User talk:Risker/Archive 13

Archive 13 starting 1 January 2013 to June 2013

Ping

I mentioned you here; certainly, after more than a year of this BS, I'm not happy about all of the sock enabling that has allowed the FA process to be disrupted for so long. We got no answers on Merridew, EotR forced me to shut up, we still got no answers, and I wonder if we'll get answers here. Why was this allowed to continue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pong

Do you have anything constructive to add to "what we have here is an attitude problem"? Rich Farmbrough, 04:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

I am commanded...

Dear Madam,

I am commanded by my employer to point out to you a very distressing edit war which appears to have broken out [1]. Naturally, my employer, as the First lady of Wikipedia, is completely detatched and impartial. However, you may feel that it is greatly to be regretted that the nouveau riche, parvenu and other generally arriviste type people are permitted to edit Her Ladyship's encyclopedia. Are we next to have Mr Obama creating dukes from the White House and listing them in the Almanach?

Yours faithfully Vera Corpus (Miss) (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Two unrelated matters

Hi.

First, this was just brilliant. I've started a draft of an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback. Any help would be appreciated, of course.

Second, someone pointed me to this discussion on the German Wikipedia today. The number of page watchers is now available at ?action=info. E.g., <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?action=info> (number of page watchers: 76,527). By default on Wikimedia wikis, the value is only displayed if you have the "unwatchedpages" user right (admins) or if the page has 30 or more (or perhaps just more than 30...) watchers. The Germans are apparently going to do away with this value (the vote is overwhelmingly supporting a value of 0). Strange how times change... perhaps The kohser will start editing there. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi MZM. I periodically show up over there to, umm, express my opinions and concerns. A lot of time, energy and money has been invested into a tool that really hasn't produced: the last statistics I saw showed a near-zero rate of account creation and editing from those who leave feedback, and they aren't even attempting to measure whether or not the feedback is incorporated into the article or even discussed on its talk page for consideration of inclusion. Instead we have random IPs saying that a particular feedback comment is helpful, like this one on the Facebook page. (For casual readers of this page, the comment says "I think the graphs of age and popularity were the most useful." I don't understand how that comment is helpful; it's positive feedback, but it's not helpful. I'm pretty sure people are clicking "helpful" because it's the closest option to "like". This one is even less comprehensible as a "helpful" comment.) The fact that non-registered users are the ones determining whether or not something is helpful pretty well tells the story of the tool: it's become a game for people who don't actually edit the project. Meanwhile, the WMF continues to expend staff time and energy, and we keep hearing that it's going to be expanded to more and more articles. That's just an additional workflow for our already beleaguered editors to try to maintain.

As to the "unwatched pages" issue, the reason that the German Wikipedia can consider this is that all of their articles are managed under flagged revisions, and they have almost no vandalism to articles. (The Russians use flagged revisions everywhere too, and they have months-long backlogs. Not sure what the German Wikipedia backlog is for this; the last time I looked most were reviewed within a week, but that was a long time ago.) I'd be interested to see some stats about any variations in frequency of vandalism to "unwatched" pages on a large Wikipedia that does not have flagged revisions, should someone implement it; however, I think this is one example of a setting that shouldn't be tested on English Wikipedia first. And yes...my how times change. :) Risker (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

German Wikipedia backlog is currently four weeks [2].--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh. When the Germans can't keep up with the backlogs, you know there's a problem. ;-)

I actually see a lot of similarities between FlaggedRevs and ArticleFeedbackv5. Maybe we'll see a name change in short order from ArticleFeedbackv5 to Valued Input, similar to the name change we saw prior to the FlaggedRevs (err, Pending Changes) deployment. :-) There seems to be a growing dichotomy between tools that help users reduce backlogs and tools that create new backlogs for users, though we can safely say that both kinds of tools often have simply awful names. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawal

When Salvio commented that unless it was pretty blatant it would be unlikely for Arbcom to overturn a community decision. That was what I was looking for, and would not have even brought the appeal if that was clear. On the other hand, Rschen7754 has been working on a statement of why the issue should go before Arbcom. Plus as mentioned there are at least two suggestions that Arbcom should get involved. I would like that if it was for the purpose of eliminating the harassment that I have been subjected to for bringing up the topic. Basically I think it has to be one of the strangest topic bans ever. If the purpose of bringing it to Arbcom is to shut me or anyone else up, no. Apteva (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User rights automatically being assigned to education program participants?

Risker, this was a surprise for me when I just learned about it. Is Arbcom aware that rollback, autopatrolled, filemover, account creator, IP block exempt, and reviewer rights are apparently being assigned automatically through the Education Program Extension? If not, I think Arbcom may want to look into this situation. --Pine^✉ 07:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, my interest in this subject is personal rather than driven by being an arbitrator; I'm not entirely certain this is something that Arbcom would normally comment on as a committee. Having said that, there was an RFC before these permissions were approved by the community, but I'd have to go back and see what information was available to the community at the time of the discussion. I don't recall seeing anything about IPBE (which is something that usually has my antennae twitching), but I may simply not have noticed it before. Let's see if I can dig up the original RFC, which was discussed on the 'crat board during July, if I remember correctly. Risker (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback RfC

Thanks for posting those questions - they're a good way of informing and guiding the discussion. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all; another newsletter.

• If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
• Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
• We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
• Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

that business yesterday

In case you were not aware there are a few users questioning your use of revdel on my talk page. See the thread titled "Do the WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies apply to administrators?" and the discussion it points to if you're interested. The section right above that one titled "on another matter" contains some further remarks from me that are probably more what you were looking for with your email request yesterday, that is, a more thorough explanation of why I did what I did and what might happen differently in the future. Not sure if it matters but I don't really have an opinion either way on the revdel, I get why you did it but it seems like the cat is out of the bag anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi. I understand you recently blanked an edit summary that I feel should remain on the record. Are you able to reverse the action or otherwise explain why we should maintain the status quo? --Senra (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Senra. I am not willing to reinstate that edit summary, as it is clearly and obviously a personal attack directed at a specific user. It is a perfect example of why revision deletion of edit summaries was enabled in 2009, in fact. Such edit summaries create an inhospitable editing environment for all users, particularly the target, and are unacceptable. Risker (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Before I take the above response to the wider community (and yes I have seen your reply here) please let me know which specific part of the policy applies to your apparent unilateral redaction. Your edit-summary removal appears to be specifically excluded from item 2 of Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction with the sentence "[Redaction] includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". I therefore repeat: [a]re you able to reverse the action? --Senra (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The specific phrase used falls under "grossly offensive", at least in my book, and qualifies for revdel. In my opinion, it was moot as the phrase is all over ANI and VPP, but it is allowable under policy. --Rschen7754 18:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, would you consider reversing the redaction on the grounds it sets an unhelpful precedent? I do not see a personal interpretation of policy being allowed to stand, particularly as such an interpretation is not applied across the whole of Wikipedia --Senra (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Senra, I am not willing to reverse the revision deletion. That not all administrators follow both the intent and the letter of the policy is an issue that is separate from whether or not this revision deletion is correct. I can't think of a single policy on Wikipedia that is consistently applied in all cases. I do not understand why you think it is a good thing that a user should be verbally abused in an edit summary and that that verbal abuse should be kept for all time, when you are giving the impression your request is motivated by your displeasure that the person who wrote the edit summary wasn't punished sufficiently for your liking. I had nothing to do with the blocking decisions; I would have felt it sufficient for an NPA block, but since the situation was being discussed on the noticeboards, I left it to the community to decide what to do in that respect. It is my considered opinion that no situation is ever resolved more effectively by saying "fuck off" to someone, and that it is even less likely to be effectively resolved by tacking on a highly inflammatory and personal insult to the end of the "fuck off". Risker (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You want my honest opinion? This is flat out wikilawyering. I see no reason to unredact the summary just to unredact it or just to overturn another admin's action. It falls under "I might not have done things that way, but it's perfectly within reasonable bounds" for me. Frankly, I wish all admins had that mentality. --Rschen7754 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this turned into such a mess, obviously my actions yesterday were completely unhelpful and made a mess which you have tried to clean up, only to be attacked for that. I am usually part of the team cleaning up the messes so I feel pretty stupid right now. This may sound weird, but I actually type in stuff like that all the time when I think someone is acting stupid or clueless. Usually, I chuckle at it and then rewrite it to something more appropriate. I don't know what impulse led me to just hit "enter" instead yesterday, I guess after two nearly-identical encounters with the same user I let it get to me a little bit more than I had realized. I just got done emailing something similar to AGK, I don't know if you saw the follow-up conversation we had by email but I feel kind of dumb about that too now. Don't expect to see any edit summaries like that from em in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, and thank you for this message; it's exactly what I hoped to hear, in the sense of your recognizing that there were better alternatives than the action you took. I get that sometimes other editors can be mind-bogglingly annoying. I also get that it can sometimes be impossible to ignore that orange bar. I've found that a walk around the block does me a lot of good (although right now I have a feeling neither of us are enjoying weather that's conducive to that stress-breaker); just getting away from the keyboard when I'm frustrated does a lot of good. It doesn't mean one is "giving in" to someone else's bad behaviour. It means you are refusing to allow it to drive your actions. And yeah, it's hard. Risker (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, I was the one he said it to, and I don't really mind if that edit summary comes back. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Kosh, please try to indent correctly, your superindents are a pain to correct all the time and bugger up the normal formatting of talk pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Stats re AFT

Risker, I'd like to know more about the statistical procedures you used for this [3]. For starters, for the "prior" period, what were you sampling? A sample of days from a 45-day period? Or 45 sample days from a longer period? Or what? You said the raw data was available via a link, but there everything is summarized by month so I'm at sea as to what you did. Thanks. EEng (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi EEng, and thanks for your questions. I'll start off with a bit of background on the reality of Oversight.

• Requests for oversight/suppression can be made directly to any oversighter via any means of communication, including email, IRC, gchat or in-person. We do not quantify the number or frequency of such requests, nor do we attempt to assess how many of them result in suppressions.
• Requests for oversight/suppression can be made via email to an OTRS queue to which all English Wikipedia oversighters have access. We can quantify the number of requests received through this route. We are not able to quantify the number of requests where suppressions are declined, nor identify the number of suppressions that are done as a result of OTRS requests (either individual requests or a cumulative total).
  • We can identify the source of such emailed requests to OTRS. Those sent through the AFT5 interface are easily identified and can be quantified, regardless of whether or not they result in a suppression/oversight.
• We can quantify the number of suppressions carried out, by time or by individual oversighter. We publish a publicly viewable statistical analysis that details the number of suppressions per month by oversighter, and in total.

So, in summary, the only two types of hard data that we can report: number of suppressions (sortable by a few variables) and number of suppression requests made to the OTRS queue (sortable by a few variables). The two data streams are independent of each other; not all requests are made to the OTRS queue, and not all requests made to the OTRS queue result in suppressions, while others may result in multiple suppressions.

With this in mind:

• The 45-day statistics from before AFT5 had an interface that allowed direct submission of oversight requests to the OTRS queue was taken from requests submitted over 45 consecutive days in January/February 2012.
• The link that was provided was to the statistics on how many suppressions occur over time; the history of that page will permit you to see statistics for earlier periods as well. (For example, the revision from June 2012 will show December 2011 to May 2012 data.)
• The point I was making was that, overall, there was not a significant increase in the number of requests coming through the OTRS queue, despite the fact that during the most recent 45-day period 28% of them came from the AFT5 interface; and that despite the addition of AFT5 suppressions, the total number of suppressions being carried out over time has not significantly changed either. They're two separate factors, and neither reflects total workload, but we are able to determine from this that
  • Oversighters are not having to review more requests through the OTRS queue as a result of AFT5
    • There is no discussion on reviews of requests made through other means
  • The total number of suppressions that are being made has not significantly changed as a result of AFT5
    • There is no discussion about the number of suppressions per request, nor the number of requests that do not result in any suppressions

Does this clarify things a bit? Risker (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. So it sounds like you weren't sampling anything -- whatever data you had, it all went into your computations, correct? EEng (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a fair thing to say. The "sampling" was mainly in selecting the dates to review the OTRS input; it was roughly the 45 days before the AFT5 interface was activated, and not any other period. Risker (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to trap you or anything, but I think there may be an educational opportunity here, and since you're the man (or woman) on the spot for quantatative analysis for AFT and I suppose other stuff, it may be worth it. Please let me know if I've underestimated you and you know where this is going. So... when you said "no statistically significant difference" or whatever, is that from some null-hyptohesis z-score mumblefoo calculation you did? EEng (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the woman for quantitative analysis for AFT5; I'm the woman for quantitative analysis of Oversight/suppression. The overwhelming majority of suppression request come from individual editors involving the vast array of pages throughout the project, not through AFT5. As it happens, I have a personal interest in the AFT5 topic area, as can be seen by some of my comments and the series of questions I posed; as such, I thought it useful to the community to provide what information I have available about the effect of AFT5 on one specific, generally quite opaque, area of the project. Risker (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What I'm after is what's behind the statement of "no statistically significant change." EEng (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking strictly from my own observations, my concern was not that AFT reviewers were flooding us with requests, more that many of the requests we did get seem to show a poor understanding of the suppression policy, asking for it for simple vandalism such as "so and so is gay" or whatever. It's not as if oversight doesn't get a good amount of invalid requests anyway, but it is something I thought should just be in the mix when discussing expanding use of the tool. I suspect think that it is merely the result of how simple it is to request suppression with AFT by simply clicking a button. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Checking if the time is OK

You'll remember that, back in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 13#Thinking about the mailing list, you asked me to hold off for a while, while more pressing matters were being dealt with. Have we gotten to a better time to raise it? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recusal in the 'Sexology' case

I'm curious what made you reach that decision. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So am I, given that severe off-wiki harassment against arbitrators and their families does not seem an unlikely outcome of this case. But I think that for a case of this nature the question is in bad taste and should not be answered as a matter of principle. Just giving my opinion here as a spectator. Hans Adler 11:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting all arbitrators should recuse then? 188.26.163.111 (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No. It appears that there may be enough arbitrators who are sufficiently brave, and possibly anonymous and sufficiently confident that they will remain so. Nevertheless I think this case is too big to be handled just by a bunch of users of this website – which ultimately is still what Arbcom is. Hans Adler 12:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing exciting; I won't go into detail, because it relates to my off-wiki life rather than any concerns about harassment or on-wiki matters, and information that I didn't know when I originally voted to accept the case. I think this looks very much like exactly the kind of case Arbcom was intended to resolve, so I do hope my colleagues decide to accept; it has some similarities to this long-ago case. Risker (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input about my pending application to appeal Continuation War infobox result special finding by AdminFutPerf

I really appreciate your remarks. This is all a learning experience for me, and the one big way I learn is from input. I've been told by a couple admins this is the wrong place to bring this complaint AND by another that my presentation is poor. (I've actually improved it a lot since beginning, so I shudder to think how it came across at first. You are aware, right, that my appeal is against a decision that the current infobox result *is* supported by a "consensus of sources"? And to out and discuss the supporting sources. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge request

Hi Risker, Are you able to merge Cape Coast Castle and Slave Castle of Cape Coast? It seems the talk pages agree they should be merged. My interest is that I have made a link to the former (which I consider to be the better article) from Entertainment, something that I am currently trying to get through to GA status. I don't know whether to edit the text before or after the merge. Either way, I think it would be better if these two were one. They are basically the same thing with a slightly different title. Is this the right place to ask? Thanks, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about this. I discovered that it is uncontroversial and learned that I could do it myself. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Nathaniel

Why on earth did you protect this page? He is charged with murdering an 18-year-old boy in London. The fact is WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Look the latest details are here. What is the agenda that is preventing him and the other man, Paul Boadi , being mentioned in all of this?

You put the block on this article so what is the issue? They're all ovder Oscar Pistorius and it's not even reached the bail stage. So again I ask you, what is your agenda? 86.160.110.236 (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion now at WP:BLPN. GiantSnowman 15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

TPM probation

The link you requested is here, as posted on the probation subpage of the TPM talk page:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive219#Sanctions_on_Tea_Party_movement Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci. Risker (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:AC

I can't quite tell what you were getting at with this comment, but I suspect that you might've been suffering from TL;DR syndrome when you wrote it, as I've been in that same boat plenty of times myself. Feel free to erase my reply if you want to self-revert.   — C M B J   06:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey now

You're being a real spoilsport there bud. Someone should be able to drop a few small cultural references during a discussion to lighten the mood without people crowing about proper attribution.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would not presume to speak for Risker, but this is the second time in a few days I have seen you address someone as "bud". Are you aware that not everyone you speak to on Wikipedia is a white male between the ages of fifteen and thirty and that people outside of that demographic may consider being addressed as "bud" by someone they don't really know to be quite rude? You might want to consider that in the future, assuming your goal was not to deliberately annoy people. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Think you may be overreacting just a smidge.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Things that may seem very natural in a face-to-face conversation don't always work that way in a text-based medium, that's all. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Given that one of the concerns expressed in the evidence of the case was unattributed close copying, the notion that unattributed "fair use" would be appropriate in a comment on the proposed decision page is off base, in my mind. I'm not sure we're very well acquainted, but I guess I've grown inured to the assumptions of familiarity that many Wikipedians have in relation to me; however, in my neck of the woods, "bud" is generally a fairly derisive term (not quite as bad as "jerk" but worse than "friend" when making a critical comment), something that you might want to consider when "conversing" with someone who is of a different cultural background than you. In this case, I've just taken it as being a continuation of an attempt to inject levity into what is (for the parties of the case) a rather serious situation, and I'm not taking it personally. Risker (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ottava

No worries about the talk page. It's just that if there is going to be a discussion about the return of Ottava, then the impetus should come from him. The third party discussions and ideas were making me uncomfortable. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries, RP - I assumed that it was done in good faith, and suspected this might be your reason. Risker (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• TY from me too. Sorry I'm such a pain sometimes. — Ched :  ?  05:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

COI questions

Hey Risker, I'm wondering if you think this draft request for comment would prove fair and useful? User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh my ...

seriously, I was literally LMAO. My dog was looking at me like I was totally nuts. (she's probably right). How could I possibly not like the heck out of ya Risker? — Ched :  ?  05:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers

Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [4]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The initial email came from an editor in good standing who had had a well-documented prior dispute with Malleus. (That should be sufficient to anonymize the correspondent, as that describes at least 50 editors that I can think of.) And the votes of all arbitrators are recorded in the motion that is posted on the noticeboard. I supported this motion, which is factually accurate, after having opposed or refused to vote on at least 5 others. Risker (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you' I saw the listed names saying who voted to support. I just don't believe it's quite that simple. Coren I not is recused - well that's hardly a surprise - is it? As for "email came from an editor in good standing who had had a well-documented prior dispute with Malleus." - I believe the Inquisition operated a similar ploicy before torturing people to death. Thank you for your time.  Giano  14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Need a quick Arb opinion

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda. It has been suggested that this problem (and I suppose maybe the whole Sarkar issue) might be covered by WP:ARBIND, which I'm a bit dubious about myself: the problem here isn't India vs. Pakistan, but rather promotional editing by the followers of a guru-type who happened to be Indian. One way or another, we need a way forward with these articles. Thanks in advance. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think WP:ARBIND would apply here; it's intended to be a very broad discretionary sanction (stuff breaks out in these areas in the most unexpected places) and the article does discuss information that is pretty much India-specific. I'm not sure what the best answer is in this case; I'd be concerned about not opening a case since that particular discretionary sanction was sort of an add-on to a very old case, but at least in the short term it might be a solution. Risker (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's our route here? Do we have to drag this through RFC/U, or should we go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and ask for ARBIND, or do we need to start a new ARBCOM case? This guy isn't our only problem in these articles, BTW. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe: Risker asked on the committee mailing list for attention to be paid to your question. I hope the following evaluation is helpful. The standard discretionary sanctions authorised by motion in India–Pakistan relate to "India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan", not "conflicts between India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan". Pages can relate solely to India (or to any of the other two states) and still meet the standard for applicability of discretionary sanctions. In this case, it seems to me that conduct at Progressive Utilization Theory falls within the scope of discretionary sanctions, and that you can reasonably bring an enforcement request against Abhidevananda if you think it is necessary to do so. AGK [•] 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice to let you know that I've referenced this discussion in the above ANI thread. -Location (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the comments. One of the main articles has just come off protection, and if there is further obstruction on it I shall appeal for ARBIND sanctions as suggested. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are invited on four current FDC proposals

Hello! As you may know, we've opened the community review period for the current funding round in the Funds Dissemination Committee process. I noticed that in the past you expressed interest in the FDC, since you were a nominee for the ombudsperson. I'd like to invite you to review the 4 proposals (totaling $1.3 million USD) that were submitted to the FDC, and to ask questions and share comments about those proposals. You can help to ensure that they have high potential for impact regarding the movement's goals. The FDC especially values comments by community members and will take them into account when they prepare their recommendations. Let me know if you have any questions! --Katy Love, Senior Program Officer, Funds Dissemination Committee, Wikimedia Foundation, 22:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

minimum number of arbs?

In light of recent events I was wondering if there is a minimum number of arbs we are supposed to have and if there are provisions for special elections should we get below that number. Not that I would want to see such a thing happen, but after looking over arbcom's procedures I did not see anything that seemed to directly address such a possibility. The noticeboard is such a zoo right now and you always seem to know the answers to such things so I thought I'd ask you directly instead of throwing it open to the peanut gallery for wild guesses and speculation. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox. Bit of a mixed metaphor there, unless the zoo is full of squirrels, billy goats, monkeys and elephants. Anyway... The answer is "it depends". We can do fine with 13 arbitrators, generally speaking, even bearing in mind that 1-3 of them might be inactive or not fully available at any given time. We can be okay with 10 arbitrators, provided most people stay active, or it's later than August; however, we would have to be pretty disciplined to ensure we stay focused on core activities. Earlier arbcoms remained reasonably effective with only 6-8 active arbitrators and focused almost completely on cases. Realistically, we are about to start the AUSC appointment cycle, we have a very clear objective to clean up the discretionary sanctions area, and we will have a CU/OS appointment cycle some time after the WMF-wide Board/FDC elections. Those are the major non-case activities; I'd include clarifications/amendments as case work. There is also the ongoing work on BASC and AUSC; probably there will be a shift to really encourage the community members of AUSC to take the lead on cases. I am dearly hoping to do some very significant work on changes to the mailing list system/processes/etc - in fact, that was the main reason I ran for a second term - and that will probably be at least partly dependent on keeping everything else focused. Sorry, I'm rambling... Risker (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's a great answer, ramble on. Hopefully things will stabilize here and nobody else will feel compelled to walk away. It's times like this I think not getting elected myself might not be such a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Risker, since you seem to be generous with the info, may I ask for a primer on ArbCom politics? What's this about politics? Are there factions? If so, who is fighting for what, and why have so many Arbs departed recently? Thank you for any light you can shed on this. One of the best ways to prevent drama and intrigue is to just lay things on the table. I always tell people that the truth is a good enough explanation. Jehochman ^Talk 04:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, Jehochman. I'd put forward that the Arbitration Committee is no more or less "political" than any other group on the project. After all, it's selected from the community, which some people see as being massively political and others see as completely apolitical. (My own take is that both extremes are wrong.) I do think, however, that there's a more significant challenge with reconciling the various philosophies within the Committee. From my perspective, I see three of them; as you read this, please keep in mind that there are fluid boundaries here, and individual arbitrators may follow one philosophy for certain matters and a different philosophy for other situations.

• Arbcom action only after community action has not led to a resolution: Key tenet would be not accepting cases for Arbcom-level dispute resolution unless there is clearcut evidence of unsuccessful attempts by the community to resolve the issue. This is sometimes expanded to redirecting unblock requests to the community before being addressed by Arbcom (which is supported by more than just the key proponents of this philosophy) to rejecting proposed resolutions because the arbitrator feels that the resolution in question should come only from the community. This may also extend to not participating in processes or opposing proposals under the current remit of the Arbitration Committee that the individual arbitrator feels should not be within the committee's remit.
• Activist Arbitration Committee: Key tenet would be that the Committee should address issues brought to it, even those at the edge of or outside the borders of Arbcom's remit, if it is likely to resolve a "problem" within the community or project.
• Arbcom action strictly within remit: Key tenet would be accepting or declining cases and participating in other activities based on the remit formalized in various policies, including the community-approved arbitration policy and those handed down by the WMF.

Of course, the "best" Arbcom is one that has members within each of these groups, as long as everyone is willing to accept that there has to be some give and take. For example, the three philosophies blended well to bring community consultation formally into the CU/OS appointment process, and to create the AUSC with its community representation. We have from time to time actively sought to "crowd-source" relevant evidence for cases that are intended to have a more broad impact (Civility enforcement), or to actively involve the community in resolving certain key matters (Muhammed images, Capitalization, etc) and have tried to be innovative in finding sanctions that focus on permitting contribution without disruption (most recently, Doncram).

I think the biggest challenge we're facing is rooted in the fact that the community itself is sending very mixed messages about what it expects. There is a large and strong segment of the community that clearly wants the Arbitration Committee to stick strictly to its remit; there was solid support for the limitations put into place in the arbitration policy. This group will frequently intersect with another group that would see anything outside of cases removed from Arbcom's remit. On the other hand, the community consistently elects arbitrators whose personal history and candidate platform is activist; the questions put to Arbcom candidates from the community always include significant focus on how candidates would change policy and or about other matters that are completely outside of Arbcom's remit. (Examples: what do you do in your local chapter, is editor retention a problem, how would you have closed a specific deletion discussion, and the use of "four letter words".) So activist arbitrators come into the committee with a belief that the activist agenda has been supported by the community. From my perspective,any reading of our noticeboards, the case requests, and the cases themselves will reveal the wild split in the opinion of the community on the degree of activism that they expect from the Committee (ranging from anything we do being too much to our complete failure to rewrite major editing policies by fiat). The community has been completely unsuccessful in coming up with alternative, community-driven methods to accept responsibility for some of the tasks currently part of the Arbcom remit, despite some pretty solid efforts by the committee and/or community over the years to devolve these responsibilities to the community. (Examples: last resort for unblock/unban requests - many proposals, none of which has achieved anything close to consensus, dating back to 2007, and probably the task the committee itself would most like to divest; community appointment processes for checkuser and oversight - few proposals, none of which met basic criteria to comply with the global/WMF policy or received any serious support from the broader community.) As you know, the community is not regenerating itself, and there are simply fewer hands willing and qualified to take on some of these tasks.

As well, I think there is some issue with inflexibility. I don't honestly know what to do about that; I tend to be relatively hardline on sticking to the remit and expecting arbitrators to "walk the talk". At the same time, I try to be open-minded enough to support proposals that aren't worded precisely the way I'd do so, or that aren't exactly what I think is best, because there has to be some give and take and finding of middle ground. I admit I'm not always successful at this, especially when I feel something is out of remit. I don't think there are actually "politics" at play here, and I'm pretty darn sure nobody on the committee is angling for re-election. Maybe you and the community might want to give some thought as to why the last few years the successful candidates have almost all been from an incredibly small group of people consisting of former and current arbs, arbcom clerks, CU/OS/AUSC members, and AE admins (roughly 75-100 people). Only one candidate who did not fit into one of those categories was elected in the last two years, and has been an extremely good addition to the committee. (Not to criticize the rest of us who were elected or re-elected at the same time!) Different voices make a difference.

Hope this is a bit helpful. Risker (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. My perspective on this is a bit unusual because I'm constantly involved in litigation as part of my profession (expert witness). I know of one lawyer on the Committee, Newyorkbrad, who usually advocates a light touch on matters. I generally agree with his approach. The Committee's position is always going to be a bit tenuous. You are just a few people with no army or police force. The only way you can enforce anything is if the community goes along with it. As such, you need to be extremely conservative about not doing more than necessary, not taking risks, not exceeding your competency, not making mistakes, because you are the final appeal. If you cock something up, it's really hard for the aggrevied party to get things made right.

Following my logic, it seems like I favor the approach of the first faction: don't get involved unless the community has already tried and failed. When everybody comes to you pleading for help, you have to ask, "Can we actually help?" If yes, accept the case. If not, reject it and say "Sorry, we recognize you would like us to help, but we cannot see any possible way to do so." You can't solve every problem, so pick and choose those you can, and put your energy there. Something like this Malleus case is a good example where your involvement probably made things worse, and consumed tons of energy that could have been better spent elsewhere.

It does make sense that ArbCom could receive requests for help and then redirect people to more appropriate resources: Checkusers, Oversight, OTRS, AE admins, admins who deal with lots of ethnic disputes, admins who deal with disruptive editors, etc. Such redirection is informal and simply a courtesy to help users find the most appropriate agency withing Wikipedia to resolve their situation.

I think ArbCom has been trying to do too much, and would be more successful if they were a lot more careful to avoid conflicts of interest, such as acting in the first instance in a matter, which eliminates the possibility of them reviewing the matter later as a neutral party. If I had to sum up my advice with one command it would be, "Preserve your neutrality." Don't wade into a dispute. Watch it and wait for the parties to bring the dispute to you when they are ready. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

With respect to "ArbCom trying to do too much": can you please cite examples besides the things from the last two weeks? IMO, those are too charged right now to comment on fairly as a pattern of anything at this time. NW (Talk) 23:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not wish to use the highly stressful disputes of other editors (or my own) as fodder for an argument with you. Jehochman ^Talk 23:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, I did make my comment intending to start an argument with you. I have argued similarly in the past, both regards to specific cases we have taken up (the ongoing Tea Party movement for example) and with regards to situations of Wikipedia:Child protection. I would genuinely be interested in hearing specifics on areas where you think the Arbitration Committee has taken on more than it should. NW (Talk) 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"the community is not regenerating itself, and there are simply fewer hands willing and qualified to take on some of these tasks." This is because good users are constantly driven away at a rate far above the rate truly new users are brought in. Wiki has proven totally ineffective over the long term in dealing with its own problems. Risker also makes good points about the mixed signals it sends. PumpkinSky talk 00:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

NW, I don't really care what you intentions are. I'm leaving my feedback. You can't argue with me at all because I have spent years interacting with the Arbitration system and have a long view of it. My opinion is that the Committee has been trying to expand its powers, and in the process has been losing power, because it's power is based on trust. People don't trust what they can't see and can't understand. If you would conduct business in the open, you'd have more trust. If you would dispose of cases more quickly, you'd have more trust. Arguing with me will never result in more trust. Jehochman ^Talk 00:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That will teach me to not proofread. There was supposed to be a not in the first sentence; "I did not make my comment intending to start an argument". NW (Talk) 00:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You brought up a good example: Wikipedia:Child protection. If there is such criminal activity, it should be reported to the authorities immediately, not to an incompetent body of volunteers. (Not that you are incompetent people, but that the body is incompetent to investigate and deal with this situation.) ArbCom should not be receiving reports of paedophiles on Wikipedia. Not at all. That policy should say, "Go to the police."

If you want to ask me about other examples you can think of, I will be happy to provide feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's look at what Arbcom has done so far this year:

• Made an amendment to the Rich Farmbrough case [within remit]
• Closed a case request involving use of admin tools by Hex with a motion [within remit]
• Enacted a motion in relation to the Israel-Palestine case with respect to the Jerusalem article, with discussion to be moderated and closed by identified community members [within remit, and with overall dispute resolution devolved to non-arbitrators]
• Withdrew project-specific access to CU/OS tools by WMF staff developers; responsibility for their tool use now rests with WMF [divesting project and committee from having to monitor use of tools, redirecting responsibility to WMF]
• Unblock of Asgardian [within remit]
• Enacted a motion relating to the Waldorf Education case to change sanction regime to standard discretionary sanctions [within remit, makes it easier for AE admins to handle]
• Standardized the process for handling withdrawn case requests [within remit, done with community consultation]
• Level II desysop of Kevin [within remit]
• Enacted a motion relating to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case to change sanction regime to standard discretionary sanctions [within remit, makes it easier for AE admins to handle]
• Unblock of Russavia [within remit - block was an AE block]
• Motion with respect to oversighter blocks [oversighters and privacy matters are within remit, community input sought, but this remains contentious]
• Series of motions related to functionaries [within remit, 2 passed and 2 did not, significant community input]
• Closed the Doncram case [within remit]
• Unblock of Fae [within remit - lifting of Arbcom ban]
• Return of Kevin's sysop by motion in lieu of full case [within remit]
• Closed the RAN case [within remit]
• Statement regarding MF and GP [whether or not this is within remit is hotly debated right now]
• Initiated AUSC appointment process [within remit]

So, we have 18 actions reported on the Arbcom noticeboard, in the first 12 weeks of the year; there are also two open cases where arbitrators remain active, and additional amendment/clarification matters being reviewed. I think there may have been a few unblocks by BASC that were blocks by individual administrators rather than community sanctions or Arbcom sanctions. The AUSC, which includes 3 arbitrators and 3 community members, is reviewing several requests. I believe we have had one "child protection" complaint, which was alluded to on one of the committee-related talk pages. In the background some arbitrators (led by Timotheus Canens) have started the process of reviewing discretionary and other sanctions from earlier cases to ensure that there is standardization, and that sanctions that are no longer needed can be lifted. This will be a lengthy process, since there are so many "old" cases and sanctions; we hope to bring something to the community in June. There is also some work on reviewing mailing lists, and preparing a statement on how mail is handled and is normally redistributed; and creating guidelines for oversighters and the use of the "oversighter block", which should be extremely rare. Almost everything that the committee has worked on is easily within its remit, the ongoing work is focused on its longstanding responsibilities without trying to expand its remit at all (if anything, there is some work to clarify what it defers to others), and until the community comes to a consensus on alternatives to handle some of the current tasks, this is what is in the portfolio.

I agree with anyone who says it that "child protection" blocks would best be done by the WMF; in fact, I'm pretty sure every member of Arbcom would agree with that statement too. As it stands, though, there are exactly two community liaison staff to cover the hundreds of WMF projects, and they have made it clear that they do not have the time to investigate such reports; obvious cases of paedophile activism result in blocks from the community level anyway, which is true. On more than one occasion, Philippe (WMF) has encouraged this community to help make the case for the need for more community liaisons to help address issues such as this. I don't have any influence on the WMF budget, nor does Arbcom as an entity, but I'm sure any reader here already knows where that issue might better be addressed.

Could we have handled some things differently? Well, of course; and most of the things I think we could have handled differently involve one or more actions that were taken very quickly rather than in a well-considered manner. It's my personal opinion that precipitate action at an early juncture tends to take much longer to resolve completely and satisfactorily; however, I know that opinion is not shared universally, and there have been times where prompt action was the best course, as well. I think it is very difficult for anyone in our community to select the best course of action when there are competing priorities or different policies disagree on the preferred course of action, and arbitrators (and editors/admins who are also arbitrators but are acting in their personal capacity) can get caught in the same policy traps as any other member of the community. Risker (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be a great thing if minutes or a digest were provided from time to time explaining what ArbCom has been doing. This will increase trust and help calm people who might otherwise get unhappy. Your post above is quite useful. The ArbCom is supervised by the community. We need occasional reports of what's going on. Perhaps ArbCom will appoint a secretary to take such notes and post them, perhaps weekly or fortnightly. It would be good to include a general summary of matters being discussed on the mailing list, with anything confidential redacted or names withheld. Jehochman ^Talk 03:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you could always look at the Arbcom noticeboard, where all of these actions is publicly announced, and all the messages are archived. The mailing list is the least of the activity. We actually work on this committee, and it's poor use of an arbitrator's time to analyse mailing list nonsense. We get 10 spam emails for every real one in the moderation queue; do you want a deal on apartments in Ulan Bator? To meet new people (wink wink)? To purchase an entire pharmacopia of drugs for just about every ailment that afflicts mankind? I'd be happy to forward those ones to your mailbox if you like... :-) Risker (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) comment. I had started an idea while talking to Worm a couple days ago, but haven't gotten back to it yet to flesh out all my thoughts on it. I think an A OR B (agenda OR arbs page) is more doable than both. I'm not even sure Worm actually looked at it with all the ... ummmm ... activity(?) recently. I wouldn't mind expanding on my thoughts if there was any interest, but I don't want to put a inordinate amount of time into something that's going to get scoffed at either. @Johathan: I'm honestly not stalking or following you around these days - more of a "have similar thoughts and concerns" type of thing. — Ched :  ?  06:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Risker, I've just seen this and I want to thank you for being so open with your thoughts. Openness like this is one of the things that I think can help narrow that chasm that Worm has mentioned. I think highlighting that ArbCom has been lumbered with lots of stuff simply because nobody else wants it will help with understanding. For example, there seems to be some dissatisfaction with the way ArbCom appoints CU, OS, and AUSC, but your pointing out that the community has been unable to come up with a successful alternative helps to counter suggestions of corruption and power-mongery. My thoughts are that in these cases, a community election (of candidates who have been vetted for any legal issues etc) would be a better alternative than appointment - but I see from here that that's been tried in the past and was not successful. If people think power structures here have become moribund, well, so has the community - with size and diversity comes impotence. As for your three approaches to arb, I'd say I'm a "strictly within remit" person. Perhaps simply leaving extra-remit things undone might stimulate some action - WMF are less likely to act to rectify structural problems if they always have some convenient unpaid muggins who'll step in and try to clean up the political shit. Anyway, thanks again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

  PS: I also think that a lot of the problems come from what Worm calls a reactionary approach to issues. While it's inevitable that sometimes a "rapid reaction force" response will be needed, it usually isn't, and it can sometimes be hard to distinguish necessary quick response from the jerking of knees - Ms Streisand's lesson can be a hard one to learn. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright in work to hire contracts

In a Work to hire Contract like Elance is not copyright owned by the individual or the company for whom they work.It appears so as per this Elance service agreement and this . If so how are they posting on site without WP:ORTS permission from the copyright owner ie individual or the company who paid them.I am not sure the copyright owner has agreed to licensing under licenses it under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL. Will there any legal issue if there is dispute over it. I would greatly obliged if you clarify on this. I have also posted in our project now renamed from Paidwatch to Integrity here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In this Elance Ad someone wants a Wikipedia page to be created do not think it has been created.But a line states in the Ad When placing a bid, please advise of your experience in Wikipedia and web2.0.All content will remain copyright of myself. Integrity is a key focus on this job as well. If you successful undertaken this role, there are more pages to upload after this one.One may need to sign into Elance to view the last 2 lines Job ID: 39154940.Sent the ad by email. Most Elance ads ask for wiki pages to be created and the paid editors will be clicking the Save button and not the copyright owner and thus have not agreed to licensing under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Risker. :) Just FYI, Pharaoh popped by my page to note this, as this subject is under discussion at my talk page, too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks folks. First off, we all know that an article titled The Arthritis Solution is going to last about 12 seconds on Wikipedia, so much of this is moot; not even the greenest new page patroller is going to mistake that for anything other than spam. I also think people sometimes confuse copyright (which belongs to the creator of the content or, if they have entered into a contract, the person/organization they have contracted with) and licensing. So if I write an article, I still hold the copyright, but by hitting "save" on Wikipedia, I license it to be used under the CC_BY_SA 3.0 and GFDL. I would also not be surprised to find that this is a troll on Elance (since it's such an obviously commercial title name); I've heard that a few people have done that in an effort to "out" editors writing for financial gain, although I've not had any names directly linked to this "rumour". The main The Arthritis Solution I can find online is a pseudoscientific supplement for dogs that clearly wouldn't pass our criteria. Risker (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said on MRG's talk page, I notice that the prospective client is explicitly proposing sockpuppetry which involves him disclosing his password to the editor he hires, who then disguises himself as the client when posting the article on Wikipedia:

I'd like a provider to use my existing account on Wikipedia (details will be provided to the successful applicant) to submit a page titled "The Arthritis Solution."

That strikes me as a huge no-no. Though, it's possible the whole thing is a bit of trolling. Voceditenore (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As per the client information he appears to be genuine having done 81 jobs and spending nearly 34K.The question was about the larger issue of Copyright in work to hire contracts .Thanks for your response.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, he has hired people to do 81 jobs, only one of which has anything to do with Wikipedia. I think copyright isn't even on the radar when it comes to concerns about this. Risker (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt response and clarification and also Moonriddengirl's reply here on the legal potions clarifies the issue.Just FYI it is being discussed Here in Integrity Project and and here as another editor has raised a few more issues.My profuse apologies to you that the discussion spilled over talk pages.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Pharaoh; taking it to Moonriddengirl's page was an excellent idea. Risker (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia as database" essay

Could you please create a copy, in my userspace, of the "Wikipedia as database" essay, previously at User:Riggr Mortis? Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Any luck with it? I can try requesting an WP:UNDELETE if you are busy. I asked you first since you were the deleting admin. --Surturz (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! You only have to see how Google now serves up Wikipedia content next to search results to realise Riggr Mortis has a valid concern. --Surturz (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Risker, thanks for userfying the content from Riggr's page. I was sad to see it deleted, sad to have lost him, and I think his points are valid. Thanks too to Surturz for requesting. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

A discussion which relates to actions or comments made by you can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Peter Damian socks. Fram (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see this

Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You said: "[I] encourage all parties to try the mediation route once again" Today I did exactly what you suggested. This[5] and this[6] is what happened. You should have noticed by now that I was the only party who went through all stages of dispute resolution while they played with the time. The Arbitrators need to step in and do something about it. --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed further developments and have now changed my vote to accepting. Risker (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Risker, I write to you the same thing I wrote on Kirill's talk space:

"I consider my explanation at the mediation talk page valid. For example, take a look at the Blood tables article that Lecen lists in the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Argentine history on Wikipedia. When did Lecen edit the "Blood tables" article (or its talk page)? What exactly is wrong with this article that Lecen wishes to improve? Has Lecen's improvement to this article been unjustly denied for there to be a mediation?

And it's not just that article. Lecen also lists Sociedad Popular Restauradora, a stub article. The same questions apply.

Moreover, as I mentioned in my "decline" explanation, plenty of third opinions were heard (with regards to Juan Manuel de Rosas) that favored my position. Lecen refuses to acknowledge these opinions.

Lecen comes to ArbComm with a clear intent at WP:GAMING, skipping the WP:BRD process, blatantly avoiding any consensus, and seeking to avoid collaboration in Wikipedia with those who have a distinct point of view from his own (see [7], [8], and [9]).

Best of wishes."

With regards to you as well.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Resurgence of Eastern European fiascos:

Could you keep an eye on this page Advice Polack - not exactly a rivetting subject, but if you check it's history and spurious nomination for deletion [10], I think you will see some unfortunate shenanigans are going on. If you take my advice (not that the Arbcom ever does) you will see this is nipped in the bud before it spreads to other pages - as it surely will. I have already reverted it, to it's fully referenced version; it may need protecting. Giano  14:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Trouble has started already [11] Volunteer Marek edit warring to retain a gutted version of User:John Vandenberg's original version, so that it's so hopeless it will be deleted. Perhpaps you would revert to John's version and protect. Odd how Sandstein is never around when he's wanted.  Giano  19:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What-in-the-heck is going on here? This looks like Brian Peppers all over again. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gimme a break. This is a BLP issue. I have no idea what "Resurgence of Eastern European fiascos" is supposed to mean or imply. It's a weak article on a stupid non notable internet meme which has already messed up the subject's professional and personal life. And Giano, you're reverting and edit warring too. The difference is that I have BLP policy on my side.Volunteer Marek 19:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear [12] Houston - we have a problem. I'll wait a few hours for this to be rectified.  Giano  20:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a bit of a mess up, since there's an AfD for it, but really, it's not surprising given the nature of the article.Volunteer Marek 20:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to [13]....  Giano  20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'm not terribly supportive of the article being kept. If this was a significant Polish internet meme, it would have an article on the Polish Wikipedia, which it does not have. I don't think this is a BLP violation: the person who was discussed in a previous version of the article as having been a victim of this meme has given media interviews on the subject, although one might argue that he is creating his own little Streisand effect and that English Wikipedia shouldn't help him with that. Mind you, I've always had low regard for articles about "internet memes" because they don't really have the level of durable notability that one expects in order to comply with our policies. Risker (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Then we have to change, confirm and strengthen our policies to exclude them, or afford them the same protection as our other pages.  Giano  10:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd clarify something here in regard to "has given media interviews on the subject". It's not obvious to non-Polish speakers but when you look at one of the sources that some people want to include in the article, the "magazine" (a trashy tabloid) basically gets the guy to agree to the interview by pretending to be sympathetic to his problems, then basically ridiculing him (the magazine is known for stunts like that) - i.e. they're basically trolling him. That's as far as one interview goes. And BLP applies whether or not a person has agreed to an interview or not.Volunteer Marek 04:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the television interview. Risker (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that's an actual interview or just him answering a couple questions asked by a reported. Anyway. Not that important.Volunteer Marek 04:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just another day of standard wiki fare on As Wiki Turns. The human race is not evolved enough for wiki to achieve its potential. The petty bickering is unending.PumpkinSky talk 11:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

So much better since Giano is now acting as a proxy pouring gasoline on the fire here and elsewhere with his conspiracy still lives allegations. Just deal with the editors who prefer to lobby admins instead of to simply deal with content conflicts how and where appropriate, amongst themselves, in the appropriate forums. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The article in question seems to me a POV WP:POINTY Poles are fat dumb asses retread of the departed Polandball. You want to prevent EE disputes? Ban articles whose only possible purpose IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA is to degrade Eastern Europeans, and then topic ban those editors who insist such content is ENCYCLOPEDIC. WP is not a compendium of Poles are fat and dumb insults. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Goodness me; this is becoming a gathering of old faces, now where was it we all met before? - remind me.  Giano  14:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Goodness me, given your responding to an invitation to the party, your characterization as "spurious" of a request to delete Polophobic attack crap masquerading as encyclopedic content is rather you being the instigator stirring the pot. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata: phase II (infoboxes) and workflow

Hi. I started Wikipedia:Wikidata/Workflow, but I can't summon the energy to fight this fight. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments to your recent edit

Hello there,

I just found that you recently edited this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhu_Ling_(poisoning_victim)

There are many media coverage of the only suspect in that case. Most media reports, if not all, are in Chinese, though. For example, this is a recent report: http://news.163.com/13/0419/05/8SQ3MKK200011229.html.

That wiki page is now semi-locked. If you could unlock that, it will be much appreciated.

Thanks & Cheers,

Minghui — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minghuiyu (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I second that.

Additional sources are added to that particular article. The vast amount of references available in the Chinese language version are yet to be translated to the English page.

So if you might unlock that, this article can be improved.

Regards, 安正

• I will look further at this tonight or tomorrow; however, aside from the matters you are pointing out, there were other violations of the biographical information of living persons policy being made by unregistered users, severe enough to justify semi-protection. On this project, we also do not name suspects unless they have been publicly named by authorities, with very rare exceptions; the suspect being identified in this case has never been charged in all the intervening years, and the majority of what I am seeing as "sourcing" turns out to be gossip, rumour and innuendo repeated in various places. And, bottom line, editors who are so unfamiliar with our project that they haven't even edited enough to be auto-confirmed are probably not the best choice for editing what is obviously a sensitive biographical article. Risker (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

Might want to be aware of this: [14] --Rschen7754 22:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rschen7754. I've now posted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 to gather community input into how we want to handle Wikidata on this project. Risker (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:Join the discussion

Oh.. I'm so sorry. I do not know about that. I just want to test it when I read it become alive in here. Please revert it if not on community consensus. Sorry for my bad English.  Ę-oиė  >>>  ™ 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

SOPA discussion question

Hello! I'm writing an undergraduate thesis on the SOPA blackout, and I have a quick question about your role as closing admin. How did you become designated as the closing admin of the discussion? Were you chosen, or did you volunteer? Are there any discussions or talk page archives that mention this decision? Edge3 (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

CUOS 2013

Hi Risker,

I saw that you kicked off discussions for CUOS in 2012. Do you know when such discussions will start again in 2013? LFaraone 00:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Heavens, we've literally just posted the AUSC results. If it has to wait until I'm available, the process won't be starting until either late June or mid-August (depending on how much of a decompression period I need after being on the WMF election committee). I'm hoping that one of my colleagues will lead the next appointment phase, though, although I expect it will start following the completion of the WMF elections regardless. I do hope you'll consider applying - it is always good to have different faces in this area. Risker (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so long as they're admins of course, so not that new. Just the same old same old. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Per Mal. And AUSC was disappointing this year, more than usual. The downhill slide of wiki continues. PumpkinSky talk 01:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, Malleus and PumpkinSky: We can consider other options here - although a CU who cannot carry out blocks is pretty useless, and an oversighter who can't suppress-delete a page is not ideal either. I think we need to look at what bits are attached to these permissions and determine if we can find a way around these technical issues while also satisfying the WMF mandate. Unfortunately, I'm out of creative thinking ideas for today, but perhaps by the weekend I might be able to turn my mind to it. Non-admins on AUSC (next appointment phase starts in April 2014) we should definitely be able to do if we line up our ducks properly. Of course, that would require the community to come together and support any proposed changes, not just the fourscore or so people who hang out near Arbcom pages and noticeboards. And anything that gets lined up this year may be written off by next year's committee, so remember to ask them their opinion during the election this fall. Risker (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Those problems won't be fixed until wiki comes to grips with why participation in both the project and matters such as AUSC and AC are steadily nose diving, and I don't see that happening at all, much less soon. PumpkinSky talk 01:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I vowed I would never undertake RfA #3, but this AUSC issue has got me so wound up that I might change my mind. I don't for one minute believe that it would pass, but it might at least give regular editors a voice. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd VOTE for Mal in a heartbeat. PumpkinSky talk 01:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• yea ... I have a few things I'd like to say about the "chosen few" as well, but it's probably best that I don't at the moment. — Ched :  ?  01:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am considering applying, s'why I asked :) Anyway, thanks for the details, I'll keep a lookout for the posting. No rush :) LFaraone 19:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Risker, I would be willing to do the spearheading this time around if you would like me to. NW (Talk) 02:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You were quoted

at User talk:Carcharoth#email. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein

As the article was sourced, neutral, different to the 2008 article, and complied with policy, can you explain why you decided to delete out of process? The subject of the article already has an internet presence through his own website: <snipping links> I'd like to get your response before going to DRV. And I'm hoping we won't need to go there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, I am so appalled with your behaviour with respect to this article - which came to your attention because of a confidential email to the Arbitration Committee - that I do not even have civil words to comment on it. It is a G4 recreation of a deleted article. (It is not as long but everything in the recreation was contained in the original and hence is substantially the same.) Unlike you, I would have known about this recreation without the confidential email to Arbcom because this article was on my watchlist. Risker (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to recreate the article here, but it may be worth listing the sources.

<snipping all this nonsense>

You'll notice that while there are some sources in common, this is an article with new and different and increased sources. We are also four years further on, and our ability to protect BLP subjects is improved. The appropriate procedure would be to take this to AfD, which is what the subject was advised to do. This is not an ArbCom matter. This is a matter for the community to discuss with the subject. Would you please take another look at the two version so we can avoid the possible Streisand effect of a DRV. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, you have behaved in the most reprehensible manner, one very similar to that discussed in December last year: the use of the arbcom mailing list for reasons other than arbcom business. At that time, you talked about trust and its importance. You took that email and are now actively trying to do exactly the opposite of what the correspondent requested. That you do not even get how destructive that is to any trust that people will have for the committee is beyond me. I am not going to discuss the article with you, SilkTork, because as an ordinary editor you would not have been aware of its existence. That you're now doing exactly the kinds of things that led to the original article's deletion (overinflating the importance of internet links to people who aren't really notable) just makes things that much worse. If that's your standard of notability, SilkTork, then every Wikipedian better hope you don't look too closely; there isn't a person I know editing this website who would not be notable on your standards. Including yourself. Risker (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously not aware of what the email said, but wouldn't this sort of email concerning a BLP article go to OTRS? --Rschen7754 03:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect (although I've not confirmed) that Seth Finkelstein had a less-than-optimal experience with OTRS or its equivalent back in the day, and figured out a long time ago that he was more likely to find a sympathetic audience elsewhere. Arbcom as a group has long been one of the key community pillars in support of a subject-respectful interpretation of the BLP policy; many of our decisions over the years (including before I was on the committee) are very clear on this. OTRS agents would not have been in any better position, I don't think, than Arbcom would have been in effecting a deletion here. I agree that this is outside of Arbcom scope; on that, SilkTork is quite right. On the other hand, for some reason lost to the mists of time, I've had Seth Finkelstein on my watchlist for as long as I can remember(certainly from before I was an admin, let alone an arbitrator), so I would have immediately noticed its return when I got as far as logging into Wikipedia today. I'm fairly certain I would have deleted the article regardless. Risker (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Seth Finkelstein

Hi, I created that article which you deleted by linking to this discussion from 2007. Then I looked at WP:CSD and I couldn't find the criterion that says "Creation of an article about a subject that ever once failed to survive a deletion request." This was not a recreation of content. I ain't an admin, I can't even see what the content was prior to its deletion over five years ago (nor can I see what I just wrote last night). I am somewhat surprised that it got speedied. The reasons for its deletion before may have been very valid, just like the article for Psy probably wasn't notable five years ago, either. But I think most of the sources I put were from within the past five years - don't hold me to that, please, it's just off my memory - and so I'm pretty sure it doesn't meet a single CSD. I think I'll do a DRV, unless you have something to add. (I by chance happened to see the rather terse conversation above--please don't be upset with me, I'm absolutely certain that you believed to be operating in the best possible way. I don't think at all that you acted in bad faith. I just am pretty sure this article's subject is notable enough to survive an AFD. I mean it.) Red Slash 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Seth Finkelstein

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Seth Finkelstein. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Courtesy notice that you were quoted

I'm not sure what the etiquette is for notifications for quotes but if you'd like to enlighten me, I'm all ears. Anyway this is a belated attempt to cover my tracks in case I've innocently violated that etiquette. I quoted you in this seemingly now defunct thread on Carcharoth's talk page and another editor commented on your quote. So on the outside chance I've inadvertently misquoted you or misapplied your prior comment in some way, and you want to correct anything for the record, I'm giving you the courtesy of this belated notification. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, again

It was completely classless and against both the spirit and probably the letter of WP:DRV that I put this up without even giving you a chance to explain to me why the article was speedied (as if it couldn't wait a day or ten). A couple of things did surprise me--I was startled that I did not even get a note on my talk page when you speedied the article I had written (I've never not been notified before, ever); I was also dismayed that I got no criteria for a speedy deletion in your deletion summary. I also scoured WP:CSD to see if it'd undergone recent changes, but no, there was still no criteria for "creating an article about a topic whose article was once deleted", only "recreation". And I saw the jarringly bitter back-and-forth between you and another editor about my article's deletion, where the other editor mentioned that they themself would likely post a DRV.

But (and here's my error) I took all that to mean evidence of a bit of bad faith, that you would probably not be willing to engage in a productive discussion. You've served Wikipedia for a long time and deserved a double benefit of the doubt, which I did not extend to you. In doing so I missed out on an opportunity to get an honest opinion and dialogue from one of Wikipedia's best... and much worse, I stifled your chance to explain yourself personally and at least factor into how the review would have been presented, if not stop it altogether. I gravely failed at showing respect to you for your position at WP and even simply your existence as a human being, and I personally apologize to you.

(Do I still disagree? Absolutely. But I was even more absolutely wrong to post that without giving you a chance to reply.) Red Slash 01:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment on TParis

I see nothing in TParis's AUSC nomination statements that justify your paraphrase "I plan to humiliate you and make you bend to my will and *then* we will have a good relationship"[15]. Per WP:DR, I invite you to justify or strike the comment. --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It was elsewhere in his application. It was not in his nomination statement. TParis is aware of my interpretation of his sentence, and in fact we had an extended discussion about it. You will note that he does not dispute that he made a statement that I could have (mis)interpreted in that way. Risker (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If you will not retract the paraphrase, could you please link or quote verbatim the sentence you are paraphrasing from Wikipedia:AUSC/2013#TParis? I reviewed his statement and responses to questions and I could not find anything that justified your paraphrase. Just because TParis did not rise to the bait does not mean he was not baited. --Surturz (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot do that; it was in his application, which is not posted onwiki to the best of my knowledge. I will ask TParis for his permission to post the original comment. Risker (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of which sentence she is referring to, although I dispute the description she gives it. I've given her permission to share the sentence and I'm reaffirming that permission on-wiki for her sake.--v/r - TP 03:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TParis. If the original statement was sent in-confidence then I submit that it should not have been paraphrased on-wiki. For a third time I invite Risker to justify or strike the paraphrase. --Surturz (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TParis. In response to the question "Do you have any questions about this role that you would like answered? If so, please list them below," the final sentence of his response was "My question would be: Are Arbcom members on board for open and honest discussion that will include some (a lot of) criticism if it will better the relationship between the committee and the community?" My read of that sentence was then, and remains today, "Lots of criticism = better relationship? That sounds like an awfully abusive relationship," and I explained my concerns to TParis and offered him the opportunity to reword his response. Unfortunately he sort of dug himself in deeper. The opinion I expressed to my colleagues at the time was "That sentence in his post I recognized instinctively as the language of abuse; it immediately set off warning signals for me. I tried to set that aside because at the time we were being attacked individually and as a group from many sides. I've gone back several times and it's still the language of abuse. The sentence parses as "I plan to humiliate you and make you bend to my will and *then* we will have a good relationship." There is nothing about being an equal partner or working together or anything like that." Now, I accept that, being one of the few women who work on the dark side of Wikipedia, I see this a lot more often than most others; TParis' example here isn't anywhere near the worst I've seen. But this undercurrent of abuse exists in a great deal of communication as it relates to the Arbitration Committee. Go read our noticeboards, and insert the term "gay" in place of "Arbcom"; then try it again with "women" or "men" or "blacks". It's not sexist or racist or homophobic, it's just abusive. And the sad part is that I'd bet most of the people who are equally as abusive in their language would never actually talk to someone in the identifiable group the way that they do onwiki. I've had incredibly lovely face-to-face discussions with people who've torn me apart onwiki or elsewhere online. Risker (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Risker and TParis, thank you for supplying the original quote. I think you (Risker) have admitted that your judgement may have been coloured by your previous work on "the dark side of Wikipedia". I don't think your paraphrase it at all fair on TParis. I think it would be best if you struck the paraphrase and replaced it with the verbatim quote. Per WP:DR I think that is a good compromise. Will you agree to that? --Surturz (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I am explaining my position, not TParis' position. I remain convinced that I am correct in my interpretation of his sentence. My interpretation is part of my reason for recusing in this specific case. I probably won't recuse in similar situations again: since the time that I reviewed TParis' original candidacy statements, I've made it clear that I don't believe this project should continue to tolerate the language of abuse. Maybe you don't see the parallels, but it was obvious to every woman I showed it to, none of them Wikipedians. Risker (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have posted this clarification to the Arbcom noticeboard: [16]. Thanks for your prompt replies. --Surturz (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer your removed post regardless. No, I'm not saying he's a misogynist. Women recognise the language of abuse far more easily than do men, if for no other reason than that they're on the receiving end of it more often. I'd expect the same is true of pretty much any marginalized group. His wasn't the only example I showed, I also pulled up some from the Arbcom noticeboards as well. I'll go see what you've posted there and respond there. Risker (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As the only person that Opposed TParis's app that I know of I think he would have been a better choice than Guerillero and would have looked a lot less inappropriate. I personally think that your justification for not promoting him is a pretty big stretch and I for one can say without a shadow of a doubt that Guerrilero is far more abusive in his demeanor and interactions on Wiki than TParis. So to make a wild accusation of abuse about TParis is to me rather ironic and funny in a not so funny way. As it is, this is just appointing Guerrilero to the Committee subversively after the community rejected his request resoundingly and shows that the actions of Arbcom are not outside abusive behavior. I would also add that rejecting the candidate that actively stated that they wanted to try and change things relating to Arbcom and then selecting the candidate least likely to do anything against the popular vote or current process looks a pretty shady. As for the language of the wording, if women recognize the wording more easily then its possible that they are reading more deeply into it than the language intended. Its like telling a women they are beautiful and then being badgered with "What do you mean by that?", "Do you tell that to the guys?", "What makes me more beautiful than [insert another females name here]". Kumioko (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Erm, have you actually read my initial post on the noticeboard, the one where I say I recused on voting in relation to him at any stage during the discussion, and did not, after an initial email exchange and explanation to my colleagues, have anything further to do with his candidacy? I did not even share the one-on-one discussions I had with TParis with anyone on the Committee. When I recuse, I actually recuse. I'm sorry that you can't see that that is controlling language, not collaborative language. Risker (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am not blaming you Risker and I do appreciate you were communicating with TParis where others were not. I also understand you recused. Yet Guerillero got selected and TParis did not. Just to further clarify I Opposed both of them but I hope you can see my point that the circumstances of how they ran and their backgrounds in relation to Arbcom does make things look rather...questionable. Most folks probably wouldn't notice because few outside the Arbcom inner circle spend much time looking at the cases, or they fear getting in the sun and prefer to stay in the shadows and under the radar. I also recognize BTW that my opinions are about as popular as a Raggae band at a Ku Klux Klan rally and its generally preferred that I just keep my big nose out of Arbcom business. Kumioko (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

hi

WP:TEA? :) Sorry if I added fuel to anything. — Ched :  ?  05:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Language of Abuse

You want the language of abuse?

[17]. Throawat (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser?--v/r - TP 22:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a bad idea; it's so obviously a throwaway, though, that it's likely not to turn up anything. I'm not in a position to either do a CU or ask for one; if you're in a better position, please feel free. Risker (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And geez, why did they move the section edit button? What the heck???? Risker (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Beware of the Leopard

After reading your comment here, I was reminded so vividly of this passage, that I had to share:

“ But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

” — Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Sorry to "junk up" your talkpage, but it seemed too apt to miss. Begoon ^talk 23:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it took me a bit to reply. I couldn't find the edit button, since it was in a stupid place based on research that is many years old with a small group of users for a different purpose. Oh wait... Risker (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So wait, there's no way to move it back to the far right?? -- Avi (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to add custom JS/CSS now, to do that. I guess the upset is caused by perceived lack of communication, and a straightforward way in the interface to "opt out" of an unwanted new change. There'll always be some of us "old farts" who feel that way, and it will always frustrate the developers who really are, I'm sure, trying to improve things for us. I've been on both sides of that fence, many times, and I don't know a good solution. Since I'm doing pithy quotes today, here's one from Battlestar Galactica: All of this has happened before and will happen again... Begoon ^talk 03:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That's my running battle here. While two of my three usual computers are relatively fast, the third is old and cobbled together with bits of stuff, and so using ay of these custom JS/CSS things is out of the question for me, and I'm what might possibly be called a "power user". Plus these things don't always work together well, and one can't tell which one is the problem. I discovered today that I had some script stuck in my common.js (which I didn't even remember I had) which definitely has never worked for me. They're also not okay for those with accessibility issues (whatever happened to accessibility being a requirement for all new changes?) or for those who have to disable JS for various reasons including security reasons. Heck, I had to pull out of using Vector with all its extraneous bits because on my "slow" computer I couldn't open most of the Arbcom pages before it timed out. Disincentivizing longterm users does not seem to be a major concern; they figure we'll either get used to it or someone else will come along to take our places. Problem is, the latter hasn't been happening for a long time. Risker (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've already asked for names so I can start lambasting and raising the unholiest of ned. In the meantime, pointing me towards any JS which fixes this monstrosity would be most helpful. -- Avi (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's in this thread. Risker (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Risker. -- Avi (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - much better now. I agree with you that not all of our long-term users will be comfortable with "fixes" like this, though. Can't see what the harm would have been to make the Preferences into radio buttons/a combobox for left/right positioning really. I understand that the developers don't want to backwards maintain all these options, and I can even see that there may have been some thinking that this could increase editing by being more "obvious" - but given what you say, with which I agree, about retention of long-term editors, maybe it was worth that little bit of extra "coddling" of us whiners, specially given the rumpus over the OBOD. It's surprising how much better people generally feel about stuff like this when they feel they've been asked - even if they end up on the "losing" side of the discussion. Begoon ^talk 08:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply needed

I responded to your notification on my talk page. Please review it and provide the follow on details. Any (talk page stalker) able may respond as well. This request is timely! Thank you.--My76Strat (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tenmei → Enkyo2

Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Meta question

Ha, "meta question" almost invites hyper intelligent meta questioning. Unfortunately I don't that in me right now. But I did ask you a kind of meta question on your Meta talk page, and your help is appreciated. Squank you, Drmies (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect Bill Bradbury

Dear Risker,

Thank you for protecting my beloved husband, Bill Bradbury's wikipedia page. That was a good idea when he was running for Governor of Oregon. As you know he lost that race. He would like easily edit his page to update it for what he is doing now. I would like to do that for him. For example, he no longer lives in Salem, Oregon' he now serves on and is Chair of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. http://www.nwcouncil.org/contact/members/

The wikipedia guidelines say I should contact you about removing protection. Please respond to me Katy Eymann <email redacted>.

Thanks

Katyeymann (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Katy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Boss (3rd nomination)

Hey. The article on Jeff Boss is up for deletion again. If you would like to weigh in, click here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSky talk 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi PumpkinSky - as you will probably notice, I didn't participate in considering this particular arbitration request; I spent almost all of June on a movement-wide project, and am just now returning to my regular work on the Arbitration Committee. I've not read through everything in that RFAR. I do think, however, that Jmh649 might benefit from reflecting on the end result involving Will Beback; I think we perhaps erred in not making it clearer to Will Beback and to others in the original case how close they were to the line. The community generally has fairly low tolerance for administrators who repeatedly take advantage of their positions, and who don't quite get that one either administers an article or edits it, generally speaking; I myself have made many requests over the years for protection of articles I've edited heavily, or for blocking of obviously misbehaving accounts that are on said articles or my own talk page, and I strongly encourage other administrators to do the same. Let's hope that a lightbulb might come on; Jmh649 has, like many editors who've sailed close to the wind, made a lot of positive contributions to this project and to the movement, but there's a limit of how much of an umbrella those positive contributions provide. Risker (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts. But I just got blocked again by an involved admin and it was near-unanimous overturned in a few hours at ANI. What on earth is going on around here with these admins? Eventhough they were quickly overturned, the stigma of blocks cannot ever be erased. PumpkinSky talk 09:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Very astute comments and observations Risker. Though I feel somewhat encouraged by DJ's post here that encouragement is overshadowed by DJ's repeated refusal to identify his new Admin mentor. I fear that DJ is saying one thing in public but doing something else in private. DJ was the outspoken leader of the disruptive and pointless crusade to destroy ArbCom processes and reinstate Will Beback. He was also one of the few users who, during the ArbCom clarification, did not deny being in contact with Will Beback. This combination of facts leads me to speculate that DJ's new mentor may in fact be Will Beback and DJ may be in the process of further solidifying his alliance and modeling of the behavior of that banned user. If this is true, than as PSky has said above, the system is failing. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)