews needs to make its own decision here. The Wikinews community has the right to expect that Mattisse follow the Wikinews editing standards (which are very different from Wikipedia standards), or to demonstrate a willingness and ability to develop her skills in this direction; if this is not happening, or if she is not acting within community norms, your project is within its rights to consider sanctions.

It's my personal opinion that English Wikipedia should not have any expectations that sister projects such as Wikinews will be willing hosts to users who are no longer welcome on our project; it is one of the serious weaknesses with the "standard offer" that has been promulgated for banned users, because many of our banned/indefinitely blocked users are no more able to work within the cultures of the sister projects than they have been on this project. There are indications that groups of such banned users have had very dramatic effects on the cultures of some of the smaller projects; on the other hand, sometimes there have been good results for both the sister project and the user. For obvious reasons, I'm more aware of the times things don't work out than the ones where there is success. Risker (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the considered response. Wikinews has, previously, taken in some barred from Wikipedia and they've worked out just fine. Although, it seems I upset someone enough to post on my WP talk that I perhaps should not be soliciting other opinions on the matter. As you say, on a smaller project the disruption frequently outweighs any possible positive gain. --Brian McNeil /^talk 13:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)

RE:Thank you

No problem :), and thanks for the star. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Connelly

Thanks for your comments to improve the article, Gunt50 and me assessed together the concerns about the article that you detailed in the nomination. Check the progress we made and if the re-phrasal of the sentences that were doubtful is now clear. Thanks again.--GDuwenTell me! 03:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I did not have an opportunity to review again last night, but will be over there within the next 24 hours. Risker (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, about the comments on Jennifer Connelly's FAC, we have tried to assess your concerns and it would be helpful if you could revisit the article again and either support or oppose the promotion to FA. Many thanks for your initial comments and your time.--GDuwenTell me! 02:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I will be re-reading the article tonight and posting further to the FAC. Thanks for the reminder. Risker (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We'd be thankful if you could keep working on your sandbox if possibly, since the source review would considerably help to succeed in the nomination. Me and Gduwen are willing to collaborate. --Gunt50 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight needs updating. Risker (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

It's good to be back. Read your email lately? --causa sui (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oi! you managed to wipe out my note to self! :-) I've read my email and the link. I don't have a good answer for you. I'm insanely busy IRL (it's only Wednesday and I've been in 20 hours of meetings this week), and am likely to remain so until the end of the month. At that point, I plan to take a couple of (well deserved, I hope) weeks to decompress and do some content work, but I had planned to work on something quite a bit less contentious. I keep hearing that editing is supposed to be fun, at least some of the time, and I'd kind of like to check that notion out. Let's play this by ear. Risker (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem -- I wouldn't take it as an invitation for anything. I mainly just wanted to let you know that I'm kicking. Hope you enjoy your vacation (and the fun editing). --causa sui (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a quick thumbs up & thank you for your prompt handling of that OTRS/BLP/sock puppet issue! Asav (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, Asav. Thanks for hunting me down. :) Risker (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And what can I say, except thanks again! Asav (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

HA

Well whata ya know. My gut instinct was actually right for a change. Hi Risker. Had any good chocolate brownies lately? :-) Cheers and best, — Ched :  ?  12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey there Ched, nice to see you about again! I am devastated to admit that I haven't had a decent brownie in months; if it wasn't already sweltering here, I'd make up a batch right now. Yeah, there I was hoping to do my last review of an article at FAC, and instead wound up doing a rather complicated sockpuppetry investigation. I'm taking a couple of weeks' break from the arbcom stuff at the beginning of July, with the specific intention of doing some research and improving some content, but I wonder if people will leave me alone if I'm hanging around here. ;-)Risker (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with that instance of sockpuppetry. The Chester Markel account wasted a great deal of my (and others') time and goodwill, particularly on Talk:Abortion, where things are iffy in the best of times. (Now is not the best of times). So thanks for catching that. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing me to where this was discussed? How conclusive was the sockpuppet investigation? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you would think the discussion would be onwiki; investigations of accounts that appear to be disruptive to arbitration proceedings are pretty well never discussed here. The investigation is conclusive; other checkusers have been asked to review and comment, and there have been no dissenting opinions. His edits with respect to Talk:Abortion were not a factor in the investigation. Risker (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have followed the discussion and joined in (as is encouraged) on the abortion page. I did not follow anything else, although I saw that the editor in question had also taken part in a couple of AN/Is. I am a little shocked, the editor in question was as civil throughout the debate on that page as everyone else, and well-reasoned in his/her argumentation. In fact the editor's clear-headedness impressed me, given the way discussion on that page can become bogged down. I'm not here to question how wikipedia conducts its investigations. Just to say I did not detect troublesomeness in my encounters with this editor, and they did not waste either my time or goodwill on that page. DMSBel (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Myself above as IP. 62.254.... DMSBel (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi DMS, no offense intended here, but you joined our merry cause in 2010, so you wouldn't be able to remember the whole John254/Kristen Erickson ridiculousness (John was Charles' puppetmaster) as it happened at the beginning of 2009. You can read more about it here if you'd like, but the end result is that he was banned for abusive sockpuppeting, and there isn't much leeway in those cases. Kind regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

re: to Risker. Ahhhh ... you do remember then. :) .. that was a long time ago .. haven't been on IRC in AGES! Well .. you enjoy your break from AC .. I know just since I've been back, I've seen more than enough there to last a while. Oh .. BTW ... my daughter and her sig. other are finally gonna tie the knot in July ... YAAAA HOOOO!!! ... Glad for my grandkids too ... just wish they wouldn't grow up so da-gone fast. All my best. :-) — Ched :  ?  21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember this user from the last ArbCom case I was heavily involved in, that time he initiated the case as Erik9, and I remember that time too that I had no suspicion about the sockpuppetry before it was revealed. Seems to be a rather well-accomplished sockpuppeteer who is able to stick around by employing a civil demeanor, but who then tends to raise the level of conflict in venues such as ArbCom. He seems to be back to his old tricks. Anyway, thanks for uncovering and dealing with this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci

Risker,

I apologize if you're the wrong person to go to about this, but a while ago someone else linked me to a discussion they were having with you about this issue, so I know you're familiar with it. Please let me know if there's a different arbitrator I should bring this up with instead.

As I understand it, user:Mathsci is under agreement with the arbitration committee to not be involved in race and intelligence related articles. However, he is clearly still following these articles very closely. Recently he has been leaving borderline-harassment comments on the user talks of editors he apparently dislikes, such as this one on mine where he makes accusations of meatpuppetry and other violations. I also see he left another one here in someone else's a couple days ago. He has also done this in my user talk a few other times recently, such as in this comment threatening me with enforcement at AE (and apparently threatening you as well).

I don't really even know who Mathsci is, I have never interacted with him outside of his periodically accusing me of policy violations and threatening me with sanctions in my user talk. I am aware that he has made an agreement with the arbitration committee to no longer be involved in the R&I topic area, so I'm wondering if what he's doing now is a problem? Any advice would be helpful, thanks.Boothello (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U: Cirt

Dear Risker, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, --JN466 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Alive and well

Hi, a Sockpuppet that you blocked indefinitely on June 19 may be active again under another name. Do you mind investigating? I read the instructions, but I have no idea how to do it. Banned accounts are User:Chester Markel, User:John254 and the new account is User:Fistoffoucault user contributions [10] or it may be a Sockpuppet for User:Aronoel, they seem to be active at the same time. Thank you so much for your help! USchick (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry about a deleted page

I noted that a voice actress I was going to add data to has been deleted, namely Carrie Savage, I would like to know what happened exactly, seeing as how I was just on this page a few months ago. Murakumo-Elite (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Under what username? Risker (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that info doesn't seem to be available. I just want the page unremoved so I can rebuild it to proper standards, it DOES have a working form, and I am certain to find it once it's put back up. Murakumo-Elite (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Murakumo-Elite, your username does not appear at any point in the log of this now-deleted article. It was deleted because it was a completely unsourced article about a likely non-notable living person which contained so many BLP violations in its history that it needed to be suppressed. There was no evidence of her being notable, and as far as I can see it was being used as a link farm to increase the internal hits to the programs she had supposedly done voice-acting in. I will not be restoring this article. Risker (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat

Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Other than sockpuppet blocks what other kinds of checkuser blocks can there be? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Many IP blocks are not sockpuppet blocks, although the IP (or IP range) is likely to have been used for sockpuppetry. Range blocks in particular will include many IPs that were not used by a sock.

The wording of the motion focuses on the label attached to the block, not the reason for the block. This is deliberate. If a block is marked {{checkuserblock}}, it is not to be lifted by an administrator without prior agreement from the initiating checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. It does not matter why the label was attached to that specific block. Risker (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems legitimate enough. What I was trying to clarify is that it doesn't apply to the main account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. Any account that's has been blocked with the reason {{checkuserblock}} should not be reversed without the permission of a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee, no matter what. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Deskana and Risker that no block marked as a checkuser block should be undone without permission of a checkuser or ArbCom. The existing wording in the Blocking policy was fine. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly confusing enough that I didn't understand the wording. An extra clarification doesn't do anybody any harm. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? It was unclear to you that if the block message says {{checkuserblock}}, you should not unblock without discussion with Arbcom or the blocking checkuser? Because that's what it has said all along. Risker (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because as usual with the blocking policy there are a ton of borderline cases that no-ones considered, such as whether the template has to be applied, whether it applies to all blocks where there is checkuser evidence etc. etc.

It also makes vastly more sense for the sockpuppet to not be unblocked than the main account, the checkuser evidence confirms that the sockpuppet is the same user as the main account, but with the main account we already know they are guilty so it makes less sense that the same criteria apply to them.

I'm perfectly content for it to apply to them as well, but its certainly worth making it clear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets give an example for this. Lets say I was blocked for sockpuppetry and I claimed that the sock account was my brother. To unblock my account you are just required to believe that I'm not going to use multiple accounts in the future - whereas to unblock "my brother" you have to believe that the other account really is my brother and not just my made up account, which is going to require a higher level of confirmation - and thus why I made the original clarification as I thought that's what it was referring to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked again at what is said in the policy. I think using the link directly to the template might make things a little clearer. If something uses the {{checkuserblock}} template, it has to be cleared at a higher level no matter what; however, checkusers make hundreds, even thousands of blocks without attaching that template. Risker (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks much more satisfactory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that talking things through worked out so everyone was satisfied. Risker (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your work on the User:Sophie case. I've, em, read over the leaked arbcom-l correspondence.

Waterfox ^~talk~ 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is one of those rare situations where I really have no idea what to say. Thanks? Risker (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What is this ghastly thing? Since I altered my email settings and accidentally restored default settings - I have had this horrible heart tab encouraging me to give kittens, American fast foods and other foul objects to people - perish the thought. Does anyone know how i can get my search box back on the left hand side and Admins lit up in blue (I like to know where they are)? If you know the answer Risker dear, I'll give you a nice loving animal or something. Giacomo (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can switch the search back to the left hand side by going to Preferences > Appearance and switching the skin back to monobook. I don't know about the other stuff. Sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much better; it's got rid of the horrible heart thing too. All I neeed now is the admins back in shiny blue and I'm laughing. Giacomo (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're using monobook? User:GiacomoReturned/monobook.js hasn't changed since 2009; you should still be seeing admins in blue. Perhaps you could try clearing your cache. NW (Talk) 04:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That script seems to have timing issues, if some dependent scripts finish loading too late it won't work. Try User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js instead. Amalthea 11:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, the Admins all turned blue the moment I reverted to mono-script. I never cease to be amazed by how many of them there are on my watchlist, one wonders if there are any writing editors left. I stopped writing a few months ago. Well, I have done far more than my share - now like the rest I just sit and pontificate and share my opinions - funny old world isn't it? It seems, Wikipedia gets what Wikipedia encourages. Giacomo Returned 19:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping proposed decision

All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash have a chat 08:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at LeadSongDog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

make whole sandy sandy non-follow?

I am finding a lot pages in my sandbox in Google searches. It's not that there is anything weird going on in them, but they are half-done. Also don't like having that level of prominence with my account versus the content. Can you somehow make the mother sandbox non-follow and that will follow to the daughters? 01:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if it is possible, I don't know how to do it. However, if you look at the page I did put no-follow on, you know how to do it for the rest of your sandboxes. Personally, I think that the entirety of userspace should be no-follow: people's sandboxes and other bits wouldn't show up in searches of the most popular search engines, and there would be reduced motivation for people to create accounts simply to have a "facebook"-type brag page. (Excuse me while I get off this stump.) Having said all that, perhaps one of my talk page watchers might have some suggestions. Risker (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a common template on all the subpages, {{NOINDEX}} will do it. Otherwise, adding that template to a page will remove it. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

I appreciate your swift assistance! SQL^{Query me!} 03:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, MZMcBride is no longer an administrator so would not have been able to help. Risker (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My, I have been gone for some time, haven't I. SQL^{Query me!} 03:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and farewell

I thought I had better drop you a brief note as I am being taken away to foregn climes for a few weeks, some dreadful hot, fly ridden place where the internet like the natives is spasmodic and unreliable - Giacomo will insist that the whole family makes this annual pilgrimage - at my time of life it's not wise, if I don't succumb to malaria, berry berry or a rabbid goat it will be a miracle.

Now, to business, you may have noticed that some people seem very keen to put poor Giacomo's most fascinating, but unfinished works into mainspace, I would be grateful if you could watch over them during our absence; they are listed here [11]. Giacomo may be able to edit from that outlandish, God forsaken place; he's had this booster satelite thingy fitted that sends his edits into outer-space, back to London and then onto Wikipedia, which is all very clever, but I don't expect it to work as it will doubtless have been fitted by one of the natives; last time I could not even watch Glee on the TV. Whatever the aliens must think with all this buzzing past their ears one shudders to think - I sympathise with them; allthough, I suspect half the people editing Wikipedia are probably aliens too. Now I must go and complete my packing, we leave at the end of the week and I need to take further preventative medication in my gin before leaving.- Oh shudder. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to watch the pages, though I may not be around an awful lot either in the coming weeks. You watch Glee? I always knew you were a woman of discerning taste. I trust you will remain well during your travels. Risker (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please block

please would you block this user Adamfinmo; he is warring and putting an uncompleted page of mine into mainspace, removing an "unfinished flag" and generaly trolling. Thank you. Giacomo Returned 10:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Commented on your user talk page, but no, I don't think a block is the right move here. Risker (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Erm, yeah. I have no idea why I was looking at that diff, but I must have hit rollback accidentally when I was trying to get back to my watchlist. Freaked me out when I saw my edit to your page on the top of the list, and I rolled myself back immediately. Apologies, I should have left you a message, but I didn't want to leave you any more yellow bars... Risker (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea

... that those were archives. Yes, they said "archives" but I didn't notice.

That said, my points were well-made.193.239.220.249 (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)b

Was I CUed?

1. Was I CUed for bringing the Mattisse request? Just looking for a yes/no.

2. Have I been CUed otherwise (from private requests). No details needed. Just y/n.

Thanks in advance and peace. (No lecture please.)

TCO (reviews needed) 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi TCO. You were not checkusered in relation to the Mattisse request, and I have never checkusered you. We've never developed a process for answering the general "have I ever been checkusered?" question, and I'd like to refer it to the Audit Subcommittee for both a direct response to you and development of a "best practice", with your permission. Just in relation to the privacy policy, I shouldn't really be rooting around in the checkuser logs just to see who's been checkusered before unless I am actively investigating someone, and I have absolutely no reason to investigate you. Could I refer that question to the AUSC? Risker (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool answer. Glad that you and Hersford did not sneak a peak because I brought the request. Shake your manly and womanly hands. Guess I am not that fascinating or suspicious. Just a garden troll.

Yeah...sure ask them and develop a policy blabla. Amazing we are still figuring these things out. ;)

My understanding from reading the CU explanation (just did, I really AM a newbie) was that the act of checking is logged (by who and of whom) and available for all to see. I think that is actually a good idea so that you at least have some peer accountability to stop misuse when doing private checks (like the Jimmy checked his talk page commenter from the WR leaks...not meant as a TCO parenthetical jab...and if that is not a valid example...you get the idea anyway.)

You've got my permission to do a check and see if I've been CUed. I won't even push on who and when the dry hole was if "yes". Honest. Just will be nice if "no". Really the only thing you're compromising is the ability to catch me if I'm socking (and I'm not).

Please don't confound this idea with me drilling a dry hole...but as a non CU, I think public requests actually benefit the accused and private benefits the accuser and the CUer. It's common sense that it will be easier to run tests if not having to face public accountability when false. And from a non-CU-privileged standpoint, I would much rather know that a test was run on me, than not know. I know there is a balance of sock hunting versus privacy of accused. But private requested or ad hoc CUing favors finding more socks and disfavors limiting fishing. Even if you have a "policy". It's just common sense how the incentives work and how on a questionable case it will be easier to do it when never disclosed. I'm sure you can think of an analogy in the hospital or the like.

TCO (reviews needed) 18:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Message from blocked user

Just in case you are not watching, Mattisse (talk · contribs) has left you a message at User talk:Mattisse#Help - I am blocked and Risker told me to use this template. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Poem?

Hi Risker, I hope you don't mind, I'm copying your user box and using it on my user page. I believe at one time you had a very profound poem on your page, and now I can't find it. I didn't want to copy it, since you were using it, but now that you're not, do you mind if I use it? Do you know what poem I'm talking about? It was really great, but I can't find it by looking at the page history. I'm pretty sure this is where I saw it. Thanks in advance :-) USchick (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. The only one I can think of is In Flanders Fields (link, which I traditionally put up on Remembrance Day (November 11). As you can see by the link, it's actually part of a template, but if you look up In Flanders Fields I believe the whole poem is in the article, as it is out of copyright. I think at one point I also had a quote from "Hopeful Hearts", a song by Sarah Slean (external link for lyrics). To this day, I think that song characterizes a lot about Wikipedia editors in general, and the reality of being an arbitrator in particular. Feel free to use it within the confines of our copyright policy. :-) Risker (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Focusses/focuses

The difference is a BritEng/AmEng thing if you didn't realise. (I don't give a hoot about having my spellings changed, but you know, there are people that do... :P) Just for future reference. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have both American and British dictionaries on my desk, and both spell it with a single "s". It's a very, very common error, however. The rule is to double the final consonant when the stress is on the final syllable: compare "focused" to "occurred". Risker (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the OED descibes usage of "focusses" as irregular, but not wrong, according to the online version (to which I have access). Personal choice issue, I guess. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the OED also prefers the -ize ending over -ise, despite the latter being the more traditional suffix used in England. I was told by someone who specialises in academic writing that being consistent is more important than sticking strictly to the officially listed -ize endings (which is what Wikipedia enforces anyhow). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I understand, but you know how some people get tetchy when they find their spellings corrected, especially when their version was not "wrong". Someone may want to update Wiktionary. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:IRC#.23Wikipeida-en-help_F

Wikipedia_talk:IRC#.23Wikipeida-en-help_F  Chzz  ►  03:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

CU/Constitution

Yes, but it's the origination of the phrase, which is semi obscure. Thus nice to link to so readers can appreciate a bit of background, no? Egg Centric 07:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A big barnstar for the arbitration committee

I really appreciate how you all have handled the Merridew situation. The committee took over the case when an ANI discussion was trending to a ban even over Merridew's supporters. And then did largely nothing. As a result, the AC enabled an editor with a long-term documented history of WP:HA issues to repeatedly attack an editor (me recently), while Merridew's supporters scream "involved" to prevent me from stopping it. I also appreciate how at least two arbitrators with prior involvement in the case did not recuse, and then used their positions "of trust" to help and support Merridew, enabling Merridew's behaviour. Shall we mark WP:HA {{historical}} now? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

sweet jeezus. are we still attempting to humour merridew into being a productive editor? He just is unable to. while his content work might be admirable, there is no way he can stop harrassing and fighting with others. Please please please let the committee get over the infatuation with him and send him away for good. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yopienso

Do you feel I was unjustified in my suspicion? I am perfectly willing to accept they were not socks, but I am of the same view as the clerk, that this wasn't a clear-cut case because the sock-like behavior exhibited. I just don't want this used to justify drama around a good faith action. --Cerejota (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Risker, for your time, wisdom, and diplomacy. I greatly appreciate your attention. Best regards, Yopienso (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Account creator and IPBE

Risker, I see my error has been corrected by someone else.

Your message regarding inappropriate rights is duly noted.

Regards. Saravask 08:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I was unsure which award was the most appropriate here. The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar? The Resist Hivethink Award? The Optimist's Star? In the end, it comes down to integrity. Thanks for seeing the big picture, and saying what you did at the arbitration, even while inactive on the case. Your support meant more to me than you could have known. JN466 10:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Robert P Lemiszki Jr.

Since he was a member of the Audit Subcommittee, I will e-mail his widows e-mail address. That way the commitee can send their condolences, plus ask whatever they would like to know. Sounds like an idea? Tony the Marine (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, Tony. Thank you very much. Risker (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• The e-mail didn't go through. Here is my e-mail address: <snipped to prevent spamming> send me an e-mail then I will send the information back to you in return. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Email sent to you from my personal gmail.com account, I'll redirect to the Committee as a whole. Thanks so much. Risker (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Obituary

For those interested here is Lemiszki's obituary: Robert P Lemiszki Jr. Obituary

Re:

I've been involved in a dispute where someone templated me and kept re-adding it, so I understand it is annoying... But what other way do you get attention? He has every right to remove it, and I can add it. Removing my comments is not right, regardless of whether a conversation is 'closed'. Toa Nidhiki05 01:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What in heaven's name makes you think that because a template is used, you will get the attention you think you are owed? Take it to the article talk page. That is the correct place for further discussion about the content of the article. The review is complete. Risker (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-visiting ban decision

At Tenmei banned for one year, you support a harsh sanction.

Please consider a less severe remedy in light of a wider contribution history which may have been overlooked -- see

• User talk:Roger Davies#Thank you for writing something good
• User:Newyorkbrad#Thank you for writing something good
• GA, 2010 G-20 Toronto summit

In 2009, Roger Davies observed,

"I believe that Tenmei was trying to create an appropriate backdrop for later helpful and meaningful discussions ...."

The Senkaku issues were not simple; but there you have it.

Even this diff does not alter your judgment in this instance, I hope it will influence your thinking in other cases which arise in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Risker,

I understand that you are very concerned about my personal information, my privacy and a declaration of being a minor. I would really appreciate that you would just let me know where i have mostly shared my information. My age, and my hometown is information that i have given and i mean no harm. Thanks, Zin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizouz123 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Vulgar jokes

Hi Risker, please see my reply at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Vulgar jokes. Thanks for your comments on this. Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have replied further at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Vulgar jokes. It's a bit lengthy, but I think it addresses some of the points you brought up and clarifies why I have brought the issue to Wikipedia:Civility specifically. Thanks for your continued participation in this discussion. Kaldari (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Have commented. I don't see this as anywhere near the top 10 problems we have in driving off new editors (instant CSD from NPP, twinkle/huggle templates, and instablocking/threatening of potential COI accounts are at the top of the list, as far as I am concerned), and given the heavy use of revision deletion on many other pages in the project for pretty much the very things you're talking about on the WP:CIVILITY page, I'm not seeing this as an issue. Risker (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Other than using twinkle templates what can one possibly do? At least with those the IP/new editor gets some kind of message - its far better than no message at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to disagree with you on that point, Eraserhead. I cannot count the number of times I've seen people templating an IP/new editor for "vandalism" or "unhelpful edits" when in fact the edits were perfectly sound. I've seen plenty of vandalism *reinserted* using those automatic RC patrol tools, with the IP/new editor warned all in one flourish. If someone is incapable of writing in their own words what is wrong with the edit, then chances are they don't understand the edit well enough to be reverting it. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of vandalistic and nonconstructive edits for which the standard templates will probably suffice, but I'd estimate at least 20% of the ones I've seen on talk pages are not appropriate. Risker (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose I am pretty laid back as to what I allow and use templates such as the unsourced one for borderline cases. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: We seem to have very different ideas of what the word vulgar means. I'm not talking about potty humor; I'm talking about degrading sexual jokes that would be offensive to most reasonable people. Jokes with punchlines like "My mom's fucking the turkey" and "A woman's anus after being sodemized". As someone who spends a large percentage of their time editing articles related to women's issues, I probably see these jokes a lot more than people elsewhere on Wikipedia, and while it is true that vulgar jokes can be degrading to men, 100% of the cases I've seen on Wikipedia are degrading to women. I'm not playing a card, I'm just stating the facts. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we do have different definitions of vulgar, Kaldari; my dictionary, sitting right here beside me, does equate vulgarity with potty humour, not with grossly offensive stuff. You're an admin. I am pretty sure I've never said this to an admin before, but use your block and revdelete buttons more. You don't need the civility policy to do either of those; the examples you have given would never be pertinent to an article talk page discussion, and are disruptive and/or trolling, neither of which are acceptable on our project. You don't need the civility policy to do that; it's like throwing marshmallows at a shark. Risker (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly been my experience that blocks based on Wikipedia's civility policy lead to nothing but problems down the line. Have I ever mentioned that I was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to come back to something you've said here, and over on WP:CIVILITY, Kaldari. Statements like the ones you've mentioned here are just plain *degrading*, and not just to women. Women may be the targets, but (and right now I'm going to use some off-colour words, please bear with me, it's a paraphrase of something my ultrafeminist friend sometimes says) until people realise that wading through shit makes you stink, no matter whether you're a man or a woman, the point hasn't been put across. Risker (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Question for you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Break. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped you a mail concerning the discussion you mentioned in relation to this. --JN466 21:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC at WT:TPG

The proposal to change the wording at WP:TPG so that it allows removal of disruptive off-topic posts has gone down in flames. Since it looks like it will be impossible to get any traction there, I wonder if you would reconsider your opposition to the wording change at WP:Civility. I have posted some further comments there if you would like to reply. Kaldari (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean this RFC. It's been up for 48 hours. Give it time: I've not even had a chance to read it, let alone comment on it. Ensure that the editors who commented at WP:CIV are provided with a link in a neutrally worded comment on their talk pages. Changes never happen in the blink of an eye. Risker (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Urgent Help

Hi.Please help me.Please tell me What I must do? I am new comer to wikipedia.I delete some mistakes and lies about Azerbaijan and Iran.But these two users User:Xooon and User:Alborz Fallah were plotting against me Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orartu to continue their lying about Iran and Azerbaijan.For example:When there is no valid source about Azerbaijani ancestry of a person, they insist to put them in category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent.This user User:Ebrahimi-amir and me are different users.But this user User:Xooon wants to intend we are same.They want to violate the neutrality of wikipedia.They want the deletion of this articleAzerbaijani Genocide in Iran too.They also couldn't tolerate an active female user from Iran.Please help me.In advance thanks a lot for your helpsOrartu (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.You are an angel.With respectOrartu (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for troubling you again.I need your help again.I think this user User:Alborz Fallah has posed two other complaints against me.This[[12]] and this [[13]]I talked with them in their talk page and in my own talk page about our disputed cases.But they did not accept and want to impose their views with force.I have not written Azerbaijani Genocide in Iran article yet, he wants to poison the atmosphere.Orartu (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to look for help elsewhere on this matter. I provided two suggestions (third opinion) and mediation, to try to find a resolution to the content disputes that are happening here. I urge you to consider these ideas. Risker (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Puzzled (Orartu)

I'm puzzled as why you tried to prevent the Orartu SPI investigation from taking place? I am also puzzled as why Orartu chose to canvass you on your talk page in the first place? So I was wondering if you had any off-wiki communications/recommendations/requests about this case and if there is another person involved here? Because this is not a content issue, I have no doubt that two users are one and the same, both have an identical fringe POV, and both are engaged in making blind reverts to remove of sourced content and replace it with WP:OR [14][15], and helping each other avoid WP:3RR. [16] Note that as soon as one of them reaches WP:3RR limit, the other one jumps into make the 4th revert. This is clear evidence/ground for a user check. They're clearly related accounts. What more " evidence " do you require to initiate a check? And more importantly, what's the harm in doing a check which you tried to prevent from taking place, when there is reasonable doubt in place, and Wikipedia's integrity is being compromised here by a user who is removing sourced content from academics, replacing it with nationalist original research. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I had never heard of any of you before today. I believe that Orartu contacted me because I am one of the checkusers, responsible for checking the IP addresses of accounts suspected to be sockpuppets. It was immediately apparent, however, that not even the filer of the SPI thought that the two accounts were operated by the same person; review of the contributions also confirmed that it was very unlikely these two accounts are sockpuppets. We do not check the personal, private information of editors unless there is good reason to believe that two accounts are being operated by a single person. It is clear, however, that there is a content dispute going on there; thus, I have made suggestions for all parties to work together to resolve that dispute. Risker (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know you were one of checkusers. I guess that could explain why he contacted you. But I'm still pretty sure these two accounts are related. I believe I've provided sufficient evidence above for a check. Is there something you're seeing that I am not seeing? What makes you say "review of the contributions also confirmed that it was very unlikely", because when I look at their contribution, I see the same pages with identical reverts intended to evade 3RR, an identical POV, with the same nationalist/ethnic-centric overtones. What am I missing here? Can you please cite some examples differentiating these two accounts? Kurdo777 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the user comparison tool that is right on the SPI page, that does not show what you have implied in your post, and is derived from the combined edits of both accounts. As well, reading the posts of each account, it is apparent that they have different abilities in writing in English. Finally, there are the global edits of the two accounts. Orartu,Ebrahimi-amir These show significant variances in timing, volume of editing, focus of interest. It should not be surprising that multiple editors from the same geographic locale will have knowledge in common. Risker (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing what you are seeing. But I'll take your word for it. The main problem here though, goes beyond these two editors regardless. Someone requested an ArbCom about the larger problem, and I'm hoping that will solve the issue. Regards. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Puzzled

Regarding this[17], with all due respect, I believe you're missing the point here. Normal dispute resolution will not work when you're dealing with Kamikaze-type sleeper accounts/socks who are activated at the request of a lobby group, to engage in hit-and-run disruptive edits, and disappear as soon as the ArbCom sanctions are applied to them , only to reappear again under a different name, either from a different location or using a different IP hosted on private paid proxy, which is provided to them by the lobby group in question. Just look at the sanctions log for AA2, it's two pages long, and most of the sanctioned editors have since reappeared under a new name. The long-standing editors simply do not have the resources or the energy to chase these SPAs who are being created and recycled all over Wikipedia on daily basis. The AbCom sanctions system has proven to be ineffective, time-wasting bureaucracy that is easily evaded by the sanctioned editors through these single-purpose accounts and socks. Just look at these two recent examples [18][19] When I asked you earlier about why you were contacted or if there was any off-wiki communitarian involved, you must have thought I was nuts and paranoid. But once you read that mailing list in question, you realize how complicated this lobbyist operation is, and how deep their reach is in Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you study all this evidence with an open mind. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take this to the case request page, so that all members of the committee (as well as the rest of the community) can see and respond to your comments. Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do I put it? By the way, where do you get the "2007" date from? You're wrong about that. The mailing list had been active till recently when it was compromised, discovered and exposed on Russian Wikipedia and moved to a new location, the messages are indexed alphabetically I believe, for example here is one random message on that list from May of 2010[20]. There should be no doubt that mailing list is still active, just look at the volume of the "pop up out of nowhere" votes by SPAs/inactive users on the "Flag of South Azerbaijan" AfD page. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, you put it under your initial comment. Leave a blank line, and then you can start your "additional" comment with "@Risker" to help it stand out, as you are answering my question. Secondly, the link you have given me is a different mailing list than the one that was sent to us earlier this year. Risker (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was sent you, nor have I sent you anything. But this is the mailing list in question [21] which resulted in a new ArbCom case in Russian Wikipedia, and the messages are not from "2007". They're fairly new and recent. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And is there clearcut evidence that they are referring to articles on *this* project? Can edits in those emails be linked directly to activity on English Wikipedia? That is the criterion we use for whether or not external emails will be considered as evidence, normally. Risker (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read the English translations of the Russian text, 80 percent of the messages are about what to revert, when to revert it, or who revert it, or how to evade or circumvent this rule or that rule, or how to fish this admin or that admin...all linked to actual account names in English Wikipedia... as well as derogatory racially-charged comments or ethnic slurs about different admins or editors they do not like. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, bring that to the case request page as well. Risker (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "example" you provided does not relate to the English Wikipedia. I only want examples where an article on THIS project was affected. Risker (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it was a random selection I clicked on by chance, just to show you the date. The majority of the posts there though, are about Wikipedia. One last word: these topics involve complicated abuses/gaming, most admins will not touch them with a 2-foot pole because they appear on surface as content disputes, when in reality it's something else. That though escapes most admins who are not familiar with these subjects, which is why the committee of expert editors/admins from OUTSIDE the region, is the only permanent solution to this problem that is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source. I say this, because this idea has worked on Russian Wikipedia, while the same time-consuming nationalist bickering in this topical area persist on English Wikipedia. Another importnat issue here is the "turn off" factor, meaning that most expert/neutral editors are simply overwhelmed and turned off these topics due to the nationalist bickering , and simply leave these topics and go on with their lives, while the nationalists stay to carry on with their "duty" for their country/lobby group. If there was a mechanism in place to prevent nationalist disruption in this area, that would not happen. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the Arbcomm request (so feel free to delete it if you wish). But it pertains to the above. Quick statement on the list. An Arbcomm member asked for a list. Incase you wanted one related to English Wikipedia , there is a lot from the 2010 Russian list [22]. Here is a message on why John Vanderbergh is not involved in AA Topics in Arbcomm [23]. Here is an example of 2009 message [24] mentioning current active User:Takabeg. Note there are active users User:Brandmeister) from that list with the same wikipedia name, but others have a different wikipedia name (one within this Russian list is mentioned and I sent some information to Arbcomm a while back on this). By the way, these are just the English language stuff of the Russian list mentioning English Wikipedia. The list probably has more in Russian (but I am not fluent in Russian) mentioning English Wikipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Also I had connected some of the accounts to users previously from the 2010 Russian list (which mentions English wikipedia and edits in it), and sent this information to Arbcomm a while back with regards to one account. But other accounts are apparent and there were more. However, this will not be a good solution as such users will pop up with new accounts. The Russian list was used by admins in Russian wikipedia to ban 30 users for 1 year. But the expert mechanism of Russian Wikipedia provides a permanent solution and that is why virtually there is hardly any nationalist AA bickering. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously people - how many times do I need to say this? Please keep all of your comments about this request on the case request page. I'll be archiving this page within the next 24 hours. If you want your comments to be considered please move them to the request page forthwith. Risker (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Block error

I consider this block to be an error, considering the same address has been blocked twice before for block evasion, and the most recent block, for 1 month, expired a few days ago. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In what way do you consider it to be an error? Are you suggesting that it should not have been blocked, or that it should have been blocked for a longer period? I will note that the same banned user has also been using multiple other IP addresses over the course of the last few months. Risker (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The user's behavior, over a period of roughly 5 years, makes it evident that he uses the same public-access computers over and over. In my mind, the use of the same IP address over and over by the same sockmaster establishes that it is a public access computer, such as a school or library. Since it is routine to block school accounts for 1 year periods when it becomes evident the owner of the address does not maintain control over the kinds of edits made, I believe the same sort of long blocks are appropriate.

This is different from DHCP assigned addresses assigned to home users by cable and phone companies; those addresses are randomly assigned out of large pools and the users can't ask for a particular address. In this case it is evident the user is keeping a list of which public-access computers have been blocked and for how long, and he systematically returns to these computers as soon as the block expires. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone back and done a check, and no registered users have edited from there over the course of many months. Given the determination of the user to disrupt, and the habitual return to the same location, I concur with your analysis that it should be blocked for a longer period. I'm going to go with 3 months at this point, and we'll see if that keeps things down in the new year. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  :-) Risker (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I took another look at the WHOIS information, and note that it is labeled as a dynamic address. That could be an error, and I honestly don't know how long address leases last these days. Just in case it really is a dynamic address, and considering the lease has lasted at least a month, three more months will probably last the rest of the lease without having a high probability of bothering a subsequent tenant. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Azerbaijani people in Iran

Hi again.Some users who are opposed to this article, find false faults to it and they also use another language in discussion page.They make this page a place for denial of Azerbaijani people's identity in Mongol's onslaught period and other irrelevant subjects like this.Because of this article, they made Farsi wikipedia's admins to change contents of Azerbaijani-related articles and convert them to anti-Azerbaijani ones.These people are not neutral about this article.I don't know what I must do? I am trying to find more reliable sources.But in this case there is a lot of censorship.Because the Persians are dominant in Iran[25], they want to exterminate all documents about this.I am a new comer, and in writing this article only one user is helping me and the other users only want to ruin this article.I also do not have enough time to check their behavior against this article.And they misuse from this and they are entering irrelavant subjects to article.I think they are members of ultra-nationalist parties.After renaming of the article, only two users are against to this article. Please help and guide me again.Thanks a lot--Orartu (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ineffectiveness of AA2

Hi Besides the Orartu seeking mass canvassing vote in another Wikipedia, As an example, user Orartu canvassed votes from the Azerbaijani wikipedia [26] in the following article: [27]. You might want to look at the comments here: [28]. Let me just quote several: "Then the culture of Persians has problem and is mixed with hatred to all ethnics and is dangerous for all of the world. The denial of identity of Azerbaijani people of Iran by you also shows your level of hatred too.I " "Ordinary Pesians like you in Farsi wikipedia distort Azerbaijani people's history, language, identity". "Because the Persians are dominant in Iran, they want to exterminate all documents about this." (just above in your webpage). Now your an admin, and based on AA2, you have all the power to sanction such a SPA account. However, this shows the ineffectiveness of AA2 that I would have to waste hours writing a long report and then in the end, such a SPA account is given a wrist slap. I am saying that if there is formal mechanism of group of administrators, then there is no need for this sort of bickering, as any POV problem of conflicting nature would be resolved by such a mechanism. Those admins will tell that user he is pushing POV and then he can't bicker about others. Of course I won't bother here more, but I wanted to just show the ineffectiveness of new accounts and ips popping up (many of them reincarnation of same accounts). And yes I have warned this user of Wikipedia policy, and he is active in several other wikipedias and he should know that already. The root of the problem is not a single user, but massive ideology [29]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a female user, you must use she not he.I am a new comer, when I understood, it was opposite to wikipedia's principles, I deleted them.But you were not a new comer, and you intentionally violated the Wikipedia's principles.You have not deleted your false comments and your advertisement against this article in Farsi wikipedia yet. --Orartu (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll let Risker decide who violated principles! You are not a new comer as your account shows you have been here several months. Besides AA2 sanctions allows admins to impose a permanent ban on new comers (if the sanctions are serious) who violate WP:NPA and do mass canvassing. But I am waiting to see if those AA2 remedies are toothless here or not. Risker can demonstrate it or he might say: "go take the problem somewhere else" which will be disappointing.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

But I was not active and I have not had many contributions to know all the principles well.If promotion for the article in other wikipedias is forbidden, why you said to this user [30] in Farsi wikipedia to put the link of this article [31] in Farsi wikipedia and report the admins of Farsi wikipedia [32]? This is an advertisement against this article in Farsi wikipedia and between Persian people.You were aware about the principles of wikipedia.Who do you want to deceive? You and User:Alborz Fallah, User:Xooon, User:Kurdo777 from the creation of article began to work against me.You made this[33] a place to show your hatred against Azerbaijani people,you have shown your hatred enough in Farsi wikipedia against Azerbaijanis and other minorities in Iran.The world respects the pluralism, but you cannot tolerate anyone except yourselves.You want to deny a nation's identity and you showed this [34].--Orartu (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• These issues need to go to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard; they do not belong on the talk page of an individual arbitrator. At this time I am only commenting on the new request for arbitration. Risker (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should I waste hours writing an AE (all charges of the above user is frivolous as well)? I already wrote one up yesterday. If I wanted to be active in Wikipedia I rather contribute than reporting a nationalistic user everyday. I am sure my proposal for Russian mechanism will be reconsidered oneday. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Given your "Russian mechanism" is almost identical to the English Wikipedia AE process, with the exception of tying down specific administrators, I do not see the value in changing the process. Risker (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not. The results clearly show it by the fact that ethno-nationalistic bickering has been reduced there to a non-existent level on AA topics, but in this Wikipedia it gets worst. The reason is that some parties are not interested in reaching a compromise, but rather push POV. Some of them are tied to lobbyist as I mentioned. Also the unfortunate education system that produces it. The Russian admins realized this fact and that is why a neutral committee of admins was formed, and basically dried out the problem. So it is not a "content conflict" it is a systematic and organized "propaganda push". Anyhow, the results show the difference. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The non-academic Farsi wikipedia needs fundamental changing not English wikipedia.Look at nationalistic desicion and reaction of Persian admin in Farsi wikipedia [35] against my activities there after your propaganda about this article [36] .I am sorry for such an invalid wikipedia and users like you. --Orartu (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Courage

You recently wrote: "we already have the tools to address almost every single situation referred to in this discussion, but people don't have the courage to actually use them." While I agree with you 100%, I wanted to go off-topic a bit to explain why people (or at least, why I) often don't have the courage to use the tools I have available. Frankly, over the years, I've completely lost the confidence that ArbCom will back sensible but contentious actions.

I would hasten to add that you in particular (along with several of your colleagues) have always been a beacon of sanity and good sense in this regard. However, the Committee as a whole has repeatedly shown itself to be so far out of touch with the reality of editing and adminning in the trenches, and so lacking in empathy for people who do that sort of work, that I've increasingly adopted an attitude of self-protection and extreme defensiveness, to the detriment of intervening "courageously" in challenging areas.

I could cite some examples that have contributed to my current lack of courage, but that would involve naming individuals and re-litigating old disputes, and I'd rather not open that can of worms unless you'd like more details. I will say that, in general, I think one reason editors and admins increasingly lack the courage to use the tools available to us to help build and defend the project is the lack of consistent, or even intermittent, backup from the Committee. Individual admins take on a lot of the risk in these situations, and they're too often hung out to dry.

Again, this is my personal viewpoint only, it's colored by my personal experiences here, and I'm addressing it to you only because your comment at Wikipedia talk:Civility triggered this train of thought. Like I said, I've always viewed you in particular as sensitive to the realities and challenges faced by the average editor or admin in the trenches, but I think you're often more the exception than the rule on the Committee in that regard. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

While MastCell's thought stems from a discussion about civility among our senior editors for the most part, I would argue that it is equally valid and perhaps even more so true when an experienced, policy-abiding editor runs across someone whose purpose on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the second or fourth pillar. Referring everything to formal dispute resolution and/or ANI is fine and well in theory, but it always seems like the lunatics have far more time and ability to waste other editors' time than is at all reasonable. NW (Talk) 04:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with MastCell, and it's my opinion too. I would add, however, that stern warnings about civility when they come from a sysop viewed as neutral to the dispute can have positive effects. [37] But we have definitely moved away from the days where people were rewarded for doing what is necessary; increasingly, the only incentive a sysop (or any editor) has when confronted with bad behavior is to walk away. causa sui (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is most people are civil. What's important is that the dispute resolution is there if needed. If a case isn't going to be resolved anywhere else Arbcom need to take it. End of story.

With regards to the issue here either Arbcom needs to be an order of magnitude more efficient at dealing with matters raised on case talk pages or they need to explicitly allow Mastcell to do what he did. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally even normal editors calling people out for incivility has impact. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DocOfSoc

Hello, I am sorry to bother you, but after your help with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yopienso several months ago, it appears that User:HelloAnnyong did not learn their lesson. The user has once again smeared the reputation of another innocent editor, this time over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DocOfSoc, making the same claim about behavioral evidence as they did in the Yopienso case. This user, who also is an admin, does not appear to understand the burden of proof, and assumes that editors are guilty instead of assuming they are innocent first. Could you take a look at that case and comment there if it is deemed appropriate? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:DocOfSoc#Warning_on_multiple_accounts Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And: User_talk:HelloAnnyong#Mystified Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll bite. First off, this is not the same as the other case, in that the other case could have been read as a collaborative effort. We don't have that here. Over on ovarian cancer:

• 20:21, September 16, 2011 - Mlvwik adds a link to a hospital
• 19:23, September 23, 2011 - DocOfSoc undoes an edit and adds a link to a hospital
• 05:15, October 2, 2011 - NYdoc85, a brand new account, makes its only edit by readding the same link (it was removed by another editor)
• 08:30, October 2, 2011 - Three hours later, DocOfSoc readds the link again

Now then. Over on uterine cancer, Mlvwik added a link to the same hospital, and a few days later, MDfellow, another new account, also adds the same link.

So anyway, we've got four accounts that have all repeatedly added the same link to the article. It's true that the checkuser came back as only being able to draw links between two of the four, but it seems to me that there's some form of collusion here. This isn't just a collaborative effort; this is linkspam. Either way, since there was no definitive connection, I assumed meatpuppetry. As to tarnishing an editor's reputation, I think that's a little overblown. I didn't block DocOfSoc - only issued them a warning based on what I saw as obvious abuse of multiple accounts in some capacity. In full disclosure I've notified Doc James of this, as he was the initial reporter of the case and may have further information on this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Please familiarize yourself with it. So far, you don't have any evidence that DocOfSoc was using multiple accounts, and your usual claim of "behavioral evidence" turns out to be nothing at all. This is the same mistake you made in the Yopienso case, and I would expect you to have learned your lesson by now. For some reason, you have not learned and you are still accusing innocent users of being sock puppets. Since I have only been made aware of these two cases, I am increasingly concerned as to how many innocent users you've accused during your time as a clerk. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Come now, do we really have to attack my credibility? Four accounts who make nearly the same edits, several of which are brand new, isn't just a correlation. Here, you want more evidence? Let's look at edit summaries. This is bordering on WP:BEANS but whatever.

• 19:23, September 23, 2011‎ - DocOfSoc - Why is valuable patient information consistently removed by M.D.s??
• 05:15, October 2, 2011‎ - NYdoc85 - Link provides Relevant, Valuable and Useful patient information.
• 08:30, October 2, 2011‎ - DocOfSoc - Undid revision 453482547 by Lhb1239 (talk) valuable info RV
• 05:32, October 2, 2011 - MDfellow - Undid revision 452038020 by Jfdwolff (talk) valuable info on link
• 20:30, September 16, 2011 - Mlvwik - Patient information about ovarian cancer
• 15:19, September 23, 2011 - Mlvwik - Helpful patient education information about valvular heart disease

Notice the wording in each, and how similar they all are. I'll also remind you that MDfellow and Mlvwik were confirmed as being the same. This is what behavioral evidence is: looking for patterns in user edits. Making the same edit (i.e. adding the same links) on the same pages, combined with rather similar edit summaries, is at the very least suspicious, if not directly telling of some connection. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the same observation you made about Yopienso, and it remains entirely wrong and based on zero evidence. Multiple editors make the same or similar edits and edit summaries all the time in articles. It can occur through reverting to another version. This does not mean that there is a connection between the two editors, nor is it suspicious. You were previously called on this wrong view in the Yopienso case and there has been no change in your approach. There is no demonstrable connection whatsoever between DocOfSoc and these other accounts. Your lack of judgment on these matters has me concerned about your continuing role as an SPI clerk. Now, I don't know what is going on here, but if I had to make an educated guess, I would say that you are disconnected from the reality of editing Wikipedia and that you spend far too much time as an SPI clerk or engaging in other admin duties. If you edited more often, and if you spent more time participating in and studying the Wikipedia ecosystem as evidenced by the page histories, you would discover that much of what amounts to a "connection" between users is nothing more than the brownian motion of contributors crossing paths and agreeing with a particular version. This happens all the time in highly active articles, where editors monitor their watchlists and edit accordingly. For someone who is not involved in the active process of editing Wikipedia, it might look suspicious, and it might look coordinated. However, we would expect an SPI clerk and an admin to be able to tell the difference between random editing and socking. The problem with the above comments from HelloAnnyong is that they show a preference for only one way of viewing an SPI and for preferring some information over others, and dismissing evidence which doesn't fit. For example, HelloAnnyong would have us believe that DocOfSoc's edits are suspicious based on the shared set of contributions given above, but there is actually nothing there linking DocOfSoc with the other accounts. In fact, when we broaden our perspective, and look at all the evidence, we find, for example, that the only thing these accounts have in common is the article on ovarian cancer,[38] a topic that DocOfSoc has made 51 edits to since June 2011.[39] Looking further, we know why this topic is important to DocOfSoc, as she explains on her user and talk pages about the untimely death of her sister in 2010. Finally, we can look at the user compare report to see the specific edits in question in comparison to the other accounts.[40] We can then conclude that as the second most active contributor to the page, it is more than likely that DocOfSoc was monitoring the ovarian cancer article on her watchlist and saw the removal of the link by Jfdwolff on September 23.[41] This link was originally added by Mlvwik (talk · contribs) a week earlier.[42] Seeing that the link was removed, DocOfSoc then reverted JfDwolff,[43] and was in turn, reverted by Doc James.[44] Then, in what was an instance of sockpuppetry, Mlvwik returned to create a new account as NYdoc85 (talk · contribs) and proceeds to revert the link back into the article.[45] This is followed by an edit war, with the link removed by Lhb1239, restored by DocOfSoc, then removed for the final time by Doc James. At no time does one come to the conclusion that DocOfSoc's edits were suspicious. It is not suspicious to agree with another editor or to revert to their version. Countering this claim, can we also speculate that JfDwolff, Doc James, and Lhb1239 are all the same editors simply because they removed the link?[46] Why not? When looking at all of the evidence, it becomes clear that DocOfSoc was already active on the ovarian cancer page and aside from her presence in that article, she shares no other attributes with any other account accused of sockpuppetry. The SPI was filed by Doc James who accused DocOfSoc solely because of her revert, when there wasn't the slightest bit of support for his accusation. I think it is safe to say that as editors, we can revert and restore information without having to worry about being accused of sockpuppetry. The SPI should not have been filed on DocOfSoc and the clerk should not have accused her of ‎abusing multiple accounts on her talk page and in the edit summaries of the block logs for the two socks, where they now remain permanently. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow - "disconnected from reality"? You're going to add personal attacks about me, too? I'll let Risker make a judgment on this one. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is important. I did not say you were disconnected from reality. I said that the evidence suggests that you are disconnected from the reality of editing Wikipedia because you spend too much time on SPI clerking and admin tasks. Do you understand the difference? Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious, yes, and I thought the generic note to DocOfSoc was OK, tagging a blocked account as her sock, probably less so. The other editors pretty definitely looked to be related, but DocOfSoc being a prime motivator as opposed to just getting caught up in it (prompted by her RL experience with the medical system), no, my knowledge of this editor is not consonant with such a definitive finding. The RoadRunner IP caught my eye, as I believe that is SkagitRiverQueen's access mode, so I would have been happier if that SPI had been left open for a little more discussion. I certainly don't support Viriditas' suggestion of a clerk gone rouge, nor do I question "how" they came across the case. My personal opinion: DocOfSoc does not operate sockpuppet accounts. Franamax (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never said or implied this clerk has gone rogue. I've said that there is a pattern of bad judgement and unwillingness to change their wrong views, even after they have been pointed out in the past. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am responding to a post on my talk page. It is a little strange to see this issue being carried on. HelloAnnyong has given DocOfSoc the benefit of the doubt (as she was not blocked) taking her word that she was just caught up in the sock activity of others. (as have I) I am curious how Viriditas has gotten involved in these issues but beleive it is best to just let this one go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing strange at all, Doc James, and I explained how I got involved in my very first thread comment dated 22:12, 13 October 2011. If something isn't making sense to you, feel free to ask questions. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well actually, I'm interested as well. This case is wholly unrelated to the YoPienso one, so did you just happen to stumble on another case where I made a slightly controversial call? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't unrelated at all. I am very familiar with both users and I watch both of their talk pages. I only just saw the message you left on DocOfSoc's page today. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure what all this is about, but I have known DocOfSoc for years and would be extremely surprised and disappointed if she were to resort to socking (especially after being the victim of a socking editor who harassed her quite a bit). I don't think she did any socking; but I also think that HelloAnnyong was just doing a job in good faith and may have come to a conclusion that wasn't rock-solid. We're all human and we all make mistakes. Doc talk 03:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - Mlvwik (talk · contribs) has zero behavioral ties to DocOfSoc from what I can see, and should have been excluded immediately, IMHO. That account's focus on Mount Sinai would also lead me to believe that the IP isn't even close to where DocOfSoc lives and edits from. Like New York instead of California. Of course, I could be quite wrong. But I don't have access to CU results, now do I? ;> Doc talk 04:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Folks, I note the range of comments here; however, I won't be able to look at this further until tomorrow. Risker (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The socks have returned User:Ms22PHD and is adding the same link today. So yes we have a sock here. DocofSocks just was editing the same as them. And against the WP:ELNO policy. Thus got caught up in things. My apologies to her with respect to the question of being a sock. This editor however appears to be too personally involved with the subject matter in question [47] [48] which can make it difficult to write neutrally but that is neither here nor their with respect to this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, everyone. I'm finally awake enough and have sufficient concentrated time to review this in detail. I will be commenting quite extensively at the SPI page. Before saying anything else, I want to point out that I believe *everyone* who has posted both here and at the SPI page is working in good faith; however, it seems to me there are some pretty important mixed messages going on, and we can hopefully improve the outcome of this situation, which I don't think is really ideal right now. Risker (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And I have now posted the results of my review at the SPI page. I do hope everyone will take a few minutes to read it and to consider my recommendations in this situation. In particular, I think there is potential that the accounts involved may be able to be re-engaged in participating positively in the project, which will be a net positive for all involved. The SPI request was a legitimate one, and the original checkuser findings by Frank were also technically correct; however, given the fact that the majority of the accounts were operating from an organizational IP address with very limited technical variations, it is sometimes very difficult to differentiate whether two accounts are the same person or two different people using the same common setups. Risker (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for revisiting this issue and coming to a fair and equitable solution for everyone involved. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I second that! Thanks, Risker. Doc talk 06:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Khukri and SPI

I'm a bit puzzled by your disposition of this report. If by "main account" you mean User:Khukri, he never publicly acknowledged anything. Indeed, only the IP spoke ostensibly on behalf of Khukri, and one time Atomises edited the ANI report, which the IP then changed the signature of. I've read Khukri's analysis (actually it's again the IP supposedly speaking for Khukri) here, and I think Khukri is probably right in that the policy he violated is WP:SCRUTINY, at least with respect to sock puppetry. I also think his deception and game-playing, as an admin, were out of line, even if he didn't violate sock puppet policy. One more thing you might want to read is a discussion between me and User:LadyofShalott here. She's been kind enough to assist me in working through what is an unusual event.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Note to self - late response to Bbb23 on his talk page here Risker (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Dangling Pointer image

Thank you very much.I've corrected that spelling mistake in the corresponding image.Mayur642 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You were right

I wrote an essay instead. Verifiablity and plagiarism are the hammer and anvil of astute wikilawyers. Your comments on and edits of it are welcome. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Beat you to it. See #5. Plagiarist. :P MastCell ^Talk 04:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

go ahead

it's unlikely I'll make that deadline - I'm still working through the best way to present this - so please go ahead and delete that entry and I will file a completed version later this evening or tomorrow morning. Again, sorry for the confusion. --Ludwigs2 05:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Header updated

Per this [[49]], did that [[50]]. Gerardw (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on Refactoring

Please can you confirm if this edit was made as an ordinary editor, as an admin or in your capacity as a arbitrator? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is generally safe to assume that, absent an indication otherwise, if I am editing an arbitration-related page, I am doing so as an arbitrator. Risker (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a yes then? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a yes, but read your question again. You've asked me if I had made the edits as an editor, an admin or as an arbitrator; I would be hard-pressed to edit in any other way than one of those three options, so the answer would always have been "yes". I've said I edit arbitration pages as an arbitrator unless otherwise indicated. Therefore, in this case, it is safe for you to eliminate the possibility that I edited the page as an administrator or editor, which were the other possibilities you raised. Risker (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WMC's restrictions

Hi! There's a difference of interpretation of your recent comment on WMC's editing restrictions. I have commented there and at Off2riorob's talk page. Please correct me if I've misunderstood you. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob has moved my note from his talk page to mine. Yopienso (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Commented at ANI. I was going to chide you for your last edit summary until I read your talk page; now I get it. Risker (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but, am I the dense one here? Now I'm confused as to whether you're saying, "WMC can edit anywhere he pleases, even on a BLP talk page, as long as he's not editing about people," or "WMC had better steer clear of anything that even looks like he's editing about a person." I understood the former; Off2riorob, I think, the latter. Yopienso (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, it's going to be very hard for him to edit talk pages of BLPs without in some way commenting on the article subject; he might get away with "here's a link to the subject's latest published research in the Journal Of Whatever", but if he starts recommending what bits of the publication to include in the BLP, then he's into "living persons" territory. We all know how easy it is to cherry-pick quotes. The article about which the ANI thread was lodged is as close to a BLP as one can get without the article actually being a BLP. Forcing a signature on the talk page? not an issue. Opining on the majority view? not an issue. Commenting about the quotes used to illustrate the opinions of the living persons who are the focus of the article? Getting pretty close to commenting about the people; if he had named names or identified specific quotes, I'd say he was editing about a person by trying to shape the way in which that person's opinion is portrayed on the project. It's a fine line here, and I'm concerned that WMC is walking so closely to it; it's kind of like balancing on the edge of a curb when there's a 20-foot sidewalk available. Risker (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(after e/c but posting anyway, though likely answered just above) Make that the dense two I guess. My interpretation is similar to Yopienso's. Nothing in the presenting case seemed close to the line, trimming quotes is often a good thing and a single paper examining the reliability of the science likely shouldn't be an inclusion criteria, otherwise every climate scientist in the world will sooner or later be termed a skeptic, 'cause scientists do question even the things they believe in. The examples presented seemed eminently sensible contributions to a talk page and not aimed toward any living individual or even detectably biased in any way. Should WMC make a habit of often commenting on non-BLP issues in articles primarily about living persons of course, so as to constitute a (now notorious) "pattern" of behaviour, lots of admins are watching and ready to deliver a swift kick. It's early days though, so I thought we would be going with a reasonable evaluation rather than a super-strict one. So yeah, I'm a bit confused too. Franamax (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, do you understand why WMC had the "living people" restrictions in the first place? You do realise that he has genuine, real-world, professional conflict with some of these individuals, don't you? Selecting which of his opponents' words should be used to represent their opinions on this project requires neutral parties, not someone who has a history of editing about professional opponents in a non-neutral way. Risker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mercy, yes! I was stunned his restrictions were lifted after the answers he gave at WP:A/R. He first gave a non-answer to my question and then ignored the rephrasing. I was disappointed with his focus on one insignificant detail and told him so.

So, when you said, "This means no editing about people, not no editing biographical articles," you did not mean he should feel free to edit on BLP talk pages as long as he didn't refer to people? I really don't know what you meant and am a little frustrated that you have not yet given me a clear answer. I am assuming I misunderstood you. Yopienso (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The early responses to the post on ANI all focused on BLPs, to the point of highlighting that the article involved was not a BLP. Hence my response that this wasn't about BLPs, it was about living people. Obviously I did a really awful job of making myself clear, and for that I am sorry. Risker (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for being impatient. Just fyi, I'm no gentleman; I'm a crabby old woman sweet little grandmother. :-) Yopienso (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

NPP survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Risker/Archive 10! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Manually delivered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IP block

In case you're not watching, the IP has requested unblocking with a query to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. I'm watching and preparing a response. Risker (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey Risker; you asked me to poke you if there was an office hours session that was timezone-compatible? We're holding one on Thursday at 24:00 UTC to take into account you pesky east-coasters :P. It'd be great if you could join us; usual venue, of course. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To elucidate for the benefit of talkpage stalkers; the office hours session is about the new version of the Article Feedback Tool, which 95 percent of housewives state in a survey is less sucky than the nearest non-brand competitor. Or something. If anyone reading this has any opinions or suggestions about the new design, drop it on the talkpage or come to office hours :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oi. This is a high class page. It does not have stalkers, it has watchers. Thanks for the message(s), I'll do my best to be there. Risker (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[not stalking, I swear] I should attend one of those, 'xcept I still need to figure out IRC =) ResMar 03:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, ResMar ;p. If you can't make it through, the barebones plan is at WP:AFT5; the discussion over it is on the talkpage ;). For both your and Risker's benefit, the logs from the meeting can be found here. If talkpage engagement is a bit too hardcore, but you are interested in specific elements, I'll be running a bi-weekly newsletter highlighting particular discussions that people who are interested can jump in on. That way, you don't need to follow the entire conversation all the time, which can be a bit time-consuming (says the man paid to do just that ;p). You can sign up for it here, if it appeals; I've signed Risker up because she told me to :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no "verging" about it

... they are personal attacks.[51] Which is kind of ironic in the circumstances. Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A concern about what you said

Risker, I have a question/concern about the same comment that Malleus linked in the diff above. One of the adverse side-effects of online communication, combined with not naming names, is that people (me) reading comments may think something was directed at them, when in fact it really wasn't. So perhaps I'm being too sensitive here, but I would like to check with you, so that I can know for sure. I submitted my comment, saying explicitly that it was largely prompted by your initial comment, and I went on to mention the phrase "vested contributor". Then your subsequent comment discussed "vested contributor" – thus, my perception that you were, at least in part, addressing me. I've just scanned through all of the other comments, and I'm pretty sure I was the only one who used that phrase. My intention, first of all, was definitely not to make any sort of personal attack, and I'm pretty sure that I didn't. (Malleus, if you too are watching this discussion, please feel free to respond to that.) Beyond that, I wasn't trying to deprecate what you call "a valuable term". Rather, I was just stating what I think is an evident fact: that editors, rightly or wrongly, use the term to imply what some perceive as a double standard. I don't think that I took a position as to whether that is right or wrong. I just said that it is an unresolved matter of differing views, and that my opinion is that the Committee could help with resolving it. If I'm just being over-sensitive, I'd like to know that. If in fact you were correcting something that I did wrong, I sincerely would like to understand what that was, because I'm not seeing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My observation had absolutely nothing to do with anything you wrote Tryptofish, and I saw no personal attack from you. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't perceive the use of the term "vested contributor" as a personal attack. I do see it as a rather serious corruption of a phrase that is regularly used outside of Wikipedia to mean something quite different than what it's usually intended to convey here. (For example, I have a pension plan statement that refers to me as a "vested contributor". That's a good thing, both for the pension plan and for me. Some charitable organizations use that term to refer to highly committed donors who not only give money but make other contributions, such as sitting on committees or boards, making presentations or other public statements, etc.) While there is usually some element of self-interest involved in vested contributions, the key objective is in the preservation or continuing existence of the "interest", in this case Wikipedia. I figure that if someone is so involved and interested in the meta-functioning of Wikipedia that they're posting on Arbcom pages, they're vested contributors. As to double standards, I do not believe that adding quality content is, in itself, a means by which one can excuse any and all poor behaviour. However, rudeness and personalization of disputes are only two elements that can be perceived as uncivil. Risker (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, both of you. And I'm glad to understand that this is the case. (Indeed, one of my personal, um, traits in real life is a tendency to be overly sensitive.) In any case, my intention was never to further corrupt the phrase, but rather, to suggest that the Committee examine what Risker refers to in the last two sentences here. (And I wish you well with your pension plan!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I also commented here, and neither did I see anything of concern in your post. I know how you feel, though, because of a different arb case where several of the arbs posted vague commentary that served to stifle subsequent evidence, so I'm glad you asked! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Got anything for me? Skomorokh 14:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - Newsletter 1

Hey, guys and girls! You're receiving this because you signed up (or manually requested) the Article Feedback Tool Version 5 Newsletter. This is for people who care about making the AFT a better feature, but don't necessarily want to have to participate in every discussion. Instead, I'll be sending a newsletter around twice a month talking about what's been decided and what's still up for discussion - that way, if you're interested in specific features or ideas, you'll know when to jump in :). If you know anyone who fits into this category (or you're a talkpage watcher who does) please sign up here to receive more updates in the future.

First off, editors have already been picking at the basic design, and I've forwarded their suggestions to the devs. Those ideas which are worthy of further investigation (or being programmed into the software) are listed in the status box at the top of the talkpage. Community suggestions that the devs like include:

• Allowing for up and down-voting of comments to indicate priority (suggested by User:Bensin)
• Having comments link to the version of the article (as well as the article) that they refer to (suggested by User:RJHall)
• Including the AFT box as a hidden drop-down from a "feedback" button on section headings (suggested by User:Utar)

So already there's been some great ideas - I was in a meeting yesterday in which they confirmed that the developers are actively looking at how to include Utar's suggestion pretty quickly. There are still a lot of open issues, however; most pressing this week is what level of access IPs should have to submitted comments? The Foundation's plan calls for IP addresses to be only allowed to read the comments, but not to vote on or comment on their priority - this is intended to reduce gaming - but editors may have different opinions. If you like this level of access, want something more open, or want something more closed, please drop a note here.

Hope to see you all on the talkpage soon, with any developments, ideas or suggestions you may have. All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh - and the next Office Hours session will be held on Thursday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. Give me a poke if you can't make it but want me to send you the logs when they're released - we'll be holding sessions timed for East Coast editors and Australasian/Asian editors next week. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Risker

Hi Risker. I picked you to communicate with as you seem to be a prime contributor to the essay on confidentiality. I just deleted reference to a letter -- marked confidential -- from an article. On the one hand, there was nothing I could see to relate it to the person who was the subject of the article. In addition, it was marked confidential -- and it was not clear to me that the person(s) or institution(s) who might have a legitimate expectation of privacy had waived that right. Still, I wanted someone who had thought about these issues to double-check how I handled it. Also, to consider whether even the entry that was deleted, if it was in fact inappropriately added, should be blanked from view. I'm not sure of the answer to this last question, but thought it worth consideration by someone who has thought longer on the issue than I have. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your actions look reasonable to me, Epeefleche. That document could not be considered a reliable source even absent any expectation of privacy given that it has clearly been modified at least once, and there is no evidence that it is an original document. This doesn't even rate as a primary source. Risker (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Risker. If OK with you, I'll leave mention and/or a link on the article talkpage to this discussion. As always, --Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, Epeefleche. No worries. Risker (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

You said [52]. It looks like this is now stalled waiting for you William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, WMC. I will try to work on it tonight if RL doesn't interfere further. Risker (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Questions/General.
Message added 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Urgent. This needs to be resolved in the next 6.5 hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? What happens in 6.5 hours? Has the Joker planted bombs all over Gotham City? :) MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I might finally get away from my desk? Someone else in my family might start making dinner? (Obviously not possible, it's not a blue moon.) Oh wait. Arbitration Committee candidates can nominate themselves in...well, however many hours there is now... Risker (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Very unfortunate

Doc James has not be straight forward on multiple occasions, and it has to stop. I'm sorry you've blocked a good admin for having the guts to say that straight out, even asI here, cannot. This isn't about disagreements its about truthfulness. This is very sad.(olive (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Olive, I'm probably more tolerant than most administrators on where to draw the line when it comes to "civility" and personal attacks. But it is not okay for administrators to go around calling users liars. First off, it's clearly a personal attack. Secondly, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Saying "user X is opposed to Y" is a straw man argument that does nothing to advance the discussion. Calling someone a liar because they take exception to the manner in which they are being personally characterized goes too far. Doing it twice is well over the line. I do not particularly care whether or not what Dreadstar said is true. I do know it was a deeply personal insult that added absolutely nothing to the discourse. Nonetheless, I know that Dreadstar has done a lot of positive work in the project, and I am saddened that he feels he needs to leave. Risker (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) Even if Dreadstar were correct, Olive, the proper method is to come to WP:ANI, bring diffs demonstrating the issue, and ask for extra eyes to help the problem. Baldly calling someone a liar is neither appropriate nor helpful. -- Avi (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't hold with name calling, but there are points when the frustration of dealing with wrong behaviour repeated over and over, that can give rise to language that is, lets say, not censored. How many times has Dreadstar called someone a liar? There are points when the frustration of having someone get away with behaviours that should be stopped, when no one will do anything about it, or look deeply enough to see what is really going on, that perhaps becomes more than one can or wants to deal with. Was Dreadstar notified of the ANI post? No. Did he get a chance to speak? No. I believe this was a mistake. And its not simple, not simple at all. Thank you for responding to my concerns. I have great respect for you.(olive (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Olive, I understand what you are saying. That is pretty much the reason why I gave Dreadstar an out in this case. It was a pretty egregious error in judgment, made worse by the fact that Dreadstar is an admin. But I wanted to leave the door open for him to correct the error. I hope that given a bit of time away from the screen, he may reconsider. Risker (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Should one consider "vandal" or "troll" to be a personal attack? If "liar" is not allowed, then I don't understand how "vandal", "troll", "abusive user", etc. is any less of an attack. If we can't be frank in what we call people based on their actions ... then I'm confused. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied form AN/I: If you have an environment which is not punitive, and in which our purpose is to keep good editors working we must apply what will accomplish that in the best way. An editor with a clean block log was pushed for some reason to use language (liar) he probably never has before. What does one do in that situation. What action will accomplish the best result, to move past the frustration or to punish? I'd suggest that one talks to the editor. If I had a child, and I do, who was "good" but who behaved every now and then in a way that needed help, I can tell you that that human being benefitted from the act of good faith which I extended when I talked it out but did not punish. And I believe that kind of action created the strong young woman I have today. I'm not saying anyone in this situation is a child. But human nature is human nature. And I'm afraid this felt very much like swift punishment... The admin was never notified of the post( and was never allowed to speak.(olive (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

I guess I'm going on and on on this so I'll back away from the keyboard and put my hands in the air... but yeah, really bothers me.(olive (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Comment

Hi Risker. I realize I got a little worked up about this issue. While I do disagree with the block especially its length in terms of relative language and abusive comments, I in no way mean to attack or insult you. If anything I said could be taken that way I apologize. It has been unsettling to lose yet another good editor. There are a few I've watched and learned from, from the beginning here: Ariel Gold, GTBacchus, Rlevse, and Dreadstar. I've also collaborated in a few places with Dreadstar. So I may have been more heated up than I realized. All best wishes.(olive (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

Hi Olive - No worries, from my perspective. I do not mind at all that you and others questioned both the nature and the length of the block, and your collective comments were not excessive or inappropriate. (Nor do I think the comments from those who agreed with the block particularly excessive or inappropriate.) It's my belief that Dreadstar understood it perhaps better than just about everyone who commented upon it, and I'll note that he's not asked for an unblock either onwiki or directly to me. I do hope that he considers returning because he has been a positive force in the project in the past, and I hope that he will be again in the future. Risker (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi back :)

Yeah... you're welcome (I go by "Seb"). Here's what bugs me the most: I know that "civility" is going down and that we need to do something about it, seriously. But I feel that the punishment (or whatever you want to call it) most often hits the wrong people just because they use certain keywords, while others can launch the severest attacks, cloaked in non-taboo words, and get away with it time and again. And then, when the one who's been provoked long enough by draped attacks (sometimes over weeks and months) cannot stand it anymore and burst out into an "oh shut the f up", everybody goes to the flogging. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Seb, sorry for getting your name a bit wrong there! I understand what you're saying. Please keep in mind I don't exactly have a reputation for strictly enforcing the civility policy; I think it's one of the most poorly written policies on our site, and is nearly impossible to enforce. I can think of countless examples of editors staying just this side of the policy but being so incredibly annoying that push comes to shove. However, there comes a time when the line gets crossed and goes right into personal attack; that policy is a lot more clearcut and straightforward to enforce, and I'm considerably more inclined to enforce that one, especially when it's violated by an administrator. I may have a TPW or two who should take note of that. Risker (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't talking about this particular incident, or your "blocking-habits" for that matter. I am just prone to giving up on that civility/npa-issue. Take for instance the last time I brought it up; it's still at ANI: Zenkai251. Dude goes around insisting on calling those who disagree with him "atheists", been warned multiple times, keeps going, doesn't see anything wrong with that, even asks others "are you an atheist?" (assuming that "yes" would excuse his remarks) and now agrees to voluntarily stay away from the topic for a bit (been there, done that). Somebody suggest a "mentor", nobody wants to be the mentor. Maybe to you "liar" is worse than "atheist"; to me it's the other way around, but that's OK, too. My guess is he'll be back in a few weeks, pulling the "you damn atheist!"-stunt again. Hamster-wheel. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom election 2011

Thank you for deciding to nominate yourself for the election. Welcoming you is one of the thing I had volunteered to do. Unfortunately, your statement goes over the 400 word limit, even if I exclude the unordered list at the bottom? Can you please shorten it. A brief, concise statement would benefit voters. Can you please look over your row on the table on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Guide page as well? Feel free to correct any mistakes or to fill in any missing information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thread merged by -- DQ (t) (e) 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Risker, sorry to be a bore, but your statement exceeds the 400-word limit (it's at 519 words on display mode, counting a Word paste). The limit does include your listing of alternative accounts. It's possible to link to a separate statement, and I'm checking with the other coordinators whether you might neatly sequester your alt account list on a user-space statement. Thanks, and sorry to be so a. retentive. :-) Please see here. Tony (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Risker, I'm sorry for the above confusion, but you  'Already meet the requirements'. See the page linked above for details. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee Elections 2011 Coordinators, -- DQ (t) (e) 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well folks, just so that nobody can complain, I've chopped stuff out. Tony, the alternate account declarations were not counted in last year, and there was absolutely no indication that the mandatory disclosures were going to be counted this year either. I trust all will now be satisfied, as the alternate accounts are listed on the candidate guide now anyway. Risker (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies about the word limit business; it hadn't been officially clarified whether the mandatory disclosures counted (now done; they don't). That said, as an election co-ordinator I am honour bound not to leave a comment for any candidate without annoying them about trivial technicalities, so in that vein, would you mind rephrasing your account declaration in more categorical terms? Something like "All of the accounts I have had are listed here" or "I have never edited from an account other than these" would do the trick. Skomorokh 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Risker, also just so you don't have the huge template telling you what you want to know I want to welcome you on behalf to the ACE2011 Elections and I and the team wish you luck. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee Elections 2011 Coordinators, -- DQ (t) (e) 06:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Real World: Miami

The IP editor in question was not removing a BLP problem "correctly". The editor was removing valid, sourced information, despite warnings to cease, which is the not the correct way to proceed. The correct way to proceed would have been to contact MTV over the matter of their webpage (which it they did only after the block), to contact an editor or community liaison on Wikipedia over the article, or begin a talk page discussion. Instead, the editor removed sourced content, did not provide a valid, policy-based rationale, ignored my attempts at discussion, and possibly engaged in sock puppetry. I'm sorry, but that is certainly not the "correct" way to go about this. The block will expire in six days. When that happens, he or she will be free to make useful contributions. If that's not soon enough, he/she can sign in for a free username account. Nightscream (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Um, no. The correct way to proceed is to remove the stuff that is not supported by the reference source as it is used in the article. Period. No contacting other websites. No need to discuss on the talk page. This is BLP information and is right in the policy. Your re-adding information that was NOT supported by the sources was in fact the far greater BLP violation, and quite frankly is blockworthy in and of itself. You are responsible for the edits you make to the project. You've added clearly unsourced negative BLP information."

I'm not sure what your rationale is for blanking my responses from your talk page, since it appears that you do not do so with other editors, and since you yourself initiated this conversation, but you obviously did not read my message carefully for its intended meaning, or look carefully at the edit history of the article in question.

I did not add any unsourced material to the article, negative or otherwise. The source cited in the passage, which is MTV.com's bio for Melissa Padron, in question did indeed support that material at the time that I reverted the IP editor's edits. It was the IP editor who removed that material not because the source did not support it, because, according to the editor, it was "wrong".

My point regarding contacting MTV is that one cannot blame Wikipedia if the source in question is a reliable source, and makes mention of the material in question. If The New York Times prints something about you that's wrong, you demand a retraction from them, and if they retract it, then you can demand that Wikipedia correct its articles accordingly. But going to Wikipedia, and removing sourced material, without opening up a dialogue, is wrong, as is ignoring warnings to stop. At some point the IP editor must've eventually gone to MTV, because MTV removed that information from the bio page in question, so it's no longer there. If you bothered looking at the article's edit history, in particular the edit summary of my last edit, or my message to Ponyo, you'd know this.

Please do not ever level any false accusations or otherwise threaten or harass me again. Nightscream (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't blank your comments, I moved them to your page so that the discussion would be in one place, but obviously that is not of concern to you. First off, even if your theory of how to remove information is correct, the point is that the MTV source no longer contains the offending statement and thus is no longer a reliable source for the information you want to retain. It is gone, so we now no longer have a reliable source that says it. Did you actually check the MTV reference source before reverting the IP? You're the experienced editor here, Nightscream, and you know that BLP information is always to err on the conservative side. The two IPs geolocate to several hundred miles apart, and you have no basis to assume it is the same person, other than that they are both removing the same negative BLP information. But let's just assume that they are the same person. You told them to get MTV to take the information down. MTV has taken it down. So, they did exactly what you told them to, and now you're blocking the IP and returning the information to the article without rechecking the source, which has now been corrected (or changed for some other reason). Please reconsider unblocking the IP, which appears to have done exactly what you said was necessary to remove the information from the article. And please ensure that before you reinsert negative BLP information into an article, you recheck the sources, even if you've just checked them a few days before. I have not, in any way, leveled any false accusations against you, nor have I threatened or harassed you. Risker (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

One last point, Nightscream: WP:BLPEDIT. Please read the section on IPs blanking negative information from articles. Please always consider that when negative BLP information is being removed from an article. Explaining to the person does not mean leaving a template on the IP's talk page, it means genuinely trying to identify the concern and then trying to ameliorate it. At the end of the day, this article is not any worse for the absence of that information, and I'd question why it was included in the first place. Risker (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours again

Hey Risker; once again, office hours for the article feedback tool! These will be held at 22:00 UTC this evening; logs from the last session can be found here. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There's about a 10% chance I'll make it for the full session, although I'll try to join in progress if it is possible. Thanks for the heads up! Risker (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No problemo! I'll also be holding one at 3am UTC, if that appeals more? :P Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, logs are here; the next one is 1 December, although it may be synced to EU rather than US time. Hopefully you can make it along; if not, I'll be sure to poke you when the next US session is :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for Time: India Education Program Learnings

Hi. I'm writing to request a favor. The India Education Program pilot is concluding in Pune, India. It has been extraordinarily challenging and a series of learnings have emerged from the pilot that we intend to take on board to inform the way forward. I had promised an honest, open and comprehensive review. There are multiple ways that we are trying to collate and distill these learnings. One of these is that the Foundation has commissioned a study to do in depth interviews with a wide variety of folks who were directly or indirectly involved in the pilot. The include discussions with students, Ambassadors, faculty as well as members of the global community such as yourself. I thought it would be really particularly useful if we could get your views. You have been involved in the project (albeit not as part of the formal project structure.) I thank you for your involvement. You have made some interesting and insightful comments in the discussions you have participated in. Would you be willing and available for the person working on this study so that she can get your feedback and suggestions and comments? If so, would you let me know on my talk page? Do also let me know how I can have her reach out to you. Many thanks in advance. Hisham (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Xenophrenic (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for Time: India Education Program Learnings

Hi Risker. I wonder if it would be appropriate for User:Toryread to put some info up on their user page so that we know under what or whose authority these interviews are to take place. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, probably. As I'm about to respond by email to confirm the time/date I'll be speaking with Toryread, I'll mention it. Risker (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Peter; it sounds like an interesting idea. I'm a little tied up right now, what with being a candidate in the current Arbitration Committee elections, but I will be watching with interest and will participate as time allows. Risker (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Arbitration Committee Elections

Risker,

As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. --Tznkai (talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FT2's questions on ACE

FYI, Kirill and Risker: you're receiving this message because FT2 has posted similarly on the questions pages of all four returning arbs, while I've posted to Jclemens's and Coren's questions pages, urging FT2 to move his sections to Talk.[53] [54] Then I ran down.. but in the Coren version I alluded to his posts on you guys' pages, too, so you might like to be informed. FT2 has responded to me on Jclemens's questions talkpage. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Article Feedback Tool newsletter

Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing.

So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).

For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Risker, I've just dumped a bunch of diffs at the AN\I thread where Maunus requests a block review. My request to you is to have a look at the diffs and I can provide many many more, but haven't the time at the moment (am on a lunch break!). Frankly the situation with Alarbus has become intolerable to me, to the point that I considered leaving and asked Casliber to delete my page. I changed my mind, restored the page and created an article. Within 24 hours the disruption began again. I believe my contribs are being watched and it feels as though I'm being hounded. This is exactly the type of behavior that makes women editors not want to edit here, and until this situation is resolved I'll probably be gone. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Within five minutes of posting diffs that took my lunchtime to gather, Alarbus has been unblocked. Apparently the diffs are irrelevant. You've lost Maunus, who is a very good content contributor and a fair admin, and you've lost me. All I do is write. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Truthkeeper. It strikes me that this may be more of a "once bitten, twice shy" situation than anything else. You're upset that an IP edited the same template as Modernist did to include your new article. You've also had a negative encounter with Alarbus, who is also known to edit templates. I can understand your instinctive desire to connect these two events, but I'm afraid there is no tangible reason to do so. The IP editor was cleaning up the template to bring it into standard, and did not in any way change anything that Modernist added. Alarbus had nothing to do with that edit. In other words, it appears that Alarbus was actually doing as told (i.e., not to hound you) and you were doing your usual good work, and a completely separate editor made an entirely proper change to a template you're very familiar with. I am not certain I understand entirely why you would feel hounded if another editor improves a template you're watching; would you respond the same way if someone improved sentence structure or added a reference to an article you have written? Based on your previous interactions with Alarbus, I can understand you don't want anything to do with him, but I'm concerned that anyone who makes even perfectly reasonable changes to something that you've edited or are aware has been edited will be on the receiving end of blocks and anger. This is not a positive situation for anyone, yourself included.

  It's clear from Maunus' initial report to ANI that he had blocked the IP as a sock of Alarbus, but review of the block has indicated that Maunus' assumption, valid as it may have been, has proved incorrect. It's alright to make an occasional error, and the high quality of Maunus' editorial and administrator work means he's qualified to act first and follow up later in situations like this. I don't think his initial block was completely off-base; he presented grounds for it that were acceptable. However, subsequent information showed that his usually-reliable instincts were off on this one occasion. Given the situation, the appropriate thing to do is lift the blocks on both accounts, since they didn't meet the standard. While I appreciate the diffs you pulled up, the worst I can say on most of them is that some edits were repeated before discussion went to the talk page. In fact, one of the examples you give as "edit warring" is actually an unbroken series of edits improving the template.

  I hope you'll return to editing. At the same time, I hope you'll also consider what it would feel like to be the editor who'd already left the topic area and then got blindsided by a block because someone else had edited a related page. Risker (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No it's not a template I watch at all. I was completely unaware of what happened until I saw Modernist's help request posted on pages that I watchlist. At any rate, that you think Alarbus' behavior toward me has been acceptable is all I need to know. Thanks for the response. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow, Truthkeeper, I don't know where you came up with that. I've not even addressed Alarbus' behaviour toward you except to say that I understand that it would have an impact on how you perceived others' edits. Don't put words in my mouth, please, particularly when they're untrue. Risker (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps re-reading what you've written above will help you to understand. Much of it is incorrect and clearly the diffs I spent time providing showing underlying behavioral issues have no relevance, which, yes, in my mind indicates that the behavior must be considered acceptable. Anyway, thanks for the response. I'll be on my way. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I get that you've had a bad experience with Alarbus (and I largely agree with you about the initiating issue, which was templated references). I can certainly understand that that bad experience has coloured your view of the actions of other editors; it's not optimal, but we're all human and I wouldn't fault you for it at all. I don't fault Maunus for carrying out the blocks in the first place, based on the information he had at the time. Where I'm having trouble is when the "second look" showed that the IP and Alarbus were not the same person (and in fact were working in different topic areas at pretty much the same time), a few people (yourself included) have held forth that the blocks should stand and that Alarbus should be sanctioned for actions he did not do, and the IP should be blocked for legitimate edits. The initial confrontation between you and Alarbus has already been addressed; he is staying away from you and the articles to which you contribute - which I understand would be your desired outcome. I hope that with a bit of time, you'll reconsider your retirement. That doesn't mean I'm going to support a block that was found on review to have been made in error. Risker (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're talking about two different things. You're addressing the IP block; I'm addressing behaviour that I perceive to be aggressive and intimidating. I can provide many diffs, but not at the moment because I want to be away from here for a while. As for Alarbus staying away from articles I edit you might want to have a look at his contribution history [55] and in particular the first places he went after being unblocked. I realize these are non-controversial edits; what I'm trying to say, and without success, is that I've been going through this on numerous pages for about three weeks. At some point, enough is enough. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted, and commented on Alarbus's talk page. I agree that, even assuming the best of faith, it is pretty well impossible to see editing that template immediately after being unblocked as anything but inflammatory and provocative. Risker (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm taking a big sigh and trying again. I hadn't seen the entire AN/I thread as I was at work and at lunch and I didn't understand why the earlier thread and the Hemingway page were dragged into it again. As the IP is not Alarbus, then clearly the IP shouldn't be blocked. I took umbrage at the suggestion above that anyone who edits a page I edit will be on the receiving end of a block or my anger. That was a quite a surprise since I have a good working relationship with the people I collaborate with, with the exception of a sockpuppet who leaves interesting messages on my page. That said, I'll take your advice on board and take a break. I have been working very hard, which, combined with the holidays, seems to have put me unnecessarily on edge. Thanks again. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

rhetoric

err… I'm somewhat embarrassed to say it, but that's not rhetoric; that's the way I talk. You should hear me pontificate after a couple of beers. Sorry… --Ludwigs2 00:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Or maybe not. Did you see the two ANI threads discussing an Orangemarlin block/interaction ban/ final warning, etc? This active one and the previous, archived, one. No consensus yet, at least not a consensus to block right now. I'm pretty sure not. I don't see any summary, and it's all a bit.. huge. Difficult to get an overview of. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. Huge is right; I've been reading it over dinner, I'll probably wind up with indigestion. I'm comfortable with the block and, to be honest, would have made it in a more timely way if I had been checking my watchlists rather than traveling at the time. At the end of my reading, I'll probably have words with Captain Occam and DSMBel as well. Risker (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block itself. Certainly there are objective grounds for it, and while there was a consensus against an indefinite block at AN/I, I'd be the last person to argue that an admin needs to follow the whims of the first 10 people to comment in an AN/I thread (if it were re-posted, there might well be consensus for the block). On the other hand, the way this played out epitomizes everything that I detest about civility "enforcement", in particular the way it rewards professional plaintiffs and forum-shoppers. But in the end Orangemarlin is a grownup and responsible for his own actions, and I doubt this was a total shock to him. MastCell ^Talk 01:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it was a surprise to him either, but it was undoubtedly encouragement for the "professional plaintiffs and forum-shoppers". Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to self - 10 day old diffs are ok to block if you're going to indef about it, with the "apologize and be unblocked" demand. Got it. Hipocrite (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not done yet. Risker (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done with what? Doing a full review of the situation? Hipocrite (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My three cents - I am concerned that there was significant and obvious multi-party baiting going on, and this response is (so far) asymmetrical. I did nothing so far personally because I wanted to see if the article talk page warning I left had taken and stayed that way. It seemed so for a day-ish, but then broke down on all sides.

I personally very much don't want to reward professional plaintiffs / forum shoppers / people who bait. That has happened a lot here. You say you're not done reviewing; I trust and assume you're working on that and have those concerns in mind. If you want other relatively uninvolved admin assistance or sounding boards on those, let us and me know. If you for some reason decide there's a conflict of interest or should back out, let us and me know.

Thanks for stepping up. It was timely and regrettably became appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, almost done. Anyone who's been waiting with baited breath can look at my most recent edits/block log while I go write something up for AN/I. Risker (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC) And for the record: [56] Risker (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email and tried to cc ArbCom at the same time, but I got a weird bounceback for at least one of the addresses. Just trying to confirm if you received my email. It's not super time-sensitive or anything. NW (Talk) 06:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have come through the Clerks mailing list, and I've responded to it now. It's not possible to send to two WMF mailing lists at the same time; the server treats it as spam and bounces at least one copy of it, and often all copies. Thanks for following up, though; I know these things sometimes go astray. Risker (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Please consider taking action on less than 10 day old incivility at "OrangeMarlin - Don't you have a GOP debate to get to? I think I hear Michele Bachmann calling your name - she might need you for something, you better hurry. If you are not going to be helpful, I suggest you leave.". I suggest an indef block until such time as the user promises to stop equating people to individuals they obviously dislike, and asking them to leave. I've got more, but let's start with that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, Hipocrite. Wouldn't have taken me long to throw in a half-dozen other links to OrangeMarlin's bad behaviour in the last 10 days, although the one selected was beyond the pale (even MastCell pointed out one on his talk page which was sufficient for an indef). Keep in mind that the block does not have a set duration; if and when OrangeMarlin is prepared to participate without making personal attacks, I'll be happy to unblock him. That may be tomorrow...or when the cows come home. The ball is in OrangeMarlin's court. Risker (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am coming late to the discussion, so if there's someplace else I should be posting, please let me know. For the record though, I am in strong support of the idea of requiring disruptive editors to promise to do better before we let them back onto the project. I realize the wiki-culture has long had a pattern of, "Block for a short time, and hope they do better when they return", but I am a strong advocate of requiring the blockee to acknowledge the behavior first, before we allow them back. --Elonka 18:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's sad that in the case of established editors like OM, we need to tediously discuss whether we should warn them that they'll be facing a block for personal attacks. I give you props for stepping up and taking action while the discussion languished at ANI. Swarm ^X 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'm a strong advocate of the fact that you talk bollocks much of the time Elonka. Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Elonka, you have to make amends before you can even think about being forgiven. --Alatari (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you're also talking bollocks. It's not up to administrators, or anyone else here, to forgive. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking in more poetic language. It will boil down to the users signing to and be held to the new Terms of Service. Alatari (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I support the requirement for OM (or any editor in this position) to explicitly acknowledge community norms. I don't see it as being about "forgiveness" so much as an empirical observation that people who have explicitly agreed to do something are ipso facto more likely to do it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Grovelling is not what happens on wikipedia. If Orangemarlin agrees to avoid personal attacks in the future, that is all that is needed. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You know, this whole Orangemarlin thing is really making me rethink my approach to Wikipedia. OM habitually does things that make me look practically Amish by comparison (yes, I know this from experience; OM was one of the people who introduced me to the ways of Wikipedia), and yet so many people are willing to downplay - or even actively support - his immense truculence. Apparently I'm simply not being mean-spirited enough to gain the support and respect of the community.

Yes, that was sarcasm (which I'm only noting so I can point to it when people enter this diff into evidence against me). Wikipedia cracks me up sometimes… --Ludwigs2 14:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't you recuse as Coren did?

While you may have been less involved on en.wiki, I distinctly recall some discussions on meta where you and Coren were flaming each other over images issue. It's clear both of you have clearly stated and strongly held opinions on image filtering/censorship. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

o.O No comment on whether Risker should recuse or not, but while she and I stand pretty much on opposite sides of the whole debate about images, I don't think we ever flamed each other over it. — Coren ^(talk) 21:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I share Coren's o.O - my communications on meta with respect to the "images issue" were pretty much exclusively in my role as a member of the group overseeing the referendum/plebiscite process and release of results, and my interest there was in getting accurate and informative results out to the community. I'm not entirely certain what people perceive my position on images, but I've been genuinely impressed by some of the points raised by people on all sides of the debate...and there are certainly more than two sides here. Should the case be accepted (and technically, I think it is in line to be accepted within the next 24 hours depending on any subsequent voting), I'll be reading the evidence very closely here. Risker (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly my perception as well. Your participation in the process, for one, does lead people to conclude that the basis is legitimate, and the feeling I got is that you believed the image filter to be beneficial at least in principle. It may simply be an erroneous impression, but I'm not surprised that it is shared.

That said, I feel that this is a fork-worthy problem, and I've been arguing against it (and with some of the parties to the case) with some vehemence so it seemed reasonable for me to recuse. I don't remember you having participated in the debate(s) outside your implication in the logistics of the poll attempt, so unless you have a strong enough position that you'd feel prejudiced for one side or another (something you alone can tell) I can think of no reason why you'd have to recuse. — Coren ^(talk) 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I managed to find that thread, again. [57] IMO, Coren did flame you starting at "Good job with the spin", while you kept your composure. I suppose that's one of the reason why you're still in ArbCom and he isn't. I had also confused you with another female editor (W...) who had posted a lot more messages in those filter discussions on various pages and whose messages were slightly more vehement. Please accept my apologies. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey Risker/Archive 10; another Article Feedback Tool office hours session! This is going to be immediately after we start trialing the software publicly, so it's a pretty important one. If any of you want to attend, it will be held in #wikimedia-office on Friday 16th December at 19:00 UTC. As always, if you can't attend, drop me a line and I'm happy to link you to the logs when we're done. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Will be otherwise occupied, but have a great time! I do read the logs. Risker (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome :). Need a link? I imagine a Grand High Arbitrator knows where to find them :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: CSRFs

Hi. I do know that most of the time it is a false positive, for example leaving the page open for too long. But if we know that there is still a possibility, it seems irresponsible... There are quite a number of them flagged as CSRF. We contacted them and most of them confirmed the vote, 5 did not respond after a week so Vituzzu decided to strike the votes. Feel free to email me or find me on IRC (nick: Bencmq but I'm logging off soon)... Ben.MQ (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We discovered that certain browser configurations, including some that are relatively common, do this too. I'd suggest that if you are striking votes based on this, that you specifically and publicly state what criteria you were using in deciding which ones to strike. To be honest, if 100% of the users who responded to you said that it was indeed their vote, you might want to consider how likely it is that the 5 voters who didn't respond to you were indeed forged votes. I have to say that if you were seeing a LOT of CSRFs (more than 0.5%), you might want to contact Tim Starling regardless, because there may be something else going on here. If you're striking 5 votes because of this, that's a non-trivial technical problem that has the potential to directly affect the outcome of the election. Risker (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited the page to keep it up with the actual vote list (another scrutineer struck the vote). I am emailing them now though and I'll discuss with them again. Thank you for the info :) Ben.MQ (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing pending changes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=stable&page=Robert_Byrd – Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your reelection to the Committee! I'm looking forward to working along side you for the next few years. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Risker. You've done a fine job and I'm grateful for your help to ArbCom. Thanks very much. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well! You've become an integral part of the Committee over the past three years, and I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Heartiest congratulations at being reelected. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Happy to hear you'll be carrying on! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all! I look forward to working with all of the new and returning arbitrators. I've been a little busy in the last few hours, initiating the induction process for the new arbitrators, so I'll be leaving messages for my new colleagues - and the other candidates - some time tomorrow. It's reassuring to see the level of continued community support that I was granted, and I'll do my best to live up to it. Risker (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! I must say it's a well-deserved result, and on a slightly more selfish note it's also a reassurance to me that you're still on the committee. Let me know if you ever need my assistance with anything. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations! Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - I'm glad to see the percentage was so high as well. Obviously the correct choice :> Doc talk 04:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone! Risker (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiWomenCamp

Hi. You do a lot of fantastic work with Wikipedia (especially ArbCom) and other projects. Given that, I wanted to personally invite you to attend WikiWomenCamp being held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in May 2012. This is a women's only conference, followed by a two day gender gap conference open to every one. Your experiences and knowledge base would be a great thing to add to the event. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the invitation; however, I think I'll put the money toward a down payment for a new car. I'm not sure what the attraction is in Buenos Aires in winter (January, I might consider!), and I'm not a big fan of sex-restricted conferences. Indeed, I believe my experience in working collaboratively with men was a very valuable preparation for success in working on Wikipedia. But I do appreciate the fact that you've made this gesture, and I wish you all a lovely time. Risker (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :) Completely understand and it obviously isn't for everyone. Can totally understand why you might not be interested. :) Best of luck and keep up your good work. :) --LauraHale (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's very churlish of Mrs Risker to refuse the invitation – if it's a matter of money I am more than willing to finance her trip on behalf of the women of Wikipedia – I feel it imperative that members of the Arbcom should be at the camp. Perhaps Mr Wales and the men could be housed in separate tents with some sort of alarm system should they try to 'explore' after lights out. I only wish I could be there too, but unfortunately I am persona non grata in the Argentine, ever since that frightful Perón woman thought I was trying to steal her boring, overweight husband back in the late 40s. I implore you Mrs Risker reconsider – just think what you will be missing. Catherine Rollbacker de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Under the separate housing plan, who will prevent the Lady from nocturnal foraging? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's obvious that Mrs Risker, quite wisely, has no intention of leaving the seat of government until her new appointment has been officially announced – I would imagine it's rather like Ancient Rome with assassins and conspirators around every street corner. Mind you, the thought of Mr Wales hovering above me with his ampulla in hand and 'ceremonial' designs on my bosom would send me hotfoot to the other side of the world pretty pronto. Furthermore, Ms Georgia we European ladies are able to control our urges, although looking at those male Wikipedians who do display their images, there are unlikely to be many urges in that direction. Catherine Rollbacker de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch

Thanks for your quick work here,[58] I was just about to revert and report it. LK (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ping

I can add the email addresses in between cooking dinner. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't have an active email account, and didn't want to go down a possible dead end if didn't overlook the absence of an account. I hadn't found or read the oversight board before, and it seemed the better choice over Help or ANI. It seems a bit reactionary, but I don't have a Polyanna worldview. Dru of Id (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My perspective

I seem to be having difficulty communicating with you. I don't necessarily think I will get you to agree with me, but I hope that I can put together a short description of my perspective so that at least you can understand me. Then, you can read back over my proposed principles and agree or disagree based on that understanding.

I don't think that religions can be evaluated in the same manner as we evaluate other material. With most material, we weight according to popularity. If 90% of scientists agree about something, it's fair for us to present that conclusion as being basically true, and the other 10% as being fringe beliefs. That doesn't hold with religion. Take the people that believe in transubstantiation, for example. This is the belief that the communion wafer and wine turns into the physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ during the ceremony. It's clearly a minority belief: primarily Catholics, so somewhere around 10% of the world's population believes it. I could set up tests to look at people's urine after the ceremony and could probably prove that they had metabolised a cracker and some wine. The results of those tests wouldn't change a thing: people that believed would still believe, people that did not would still not, and most people would think it was incredibly rude to even conduct the experiment. If someone ever did conduct such an experiment, the results would probably not be included in our article on the topic. As a society (and as a project) we simply don't weigh the "truth" of a religion, and "verifiability" doesn't even enter into the discussion. Religions just are.

This deprives us of our normal methods of weighing objections. We can't and won't take a position that one sect is more likely to be right than another. There being more Muslims than Latter Day Saints doesn't mean that the Muslim belief that Jesus Christ was whisked off the cross prior to crucifixion and lives as a physical being in Heaven is any more or less likely to be true than the LDS belief that he returned to North America after spiritually arising to Heaven and exists today in spiritual form. The two groups object to depictions of different things for different reasons, and the objections of both groups are equally valid. We have no method of discounting one group's objections without discounting both.

That extends to all religions, great and small. The aboriginal prohibition against depicting dead people is just as valid as the Sunni objection to depicting Muhammad. If we yield on the depictions of Muhammad, it would be wrong not to also yield on the depictions of dead people. There are sects that object to depictions of unveiled women: again, just as valid as the objections to pictures of Muhammad. There are some Islamic sects that object to all depictions of people: again, just as valid as the objections to pictures of Muhammad. There's essentially no end to it. I suspect that over 90% of our imagery offends some religious group.

So there's the dilemma: there's no valid reason to yield to one religious group without yielding to them all. Yielding to them all leaves us without an encyclopedia, and yielding to one (or two, or three) leaves us with a project that has editorial policies biased in favor of certain religious groups. Both alternatives are unacceptable. The only approach that I think is acceptable is the one I champion: ignore all religious offense when making editorial decisions.

Like I said, I don't necessarily think you will agree with me, but I do think it's important that you understand me.—Kww(talk) 04:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Lost Houses

Could you please undelete this category per my comments here [59]. The central and explanatory page of this category is Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain it explains the category which was built around it. It is unaceptable that categories can be deleted by Admins with no word, understanding or even a polite mention to their creator who in this instance clearly knew better then those few commentating. You are keen to talk of civility perhaps genuine, basic good manners from Admins would be a very good start. You might also like to check out the nominator User:CircleOfWillis. Thank you. Giacomo Returned 13:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It so happens that I am one of the "few commentating", although I had this talk page on my watchlist for other reasons. I wonder why GR is so sure that he "clearly knew better" than me? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:POLA

Since you're much more knowledgeable about that than myself, you could certainly improve it. There's a discussion on Jimbo's talk page at the origin of that and another one on WP:AN. Best wishes for the New Year! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)