User talk:Risker/Archive 8

January 1, 2010 to

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Dog pic

See my user page with me and Skip hangin' with Cell Phone Sanata! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

sanity check, and a gentle touch.....?

G'day Risker - seems an age since I said helloooooo... so belated christmas, new year, birthday and any other significant anniversary greetings of your choice :-) - I'm swinging by because I'm sort of out on the wire trying hard(ish) not to get caught in irons over some article importing and developing - the current chat is at deletion review, and the article is Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia - currently sat here, though I think a better fit for 'mainspace'.

Now even an angel would require 30mins or so to really take a look, and I have a hunch that that's a big ask for you nowadays, but I'm hopeful that your page is also watched by saints, and maybe one of them might have a mo? Sincere smiles regardless.... Privatemusings (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)ps. the wire and irons is a sailing metaphor which I hope isn't too esoteric ;-)

Thanks!

Merry Christmas to you too! And happy new year! -- Luk ^talk 10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check, please -- regarding privacy

Hi. Seeing your interest in privacy issues, I'd like your opinion on something. At Talk:Family Foundation School#Possible new EL - Thefamilyschooltruth.com, User:Flyboi9 accuses me of a laundry list of policy violations.
One of his allegations seems to be that I violated his privacy by mentioning that I saw his moniker on a Facebook fan page related to the EL that he wants to add to the article. Please tell me -- were my comments there truly out of line? --Orlady (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A careful eye needed

A very careful eye is needed at this thread, please. Durova is now seemingly alleging that someone has engaged in "unwelcome attention that had sexual overtones" toward a female editor. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP motion

Please read my argument, just added there. [1] You are moving much too fast. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

MIA

sorry I've been so absent lately .. just been so very busy. Hope to be back very soon, miss all you good folk, and hope all is well on your end. — Ched :  ?  12:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Request.

I placed Ben Paschal in FAC, can you copyedit it for me. Thanks Secret ^account 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

CANVAS?

Hello Risker, I've responded to your comments at DrV. I would like to ask what caught your attention wrt this DrV given that you rarely comment there. There has been a fair bit of off-site canvasing related to the BLP issue and I'm curious if you showed up there via some form of canvassing. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded at the relevant DRV. I'll probably toddle over to AfD too later on if I have time. Risker (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to confirm then, there was no off-site notice or anything similar? Hobit (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hobit, hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't ask me to look at this DRV or that AfD, or whether or not I think such and such qualifies under one CSD criterion or another. I've had probably two dozen people ask me to spend some time reading and participating in deletion discussions over the last week, and I set aside this evening to do so, with an emphasis on BLP issues. So far, I looked at the open DRVs, and (due to server intransigence) have only had a chance to really review one AfD, but I'm going to head back over there in a few minutes when I have a fresh, hot mug of tea in my hand. I swear that the wonkiness of the servers had nothing to do with me actually deciding to spend time onwiki, honest!  :-) Risker (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(Drive-by tea comment) Confirming hung system is not your imagination ... And that it is definitely tea time in any case. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 03:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And back to your question, Hobit. I think I wound up commenting on half a dozen or so AfDs related to biographies (I used the Biographies category on WP:AFD to randomly select the deletion discussion), and then I went to look at an article that someone had privately expressed concerns about. I wound up cleaning up the categories, correcting some information, and adding a reference to that one; I'm not entirely sure the person ought to be considered notable, but he's enough of an edge case that I'm not going to put the article up for AfD myself. Then I noticed that there was some new information in one of the AfDs I commented on, which I reviewed, and which I found sufficient to change my opinion. Personally, I find BLPs with only a sentence or two to be less useful to me as a reader than a redirect to a more complete article in which the subject is discussed, if only briefly; it puts the subject of the "article" into context, if nothing else. I'd like to see more of these solutions tried over straight deletion; when someone is ready to build a more complete article about a person, they just have to edit the redirect, and what little content is currently there remains in the history for others to use. Risker (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please userify Steen Christensen to User:Cunard/Steen Christensen and blank it and add {{NOINDEX}} to it. I will source the article. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like User:JIP undeleted the article and sourced it some. It still needs more inline citations though, so if you want to give it a helping hand, that would be much appreciated. NW (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's snowing

Risker, what's up! Go to my user page and check out Skip and I playing in Skip's first snowfall. There's a pic of us with Valentine Teddy too. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:The undertow‎

So much for rehabilitation. Perhaps you should take it up with the admin who restored his Talk page access, or failed to remove it in the first place. My opinion is that before the_undertow went a bit wobbly, he was one the finest admins we had; capable of cutting through the crap, and telling it like it is. A reaction like yours seems to be purely Wikilawyering and unnecessary. OK, I owe him from my Afd, but also I don't think he acted with necessary diligence in some ways; however, if we will forgive some other editors, again and again, I don't see why he should be excluded from considerations of common humanity. He clearly wants to come back, as I see it, and is reaching out with that in mind. If you have an alternative interpretation, I'd love to see some evidence of it. Rodhullandemu 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rodhullandemu, the fact of the matter is that, at present, The undertow is a banned user. While it may not appear so on the surface, one of the key points of banning is to strongly encourage the user to disengage from Wikipedia, at least for the duration of their ban. If they are posting on their talk page, they are not disengaging. Not editing (anywhere) is the standard for banned users. While I appreciate that you have had positive experience with The undertow, and I have no problem with you continuing to have positive communication with him, Wikipedia is not the right place for that right now. Risker (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could believe the policy issues; clear though they may be, behind the username is a real person, as am I. Some leeway might well facilitate a return here, since it is clear that the_undertow still feels a need to communicate here. I don't believe that a door should remain closed forever except in the case of utterly incorrigible and destructive editors. It's astonishing that we appear to tolerate the various sockpuppets of User:Peter Damian, and others, simply because they "provide good content", while closing the door to those who have, in their day, shown their commitment to this project. As I say, "So much for rehabilitation". This is, sadly, an unforgiving environment, and I'm not sure, in the face of your unwillingness even to allow the_undertow to have some input even on his talk page, that I'm prepared to participate for much longer here. It is, at best, an uphill struggle. Rodhullandemu 02:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, I am acutely aware of the fact that behind every screen name is a real person. The door to The undertow isn't closed forever; it's closed for a short period longer—until 11 April 2010—and one has to remember that one of the reasons he is banned at this time was his inability to wait out his block the last time, starting a new "secret" account. Providing some additional structure to the self-discipline he lacked in the past is not necessarily a negative, and can well be part of the rehabilitative process. I don't spend my days looking to trout banned users, but I will frequently be more aware of their other wiki-related activities than others are likely to be; the emails never stop. I understand your disenchantment, and I suspect that it is something we all go through from time to time. I hope you will stay the course and model the behaviour you hope to see in others. Best, Risker (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP RFC Part II

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#BLP_RfC_Closer_Needed. Would you be willing/able to do it? Rd232 ^talk 13:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Block-fail?

Hey, I think that your recent block messed up a bit, you might want to double check it. Here is the log:

04:36, 5 February 2010 Risker (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 216.250.7.245 (talk) with an expiry time of 2010-02-06T11:02:55Z (account creation blocked) ‎ (Vandalism)

Now, I'm no expert, but that looks a little weird to me ;). Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to look again to make sure I'd done it right - and yes I did. This is also blocking out the registered accounts from that IP, something we don't do all that often. Sleepers can be a nuisance. Risker (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP Summary

• Just read your summary of the great BLP debate (here: WP:BLPRFC) and wanted to commend you on an outstanding job of summarizing the discussion. This is a great example of the value of diplomacy to summarize a contested situation in a calm and very helpful manner. THANKS! --Mdukas (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, I wanted to do the same. A very fair assessment of the discussion.--Father Goose (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Great job, well done! (I still think we should have an RFC on how we do RFCs; such heroic efforts shouldn't be necessary, or at least not as hard as this must have been.) Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• I think you did an outstanding job. Then again, I think the community did pretty well, too. Some sensible and (mostly) level-headed debate, with people prepared to listen (OK, read). --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Excellent summary of a complicated but generally very constructive debate. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all of you. I think Dweller has it entirely right; the community did the heavy lifting on this one, and I just pulled together what they said. I found it truly inspiring to see the number of responses that were hopeful, well thought out, and innovative. Wikipedia has many challenges, but when given the opportunity to come up with solutions that would serve the encyclopedia well, our community came through. It's inspiring when we see so many people of diverse philosophies and experiences coming together. Risker (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to say that I was actually quite disappointed you chose to close that discussion. It's been clear you have fairly strong opinions on BLPs in general and I don't think you qualify as uninvolved in the topic. Nor do I think your close of that discussion was accurate. I certainly don't see how there was any kind of consensus to using PRODs to deal with the issue... Hobit (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey nice!

I see you have the xkcd image prominently displayed on your userpage. I think that {{fact}} is a great invention. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FBiographies_of_living_people.2FPhase_II Okip (formerly Ikip) 11:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of AE sanctions

Hey there Risker. I have a question for you about Arbitration Enforcement appeals. Sandstein imposed a three month block on a user per The Troubles arbitration case, and a good deal of administrators felt that the block was excessive. Five of us wished to overturn the block with something more limited, but Sandstein claims that absent a much broader community consensus, the original decision, which he still stands by, must stand. Do you think you could comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mooretwin? Thanks. NW (Talk) 15:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This one appears to have resolved itself, and I am glad to see that. Many of those who commented there have a solid history of working in the arbitration enforcement area, and I think you came up with a reasonable solution. Risker (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally

The Canadians finally did it, a gold at home. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

YES!!!! (Where do you think I've been these last few days....) Risker (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See Coren's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My goodness...

... I can't believe that you read that entire BLP discussion and was able to digest and summarise it. That is a herculean effort Risker - you are to be congratulated! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tbsdy. Ironically, I found it one of the most inspiring reads I've had in a long time. The community really came through on this one, which made my job a lot easier. Risker (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clear consensus?

• Please let us have a numerical summary of what you assert to be clear consensus. I do not see one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no; I've already recycled most of the notes I made at the time, including the printed version of the RfC, and I'm not going to go through this again, so you'll have to make do with estimates. There were roughly 10% of people who considered the only acceptable option was deletion of any unsourced BLP, and about 10% who felt that the only acceptable solution was to keep all unsourced BLPs with or without cleanup. These people were at the extremes, obviously. Most people (about 75%) supported some form of specialised PROD process for BLPs; the major contention within that group was (a) the length of time that an article should be prodded, (b) how to move the large group of articles through systematically and (c) what to do with unsourced articles of clearly notable people that were not improved during the PROD process (delete vs incubator vs leave in mainspace). The overwhelming majority of opposes to the various PROD-based views were that they didn't like one of the components of that view, not that they disagreed with the basic concept. Many people who supported one of the more extreme positions (delete everything or keep everything) also supported one or more of the PROD-based views. There were also a few people whose comments focused on other issues that didn't directly address the situation (e.g., communication techniques, procedural issues related to the existence of the RfC).

It's a bit concerning that there seems to be a perception amongst some Wikipedians that the opinions of editors must be rigidly categorized, and that an editor can consider only one of a range of solutions to be acceptable. That is a fallacy that needs to be dispelled; a very significant number of editors supported several of the proposals, including people perceived as strict "keepers" or "deleters" who supported one or more of the PROD proposals. The RfC proposed a multitude of solutions along a spectrum, but a very large number of the proposed solutions were closely related (i.e., dependent on a PROD process). The purpose of "closing" Phase I was to help the community maintain its focus on a somewhat narrower range of solutions, eliminating those that clearly did not have significant support, and identifying the areas within that range of solutions where discussion was still needed. The RfC is still going on, and I hope that you will participate further. Risker (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken, and your closure improper. But the RfC is the proper venue to say so; there is and was no consensus on a narrower range of solutions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Well, I respect your right to disagree. And the RfC is still continuing, with a narrower range of options. I fail to see how anyone could read Phase I and think that the number of editors who exclusively supported either deletion on sight or automatic keep was anything more than a small minority, but YMMV. Remember, current policies permit PROD, AfD, or automatic deletion for unsourced BLPs. Risker (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your "clear consensus" lopped off much more than those extremes. My position, and that of many others, was to deny automatic keep, but to hold that our existing methods were sufficient to deal with the problem articles, insofar as the problems overlapped with lack of sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Current policies permit automatic deletion for unsourced BLPs"? Only truly problematic ones, like coatracks. If you understand that policy represents consensus, and not the other way around, I have to believe you understand that there's no consensus (and thus no policy) for deleting articles at this time solely on the basis that they're unsourced.--Father Goose (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not; that's not even in the descriptions of practice we call policy pages. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable should be immediately deleted. Please rephrase your reply. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Contentious" is a tricky word. If someone is declined a job in the real world because his resume says he graduated from one university, and his WP article says another, is it contentious? If someone's #1 google hit focuses on a supposed episode in their youth that looks benign to most people but would have been in violation of their religious convictions, is it contentious? A three-sentence stub can seem to be totally benign to the average reader, but if one of those sentences contains something that is patently untrue, there's a problem here. We cannot tell, sitting here at our computers, what material would be contentious for the subject of the article. Our own opinions on what is and is not benign are relatively unimportant. Generally speaking, an unsourced article about a French canton or an asteroid or a river or an automobile is unlikely to cause any real-world harm to the reputation of any individual. The same cannot be said about unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people. That is precisely why we have a special policy about biographical information of living people. Poorly sourced or unsourced information about living people is the most frequent reason for complaints to the WMF and to OTRS, and the WMF Board sees this as a particularly significant issue.

Even as I speak, there is a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Oversight to suppress information that may cause real-world harm and potential extinction of a species; perhaps you might want to weigh in there too. Incidentally, I understand the information was inserted without a reliable source. It's something that was never considered when our predecessors created this amazing resource; I am quite certain there was never any intention to create and support situations where individual people or species suffered harm as a result of information present in this encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have always taken "contentious" to mean "challenged or likely to be challenged", as in WP:V; for living persons, negative material will almost always fall under that head.

Any employer who trusts Wikipedia deserves the lawsuit he will get for capricious and irrational personnel policies; we are not a reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what world you live in, PMA, but in the world I live in, someone whose resume is contradicted by his #1 google hit isn't even going to get an interview, let alone a job offer, and they will probably never be told why; employers don't have to worry about any lawsuits, given the number of applicants for most jobs. My point, which you have carefully chosen to ignore, is that *we* don't know what information would be likely to be challenged, or what is negative, or what is totally made up in school one day, without having reliable sources. This is precisely the reason why we are supposed to *use* reliable sources in the development of our articles.

There are unsourced and poorly sourced articles about truly notable people in our encyclopedia, and nothing — I repeat, nothing — would make me happier than to have those articles properly sourced and well-written. Rather than seeing tons of stubs about various athletes (whose notability is entirely dependent on their often-brief athletic career) put onto the chopping block, I'd strongly support some alternative way of pulling that information together in a logical and easily maintained format, such as lists of players in certain leagues or on certain teams, with the player name redirected to the list, so that useful information isn't lost and is brought together in a format that makes it easier for readers to use, without having an unwatched article turn into a coat rack that focuses on an issue totally unrelated to the person's notability regardless of how well-sourced that issue may be. I'd love to see Wikinews really grow strong so that Wikipedia has time to be certain that some event or person has an enduring notability rather than being the filler story of the day. I'd love to see our notability standards become more consistent so that some ordinary person who happens to get lots of attention over a week or two (often for something silly) but disappears from the horizon afterward doesn't have that presented as their #1 google hit, and so that we aren't taken advantage of as a publicity platform, as I know happened in the case of at least one celebrity whose article I wound up dealing with. (The subject wasn't a celebrity when I was dealing with her article, and it was obvious that I was up against professional SEO types; her WP article was used extensively in the subsequent publicity campaigns.) At the same time, I'd really love to increase our coverage of non-Western scholars, politicians and scientists, which is terribly weak now.

High quality sources that support the information presented in this encyclopedia are critical for Wikipedia to become a credible resource, which I believe is the primary objective of this project; if you don't think that is something we need to constantly strive for, PMA, then I don't know what more to say. Risker (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting most of our articles on (say) Associate Professors of Mathematics, which is what this would imply in one field, is not going to make us more credible. And we are never going to get "Trust me, I saw it in Wikipedia" from anybody sane and more intelligent than a houseplant (which may indeed exclude many HR departments); the possibility of vandalism alone will ensure that. All we can do is to ensure that our average rate of error will go down - and on the whole there is no reason to believe that this process will do that; it is not unlikely that these articles are slightly more accurate than average. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The endangered species clause you mention also does not appear to be receiving consensus - partly on the perfectly reasonable ground that removing the information is enough, especially since quite often the unsourced information will be wrong - and so harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Amend Brews_ohare sanctions, or not

Can we wind this up? I think we need a motion, and arbitrators' final thoughts. Brews ohare (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Being a pessimist by nature, I was actually expecting to be blocked, so your thank you is a nice surprise :)

With your kind thank you, once again I am reminded why you are a member of the arbitration committee, and I never will be :)

I am surprised about the results thus far since I notified everyone, it seems like more people are supporting balloonman's proposal.

Maybe I was wrong all along, I will be the very first to admit it, that after this is all said and done, and everyone has their say, that there is still more consensus for balloonman's proposal.

I finished, everyone is notified now. I really don't think I missed anyone. I can compare the lists tomorrow night to make 100% sure.

I am excited to let you know, along with helping create WP:CONTEST, that I have been wanting to get a BLP bot approved for sometime, which will create a daily list for wikiprojects of unreferenced BLPs. Unfortunately that process takes forever. Faster to do by hand as I just did. Okip 03:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Whew!!

Thanks for the work on your user page, an excellent presentation. I availed myself of CC-BY-SA since I'm pleased to have that on my page too. :) The women won silver in curling (actually the women won the vast majority of our medals), the men won gold, the women won gold in hockey, the men won gold in hockey. All is right in the universe. :):) Most gold medals ever won by a country in a Winter Olympics.

I believe a may take a stroll down the street to see if other people are happy. Maybe even make the 20-minute walk downtown...

Regards and thanks for the userpage. Congrats to the US team too for their outstanding play, and regards to our many American visitors - but nah-nah! :) Franamax (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

*attempts to console self that we have more medals overall than you, fails miserably, crawls to corner, curls up, sobs* J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Aww, Franamax, glad you liked the userpage. It's, ummm, just for today....but this has been a truly incredible Olympics for our country, and I am very happy for all of our successful athletes. Well, yes, for all of the athletes from all the nations, because they put on an incredible show right here in our backyard. And that had to be one of the best hockey games I have seen in years. I'm going to enjoy a little dinner, and then will have my handkerchief ready to watch Joannie Rochette carry our flag into the stadium at the head of our team for tonight's closing ceremonies. J.delanoy, you have good reason to be proud of the American athletes too. Risker (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tally

Please don't forget. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The only statements that matter in whether or not a case will move forward are accept, decline and recuse. I'm not going to get too worked up about failing to update the "comment/other" column, when it's pretty clear that I've not selected one of the other options. Having said that, I think you will find I usually do update the tally, so being chided on one of the few occasions when I did not, and when it makes no difference in the acceptance of the case, is somewhat grating. Risker (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be overreacting for no apparent reason. Instead of getting on the defensive, and adding all this unnecessary quibble, a simple "I'll try not to - I usually don't though" would've put an end to the matter. There is a remarkable difference when I chide an user, be it an arbitrator or another editor, and when I convey that I made an edit which ideally should have been made by you. In good faith, I assumed you forgot - but if you prefer to force others to read every comment to figure out how many active arbitrators have commented on a request, then perhaps you and your colleagues should remove that column altogether, rather than lecturing me about it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up the evidence phase for TM Arb

If Will BeBack is posting his evidence at the last minute before the cut-off time, will there be time for others to post rebuttals before the page closes? --BwB (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for your help on my Talk page. Really appreciate it. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock investigation

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse.
Message added 08:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clarification needed. –MuZemike 08:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, please see my query here. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a further related question. I asked it first at MuZemike's talk, and he pointed me to you. I'm asking about the inclusion of User:Yzak Jule and User:Zengar Zombolt within this group of socks. I was the main target of their disruption, so I'm very familiar with them. I am very much aware of the socking issues between those two accounts, and of course I have no access to the checkuser results, but it really surprises me to see it tracing all the way to Matisse. The Yzak user with whom I dealt seemed to have a rather specialized agenda, tied up with Something Awful and anime, and not extending much beyond that. Looking at the archived February 23 SPI report, it is not clear to me that it was really filed with respect to more than the Yzak Jule, Zengar Zombolt, and GetOutFrog accounts. Are you sure about that there wasn't just socking within that specialized area, separate from the larger socking issue? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded to you on Mike's page as well; see work under construction at User:Laser brain/Sandbox and reference Mattisse's old "Granny defense". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I looked at that sandbox link, and I'd honestly have to say the style of that GetOutFrog edit was quite different from the Yzak Jule and Zengar Zombolt edits. Yzak/Zengar is someone who is very specifically hung up on some of the Something Awful memes: that all Wikipedian's have Asperger's, and that we are all obsessed with anime. Also, the user is one with extremely bad temper control, flies off the handle very easily and looses their cool. Maybe (?) Matisse glommed onto what was happening at Crucifixion in the arts, but I suspect Yzak/Zengar is someone else, unless they match via checkuser. My reason for scrutinizing this so much is that I think Yzak/Zengar is likely to come back under a new name, and I don't want them to be overlooked if they don't fit the broader M.O. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

1) They're both likely to come back. 2) Meatpuppetry=sockpuppetry. 3) The more you ask Risker to disclose, the bigger our future problem will be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in no way am I asking that anything be disclosed. I'm just asking that it be checked for accuracy. Hey, who knows, maybe I'm incredibly naive and never realized just who I was up against. Look, when Yzak changed user name (openly) to Zengar, and Zengar was indef blocked, no one remembered to go back and block Yzak too, and so Yzak came back. That's the kind of thing I want to have eyes on. I never said those eyes needed to be mine, or in public. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review the sandbox, and you will see patterns that match Yzak/Zengar. It's complex. But, I agree that the CU results should be left to rest without further disclosure. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this was a huge amount of work for Risker; how about centralizing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts#SPI, to lessen the burden on Risker? And wait for her to have time to weigh in: I do believe she has a real job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a lovely party :-) Hi everyone, thanks for your messages about this. I think the questions are reasonable, and I will get some additional opinions on the interpretation of the checkuser results as compared to the edit patterns for a few accounts. The ones I personally posted last night are solid, but I will bring in other checkuser(s) so we can look as a group at the second series that includes GetOutFrog. It may take a bit of time, please don't expect final results for at least 24 hours. Risker (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to examine User talk:Mattisse where Mattisse has admitted to the socks she has operated. This is the first time she has actually admitted to a full list of socks.

To me there seems some behaviour patterns which look distinctly unlike Mattisse specifically: Yzak's sole mainspace edit was on some obscure manga comic which is well away from Mattisses usual area of interest, Zengars sig (DaiZengar^{Smite evil}) is much fancier than Mattisse is use to and could well be beyond her technical capability. There also seems to be a Korean pop culture theme to Zengars edits [2] which all seem to point someone with a very different age and location. --Salix (talk): 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good gracious, Salix: actually admitted to a FULL list of socks? You amaze ... this is the list she has been caught at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee (and therefore, I) is aware of Mattisse's posting on her talk page. As indicated above, I will be discussing some of the checkuser data and editorial behaviour with respect to some of the identified socks with other checkusers over the next day or so, once I am in a position to do so (I am not, right now). However, I think a little further forthrightness on Mattisse's part is called for. Risker (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I remove my requests from the SPI? I don't want to be made to look like an ass because I believed something Mattisse said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, don't worry about it Sandy. I'm just at the wrong computer to do CU work right now, so that is why nothing appears to be happening. Since I am familiar with both the data that we would be looking for, and the manner in which Mattisse edits, I will be doing much of the leg work on this one. Risker (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have known better than to let her affect my good judgment; that is, after all, the goal. Thanks, Risker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker; I hope you get a bit of a well deserved break ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Risker, given the questions I raised, I'd just like to ask: is it, in fact, the case that Yzak Jule/Zengar Zombolt is actually related by checkuser to Matisse and/or her socks? I'm not asking that anything confidential be revealed, just a confirmatory yes or no. It's clear to me that Yzak/Zengar was socking, but the relationship to Matisse surprises me, and I just want to understand as well as to make sure there hasn't been a mistake. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Trypofish - It is possible that we have two drawers of socks tangled up together, with one or two socks giving every appearance of appropriately fitting into either drawer. That is why, as I noted above, I am obtaining some additional opinions from other checkusers. All of the accounts are socks, though. Risker (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, good, I'll stay tuned. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the results. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, there also appear to be several cases where the socks were in each other's drawers, which brings in multiple IPs, behavioral evidence, shared passwords ... who knows what all else ... which makes the allegations that the Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) account was operated by another Venezuelan editor all that more interesting. Risker will sort it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Risker, we're all going to need some guidance on how to deal with future cases. Could you please see Jttw (talk · contribs), going at Malleus, asking for directions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OR shall we just keep adding to the SPI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm. I hate to say this, but disagreeing with Malleus is not sufficient reason to consider someone a sockpuppet. The article Malleus has put up for deletion has been mentioned in other forums recently as being a crummy article, so it's no surprise that people are jumping into that discussion from all directions. Risker (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There are other markers (which include ancestry): I added at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

note

Hello, just a quick courtesy note to let you know about a thread here. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 17:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm sure you've commitments both offline & on-wiki that take up your time. As it's been 4 days now though, I've dropped by again to ask if you would please weigh in – regarding your closure at the above-linked section? Thanks. –Whitehorse1 21:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the nuanced, clear, cogent and elegant ruling on the Trusilver case. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver case

Your wrote "First is that it is pretty clear that the edits that resulted in the block were not physics-related, but straightforward (and fairly sound) editorial advice, so I do not see them as violating the topic ban that was instituted by the Arbitration Committee." Brews is not banned from making physics-related edits, he's been banned from participating in any and all physics-related discussions, broadly construed. Giving advice on a physics related dispute, where all the concerned parties were involved in the ARBCOM/SoL case and its aftermath certainly is a violation of his ban. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Then we disagree. I see straightforward editorial advice that did not refer even once to physics-related issues, and I believe that it does not fall into the broader scope intended by the original remedy; in fact, this is the kind of behaviour that Arbcom was hoping to see, where Brews interacted appropriately with other editors in sticking specifically to an issue rather than Brews discussing his physics theories in almost every edit he made. As I note in my opinion, resocialisation of editors who have a history of problematic behaviour that merits restraint in some areas but not ejection from the project as a whole is also an important objective in the end result of an arbitration case.

I am curious as to whether you have taken the time to actually work out the preferred version of that page with the other editors, and sincerely hope that neither of you are edit-warring over that article any further. Risker (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the original arbcom statement and the subsequent ban by Tznkai meant that Brews should not involved himself in physics-related disputed involving the same users he's been involved, raising hell at every possible place in Wikipedia, testing the limits of topic ban every month, and other such displays of poor judgement. If it does, ARBCOM should definitely clarify it.

Concerning infraparticle itself, the issue was settled after it's been found that Likebox's sourcing was not deceitful, although Likebox behaved in just about the worse manner possible ever since (insults, calls for my head to be chopped, massive deletion of his own edits because he doesn't want us to "have them", appeals to Jimbo, and the list goes on). Anyway Likebox is gone to Citizendium now, and no one misses him. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse

Hi Risker, thank you for your help in regard to dealing with this case, I've left you a query, basically asking whether or not you intended to decline the request for checkuser when you left your comment there (if you did then I'll archive the case). Please let me know in your own time. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Risker, you might also clarify this; unless I missed a step, too much was moved and accounts are now tagged incorrectly. Mattisse is e-mailing whom now ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to overload you with queries, but can you please let me know whether Always blue, Talking image, Chapter & verse and Apartadmit are socks of Mattisse or Zengar Zombolt (which should cover the above request from SandyGeorgia). Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Always blue, Talking image, Chapter & verse and Apartadmit are socks of Mattisse. Risker (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much Risker. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a cot? Looks like I'll be a frequent guest.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you glad you get the big bucks? I want down pillows and linen sheets on my cot :) User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Crazy stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<Fluffs up SandyGeorgia's pillows and tucks the sheets up under her chin.> Sleep well. I'll have you know I am worth every penny I am paid to do this.... Risker (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks, again. You're a lifesaver.--Kyorosuke | Talk 06:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea auf Deutsch

Amalthea is making me practice my German again! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Precepts on the secret of success in life drafted by Tokugawa Ieyasu. Calligraphic original in the collection of Nikkō Tōshō-gū.

Risker --

As you already know, during the Edo period of Japanese history, the hortatory precepts of the founder of the Tokugawa shogunate were widely known. After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the aphorisms of Tokugawa Ieyasu faded from public prominence.

In our unique "mentoring" relationship, perhaps it may be construed as helpful to recall these words:

"One who treats difficulties as the nomal state of affairs will never be discontented."

I hope this becomes a helpful reference as we continue to work together and face whatever lies ahead.

Sincerely,

Tenmei (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.

One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.

Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.

Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.

Blame yourself rather than others.

It is better not to reach than to go too far.

— Tokugawa Ieyasu, 1604

Very sorry to hear of your loss, Risker. Bishonen | talk 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. Certainly puts this website into perspective. Risker (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Strategic Planning followup

Risker, thanks for your fantastic contributions to last night's strategic planning office hours. There's some followup at the strategy wiki. I hope you'll join us there and continue to share your thoughts! Philippe Beaudette, Facilitator, Strategy Project (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

RfPP

Hi Risker, there's been a request on RfPP that Template:Administrator review be unprotected, partly on the grounds that it's not transcluded on many pages. As the protecting admin, do you have any objection? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, SlimVirgin. I've downgraded editing protection to semi-protection; Gary King makes a reasonable point, and there should be no issue with knowledgeable community members editing this template. Anything with the word "administrator" in it, however, seems to eventually become a target of certain vandals, so I've left full move protection in place. I've also commented at WP:RFPP. Risker (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for sorting it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

James Nguyen article

Hello, I want to ask, why cannot an article about James Nguyen (the director of Birdemic: Shock and Terror) cannot be created? He, and the movie in question, was mentioned quite a lot of times in various newspapers. --Have a nice day. Running 22:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a guideline on what is to be included in an article?

WARNING: this question has relation with the Arbcom case about Gibraltar, but it has a much wider scope (that's why I post it directly to you). In case you think it should go to the Arbcom workshop (or wait until later) please tell me.

Hi,

I see that you think that one of the main problems in the case is "fact vs opinion". I completely agree, but in a very specific way. Most facts are agreed by almost everybody but we have very different opinions regarding which ones should be included in the article. I have seen that this is something quite common in controversial articles. I have looked for some guidelines on this question, but have not found any that are directly relevant: WP:NOTABILITY explicitly does "not directly limit the content of articles" (it only affects whole stand alone articles) and WP:NPOV deals with balancing viewpoints such as "POV A says that X is white and POV B says that it is black" (not with whether some undisputed fact should be in the article).

The problem with this type of disputes, with only our opinions to guide us, is that they can often lead to accusations of censorship, bad faith, and lots of frustration.

I have proposed some kind of +/- objective benchmark using the number of mentions in reputed secondary sources: if an issue is well over the benchmark set by other issues undisputedly in the article, then it can probably go in; if it is well below, then it's hard to justify its inclusion. I think it would save us a lot of time, "blood, tears, toil and sweat". But maybe it is completely out of place for some reason or maybe there's a guideline that already deals with this (and I have not been able to find it - which is something plausible and then I apologise for wasting your time).

My question: is there a guideline dealing directly with this problem? if there isn't, maybe there should be one?

Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the arbcom has already ended, I think it's OK now for me to ask: Is there a guideline that can help us decide whether an accepted issue (or fact) would better be included in an article? I mean, the way WP:NOTABILITY helps us decide whether we should keep an article or not.

I have not been able to find any guideline, but this could just be because I have missed something (a very probable hypothesis, no irony implied...) Sorry to insist on this, but I'm afraid the current Gibraltar dispute is very much about whether we should include or not certain issues that are accepted by everybody. Thank you! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Altenmann

His work intersected with mine somewhere in the past and I can't remember where. Since he's banned how can I refresh my memory? He's been extremely active since 2003 and going through his contribution log 50 at a time will take hours and hours. I know I corresponded with him on his talk page... He contributed through this account alone more than I will do in my lifetime. I wonder where some editors get the time to do all they do. How can you feed yourself and edit Wikipedia as much as some do? I thought he was a decent fellow and guess I'm looking to adjust my regards to him. Should I mourn his banning? Alatari (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quick list of the articles that both you and Altenmann edited.[4] That might help to narrow things down. As to Altenmann's character, I wouldn't venture to say, but the majority of the 150,000 or so edits were very good and improved the encyclopedia. It's just that the problematic ones were problems in a very specific way. Risker (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's surprising cross section. I thought he was good at being NPOV and a few of those had pretty contentious sections. I hope that energy he has gets put to good work somewhere. I WISH I had some of that energy. Is he forever banned from Wikipedia? Thanks for the response. Alatari (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, right now he is community banned, and I anticipate the ban will remain in place for a very extended period (years as opposed to weeks or months), particularly as the socking occurred over at least a 4 year period. Nonetheless, we have seen previously banned users return and do good work after other situations, so I won't profess to say that this is a permanent situation. Risker (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sock puppetry, please help

Dear Risker,

I have strong reasons to believe that User:Assyria 90 and User:Destudent are Sock Puppets of User:Shmayo. Their comment on this page came just minutes apart after more that 18 hours of Shmayo last activity, all to handle a single issue. Those other accounts have been basically idle, and just awoke at the voting stage of some suggestion in the above mentioned page. Please help verifying this issue, and please let me know what you find out.
Best Regards,--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tisqupnaia2010. If you are concerned about sockpuppetry, your best bet is to request a sockpuppet investigation at the page on that link. That will allow an independent, non-arbitrator checkuser to consider the appropriate course of action. thanks. Risker (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Risker

Hi Risker -- I'm concerned about the page protection of the Anwar al-Awlaki page in its current state. Since Causa upped the hostility by blocking me, I've not edited that page. As pointed out by others, he has taken a different approach and made 75 edits. Also as pointed out by sysops and others, a number of his edits are controversial--examples are in diffs at the AN/I. I would like to address them, but have waited till we got AN/I input to do so (which we now have). The circumstances make the present form of the article a poor one to protect. Thoughts? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the BLP issues must be addressed. You are, of course, free to identify what you consider to be "controversial" edits made by Causa sui on the talk page of the article, and to suggest alternatives. But I will be reviewing the article as it stands now with a fine-toothed comb later tonight to ensure that every source actually says what is attributed to it, and that every attribution is actually properly sourced. I'll be removing BLP violations through protection, as permitted by policy, should I find any.

The BLP policy doesn't just apply to nice guys like Mr. Siegenthaler, it also applies to articles about tyrants and villains as well, and we absolutely must be consistent in its application, no matter how despicable the subject is. Risker (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, well… there you go. I didn’t know that you had the unique wisdom and ability to accomplish what the rest of us were struggling with. By all means. Reserve the right to edit the article for yourself, Risker; that’s what Cuasa sui was trying to do but rather failed at. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed the curious similarity as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the similarity is because we actually do understand the policies involved. Just for a moment, think about whether we would be having this discussion if an anonymous government official from Cambodia or China or Iran was to make a similar allegation about, say, Billy Graham or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or even a controversial minister from a local New York or Sydney church; even if it was reported in the most reliable source from that country, I am 99% certain it wouldn't even be considered for addition to the article, let alone have people complaining about admin abuse if it was removed. Risker (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Pretty to think so, anyway. Greg L (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• The claim would be more surprising in that case. This distinction is clearly stated in the guidelines. That is a distinction with an enormous, and highly relevant difference. As I'm sure you know, given your understanding of the policies. But yes -- if Billy were named by our highest level RS source to be killing Americans, of course I would support the same treatment.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, newspapers are nowhere near our "highest level source". Peer-reviewed books and journals top them out by a long shot. Let's not call a sow's ear a silk purse, please. Risker (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well then… We will all wait with bated breath for the dust drifting on the horizon to develop into the dramatic image of Risker riding her galloping steed towards the camera (extreme telephoto view and stop-action playback speed) as she rescues the article all the heck by herself this evening (using her Unique Insight Into BLP Policy Powers®™©). The Wikipedian world watches and waits for the currently locked-down Anwar al-Awlaki article to be unlocked and delivered unto the huddled masses. Greg L (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• @Risker--The above conversation heightens my concern that we may be talking apples and oranges, and (to mix metaphors) I think it would be helpful to get on the same page. I haven't seen you quote the precise language you have in mind from BLP, and at this point to fully appreciate your comment that would be helpful. Further, as to your comment about books ... I don't think that you are saying we must under the policy wait for a book to be published. Or a journal. And clearly those are among the highest-level RS newspapers in the world. (I'm confused by your reference to them as a "sow's ear") But as you will see on the AA talk page, I've asked for you to be clear there as to what language in the policy you are referring to. I've read it and re-read it, and could use your help.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I'm heading to bed now and will be unavailable pretty well all day tomorrow, so it may be 18-20 hours or so before I am able to respond to you fully. I have spent the last few hours reading over the article for a first impression, and then doing a focused review of the first part of the lead (you can see my notes at User:Risker/Anwar). You will see in my notes that I have not identified any further egregious BLP violations at this stage, mostly issues of appropriate source selection (you might really want to think about whether that Sperry book is necessary, it reads like a spy thriller instead of a good reference source, and has quite a bit of supposition in it despite the numerous footnotes). Quickly, though, newspapers will never be as sterling a reference source as a well-researched, peer-reviewed book; they are written contemporaneously, often when significant facts are unavailable, and frequently depend on sources who speak anonymously only under circumstances of plausible deniability (e.g., one does not seem to find any government official who will go "on record" with the quote I removed earlier today). I do not think that this subject should wait until someone writes a book; while there may not be evidence that directly links the subject to terrorist plots, there is obviously a noteworthy proportion of those who have been caught in terroristic activities who have studied his teachings. I have pretty high standards for notability, and AA easily meets them; there is place for an article about him here. Nonetheless, it is a BLP about a highly controversial figure, and such biographical articles demand our best effort to ensure proper balance, the most optimal sourcing, and pruning to exclude anything that is more properly covered elsewhere (e.g., the sections on the various alleged terrorists can probably be shrunk, as there are articles about them all that go into far greater detail). I fully expect that the issues with this article can be worked out satisfactorily over the next few weeks at most.

The one thing that you might want to start looking at closely are any direct quotes that are in the article, to ensure that they are attributed to an identified person. If not, and if it is attributed to only one source, then it probably needs to come out. Keep in mind that the thrust (although not the specificity) of the sentence I removed still exists in the article right now; the problem has always been the highly inflammatory direct quote from an unidentified person. Risker (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you're busy, so just a cut and past of the relevant passages from the guideline would give me something to look at while you are tied up over the next day. The language that supports deletion of the quote by the American official, for example, and your view expressed immediately above with regard to quotes. Also, when you come back, I would ask that you look at the article before Causa's edits two weeks ago, and look at what he deleted which was fully supported by RSs. Balance here means balance in accordance with the balance in the RSs. Not that we have a balance that is half "he is sweet" and half "he is not sweet".--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Risker. We're missing you over here. Are you coming back? :-) --causa sui (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten, unfortunately was tied up with real-world issues the past few days and have barely had a chance to log in. I tend to give priority to the work that will pay my internet bill, if you know what I mean. Tomorrow looks favourable. Risker (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've spent several hours today reading the various references from end to end, trying to derive the most benefit from them. There are duplicates, incidentally, and there don't seem to be as many non-US ones as I would hope, given the international flavour of the subject. Risker (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki#Proposed update for lead. –xeno^talk 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Risker -- I have posted something new at Response to Risker:

I wonder what distinguishes the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread from "moving the goalposts"? If this is not "moving the goalposts", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Risker -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to your further comments; and I continue to hope for action. --Tenmei (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tenmei. There will be a motion up on your request within the next 24 hours. Thank you for reminding me. Risker (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Missed one

I think you missed one revision of Talk:Temple Lot in your purge: this one that started it all. I don't care if you delete it or not, but I thought you'd like to know. – jaksmata 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, it isn't suppressed; there wasn't personal information in that edit, although all subsequent ones had the non-public personal information in it, which meant they all met the criteria for suppression. I can't quite justify suppressing it under current circumstances. Thank you for taking the time to notice, it is good to know that others keep an eye on such things. Risker (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Case Comments

I just wanted to bring to your attention a few things on the Gibraltar case.

1. When I was having problems I said some regrettable things, which I have apologised for, if you still feel a topic ban is appropriate then I'm not going to argue about it. I just make the point that bans and blocks are supposedly preventative not punitive. I made those remarks whilst in a bad place, they haven't been repeated and they're out of character. Now that I am a lot better is it still appropriate?

2. The assertion that the self-governing status of Gibraltar is an "opinion" not a fact. Sorry but I cannot accept that remaining in the case. Gibraltar is self-governing, it is a fact that the Spanish editors could not dispute. Instead they have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV. I think you're being incredibly naive if you feel those remarks are helpful in steering the dispute, I can see those remarks coming back to haunt you in various nationalist disputes.

3. When this case was started, I couldn't participate fully as my father was ill and another editor was hospitalised. The evidence produced by a number of editors who've effectively held the article hostage was directed toward removing editors they disagreed with by topic bans; you'll note that I didn't propose of suggest any blocks/bans/sanctions against individuals. Effectively what you're proposing is to remove one side but leave the other intact. You're rewarding editors for baiting others into uncivil remarks.

4. In reading your comments I can only conclude you have apparently disregarded the workshop. In the workshop there was case of RHoPF hounding editors, walls of text being put up to derail discussion by Ecemaml, non-apologies such as "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke" not to mention examples of bad faith and uncivil remarks:

[5] activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination
[6] "Gibnews' rottweiler" repeated [7]

[8] I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here.
[9] So that is three untruths in the same section from you, Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?

5. In the workshop, the editors were lobbying to have my conduct examined more fully. I would still welcome that.

6. This was never an arbcom case, there had been no previous attempt at long term solutions. I can only note my bitter disappointment that arbcom would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap or even have their conduct examined at all. Particularly an editor who apparently delights in teasing and tormenting those with temporary mental problems. I've seen this editor hounding people for years and I can't believe he is going to get away with it again.

The solution you're proposing might reduce conflict, well if you ban only one side then what's left can violently agree on skewing the POV of the article. What it isn't is a long term solution, I did propose something like this some time ago [10], it would be more workable. Justin talk 09:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin. I read the talk pages and responses to proposed decisions on the Arbcom-related pages, where they appropriately are placed. I note your concern. I also note that part of the issue is this perception of "sides". I will be mostly away from the computer for the next 48 hours so won't be in a position to properly respond until then. In fairness, though, I am not sure there's much to respond to here. Risker (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for at least listening. As regards your comment about sides, well there shouldn't be any in a collaborative project, nor should there be any winners. Also, see this comment [11] by Redcoat10 back in August 2009, then try and imagine a scenario where for months you have one editor who constantly returns to the same point, ignores discussions, misrepresents a position, just at the point where consensus is very nearly reached makes a nit picking comment about detail for it all to unravel and then returns to the same point that he started of with back in July 2009, shops around multiple forums, raises every single point to mediation and insists on forcing the same peripheral piece of information into every Gibraltar article. I just wonder if you wouldn't be a little irritable and irascible with the sheer frustration. Then see how you feel when they pick the moment you're at your most vulnerable to take every snappy comment and spin every expression of frustration to paint you as being unreasonable. I don't claim to be innocent at all, I've said right from the start where I was wrong and haven't even tried to avoid any sanction against me. And they're still needling at me, trying to provoke me, I haven't retaliated but I am somewhat perpelexed that there is no strong admin action in response. Justin talk 00:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

SITT

Why can't I find an article on "Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications" (SITT), your version of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, mostly because the Canadian counterpart to the FCC is the CRTC; however, it isn't nearly as well organised. SITT is part of Industry Canada (and the CRTC reports into that department as well). This is the external link heading directly to the SITT portal for Ministry. Risker (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I found that SITT page. I read in my CISSP book that SITT is the equivalent of FCC, so they were talking from a computer geek POV, so it appears SITT is more computer field oriented, is that so? I see SITT is one-lined in the Industry Canada article, so there's a article someone familiar with SITT (you or Coren, hehe) could write ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 14:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sig

Seems better to me, too. —fetch·comms 00:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus music video screenshot

Hi Risker. The music video screenshot wasn't copyvio, it was a single frame directly taken from the music video. I blanked the FUR and license when tagging the file {{db-author}} (I thought that's what one was supposed to do... my apologies if not, I've misunderstood something). It did violate WP:NFCC#8 since the text in the article never specifically discussed the image. Anyway, thought I'd clarify; thanks for deleting. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dust 362

Hello, I just reverted a diff by User:Vange Whedon 468 who I think may be a sock of Dust 362. Same editing pattern as user:Boom-Boom 309 whom you blocked a while ago as a sock. GainLine ♠ _♥ 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: CheckUser and Oversight elections

You might want to see if there can be a dropdown notice on Wiki about the elections as the AN post will just get archived in 24 bringing voting to a crawl if not a halt. Having a notice on Wiki will bring the elections out in the forefront where everyone can see and vote. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I quite agree with you, NeutralHomer, but I make it a point never to go near MediaWiki stuff; the one time I did, it took two hours for my heart rate to return to normal. ;-) One of my colleagues will be doing the site notice thingy tomorrow, I just did the first pass at the most obvious places tonight. Thanks for the reminder, though! It's good to see that others are looking out for each other to make sure that this information is out there. Risker (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand with the MediaWiki thing. Glad I could be of assistance :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on policy

There have been regular difference of opinion in article deletion debates regarding NPOV application. It's an intersecting of WP:WAX the final entry on legitimate usage, WP:BIAS and the current reading of WP:NPOV. I hopefully summarized my case effectively here. Alatari (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight elections

My recent edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/May_2010_election was based on the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/120 which gave me this message:

Sorry, your account on the English Wikipedia does not meet the voting requirements of 2009 Arbitration Committee election.

The requirements are that your account:

• not be blocked; and
• not be a bot; and
• has made at least 150 main space edits prior to 1 November 2009

If your date is correct, can you please provide me with information regarding how I can vote in these elections? Thank you. «Coopkev2»^(talk) 19:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I will draw this to the attention of the election administrators, Coren and KnightLago. I am very sorry to see there is a problem here. I will ask them to get back to you soonest. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Risker (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the actual suffrage date is correct, but the message is not (it was left untouched from the ArbCom elections). I need to track down where it lives in Mediawiki space and fix it — sorry for the confusion Coopkev2. — Coren ^(talk) 19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(To be clear, the actual requirement is 150 mainspace edits on March 31, and you only had 129 — it's just that the explanation why you did not have suffrage was outdated). — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Found and fixed (MediaWiki:Securepoll-not-in-list). — Coren ^(talk) 19:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears my work here is done. Thanks Coren! KnightLago (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for all the places and ideas you have pointed me to. MBisanz talk 05:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, MBisanz. I really appreciate this. Risker (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:65.81.149.197

This anon appears to have been caught in a rangeblock imposed by you--can you offer some guidance? Blueboy96 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The range is unblocked now. Risker (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

CU review

At this SPI case you came back with a "likely" result instead of a "confirmed" result on User:Sally Jefferson. If it's not invading privacy could you go into why you didn't say "confirmed"? The user is requesting an unblock and I would have declined it outright if it weren't that this was the only account you didn't say "confirmed" on. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There were notable variations in the editing pattern between the "Sally" account and the other ones. The user agent that this account has in common with one or more of the other accounts is generic and insufficient to consider it a "confirmed" match. It may be worthwhile to unblock and watch for a bit, as it is confirmed that other users are on the same range. Risker (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IP user

Most people, me included, regard IP contributions as suspicous of unrelibilty. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fall of '09

Re: [12], I don't see any edits by Ferrylodge to abortion or to Talk:Abortion in fall of 2009. Am I missing them, or did you mean to mention a different timeframe? Confused... :) MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it was the Fall/Winter of 2008-09. I will make the correction to my comment. Risker (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that makes sense. And sorry to bug you. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just to follow up on this, because it's been bugging me a bit. I'm not sure that Ferrylodge's behavior in fall/winter 2008-2009 was really any more constructive than his previous behavior. In the course of this lengthy discussion, he called Tznkai (talk · contribs) a "censor and propagandist". Tznkai filed a request for enforcement, where Ferrylodge repeated the line that he was "opposing blatant and politically motivated censorship". Shell responded to the request, opining that Ferrylodge had "stepped over the line", but "into the realm of incivility and personal attacks and not in ways that would trigger the Arb case." ([13]) To be fair, Sandstein, reviewing the same request, also found nothing that would trigger the sanctions ([14]), but it doesn't exactly seem like evidence of constructive engagement, either.

  I guess what I'm saying is that the absence of blocks and bans isn't necessarily evidence that his editing has been constructive. Personally, I gave up on the sanction after this incident in 2008, so would not have reported anything after that point anyhow.

  I will freely admit that I may have a blind spot, or at least a strongly preconceived notion, here. In my 4 years on Wikipedia, I have never encountered an editor as persistently, intractably difficult for me to interact with as Ferrylodge. I don't have the patience of a saint, but others do (Tznkai, Andrew c, Severa), and he's consistently driven them bananas as well on the topic of abortion. Anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, MastCell. I am going to be re-examining this in the next few days (a tad swamped at the moment), and I think you may have a relevant point here. Risker (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like power is there

[15] but I assume that is the kind of thing you had in mind. There is a Dilbert as CEO cartoon wheere his "all is well" gesture is taken to mean "throw Jones out of the window" so I thought I might check.. --BozMo talk 09:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly his appeal by email also cites Risker as a text "Let's face it. Blocking Giano is the administrative equivalent of touching the third rail. Few admins survive unscathed, and there is inevitably drama. Therefore the decision to block Giano or any other high profile editor should take into consideration opportunities for alternate actions (e.g., deleting the offending edit, discussing at AN or AN/I, giving a warning), whether the benefits of blocking outweigh the drama that will result from the perspective of the community at large, and holding Giano to the same standards as other blocked longterm editors (not a higher or unrealistic one), who as a group have a propensity to spout off on their talk pages. In particular, the escalating blocks were poorly considered. Risker (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC) " . Perhaps he is right.--BozMo talk 10:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do you know - I am flattered that somebody took that message to heart, although I admit a bit of surprise that it was WMC who did so. I do still adhere to that philosophy, that de-escalating and working to find a non-blocking solution is usually preferable to blocking people with a solid history of contribution to the project. I also believe that de-escalation is more effectively done by those who already have a bond of mutual respect with the person whose behaviour is going off the rails; I've seen it work many times. Having said all that, I didn't really anticipate people blocking each other, although I recognise that there are indeed situations where that is necessary, when other methods have been ineffective.

I think, as well, that editors and admins from all sides of this discussion could use a little work on their ability to raise an eyebrow, shake their head, and walk away from provocative comments. There's a meatball around somewhere called "Defend each other" that nicely summarises the benefits of stepping away from direct confrontation and letting others not directly affected address the situation. We could use a bit more of that, too. Risker (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Risker, some of us have tried that. You may notice that when these situations start you'll find people that typically agree with WMC about various content issues attempt to step in and diffuse situations by hustling him out the door. In response to this, individuals who take this kind of action are refered to as a "Claque," or a host of other inapropriate terms - and the individual escalating with WMC will often say things like "My question is for William." or "you should consider allowing people the respect and opportunity of standing up for themselves" or "since WMC won't answer direct questions about his behavior now," or "asked WMC a variant of this question and what I got was ... no answer from him but a lot of back and forth from others. As a defense tactic it's admirable (speaking purely tactically). As a discussion style? Not so much." I can probably rustle up over a hundred attempts to prevent meatball:DefendEachOther from working. Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been a strong proponent of DeEaO ever since I first found it, back in 2006. But the quote of mine you cite is from an incident where DefendEachOther very much wasn't going on. At least not the right kind... The right kind of defense is to explain calmly why a charge is incorrect. It is not to interfere with a legitimate question, or to reflexively attack back at the questioner. If you think those sorts of responses are appropriate, then I'm not really sure you know what DefendEachOther actually means. It never includes bluster. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, the most relevant part of DefendEachOther is: "Most of the time personal attacks need not be defended at all, because the attacker only hurts their own reputation and credibility." It would be ideal if editors in the topic area internalized this at least a little bit. As admins, the best thing we can do is probably to set an example, which I think has occasionally been a bit lacking. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was truly astonished to see the Giano Exception invoked as an unblock reason by WMC. But if the situation were reversed I wouldn't have blocked WMC for those remarks anyway. For his stunt yesterday where he characterised the input of several other editors on the CC enforcement page as "twaddle", perhaps. But not for venting. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I did not block him for the remarks per sae but for undoing when I struck the remarks. There was some discussion in the Climate Change probation pages broadly supporting an approach of uninvolved admins (yep, me) striking PAs and incivility with a block warning for unstrike. There may be a technical argument that this supercedes your ruling on whats allowed on a user talk page but it seems pointless to waste community time on that, so I have conceded the technical argument to WMC. But I have to say I recognise the description by Hipocrite very clearly; people do try and hustle WMC out the door but sometimes with abuse being shouted both ways. And the comments made about those trying to quietly sort out the problem with fists behind the bike sheds [16] [17] [18][19] [20] [21] [22] even in the last couple of weeks are not helped by other people mixing in baiting him ("I want his answer to this") and characterising many of those trying as a "cosy club". I particularly think Boris has put in a bit of work on this and deserves credit.--BozMo talk 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think striking them wasn't advisable either. If we let people vent, we let them vent, we don't come in and strike, and edit war over keeping the strike in place and then block. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well as a tactic it may be imperfect but perhaps it is preferable to venting back, may be? Seriously though I remember hearing Polkinghorne saying that Patience was the behaviour with the biggest disparity between how much we all love the concept and how much we all hate the practice. I suspect that walking away from disagreements is something where there is also a gap between belief and practice for more people than just me... --BozMo talk 19:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, striking is better than blasting back. And walking away is better than striking. But walking away is terrifically hard. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• So was I surprised to see me referenced! Here I sit shivering to death in a fucking fleece being told its fucking summer in this miserable bloody, horrible, cold country of William M Connolley's. Global bloody warming, I should fucking cocoa - people need to look out of the window more and less at computers! I shall write the next page on global warming!  Giacomo  19:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What country is that? I live near where WMC claims to and was in our solar heated outdoor swimming pool this afternoon enjoying the sun :) Last weekend it was 28C in the shade and the veg garden was in peril. --BozMo talk 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I am in London, the big place at the end of the rail network, and yes the weekend was pleasant for a nothern European climate, but today, it's bloody freezing!  Giacomo  20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

London, ah yes I remember London... I used to work there before I downshifted. You have my smug sympathy (from a garden where I cannot even hear any vehicle noise). But at least you probably have mains gas to keep you warm. --BozMo talk 21:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• That should work out well! :) (and not just referenced, man, you've an entire Exception named after you) BTW how's my wife? I think she talks to you more than me. Or used to. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Email at once Lar - if you please!  Giacomo  20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we are managing to sort this. --BozMo talk 11:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

that's me

I usually try to avoid hurting people's feelings. In Wikipedia, there is too much mean behavior. Sometimes, I make a mistake but then I try to go back to erase things within a few minutes, if possible. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible misclick?

Just want to check about this edit of yours. NW (Talk) 12:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. Sorry about that. I think I was on that page when my browser crashed, and then I wasn't able to return. Please feel free to revert me. Risker (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

I've replied to you at User talk:AGK#Drama llama. I agree with you that my method of phrasing could have added to the heat of the discussion (though I, and the editor I was speaking to, maintain that I spoke carefully enough to make it clear I was just making a point—as I'd have hoped you would realise). Otherwise I would disagree in the strongest possible terms with your comments. Thank you all the same for making them; discussion is healthy, and all that. Regards, AGK 12:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

IRC?

Hi Risker. Was looking for you on IRC there, but you don't appear to be online. Hopefully I'll catch you later tonight or at some point in the next few days. It's not an urgent matter, but I'm looking for a brief chat (following on from your e-mail of yesterday) if you'd be okay with that. Regards, AGK 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A chat would be fine. I am logged on now, although also doing other things, and will be on and off over the weekend. I do try to squeeze in a bit of "real life" whenever I can. :-) Risker (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem here might be that we are both trying to fit in IRL time and are both (I think) in different time zones :). I'll catch you at some point I'm sure. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. AGK 19:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my...

Risker, it looks like I missed something pretty nasty on my user and talk page. Thank you for finding it and deleting it. Basket of Puppies 02:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WOOF! New article

• J. K. Ralston, western artist — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 17:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow, I can't believe we didn't have an article about this fellow long ago. I'm not exactly one to haunt the art galleries, but even I have heard of J.K. Ralston. Good work! Risker (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WOOF WOOF! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya :)

just thought i should say hi :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophie (talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! :-) Risker (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hiya from me too. Replied here, your further comments [yea or nay] would be appreciated before I take the time to file a bugzilla request. –xeno^talk 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya back. Responded there. :-) Risker (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

photo cropping

Hello, I was wondering if there is a way to crop a photo [23] so it will fit better on the Tea Party Movement. Every time we add or move text, the photo ends up displacing the citations section, creating a huge white gutter down the side of the references section. If the photo could be cropped at the top, it might not be such a problem.Malke2010 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As multi-talented as I am, my skills with images are minimal. I suggest you consider speaking with the photographer, User:Ragesoss, who has provided modified versions of photographs he has taken; or perhaps hope that one of my lovely TPWs can give you a hand. I've just taken a look at the placement of the image in the article, and it looks fine right now, but I can understand it being troublesome if you're rearranging things. Risker (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the size is a problem every time something gets rearranged. I spent quite a bit of time this morning getting it to fit. I will check with the photog. Thanks.Malke2010 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind

Could you free this imprisoned unfortunate [24].  Giacomo  23:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xtzou

First off, I don't believe Xtzou is a sock. I worked with him and my Sock-DAR never went off once. Second, Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since he has been blocked as a sock, does that void my GA article's review? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

CAn you at least bring this up at ANI? Xtzou is a very productive editor and it;s hard to belive that he was a sock....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 02:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought this very post to ANI, listed here. So it will get some views. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're worried about a GA review, why did you not post to WT:GA? I'm sorry to tell you that Xtzou is a checkuser-confirmed, behaviourally-confirmed sock of an indefinitely blocked user who was indefinitely blocked for multiple episodes of socking. I believe that if you draw your partially-completed GA review to people who are in the best position to do something about it (i.e., other GA reviewers, rather than the crowd who hang out at ANI), you are most likely to get a satisfactory result. Risker (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the problem, it isn't partially-completed GA, it is completed. Has been for a week or so. Hence my worry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, I misunderstood. From my perspective, I do not think there were likely any quality problems with the GA review; if the article was granted "good article" status, I do not think it should be rescinded because of this block. Risker (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

*WHEW*...Good...cause that would have been a big bummer. I also got a response frm HJ Mitchell who said the same thing that since it is complete, it is no worries. I think I can breathe now. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have a question, who was he a sock to? Sorry to be nozy. --Nascar1996 02:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I demand request to see some evidence. Xtzou was probably the best GA reviewer we had. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the word you are looking for here, William S. Saturn, is "request". Xtzou is the return of indefinitely blocked Mattisse, who was blocked after a third bout of disruptive sockpuppetry over the course of several years. It is no surprise she was good at it; she has been doing GA reviews for a long time. I am a bit surprised that nobody at GA found it unusual that a week-old account was so knowledgeable about the standards expected, but I don't hold any animosity about that. The standard expectation is that users in this situation stay away from this project for an extended period (six months to a year), and if they return, they do so under controlled circumstances. Risker (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize, there's just been some crazy stuff going on today.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I can confirm Risker's findings. I was the one who originally discovered the connection, and I asked her what I should do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn, thought Xtzou/Mattisse was a good user. Oh well. Just glad the GA articles are safe that Xtzou/Mattisse reviewed, though I wouldn't be against being re-reviewed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When is the last time she socked? I mean, if she's not currently socking shouldn't it mean something?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

She was blocked on March 9, in the midst of using socks disruptively to harass other users. She was under mentorship at the time. She had created multiple other sleeper socks as well. She had used socks in 2009 to attack and harass other users. The Xtzou account was created three weeks after the block, and only shortly after all the dust had settled from it. Risker (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your decision because I know it's the customary thing to do, but if the user is not currently doing any harm, might this be punitive?--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at User talk:Mattisse? Read over the decision of the arbitration case. In particular, see the finding about prior attempts at resolution. Amongst the issues that had arisen were the interactions between Mattisse and other editors at FA- and GA-related pages. This isn't intended to be punitive, but instead preventative; sadly, history has repeated itself too often. Risker (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the talk page, but I haven't read the case yet. But before I do, let me say that I've interacted with Xtzou a lot lately, probably more than anyone else and I thought she was perfectly civil and helped me out a great deal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also interacted with Xtzou/Mattisse as well (primarily on my GA) and thought she was a great editor and very helpful. Like I said above, my SockDAR never went off once. I guess I didn't dig enough into the contribs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is good to know that your experiences were positive and pleasant; Mattisse has had good relations with many editors over the years, and has made many useful contributions.

Now, for anyone coming upon this section in the next 24 hours (I may be away from the keyboard for much of that time), please keep things civil. It isn't appropriate for anyone to bring up long-past disputes, or examples of either exemplary or problematic behaviours. Regardless of how anyone feels about their interactions with Mattisse, she is a real person, and I expect people to treat her with humanity on this page. The account is blocked, there does not appear to be any harm to the encyclopedia or to its editors, checkusers have reviewed the findings to ensure there's unlikely to be anything else outstanding. The block is explained in my prior posts, and I don't think the events that have led to Mattisse's current status need to be rehashed. I thank everyone in advance for taking the high road. Risker (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Might it be possible that this is her granddaughter (as explained here) or some other family relative? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I had asked whether Xtzou had edited before (no SockDAR necessary for that conclusion), because it was fishy to me and received the response "Yes, I have been an editor before." This doesn't fit with a first time user like a relative, no? Hekerui (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now, in the light of the evidence here presented, declined unblock. I note a question above relating to punitive/preventative blocks; I submit that any editor who is prepared to create 32 socks cannot be trusted not to create more. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How is Xtzou being blocked beneficial rather than detrimental to wikipedia? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Christ. *Facepalm* This will never end, will it? Like some nightmarish infinite matryoshka doll set. --Moni3 (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this nightmarish? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, but how is it not nightmarish? --Moni3 (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I just find it very, very sad. Risker (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The loss of other, most valuable editors to Wiki is an ongoing concern: I hope that editors defending Mattisse will factor this into consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Risker, I submit that it would be helpful if ArbCom would disable Mattisse's ability to e-mail via Wiki: isn't it time to disallow her from drawing productive enditors into her drama via e-mail? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I hear you loud and clear on this point, and will go through the various accounts to block email access. I also suggest that editors who have been receiving emails from one or more of her accounts (a) not respond to them (so she will not get anyone's email address) and (b) block messages from the email accounts she has sent them from (each email client has different processes so I can't tell you how to do that specifically). Believe me, I understand entirely the negative effect of such emails. Risker (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have to do that extra work, and appreciate the effort. I appreciate the concerns expressed by GA editors, but the loss of Laser brain has severely impacted FAC-- twice, now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocking her email is a sensible move. I appreciate all your efforts, too, Risker. To the GA editors commenting here, I would add: Mattisse/Xtzou may be able to perform excellent reviews, but her involvement in Wikipedia is ultimately harmful to many editors, including herself. Geometry guy 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Risker, please be aware of this thread. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jeff; thanks for your message. I was aware of the request but did not intervene one way or the other at the time it was made. Subsequent to that, it has become increasingly clear that Mattisse/Xtzou needs help in disengaging from this project, and I have fully protected her userpage to prevent her from posting, and at the same time to prevent others from leaving messages there. While I would expect that most people would be expressing kind thoughts if they were to post on the page, the fact is that those kind words will simply continue to draw Mattisse/Xtzou back to the project. Hope that helps to explain my decision, as the blocking admin. Risker (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Snottywong (geez, it's hard to type that username with a straight face!). I will observe, but will probably not opine. Risker (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors who should have Autoreviewer/Edit reviewer activated ASAP

I'm collecting names! Flagged protection will be trialed starting on June 15th, and autoreviewer and edit reviewer permissions will not be granted automatically to experienced, knowledgeable editors; they will have to ask for it. That means editors who have been able to edit semi-protected articles for years will now have to have all of their edits vetted before they go live, once the article is changed to "flagged protection", unless they have this permission. I fully intend to "flip the switch" for any non-admin brought to my attention as soon as I am able to do so (unless, for some reason, 80% of their edits include the word "poop"). To all my talk page watchers: please add the names of editors you know ought to be able to edit without constraint. Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

List editors here

From SandyGeorgia

• Crohnie (talk · contribs)
• Colin (talk · contribs)
• Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
• Dispenser (talk · contribs)
• Elcobbola (talk · contribs)
• Fainites (talk · contribs)
• Jayen466 (talk · contribs)
• JNW (talk · contribs)
• Kablammo (talk · contribs)
• Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)
• Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)
• RelHistBuff (talk · contribs)
• Riggr Mortis (talk · contribs) et al
• UberCryxic (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• WLU (talk · contribs)
• Yomangan (talk · contribs) (No exceptions for me, thanks - if it isn't given to me automatically the system is >100% broken. Yomangani^talk 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

Risker, I'm way too swamped IRL to follow this confusing discussion, so for now I am only adding users who 1) aren't sysops, and 2) don't currently have autoreviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To be sure, compiling such a list and handing out the autoreviewer rights is good! I'm all for it, and it will make this go so much more smoothly. All I'm saying is that there's no need for panic mode – yet, and hopefully not ever.
FWIW, I've heard from some that they don't want to have the active reviewer right (and the slight responsibility that comes with it). Amalthea 12:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for this, since we're going to automatically generate lists then grant review rights, see here. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sasata (talk · contribs)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Philcha (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC), but I have a persistent RL problem that seriously reduces how much I can work on WP, so I won't be disappointed if not included.

• Philcha, of course you will be included! From my perspective, you should never have to wait for someone else to approve your edits! Risker (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've granted autoreviewer to all of those on the list above this message who didn't already have it (except Malleus, and yomangan might make me take his away). I started going through FAC yesterday to identify people who needed autoreviewer and I'll continue that today. If you've got a good enough grasp of content policies to review/edit/maintain a featured article, you darn well don't need to have your edits reviewed by others. Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The autoreviewer usergroup is unrelated to the reviewer usergroup (which doesn't exist yet), unfortunately the terminology is misleading (I had objected to the name at the time, preferring autopatroller), I just proposed a rename at WP:VPR. Review rights will be semi-automatically granted on a large scale, there's no need to worry about this at this point. Cenarium (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up this list, here are a few more:

• Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs)
• Legitimus (talk · contribs)
• Amphitryoniades (talk · contribs)
• James Cantor (talk · contribs)
• Flyer22 (talk · contribs)

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Self listing in the event this unnecessary process is not stopped.
• Scottalter (talk · contribs) (self-listing by Fainites' reasoning) --Scott Alter (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) - Um, I don't think I've ever used the word "poop" in an article. Have passed 1 featured article, 1 featured list and 4 1/2 good articles. (One is in the can under development.) It would be incredibly helpful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also adding trusted editors:

• Pinkadelica (talk · contribs)
• MikeAllen (talk · contribs)
• Doc9871 (talk · contribs)
• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs)
• Equazcion (talk · contribs)
• Logical Fuzz (talk · contribs)
• Momoricks (talk · contribs)
• MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs)

I've never seen any of them use the word "poop" in an article before, either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• JayJasper (talk · contribs)
• Wasted Time R (talk · contribs)
• William S. Saturn (talk · contribs)

--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh (author, stateswoman, Wikipedian and lady)

Discussion break

This has been considered already, no need to get in a hurry. For the trial we're going to use automatically generated database reports to semi-automatically grant reviewer rights. So most experienced users will not have to ask for it. There's no need to manually make lists at this point. And all autoconfirmed users are automatically reviewed except in rare cases, see my reply here and at SandyGeorgia's talk page. Cenarium (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, take another look. If an autoconfirmed editor makes an edit after someone else, *both* edits need to be reviewed before anything goes live. Autoconfirmed does not mean that they can directly edit the article. Risker (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It will just be one more weapon for Admins to threaten with . Keep it! It will kill all the good fact and expansions added by drive-by IPs, it is a terrible idea. It wants nipping inthe bud. I cannot beleive I amthe only person who feels this way? What happened to Jimbo's high ideals for the project?  Giacomo  06:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Risker, is this for BLPs or all articles? --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The intention is that it will be, and eventually for all GAs and FAs and God knows what next.  Giacomo  07:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What a thoroughly stupid idea - I can see the point for BLPs, just; but as usual WP takes a moderately sensible idea and makes a farce of it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a form of protection and subject as semi-protection to the protection policy. This is an alternative to using semi-protection in order to allow editing by unregistered or non-autoconfirmed users. Cases where an autoconfirmed user without review right edits a flagged protected pages right after a non-autoconfirmed users edited it should be rare. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It means a 14 year old Admin (chosen subject: self-abuse) will be adjudicating edits on the less known architects of the early Italian Renaissance by drive by professors. How clever is that?  Giacomo  08:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to panic, at this point. This is, for now, only a trial, and only a limited number of articles can be put under that PC-protection through a technical restriction. The key will be to keep the backlog of unreviewed changes minimal. That way, autoconfirmed users will not usually notice whether an article is semi-protected of switched to PC. "Minimial" is, in my view, less than five minutes on average.
I keep pushing that for at least the first month of the trial all PC-protections MUST go through a centralized place (Discuss here), both to keep the trial in a controlled state so that we always have enough reviewers to keep the review-backlog minimal, and to force admins to stick to the evolving guidelines on how it should be used in the first place. If we don't do that I'm certain it will turn into the same RevDelete chaos.
I expect that this protection mode will work really well with obscure, largely unwatched topics that get only a handful edits a month. I think this won't work as well with the TFA since it gets too many edits.
But again, please don't panic yet. Nobody knows how useful it will be, and on what articles. We just need to take it slowly, and mass-trout any admin who thinks unilaterally putting his pet articles under PC-protection would be a good idea.
Amalthea 09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• No. no , no , this is being rushed through without proper and full consultation. It is a recipe for disaster open to admin abuse. It will spread from BLPs to FAs, GAs and eventually any page some half-witted admin likes. It will destroy the spirit of Wikipeda, it needs stopping now, once here, we will never get rid of it. This is nothing but cencorship through the back door.  Giacomo  09:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There were a gazillion discussions and polls, it's taken forever to develop it. It is not rushed. As with every new feature rolled out, the community has not been preparing for it enough, and won't know how it can be used most productively. We will hopefully figure it out in the months to come. I agree, as I said, that it shouldn't be used too liberally without testing out repercussions. But that's what this trial is for, figuring out how this can be useful, what works, and what doesn't work.
    It's also not censorship. If a reviewer declines a pending change it is absolutely equivalent to a revert, the only difference is that a pending change wasn't visible to readers/re-users/search engines. If any reviewer uses different criteria than for a revert he is doing it wrong.
    Amalthea 09:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It will be nothing more than cencorship and a tool for admins to play with and bash editors over the head with. It is a terrible idea; I shall oppose it strenuously - am I too have to ask somebody like TSBDY for permission to edit a page I have written and monitored for years? because that is where this will end up, the content edotors being bashed by Admins.  Giacomo  09:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't have to ask anybody for permission – and certainly not to edit it, that's the whole point.
If this system works as it should, you will not usually notice it. If there's an intrinsic problem that makes it harder for established editors to get edits published, the system will be adapted. If it makes it harder because the wrong protection levels are applied, the admins will be adapted. Amalthea 09:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the whole point "established editors" this making an elite - it is against the whole ethos and will quicky be abused by Admins.  Giacomo  10:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe there is just a very wrong impression of what Pending Changes are. Level 1 PC protection is a lower protection level than current semi-protection – assuming that the review backlog is kept minimal! Level 2 PC protection is a lower protection level than full protection – again, assuming that the review backlog is kept minimal! See WP:Pending changes/Trial#Reviewing; the table there is suggestive, it's not quite as simple since autoconfirmed users will have their edits pending if they edit on top of an unreviewed edit by a non-autoconfirmed, which is why I keep saying that it's crucial to keep the review backlog minimal.
Any kind of protection is "against the whole ethos", how you call it. And I do expect that more articles will be under the lowest kind of protection in the future that will IPs and non-autoconfirmeds to have their edits reviewed first (mostly BLPs; although personally I'd be in favor of using patrolled revisions for that). But if there are 6,821,607 articles that need to be kept clean of vandalism, I'm afraid it just will need to get part of the whole ethos.
Amalthea 10:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I'm already busy enough abusing other things and people and perhaps even myself, thank you. I can't abuse yet another (mis) feature -- I'm quite spent as it is. ¶ I presume that people will indeed find a way to abuse this. What's certain is that people are abusing the lack of this (mis) feature. ¶ It means a 14 year old Admin (chosen subject: self-abuse) will be adjudicating edits on the less known architects of the early Italian Renaissance by drive by professors. Ahem, I am not 14 (my user ID was chosen for a reason) and that is not my chosen subject. Still, I too was once a 14-year-old with a shameful vice; boys will be boys. Now, as for the drive-by professors, I've always found it hard to believe that people who've climbed that high on the greasy academic pole would be deterred by a bit of "Captcha" mumbo-jumbo. Far more likely is that they're deterred by the sheer volume of wrongheadedness in what they see. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

One could say that with autoconfirmed users we've been making an elite, I don't think that's the case, and this is little different. We could use the software to automatically give review rights to users with e.g. more than 200 edits and 3 months since their first edit, for the trial we're going to grant those permissions semi-automatically although that could change. Furthemore, all autoconfirmed users are automatically reviewed except in rare cases. Giving review rights to all autoconfirmed users would have been open to abuse by vandals and mistakes due to inexperience. This system is intended as a possible alternative to page protection to allow more editing. Experienced users should not be affected except when making an edit right after a non-autoconfirmed user to a flagged protected page, they'll be proposed to review that edit. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about an example: yesterday an established editor made a series of edits to semi-protected Ernest Hemingway claiming he was bi-polar [25]. I reverted (actually I commented it out) until I'd reviewed the sources. Turns out one source was a juvenile book, one source claims Hemingway fit the profile for bi-polar, and one (from a medical journal) claims the diagnosis could not be definitive. After some investigation I found the edit was in response to an IP request. The bi-polar information had also been added to that article. I reverted by commenting out. After spending more time than necessary to review the information, I think the claim may be specious. Under the new regulations would my reverts be challenged by an admin? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hard to say, Truthkeeper88; if the original edit was inserted by someone with reviewer rights, and you didn't have them, your edits would be held until reviewed *if the article was under flagged protection*. Not all articles will be. Risker (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The editing process would not change. In the same situation the IP would have made the edit, a reviewer may have approved it because they didn't determine that it was vandalism/BLP violation, or reverted it if they found the claim specious. In the first case you could have reverted just like you did, and since you're autoconfirmed your edit would have been automatically reviewed, so Risker's answer is incorrect. You're also experienced enough to be granted semi-automatically the permission to review other user's edits. Cenarium (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim was added by an administrator in response to an IP's request. So, essentially I overturned an admin's edit. Presumably that would change - or no? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not explicit in either the policy or the process, Cenarium. There are pretty coloured charts and lots and lots of words, but there is nothing there that explicitly says which articles autoconfirmed users will get to edit directly and which ones not, and if there is another edit already in the queue, the edits of autoconfirmed users are held too. Risker (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The latter case would be quite rare. As for level 2 flagged protection, the policy for usage is the same as for full protection, essentially concerning articles subject to massive sock disruption. I'll try to clarify a few things.

That you overturned an admin or IP's edit doesn't make any difference policy or process - wise. Cenarium (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation is generated automatically by the system and does not require people to ask for it. I believe this process should be exactly the same, and that *in particular* administrators should have absolutely nothing to do with it. The idea that people who have been making valuable contributions for months and years will now have to choose between supplication to administrators in order to approve their own edits or having their edits reviewed prior to being included in the encyclopedia is antithetical to the entire concept of this project. Cenarium, I know you mean well, but there is not a single editor on the lists above who should not automatically have this permission attached to their account, without any administrator intervention at all. Nobody has given a good reason for edit review permissions not to be connected to autoconfirmed status; and more particularly, nobody has given a good reason for administrators to have any say at all in who gets this permission. That last part is what disturbs me the most; after seeing how administrators thumb their noses at non-admins when admins abuse a tool that would be stripped from a non-admin who behaved similarly, it's pretty clear to me that admins have no business in handing out permissions. Nobody should need to justify to administrators their right to edit articles directly, unless there is a community or arbcom-imposed sanction on their editing.

In answer to some of the other questions on this page, there is no technical or policy restriction on what pages can have flagged protection attached to it. The plan is to start off with about 2000 currently semi- or fully-protected pages and expand from there. Many proposals include both FA and GA articles, both of which are substantially edited and maintained by non-admin editors. Articles containing a substantial amount of BLP material are also likely to be quickly included in this category, although that will take considerable time as it would involve more than 25% of all articles. As well, all of the vandalistic edits by unconfirmed editors to popular articles like Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama that have automatically been rejected by the system up until now will now go into the "review" queue for the article, and will have to be manually cleared by real editors. Risker (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please propose that we use an autopromotion then, if it can upset people that admins grant them the right instead of this being done by the software itself. But I repeat, experienced users don't have to ask for it, most of the rights will be granted based on automatically-created database reports, of course individual requests will also be considered. I've no objection to using an autopromotion but autoconfirmed is just too low and open to abuse by vandals and mistakes by inexperienced users. And again all autoconfirmed users have their edits automatically reviewed except in rare cases.

There is a policy restriction to using flagged protection, as you can see in the proposal which has been approved, it is subject to the protection policy like semi-protection. I think there'll be a technical restriction too, like capping to 2000 articles for the trial. The other proposals you mention have not been approved and not part of this trial. Articles like Barack Obama will remain semi-protected because it would obviously not be beneficial to use flagged protection instead. Cenarium (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, I have proposed it on more than one occasion; it's obvious from all the polls that too large a percentage of participating administrators are unwilling to allow editors to have these permissions without admin intervention. The articles I identified above were actually used as examples of articles that should fall under flagged protection during the discussions that led to the proposal's approval. All in all, we've invested a huge amount of developer and community time into creating a replacement for a system that was already working, without doing anything that actually protects the vulnerable articles that did not before and do not now fall under the protection policy. Frankly, your comment about autoconfirmed users is pretty insulting and, if you genuinely believe that vandalism and incompetence is that big of a problem in newly autoconfirmed editors, you should bring a proposal to change the standard for autoconfirmed users. Risker (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Risker, I'm pragmatic. I don't think autoconfirmed should be raised at all, I would strongly oppose any such attempt, but yet it is trivially easy for some disruptive editors to become autoconfirmed, see for example the need to fully protect Satanic ritual abuse, and of course Grawp et al; those disruptive users could wreak havoc with active permissions like being able to review other user's edits. It's not insulting to say that new editors are not experienced, it's normal and has been studied by the usability team, most new editors even with 10 edits, 4 days, don't know about diffs, I didn't know about them back then, even less could have been able to review an edit, you can't expect new editors to know about vandalism, BLP, etc. Cenarium (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the last to suggest we need more bureaucracy, but assuming we solve the problem of granting rights, the next issue is to ensure they are not arbitrarily or capriciously removed as Giano suggests. These rights are so important, as they represent the 'right to edit', I'd like to see a commitment that they will only be removed in exceptional circumstances and then by Arbcom, or at very least by a method akin to that of the 'community banishment'. All this stuff needs to be in place before the switch is flicked, not sorted out on the hoof afterwards when we've pissed off long-term contributors to the point of leaving. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer group doesn't contain the right to edit. It contains the right to publish unreviewed edits so that they are viewable by the public. Any registered editor will see any pending edits right away. Almost any edits by an autoconfirmed user a PC1-protected article will be automatically reviewed. If this is not the case, then there is something to complain about, and correctly so. But please let's not panic before anything has even happened yet. Let's make sure it doesn't get there by having a large enough pool of reviewers.
And I'm amazed by the kind of vengeful admins we apparently have. If any admin removes reviewer right because of an unrelated incident then please come to me so that I can raise hell.
Amalthea 14:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever - I can plink about on my wordprocessor at home to my hearts content, but the kick from editing wikipedia is having the public view it - I've been doing that for years. If I'm in good standing, I'd expect that to continue - so is it too much to ask that such assurances are given before the switch is thrown and establish what the mechanism is by which that right will be taken away? As far as I'm concerned, if I sign up for this right, I want to be crystal clear it's there for keeps and I'm not going to be threatened with it's removal the next time some rouge editor starts a content dispute with me, or some over-zealous member of the civility police doesn't like the particular way I've phrased my 'go away' to him. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's nothing more than an insult. It is complete preumptious ignorance, to expect long established editor to ask a 14 year old Admin who has never written a page to be able to edit a FA or any page that they wrote when that kid Admin was 8. This will result in nothing more than further Admin abuse, bad behaviour, RFC, ANI threads and God knows what else. It will deter new editors and IPs, it will no longer be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I cannot beleive anyone was stupid enough to dream this up! Giacomo  14:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Giacomo, as I've said above: you don't need to ask anyone to edit an FA. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. It is simply not true. Amalthea 14:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Review rights will be taken away if a user repeatedly approves obvious vandalism and BLP violations, after being warned not to do so. We can't prevent admins from misusing tools, be it removing rights or blocking, but removing rights to a user with whom the admin is in dispute is, like blocking, grounds to desysopment. We could also make a requirement to initiate an ANI discussion for such removals. Cenarium (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh at minimum Cenarium re. ANI. Please point me to the policy page which says all this. Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• I'd also like to note that the prospectus on which we were sold this, was so that potentially libelous BLP violations could be dealt with, and yet you already talk about using it a method to control vandalism - so the creep has started apparently. Giano's concerns seem perfectly valid. We implement this for one reason, find it's useful for vandalism, so then how do we resist it's implementation across the board for the secondary reason? We need to be clear about the limits of this from the get-go and establish principle for it's use now, with a strong presumption against further slip. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Take my word for it, this will start off quietly on BLP and then spread throught all types of pages from GAs to Fas to anypage over which an admin wants to claim ownership. Already you are talking of ANI threads to strip people of these magical powers. Yopu can say what you like, but it is pretty obvious the direction that this travesty of user's rights is going to go. It's an appalling idea - first sort your admins out before giving them even more chance to abuse. However, admin abuse is just one small facet of what is wrong with this idea - it is censorship through the backdoor, and it will be a pervading and increasing cesorship as it spreads throughout all sections of the encyclopedia - how long before there is even a God/office given directive on what edits and views are permissable and what are not. This idea stinks to hell - it is just the start of something very nasty.  Giacomo  15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• The feature is used as an alternative to semi-protection, under the same conditions. The trial policy is not fully fixed yet, the basics are here, and the comprehensive trial policy will probably be at WP:Pending changes. I'll add something on removing rights. Feel free to weigh in. Cenarium (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Can I get this straight please. Most of the GA/FAs I have had a hand in and keep clean are often semi-protected due to OCD spamming from one banned user. Does this mean I have to have this new thingie in order to keep these articles clean? Or wait for approval when I revert the voluminous, copy-paste spam that appears so regularly and predictably? If so, how many times am I going to have to explain things to an un-informed admin before this? Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You won't have to, nothing stops you from effectively reverting the edits, and I suspect the sockpuppeter will give up seeing that the edits don't show up. With a few exceptions you don't even need the review permission, you'll have it 'automatically' in any case since you're experienced enough. Admins won't have anything more to do with the editing process than they already have. Cenarium (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not FlaggedRevisions will require autoreviewer, it makes sense that many of our most productive content editors be given autoreviewer anyway. That will stop their new articles from needing additional review from the new page patrol (where many of the patrollers have a much narrower grasp of policy). I've been going down WP:WBFAN as my first guide; starting at the top, I've made it down through those with 4 or more FAs to their credit (and who are still active editors). I'm taking a break now if anyone wants to pick up (at user:172, or start at the bottom - just let me know). Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My two cents

The reason semi-protection sucks is that it's not configurable. You can't set a particular page to limit accounts younger than 30 days or limit editors with under 1,000 edits. You get a flat protection that only works in one particular kind of case (blocking out brand new and unregistered users).

If you're going to automatically grant rights to a large number of people, it's usually better to have the software do so, as it's more reliable and removes the politics. I don't know how much of that is feasible given the (alleged) time constraints before the June 15 launch, but it is the preferred course of action in this case. You would have an implicit group (as opposed to admin-set explicit) that would have a much higher threshold than autoconfirmed, and perhaps use different criteria than autoconfirmed.

That said, having an explicit user group does allow for a lot more flexibility. If you set the limit at 1,000 edits and an editor with 500 edits doesn't need his or her edits reviewed, you're stuck in an implicit group setup. So there is some merit to an explicit group, however the wiki-politics surrounding the addition or removal of user rights might make it untenable on this project in particular. Perhaps a policy of only removing the group in cases of vandalism is warranted? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of this has already been brainstormed at Wikipedia:Reviewers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Of note

Since I opened this discussion on my talk page, I've received emails from editors not listed above, telling me that certain users on the list shouldn't be given reviewer permissions because they have (fill in the blanks - edit warred on some article, been rude and nasty somewhere, evaded blocks, pushed a point of view, etc.). This is precisely the kind of thing that needs to be avoided, and the primary reason that I believe the tool should be handed out automatically by the technology without administrator intervention. Even the best, most thoughtful, consistent administrators are still human, and it can be difficult to resist these sorts of pressures especially if the person sending the email is someone whose opinion the administrator respects. Given the presumption that all edits by autoconfirmed editors will be approved, there's no good reason to withhold this tool from any editor who isn't subject to specific sanctions. Risker (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, but we the editors in "bad" standing are telling you to keep your tools!  Giacomo  21:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Giacomo, I fully intend to keep my tools...oh wait, that isn't what you meant. :-) If the tool was automatically assigned by the database once a certain agreed-upon productivity level was obtained, and could not be removed by one of the ANI torch-and-pitchfork escapades, I think it would probably be palatable even to you. (By agreed-upon, I am thinking a month of editing and 50 edits, that's all.) I've watched too many episodes of the "you can't have this permission, you haven't met my personal excessive criteria" show, not to mention the "I'm taking this essentialy useless toy away from you because you have failed to meet my expectations in a totally unrelated area" game to feel comfortable leaving the granting of access in the hands of administrators; this is the only tool of the bunch that really and truly can affect the content of the encyclopedia. (Rollback is just high speed revert, account creator has no content impact, autoreviewer as currently configured is only really helpful to new page patrollers, and edit filter editor is an anti-vandalism tool restricted to people who can write computer code.) The overwhelming majority of administrators will give out reviewer tools fairly and reasonably upon request, don't get me wrong. It's just that a lot of the fair and reasonable admins are probably not going to pay a lot of attention to this whole thing until it starts to spread into their own personal areas of interest. Risker (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It just takes one admin to grant the right, and if we use an arbitrary criteria what is going to happen to those just below it who would like it ? Too low allows abuse by disruptive users and mistakes due to inexperience, too high then too many editors would be excluded, this system provides a fair balance. Now it's possible to restrict the removal of the right to bureaucrats. Cenarium (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• "It just takes one admin to grant the right" Rights are not "granted" they should be assumed.  Giacomo  23:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Mistakes due to inexperience". But all autoconfirmed editors will automatically get their edits reviewed. Do you not see the contradiction there? And "disruptive users"....that's just asking for trouble, because everyone has a different definition. If Admin #1 says "no, you're disruptive", and Admin #2 grants access to the tool, is it a wheel war? And...ummm...has anyone actually asked the bureaucrats about the whole "remove the tool" thing? As a group they have repeatedly and soundly refused to take on any new roles, even when it was related to assessment of consensus. Risker (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes in reviewing, because they don't know how to read diffs or about BLP for example. By disruptive users I mean Grawp and the like. You give too much importance to internal politics, I'll remind you, controversial cases are the exception, not the norm. I didn't ask bureaucrats yet because it's just an idea, we could also make removal only possible by stewards after ArbCom request, but I think it's way overkill. This issue is greatly exaggerated, and as a note, if we had given review rights to all autoconfirmed users, we would have needed to block plenty of users for misuse of reviewing, much more than we would ever have to remove rights in this system. Cenarium (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, it's really simple. Without an automatic "turn it on" point, the 90% of editors who wouldn't know what ANI is if you hit them over the head with it are suddenly second class citizens. You can pretend all you want that PC won't affect them, that they'll probably not even notice it, but the one time that it does, and they realise that their work is valued below others who happen to know how to play the game better, that's when they'll hit the door. I know the controversial cases are the exception. They're also the ones that drive good editors away, not because they're involved, but because they see the behaviour and don't want to be associated with a website that tolerates it. Your arguments about having a separate reviewer category, incidentally, are really far more effective if applied to increasing the requirements for autoconfirmed status, particularly since we keep hearing that edits by autoconfirmed editors will be automatically approved. I really don't see much difference between automatically allowing an edit by someone who can't make a diff and preventing that same person from approving an edit. And the threat of blocking non-admins for misusing reviewer tools, when admins won't even bring admins who misuse tools to arbcom for desysopping, is...well, it proves the point of many. Risker (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You could say the same thing of when a non-admin sees that they can't edit a fully protected page, or when an autoconfirmed user sees that they can't edit a semi protected page, then they think they're second class citizens. They find out that they can't edit at all those pages. This proposal is (among other things) an attempt to address this problem, a problem which is much, much more consequent than a rogue admin who might remove from a user the ability to review other user's edits for no reason. There would be no point in raising autoconfirmed, disruptive users could find their way anyway and it would too much affect good-faith users. The ability to review other user's edits on the other hand can easily be abused by disruptive users to compromise the system while most (autoconfirmed) users have no need to have this ability at all for editing since their autoconfirmed status grants them autoreview rights, and they may simply not be interested in reviewing other users' edits. There are a few exceptions indeed, hence we grant liberally. Cenarium (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen too much Admin abuse, misled ANI threads and lynch mobs to swallow any of this. I want no "given tools" at all.  Giacomo  23:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No point in telling me that, I already know better than to take any admin action concerning you. See the "third rail" discussion above. Risker (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. This is the stupid process we're going because we assume users are to stupid to use the real Flagged Revisions set up developed years ago and in successful use by the German language version? I think I don't need to be included, but often these tools get assigned to me anyway. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And an RFC folks here might find interesting

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Removing autoconfirmed. Oh dear. Risker (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not interesting or even surprising. My talents as a prophet are the only thing interesting.  Giacomo  19:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Reviewer.
Message added 11:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's somewhat important and I would like an answer so I suppose the TB is appropriate so you know it's there. Cheers... petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 11:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify further what I mean, where would a test build/site/deployment...whatever... be and when would you grant permissions.. petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 11:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Test-wiki for flagged revisions is http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org, although last time I looked it wasn't quite configured how it will be here. Amalthea 12:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing

Risker, please see this. I have little stomach for a long, prolonged and ultimately fruitless kerfuffle with the admin cadre regarding this, but this is my line in the sand. If admins are unilaterally empowered to now remove rights I've enjoyed for years, without proper process and serious sanction for them if it's proved to be done in a capricious and arbitrary way, then I'm in the Giano/Malleus camp. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

ps. is there some meta page magimamithingy where I can see what flags my account currently has? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here. – iridescent 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have mentioned this here as I think it's a pretty serious incident in Wikipedia's history - the potential disenfranchisement of the ordinary content editors.  Giacomo  20:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as sufficiently many administrators are of the view that reviewing is a basic function that all established contributors need to have go about their work, then it will never be in the hands of a single administrator to remove it. Count me in as one of the former kind. Geometry guy 20:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there's sufficient comfort for me now on the talk page of reviewing. Would someone be so good as to power me up? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Karanacs (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Filter Manager!

"(User rights log); 07:43 . . Risker (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Risker from Checkusers, Oversighters and Administrators to Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators and Edit filter managers" and what pray is an Edit Filter Manager? - I have never heard of any title sounding quite so pompous - do you have a Deputy Edit Filter Manager and Executive Deputy Edit Filter Manager. Are you to be the only "manager" or is the title to be handed out like "Area Sales Manager" to describe salemen selling everything from surgical appliances to heating oil? I'm sure all these titles are lovely for those that like to collect such things, but are they realy necessary? I suspect it can only be a matter of time before each common editor his allotted his own strutting Admin Edit Filter Manager to harrass and hinder his writing of the ecyclopedia.  Giacomo  06:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh Giacomo, you've made my day! Turns out that there is indeed one tool that isn't part of the administrator package (despite rumours to the contrary), and if you look at my history, you'll see that it had previously been removed by....wait for it....another admin :-). I had to review what certain phrase had tripped an edit filter a few hours ago, and this is the permission that allows me to research that. I quite agree, the title is ridiculously pompous, and it comes with the ability to actually make changes to edit filters, an ability that causes me to quake in my boots. Edit filters, however, are quite useful creatures that have done more to eradicate/prevent vandalism on Wikipedia than all the recent changes patrollers in history, because they prevent the edits from being saved. Even the more benign ones that people can actually save give a warning message in big bold letters. (They're what adds those tags you see on page histories, like "tag:references removed".) I have no idea how to write one, but it seems that they can be quite limited, such as "don't allow edits containing the term "horse hockey" from users with less than 18 edits on User:Risker and User:GiacomoReturned" and things like that. I won't pretend even for a minute that I understand how to make the software do that, though. Risker (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you get stuck, you must consult my Great Aunt, she is very knowledgable on all matters. In fact, I am told (by one of her minions) that she is considering applying for Adminship and any other rights that see can grasp her hands on - she rather likes titles and ordering the insubservient lower orders about - with this in mind, perhaps you would like to propose her for adminship, she has hurriedly written one very brief page so has all the qualifications for Adminship.  Giacomo  07:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd never noticed that. I joined up too - I'll figure out what to do with an edit filter later. Horse hockey sounds fun...hang on, isn't that the patrician sport of polocrosse? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• 06:43, 14 June 2010 Risker (talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Risker from Checkusers, Oversighters and Administrators to Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators and Edit filter managers ‎ (turns out Xeno was wrong)

  Somewhat wrong, I suppose. See bugzilla:22033. –xeno^talk 15:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sent email

An email has been sent to you. Sophie ^(Talk) 09:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Received; it appears someone else has addressed the situation, which is good to know. Risker (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All very distressing

The instructions do seem very complicated [26]. I can see nothing but doom and gloom ahead. You see those that want these things have not taken account of one vital important fact. Most men, myself included, return flat packed furniture to the store because pieces are missing or don't fit, countless little boys are told by their father's that the model plane/boat has been wrongly packaged and designed and is impossible to put together ("Yes, I know Junior, the box said Concorde, but I have created an even more futuristic aircraft for you"). There is a reason for this, most males only read the instructions when all else fails, then when we do - we find the instructions are misprinted, terribly written and not applicable to the skilled assembly we are manfully and heroically creating. Women on the other hand, take a look at the instructions first, analyse them carefully and then declare it is not worth the time involved and go off to buy it ready assembled - they also know this has the added advantage of preventing the risk of their husband gluing himself, the assembly and the instruction to the carpet while swearing and cussing. The only saving factor, I can see for Wikipedia is that it has a fair amount of gay editors, one can only hope that they are more comprehending, less stereo-typed and tenacious than the rest of us - otherwise we are all in for a very difficult and testing time.  Giacomo  13:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Jean Piaget did observations of children in which he noted that when boys play games, if there is a discrepancy in the rule, they stop the game to argue over the rule until everyone understands what the rules mean. When girls play games and find a discrepancy, they stop the game and decide to change the rules. --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I must admit, I used to argue incessantly that we use the 'auction' rule in Monopoly, while my sister thought we should just leave the property unsold. –xeno^talk 13:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, what true irony, Moni3! Perhaps it's because of the gender imbalance on the project, but it seems I have subsumed the masculine role here (making sure the rules are understood and then reinforcing them) whilst certain elements amongst the fellows have been advocating changes to the rules (e.g., including very high traffic articles prone to huge amounts of vandalism on the first day of the shakedown, changing the parameters of article types to be included in the test). Who would have thought? Perhaps I am playing the role of the stern schoolmistres.... Risker (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My wife might have something to say about your claims Giano; she prefers not to read the instructions at all, and simply soldier on ahead with the belief that She Knows What She Is Doing. Needless to say, my lawn is much worse for the wear when she applied this belief to granular fertilizer. –xeno^talk 13:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Psychology aside, what's staggering here is it's revealed that Giano buys his own furniture. Did his illustrious aunt leave him nothing? The poor man should be pitied. Can we assume that were Giano to ever get over his phobia with reviewing, there would be a willing congregation of competents to assist the poor grieving man to press all the right buttons through his sobbing, or if not, offer a handkerchief and clear up in his wake? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

One assumes the flat packs are for the servants hall. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Having read the simple to follow rules, I must say they are rather mind bending. As I've only used the software briefly on the test wiki, I don't feel particularly competent to rewrite the substance, but it surely needs doing. I've therefore taken the liberty of translating the original instructions, first into german, then into Hindi and then back to English to see if they are more intelligible. I proudly dislay the the results:

1. If you are checking multiple machining it is possible that there is a good procedure that was later removed from barbarism. Not you you "leave pending review into" side view, but the page on history, even if you see version includes vandalism.
2. look at the story. If any changes by a single editor, and recent vandalism edit pending, it is reasonable to assume they are all vandalism. Back to the review to resolve the row, and you are with your posts. If the latest version is good, from the side of the story you can edit the series and all the way at last accept the changes.
3. If there are several editors who have submitted amendments pending, the story from each review and edit it back, according to review criteria for the vandalism a BLP violation or otherwise clearly unacceptable. Under each to undo your username is to create a new process, but the auto will be accepted. Good arrangements are in place, reported.
4. If you are satisfied that all edits were improperly reversed, it will be processed with good links. Czech latest pending to be sure you removed all the vandalism edit. Edit Review.
5. The change pending backlog will be cleared.

I think you'll all agree that's getting much closer to the flat pack furniture instructions. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the length the flat pack, you'll need a private train and railway to carry it. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OOPS, I see Joopercoopers fixed it while I was making my poor joke. --Philcha (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Joopercoopers, thank you for the translations (and indeed the edits to the original text on WP:Reviewing). What I took from the experience of working through this is that if a revision can't be reviewed before another one comes along, the steps to identify anything worthwhile amongst the edits are so daunting and unmotivating that all but the most disciplined of reviewers will tend toward reverting the whole lot. In fairness, rapid review of pending changes has long been the goal. However, I suspect that truly high traffic articles that attract lots of edits will wind up with everything being reverted, in part because of the complexity of picking out the good stuff amongst the problems. Sorry you didn't like the word "vandalistic". :-) I shall be conducting off-wiki activities for much of the rest of today, but please, everyone feel free to make yourself at home and have a seat on the flat pack sofas and chairs....oh wait... Risker (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Plain English Campaign - no worries, sorry for messing up the furniture. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I had a stab anyway - please cast your eye over this to see if I've got the thrust right. It's still as opaque as hell with far too many steps for my liking. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
      • PS. The last sentence of no.5 where it says "Review that edit" - would "click accept" be a reasonable substitute? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki Historian N OH‎

Could you please take a look at the above listed SPI? It would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick check. I apologized for the mistake to the IP. Have a good night! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, GWH. Indeed, when I looked at the contribs of Wiki Historian N OH overall (his edits focus almost exclusively on the history of Ohio in some form or other), and I see he had some rather different notions of consensus at one point, it struck me that he seemed to be getting the point and was calming down. I'm still wondering why there is a POV tag on the Marysville, Ohio article; while it seems to have been appropriate at one point, at this stage it reads pretty much like similar articles on cities and towns. Risker (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I can answer the POV question. The reason for the tag is Wiki Historian N OH edited the page to this point of view and the page needs a good once over before I would feel comfortable with the tag being removed. I would do it, but I don't know much (if anything) about Ohio (am from Virginia)....so I am leaving that up to someone else. Hopefully this answers your question. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of RevDelete on a user talk page

Hi. I'd appreciate any feedback you might have regarding this thread. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, I've sent you an email. I'll be around for an hour or two yet, so there's no rush, just letting you know. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just reading it now, thanks! Risker (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened while I was spending my day mostly ignoring WP and watching golf? Anyways, I've sent you an e-mail, as well. --Courcelles (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		This is just a small token of my appreciation to express my gratitude for your well considered advice and guidance. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

Would you be able to add obesity to pending changes. I has been semi protected for years due to vandalism. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I was just this moment about to add another bunch of articles into the trial, I'll let this one skip the queue and get in there within the next few minutes. I figure if I'm doing the work, I can get a little bit of a say. :-) Risker (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City, Virginia

Got a question for ya. A couple users have said that the word "semiquincentennial" or 250th anniversary isn't a word. This word is mentioned on Anniversary (gotta scroll to 250th anniversary) and on other websites, but no dictionaries. Should I remove the word altogether or what? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling there's no good answer to this one; I know I've seen "sesquibicentennial" which doesn't even work out properly in Latin. I think no matter what you go with, you're going to be using a coined term. I'd suggest checking the various options in the Oxford online dictionary, as it tends to be remarkably comprehensive. Any other suggestions, TPWs? Risker (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't exsist on the Oxford Dictionary website. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

iPad

You forgot to actually add the pending pages protection to iPad ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been  Done by someone else now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Put article into Pending trial

Hi Risker.

Checked out the pending trial log and saw you have put some articles to test.

I was wondering if the article Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement can be put into the reviewer pending trial as it is a good candidate to review anonymous edits and also trial the use of reviewer. Thanks. Visik (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Visik - at this point, the trial is restricted to articles that are already semi-protected; this might expand more later in the trial, but not for several weeks. Compared to many other articles, this one has few edits from IPs or other unconfirmed editors, so it probably wouldn't rank high on the list of possible additions. I do note, however, that this is supposed to be approved in the near future; if increased vandalism occurs, to the point that the article might qualify for semi-protection, I'd suggest taking it to WP:RFPP first, then putting it in the queue for addition. Nice work, by the way. Risker (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

QuoteBox on Userpage

Just wanted to give you a note that I tinkered with the quotebox on your userpage and took it from 80em to 70em, making it slightly smaller. It was pushing the page to the right and part of what you had written was off the page. If you feel the way you had it was better, please feel free to revert, was just trying to help.

On what you said, I did read it and I agree with Wikipedia being one of the top 10 or 20 websites online, we need to take better care of the more visible articles (BLPs, Breaking News, etc.) so they are completely updated, completely sourced and never have anything that could be taken out of context (like some BLPs tend to be). I think we should also do the same for the lowly stubs too. Well written post. Nicely done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Neutralhomer, for both your tinkering and your kind words. You'd think after all these years here, I'd manage not to screw up the code on my own userpage... :-) Risker (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I use something similar on the top menu on my user page, so I knew what to fix. Plus it is late, so that'll do it to ya. :) Glad I could help out. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Socratic Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		This Socratic Barnstar is awarded for your decisive action and articulate explanations on a recent user block (for BLP violations and harassment). Sad that it had to be done, but I applaud the way you did it. Thanks. TraceyR (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes and TFA

Are pending changes being applied to the WP:TFA articles? Ernest Hemingway is scheduled for TFA on June 25 June 23 (in a few hours) and has just been moved from semi-protect to pending changes. I'd expected the semi-protect to be removed during the TFA but was surprised to see the pending changes. Just curious, as I'm tending the article and am still unclear about the process. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is just one of several hundred articles under long-term semi-protection that was added to the pending changes trial; it wasn't selected because of any other reason, and in particular there was no correlation between its imminent appearance as TFA. In the past, when we have had TFAs requiring some form of edit protection on the Main Page, there's been a discussion on the Administrator Noticeboard about this in advance of the article's appearance. I suggest this might be the best way to bring eyes to the question, and to seek the development of a community consensus as to whether to continue the pending changes trial during the TFA appearance, or to discontinue it for the TFA day. I can see arguments for both positions; from my perspective as someone who has been following the pending trials change closely, it would be informative to see how this works on the TFA; however, the longstanding community position has been to release semi-protection for all but a very tiny number of TFAs. My sense is it's probably better to take it to WP:AN than for just a few people in a comparatively unwatched page (either my talk or any of the pages specifically related to the pending changes trial) to come to a decision that is in variance with the usual practices of the project. Your thoughts? Risker (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Intially I posted to Today's featured article and SandyGeorgia suggested I bring the issue to you. I'm not bothered either way, except not having experience with pending changes and having an article as TFA would present a steep learning curve. That said, I agree, it would be informative to see how this works. The article has been a target for excessive vandalism, so I'd expect it to only be worse tonight/tomorrow. I don't really frequent WP:AN, but if you think that's the venue, then I can bring it up there, or perhaps just wait and see how it goes? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I suggest posting at WT:FAC too. I don't know what the main page day is going to look like. I just about plotzed at the thought of To Kill a Mockingbird losing its partial protection. When school gets back in, I have an awful feeling I'll spend all my time unaccepting "this book is teh gay" edits from middle school students. Anyway, FA writers should know what to look for. I've got Hemingway on my watchlist after last week's discussion. I don't know what it's going to look like, and I know other FA contributors are eager to find out. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's going to be a nightmare, because potentially good edits could be mixed in with vandalism and a quick rollback, or accept, won't do the trick. I'll post at WP:FAC and hopefully get some eager eyes on it. Good suggestion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Mediawiki edit notice needs to be redesigned pronto

I think the way to proceed, if this article is to remain on pending changes during its appearance on TFA, is to make a major improvement in the edit notice attached to it for the duration that it's on the main page - big coloured box, making clear that the edits of anonymous and newly registered users will be reviewed prior to inclusion, in big letters. The current edit notice is too small and is easily missed; and consensus seemed to come down against using a big tag at the top of the article announcing it was part of the trial. I'm secretly hoping that one of my TPWs will see this and take the necessary action. Most of them already know that Mediawiki and I are like ocean drilling for oil...a disaster waiting to happen... Risker (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Risker, there's a discussion at Talk:Ernest_Hemingway#Pending_changes_and_main_page_day that someone involved in tweaking the software might be interested in. For keeping vandalism out of the main page article, the system does not appear to be effective. I think it's due to time lags and edit conflicts. Well-meaning editors are accepting vandalism and reverting good edits to vandalized versions. I think it's the pending changes that's causing it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes and BLPs

Hi Risker, I'm very confused about the pending changes trial, and as I'm currently helping out at RfPP, and I see you're actively involved in the PC issues, I'm hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction.

I'm seeing a few BLPs with long-term semi-protection being reduced to level one PC instead, with the result that the BLPs become attractive to vandals again. The vandalism, including BLP violations, are only seen by logged-in readers but that's still tens of thousands. With one article that I restored semi-protection to (Selena Gomez), after it was requested on RfPP, that apparently meant the article had "failed" the trial, though I'm not sure what the implications of that were. I'm therefore not sure how to proceed in future if someone requests semi-protection for an article that's on PC level one.

Would it make sense not to include semi-protected BLPs in the trial? I had always understood pending changes (or flagged revisions) to be useful for articles that didn't quite rise to the level of needing semi-protection but where a lesser degree of protection might still be helpful—for example, BLPs in general, or BLPs with sporadic problems. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. Is there a way to review how many views of problematic content by logged in users there are before something is reverted or 'unaccepted'? Maybe there are very few, and if there is generally good IP input to the article (not all vandalism) it could be kept on the pending changes list? Though if all the IP edits are esentially vandalism, I think regular semi-might be better. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You pose a very good question, SlimVirgin, that deserves a better response than I can give right at the moment. I'll respond in a couple of hours, if you don't mind. Risker (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and there's no rush. Another one has surfaced at RfPP—Eminem, which had been under long-term semi-protection. That was changed to PC1 a few hours ago, and since then there's been a steady stream of vandalism, and now a request to reprotect. I'm inclined to reprotect, but don't want to keep undoing other admins' decisions. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(butting in) I think the key thing is making sure these examples get discussed at the conclusion of the trial where we all try and decide whether this policy is worth continuing or pursuing. I have not been involved in Reviewing Changes and my impression is that the labour intensive nature of it will be too draining on recent changes patrollers and reviewers (I do concede though that I have not been playing with it hardly at all...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I played with it for a little while and there were a few articles, Eminem being one, that had a stream of vandalism. Very time-consuming. Having said that, people were on to it pretty quickly but I suspect semi-p will remain the obvious choice for celeb. BLPs.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I apologise to everyone for the delay in my response; real life has kept me from spending too much time here the past few days.

  The pending changes trial has a lot of objectives, from different perspectives. The most obvious is seeing how it works technically in a live environment, and there have been some problem areas detected; we'll see what the developers come up with to address them, but I haven't heard of one that is so severe it would be considered a bright line failure. The other group of objectives relate to the onwiki usage of this tool. First off, now that we have a live-article trial, we can get a better sense of whether or not we *want* to use this tool. One of the ways to decide this is to try it on various types of articles. As the "approved" trial was aimed at articles which, under other circumstances, would qualify for semi-protection, the first thousand or so articles enrolled into the trial have been semi-protected ones. Now, here is where objectives diverge again.

  There is a significant segment of the community who are concerned that semi-protection has an adverse effect on the growth of the community, because new and anonymous editors are locked out of many interesting articles. The loss of potentially good edits is of significant concern, from that perspective. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone posting on this page made his or her first edits as an IP (something like 95% of all wikipedians started that way), and often as not those first edits weren't quite perfect and may even have been reverted, but our early edits were at least considered and usually were accessible for a period. Several articles have seen good faith editing by new/anonymous editors (including one that I know has largely been written by IP editors). On the downside, quite a few of the articles have received nothing but vandalism or otherwise clearly inappropriate edits, and of particular concern, these tend to be highly visible BLPs. The inference that we can draw, just over a week into the trial, is that very large, highly visible BLPs that have been semi-protected for repeated vandalism, probably need to stay that way. We can now honestly say that there were extremely few useful (or even good-faith) edits, and in many cases some rather egregious BLP violations or other vandalism. I believe there is significant support in the community to remove those articles from the trial once it's clear that the cost/benefit ratio is completely out of line, and I would stand behind an administrator who made the decision to return an article to semi-protection, even in the rather early hours of that article's test.

  Some articles are now being brought into the trial that were not semi-protected beforehand, but would qualify for semi-protection due to vandalism or other inappropriate edits; several of them are related to contemporaneous events, where anonymous/new editors may well have useful information that can be incorporated into an article. Yes, they're getting some vandalism as well, but the few articles like this that I have observed seem to be benefiting from the use of the tool in this situation.

  Finally, I think we need to bring in some relatively unwatched but quite active BLPs (or articles containing significant biographical info) with a history of vandalism below the traditional semi-protection threshold; we have no data to determine how these articles would fare under pending changes. That information is needed, as such a large portion of our community felt this was an area where the tool would be particularly useful.

  I'll just remind everyone that this *is* a trial, and it's important to try things and identify what does and does not work. Pending changes on Eminem and Barack Obama were not successful, and that's fine. Other articles have benefited, and that's fine too. I'm now trying to figure out some metrics that need to be considered to give us the objective data to decide whether the cost/benefit ratio is enough to continue the use of the tool, or possibly to lengthen the trial, or if we just want to shut it off, and I will be working hard to keep everyone on the short timeline here. The timing of this trial is a bit unfortunate, in that our project had already had two other significant software deployments within the past 6 weeks, so the development of structure for the trial has been a bit seat-of-the-pants, and the objectives weren't clearly defined in advance, nor were there preparations for information-gathering and analysis of the "project-side" data. But we're here now, and we need to do the legwork, not just the guesswork and supposition. Risker (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I broadly share your analysis. I will also add that some articles where we could have expected substantial vandalism turned out to receive little or not at all (like the vast majority of articles placed under PCP), for example Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Rome. I think the problem has been that too many articles where vandalism would be likely have been tried in a too short period. I've also been thinking of making a survey of articles which have been put under PC and how it fare, I'll ask for help of users knowledgeable in automated editing to make a table of those at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Survey where we can comment. Cenarium (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar from Deskana

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		To Risker, for helping to increase the communication between the Arbitration Committee and the Functionaries, and for generally helping to make sure that the Functionaries get what they need to work effectively. I award you this da Vinci barnstar! --Deskana (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WELL DESERVED! — Rlevse • Talk • 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, both of you. This means a lot. Risker (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Favor

Please full protect my user page and talk page. I will be away indefinitely. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you were offline, I asked Gwen Gale to take care of this and she has. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Risker (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit

Hi, I edited Republic of Macedonia in line with People's Republic of China, no words changed. The article has not faced any issues for many months now and editors are quite prompt to fix edits by newcomers. How does this new semi-protected get started? Thanks for keeping an eye open. Politis (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is one of many currently enrolled in a trial of a different level of protection called pending changes that allows newly registered and anonymous editors to make edits to an article; before those edits are displayed on the publicly-presented version of the article, they are reviewed by another more experienced Wikipedian who can either revert them or allow them to go forward. If your edit is reverted, you are very welcome to discuss your proposed change on the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So are you the one who decides, if not, who? On the articles i have seen, things usually work out well. I mean who decided to put this article, for instance on 'pending changes'? I am neither new or anonymous :-) but have been editing wiki for a few years so this trial comes as a bit of a surprise.Politis (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not just me "deciding" - criteria were developed for the trial (semi-protected pages or pages that would otherwise be eligible for semi-protection, essentially); I'm just one of several administrators who have been adding articles to the trial, although I seem to be one of the more active ones. The trial started mid-June and ends mid-August, and we have allowance for up to 2000 articles in the trial. There have been various discussions in multiple places over the past year about this particular technical tool, and sometime in 2009 it was decided to develop the tool and then trial it for 2 months to see whether it scaled, whether it worked in the way that was anticipated, and whether it was desirable. Decisions on which articles to add to the list are somewhat random; early in the trial, someone else was creating queues of articles to be added, and another admin would do the decision-making and adding, but now we are working off other lists, such as the list of indefinitely semi-protected pages, or watching requests for page protection. We've also added some BLPs that have recently needed semi-protection to see if this will be beneficial in that area as well. Risker (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser Request

Could you do a checkuser on this edit and this edit? Both IPs, while different, are out of Israel and I believe, per the first diff, are those of indef blocked and banned User:Drork. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As I know nothing about Drork, and I can't really see a connection between the edits made by those two IPs, I'm probably not the right person to be asking. The IP making the hostile messages is appropriately blocked. Any administrator can enforce the block of a banned user; I tend not to do that very often when the ban comes from the community, because of the role of Arbcom as a final block appeal body. Risker (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, no worries. I just thought I would go the extra step with the checkuser. :) Thanks for checking though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like those two accounts were together. An admitted sock and an admitted fake bomb threat. Wow, that must be a new level of stupid when it comes to socks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Uranus

I really don't think that Uranus is suited for flagged revisions. If any protection is taken off it, millions will continuously add "your anus" jokes, and force everyone else to revert them constantly. Serendi^podous 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a trial. Let's see if everything we get really is vandalism, or if we get some useful edits as well. Some articles that have been brought into the trial have been notably improved, despite the perception they'd be subject to constant vandalism; others, which looked relatively benign, have been overrun. Part of the point of the trial is to give us a better idea of what does and doesn't *really* need semi-protection. We still have to work out the cost/benefit ratio, and that takes a bit of time. For example, we have a large number of articles related to a specific, non-controversial topic that are indefinitely semi-protected due to poor quality edits by one particular banned user; if not for that one person, they'd be free to edit. These should (in theory) be ideal subjects for pending changes, but there's been pressure from the community not to include them at this time. Risker (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"(show pending changes log)" thing

Hello Risker,

I would like to ask why does alot of articles have teh revision pending at the bottom with your edit or changing the article settings? like i see on Spider-Man page. It has the following item "Review this revision". and when i click "show pending changes log" it gives the following revision

16:10, June 19, 2010 Risker (talk | contribs) configured pending changes settings for Spider-Man [Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] ‎ (Wikipedia:Pending changes trial) (hist)

So why is it appearing? i though only IPs and new users needed their edits verified? it really should disappear otherwise, and causes confusion among some editors. thank you Gman124 ^talk 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's weird, I'd never noticed that box at the bottom, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to do. That entry with my name on it is when I turned the pending changes on; even though it's auto-accepted, I guess that would probably be an important entry into the log. I'll see if I can find more info about the box at the bottom, or you can go directly to Wikipedia talk:Pending changes and ask there. (You'll probably get a faster and better answer on that page.) Thanks for letting me know about this. Risker (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Virgin VR-01

Shouldn't people be contacting the protecting admin when starting these trials? Articles protected to prevent socks from editing are extremely poor choices for pending changes, and the protection log makes it clear that that is the reason the article was protected. How can we reasonably expect patrolling editors to prevent DSL lines in London (i.e. CharlieJS13) from editing the article?—Kww(talk) 22:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you get them to look at the content of the edits? Not every DSL line in London is going to be CharlieJS13, and we need to stop thinking that simply because an article has been edited at some point by a sock, that all IPs that edit it will be the same sock. Indeed, non-registered editors have added useful content to this article, which makes it an ideal target for pending changes. Risker (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want them to look at the contents of the edits. I want them to see if the editor is an editor that edits Formula One and Lady Gaga articles, and only wanders into other topics to mangle the songwriting credits. I semiprotect articles when they have been edited by a sockpuppeteer that shows little or no sign of ever giving up. You didn't answer my first question: why was a protection I installed overridden without the courtesy of consulting me? Shouldn't this process include that?—Kww(talk) 23:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting weird. I'm getting the yellow bar, but this section isn't showing for me on my own talk page. And no, admins are not getting personalised notices that an article they semi-protected (in some cases years ago) are being placed in the trial. It's a reasonable expectation that all active administrators be aware of this trial. As to your first part, there are no doubt many London DSL IPs that edit Formula One articles; the sport is massively popular there compared to here. That a London IP is editing a Formula One article is absolutely no reason to block it, in fact. What is reason to block it is if it is adding incorrect information. Kww, I do sock cases too, and I know that it can be frustrating. But adding semi-protection to articles edited by sockpuppets at one time or another would put hundreds of thousands of articles on SP, and that's not really doing us any good as a project. We still do depend a lot on unregistered editors to (a) do a fair bit of grunt work and (b) be the pool of people most likely to become productive, new editors. Risker (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your problem with the yellow bar is because one of the servers serving up histories has gone bonkers tonight. I keep trying to examine histories of articles in my watchlist just to be told the articles haven't been edited in days. I'll watch this article and not override. From now on, I will simply scan the list every day and remove entries for articles that I have protected due to socking. I thought we had a general agreement that sock-protection could not be done with pending changes. I did not protect the article because it had been edited by a London IP: I protected it once it had been edited by User:Riggiddity. I've protected several others because a London DSL edited it in the pattern of Formula One, Lady Gaga, and songwriting credit changes, and I will stand by them. CharlieJS13 has come to ANI on several occasions trying to get me disciplined for protecting his targets, so I'm fairly convinced my techniques are effective.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the histories. You've sort of proven my point, though. User:Riggiddity was long since autoconfirmed before he edited this article, and semi-protection would not have prevented him from doing so. The same will be true of his future socks; we all know it takes 10 edits/4 days, including the sockmasters. Blocking editing by genuine contributors on the off chance that he'll edit this article before autoconfirming is a losing proposition for the project. Risker (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You give most sockpuppeteers far too much credit. He's edited as 81.157.231.197, 81.157.230.200, 86.157.208.79, 86.136.17.241, 86.157.208.223, 86.132.109.95... The real advantage of semi-protection is that is forces him to take an account, which then allows me to see the article editing pattern more clearly. We've got fools like Brexx, who has been attempting block evasion for over two years despite having over 90% of his changes undone. His reaction to a wall of semi-protection today was to beg an established user to trade accounts with him. We may disagree on the extent and severity of collateral damage, but it is an effective technique in allowing me to more accurately identify the sockpuppeteers and remove their edits rapidly.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the explanation. I have been bullied by drama mongering admins in the past, so please forgive me if I seem to be on edge whenever I am blocked seemingly without merit. You are one of the many great administrators on this site that do their job well. It's just unfortunate that there are a few bad eggs out there with the tools that try to turn Wikipedia into a soap opera, so much that it has kept my contributions to the Wikipedia mainspace to an absolute minimum over the course of four years. I'm trying to work on expanding articles for baseball players from the 1950s and 1960s that I made a personal connection with (they autographed my baseball cards), and for the longest time did not feel safe in starting my project because of how many enemies in high places I made for standing up to their cyberbullying of good editors. I expanded an article for Philadelphia Phillies catcher Stan Lopata from 3KB to 33KB today in one edit, and the next thing I know I'm blocked for 'vandalism'. I just want to give thanks to these historical players by giving them a large historical record for everyone to read hundreds of years into the future rather than them being just a footnote, and I feared I was being stopped because of one crazy admin/ex-arbitrator had a vendetta to settle with me. Thankfully that was not the case. Today was definitely a downer, but thank you for filling me in on the details. Vodello (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion location?

Where are the articles that are being placed on pending changes being discussed before the change is made?—Kww(talk) 14:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like WP:PCQ has been deprecated. –xeno^talk 14:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This was unacceptable. I'm an active admin. The protection was fresh. You know perfectly well that I object to having articles that I have protected due to sock-puppetry being switched to pending changes. Do not override any more of my protections in the future without discussing it with me first.—Kww(talk) 14:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Are your standing objections listed somewhere? 2 months is hardly fresh; and isn't the trial supposed to test how well (or not) pending changes works on articles semi-protected for various reasons (such as sockpuppetry)? –xeno^talk 14:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It was not a "fresh" protection, it was 8 weeks old. Frankly, as I look through the articles that are being semi-protected, I see a very large number of them are being protected against individual sockpuppeters who, in many cases, autoconfirm before editing in the topic area involved, so the semi-protection isn't even preventing them from editing the articles. In fact, this isn't a reason for semi-protection according to our protection policy; sockpuppetry is not the same thing as vandalism. Simply put, there are tens of thousands of articles in the "profile" of the sockpuppeter you're chasing here, and you've already got a couple hundred articles semi-protected against him, including a significant number where there were "good" edits from anonymous or newly-registered users before the semi-protection. (The same can be said of the other sockpuppeter whose activities have resulted in hundreds of semi-protections, Bambifan101.) These sorts of articles are actually ideal targets for pending changes.

Having said all this, I think perhaps the better course of action would be to have a discussion with the broader community on the relative merit of semi-protection of huge numbers of articles because a sockpuppeter edited them. I'm not excusing the repeated use of socks, but we're running a serious risk of biting off our noses to spite ourselves when the semi-protection is of limited effect against the socker. I'll raise this issue in a more public venue when I can figure out which one is best. Risker (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about CC arbitration

I have been following the climate change goings on since I first became aware of the controversies a few weeks ago. I had originally thought about doing a bit of copy/edit on an article there, but after peeking in and seeing what a swarming pile of chaos it is, I decided to stay away. I do not have an ideological or political leaning on the issue and have not even formed an opinion on it -- what interested me was the editors' behavior in this little microcosm of Wikipedia. So here's my question: I would kind of like to make some observations as a completely uninvolved outsider who has paid particular attention to the behaviors and has read nearly all of the prior discussions in RfC/U, arbitration, RfA's and RfArb, RfE, probation, etc...Is commentary welcome or encouraged from uninvolved outsiders? If so, could you point me to the appropriate location? Thanks. Minor4th • talk 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Pollard (Scouting)

Thought you may enjoy a new article on a trail-blazing woman...new article and DYK if you care to help improve. Up on July 6th, anniversary of the court ruling! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edward L. Rowan

New article on a Scouter, psychiatrist, and author. Very interesting. Pls help improve. Up for DYK too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Rivenburg edits re: Gerry Thomas

Has Rivenburg also made extensive edits to the Gerry Thomas article, to promote his own work? NV Researcher (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, he clearly made extensive edits, as can be seen by the article's history. I'm not in a position to review whether or not it is promoting his "own work". I note that you yourself have focused almost exclusively on almost the same tiny list of articles in your several years here. Rivenburg wasn't banned from this article, and there have been only a few edits in the past two years, so it is difficult to ascertain whether or not there's much bias there now, and I'm not going to venture to guess. Risker (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointer re Climate Change

I realize that it is very much past the evidence deadline, but I think it's important that AC closely evaluate the recent flare up at Robert Watson (scientist), where an IP editor added sneaky obviously defamatory BLP vandalism (that Mars has a greenhouse effect and the subject of the biography had repeatedly gotten that fact wrong), is reverted by WMC, and then, because it's WMC doing the reverting, the BLP vandalism is edit warred back in by Marknutley, GregJackP and WVBluefield, while WMC is brought before the enforcement board for not explaining his vandalism revert. Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, aren't Rlevse, NYB, and Carcharoth the three arbitrators who announced that they were undertaking the preliminary review of evidence in this case? Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I contacted the drafting arbs listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop. Hipocrite (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See the RFAR template, it says, N, R, R, which is Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Risker. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Since Carcharoth had commented on the Workshop I assumed he was one of the three. My mistake. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I do not find it at all concerning that Hipocrite contacted the three arbitrators drafting this decision. I believe it was quite appropriate to draw to our specific attention what could best be characterised as an unexpected series of actions on a specific page, which we might not have noticed otherwise, particularly as evidence submissions had closed and we are in the process of preparing a proposed decision. Rlevse has taken certain additional actions, as he was the first to read his talk page. Risker (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Travel update

Update. R is at the first layover waiting for the next plane. WOOF! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 12:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Email

Thanks for the ping, I've replied. No rush. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Risker, but if you have a minute, I've sent you an email on a related matter that I'd appreciate your input on. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've sent you an email on another unrelated matter, but I didn't think it was worth a new section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mike Cejka

Hi Risker. On 18 July User:ukexpat requested page protection for Mike Cejka. Semi protection was accorded by User:NativeForeigner at this diff . I can't see how or where the protection has been technically implemented - am I missing something? Thanks for your help.--Kudpung (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved

With respect to the current arbcom case I view Lar posting as uninvolved with respect to WMC in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Request concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen as inflamatory at best. Polargeo (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Today's Flare up

As a drafting arbiter on the climate change case, I would like to notify you of this.[27] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

CU status

Hi Risker, So I can see stuff about applying for CU but not see where. The sake of argument I would be interested in CU states and would just love to give the community a chance to rake up anything they didn't like about me too...I don't mind an election either; I missed that the last one was going on. --BozMo talk 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions. It's all there. --Deskana (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I was searching for an onwiki application which is why I missed the email address. --BozMo talk 12:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Claim to fame

So you think it's blocking an arb that is my claim to fame? I don't agree. I think it's RFAR'ing a godking. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC).

Dark

Sitting at the airport at zero dark thirty. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 08:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Flight at second airport got cancelled. Damn airlines. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory

Here's a new article I created. Please help improve it. It's also up for DYK for 24 July. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A lovely little article! I've been to the Conservatory several times, and enjoyed every visit; there is something calming about the place. Some nice photos too! Risker (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots more pics aren't uploaded yet ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of that query on my talk page when I was gone. I was hoping the large {{holiday}} notice would alert people to my inactivity but evidently not quite :). Have this wikithanks flower as a small token of gratitude. Regards, AGK 00:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don Valley Parkway FAC

Hey Risker. I believe I've addressed all of your comments at the Don Valley Parkway FAC. The only one I haven't done anything with is the location column in the table. I'm awaiting a response from other members of WikiProject Highways as to whether or not it should be removed. If it should be, I'll take it out, if not perhaps I can put in the neighbourhoods instead of the former boroughs. Either way, take a look and see if your other concerns have been addressed. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)