1 August 2010 -
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Interim restriction Polargeo ( talk) 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session.
Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up
here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the DYK main page lead DYK hook right now! Yeah! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
See the log for edit filter 294. These are IPs being recruited by User:JarlaxleArtemis on 4chan /b/ to make attacks (for proof, see here, where the idiot forgot to remove the directions from the edit summary). NawlinWiki ( talk) 05:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your tireless work last night (I'm sure you know what I'm referring to), I hereby award you with this long-overdue Tireless Contributor barnstar. I know you probably don't get this enough but I think I speak for everyone when I say "thanks" for all the work you do around here. Now go to sleep. Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 05:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Brad, any idea when there might be some movement on this case? Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Risker, I just don't know policy well enough, and considering yesterday's debacle, am reluctant to make a fool of myself :) What is the best way to handle this likely meat/sockpuppetry? Google reveals a lot about the users removing the tags (an entire list of students at a particular University). Do I submit an SPI, or are they just blocked for obvious meatpuppetry? It's not a "fringe" topic, because there is medical research, but the research is often poor, it is an area that is ripe with quackery, and poor or primary sources are used in the article, instead of secondary review sources per WP:MEDRS. Now that I've reviewed all of the edits, perhaps the University would warrant a block? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the random question but I was just wondering how you create a belligerent list when creating/contributing to a article, I've been looking around on the help page on creating an article but haven't found anything I thought I would ask you as you seem like you know what to do seeing as your an administrator. Davido488 ( talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If you feel like a break from the weighty stuff, you might remember that you are a pretty damn good copy editor, and help out with Ezra Pound which is close enough to FAC that I'm calling in all the heavies I know. If you are bogged down and busy no worries. No harm in asking, but you imput would be very much appreciated. Ceoil ( talk) 11:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I have not reverted once. Only left a new message every time. I would however appreciate it, if you could at least warn them to stop attacking me.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to request that you remove this attack directed at me from their user page.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of the assigned clerk, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Risker, I just renominated the DVP for featured article status, was hoping you'd be able to drop by. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. PS: love the xkcd comic! Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely as the account has been advised of the other routes (although mybe not specifically, and you may like to add an email link to arbcom) a talk page block is also in order? AGF does not say "act all nice to the bitter end". It's likely a 4chan troll anyway, and should be treated as such but if not well..... Either way further talk comments are likely to be useless. Just my 2p. Pedro : Chat 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any hope of getting all this courtesy blanked? DrKiernan ( talk) 07:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
With apologies to Risker, I am going to continue the abuse of her talk page because 1) everyone involved seems to be following here, 2) I prefer to keep discussions together, 3) in this case, I prefer to not extend this delicate discussion to more pages than necessary, 4) I don't want to join in already politically-charged discussions at Signpost talk pages, and 5) I get on well with Ncm and see no reason to join in there.
There are three different issues here, and I don't want to leave any implication that my concerns are all aimed at Ncm's arb report. One issue involved grossly ill-prepared articles being put forward in a Dispatch, without the benefit of prior review (the Tools Dispatch, which later required significant editing by other editors and yourself). A second issue involves editorial oversight at The Signpost being exercised by editors other yourself (HaeB-- the 3000th FA), and your summary of that incident on my talk page seems to have overlooked previous discussion at Signpost talk pages; [7] [8] an editorial decision to eliminate that Dispatch was made by an editor other than yourself, even though it was clearly in progress. The third and separate issue is the arb report.
My concerns with that report can be seen in the version I suggested (although there was an interim complication in the misquote of Coren to Xeno, and if my inappropriate editing there accomplished anything, at least that misquote was corrected). Some of the language appears to be unnecessary editorializing which leads the reader: the whole issue of the timing suggests that there was more than usual interest and commentary on this particular desysopping. Is it not true that any such arb action usually generates significant and immediate commentary, and arbs are presumed to follow these cases closely and act quickly? Is all of that language necessary, or is editorial opinion creeping in? Can't a more straightforward account of the times involved, without adding qualifying editorial language, accomplish the same goal which Ncm rightly expresses above? My second concern is that, in spite of multiple arb requests clearly discussing the sensitivity here, was it necessary to highlight this desysopping first in The Signpost summary? This is an admin who conributed greatly to the Project and remains a signficant contributor to featued content, who hasn't used the tools-- in fact, has barely edited-- for years. We had CU/OS appointments, a significant case (Climate change) underway, and yet a relatively insignificant interim desysop is highlighted in the Signpost headline, even when mutliple arbs and clerks have expressed clear concerns that this matter is not conducive to on-Wiki discussion.
In summary, HaeB, I'm suggesting that you get the "big bucks" that we all get because you are the editor here, and you must retain and exercise editorial oversight and control to minimize what is increasingly looking like politicization of The Signpost, with editorial discretion being extended to editors other than yourself. You are the editor, and the buck ultimately stops with you; there will be times when that means delaying an article to make sure you get it right, or even disagreeing with a highly respected editor, and I hope that the pressure to maintain deadlines is not leading to these problems. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your tireless work on Pending Changes and your excellent panel presentation at the Wiki-Conference NYC 2010 on Pending Changes, and all the work that went into that, I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence with much appreciation. This makes a difference to Wikipedia. — Becksguy ( talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
You did so much more work on this project, but you were kind and gracious enough to let me share a few moments on the panel. And your company (and let's not forget the sangria and salsa/chips) was a welcome change from banging away at the computer for the most of the rest of the year. Thank you for the opportunity, and thank you for your note on the WikiConference. — Becksguy ( talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The link from this " editor's" page seems to suggest that they are me! They are not; in fact they seem to be a banned editor. Please vaporise/delete that page and link and ensure that they stay banned. Thank you. Giacomo 20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker, I have a lot of respect for all the hard work you've done as an arbitrator (I don't say that glibly—it's really very true), but I was a bit taken aback by this comment (it was not directed at any one person, and you may or may not have had me in mind) even though I understand your underlying point. I'm not very active at the moment and was not really attuned to what might or might not be going on with ChildofMidnight, with whom I am familiar as one of many admins who spent too much time trying to deal with some of the issues with his editing. When someone tapped me on the shoulder about it I looked into it further, and when I saw that you and other Arbs were skeptical of a connection (which to me seemed pretty obvious) I provided some more info, which I suppose constitutes "building a case" (and just FYI, my comments were completely my own and not coordinated with anyone in any way whatsoever).
You have not said otherwise, but I just want to make sure you know that I did not do this because it was fun or because I like going after people. As you are no doubt well aware a huge amount of community time was wasted dealing with C of M, and if that user is back editing under another account and being disruptive in the same way that seemed worth knowing so I looked to see if it was true. I would have assumed the ArbCom would also be concerned and would appreciate some help on a matter like this from admins familiar with the background, but your statement seems to suggest otherwise.
As an admin with experience dealing with a problem user sanctioned by ArbCom who is asked to come and look at a situation that seems related, I'm wondering what you think I should have done other than what I did—i.e looked into it and reported back as to what I found, which did indeed seem troubling. Again you may have had others in mind than me when you wrote your comment, and I'm a staunch advocate of reducing/limiting drama and personal confrontations, but the suggestion that examining what seems to be a problematic socking issue is an example of "far too much attention paid to 'social' issues" rubbed me the wrong way, and perhaps did others as well, though maybe it was just the wording and the underlying sentiment is different. Like you I'm obviously just a volunteer here and was merely trying to help when someone asked me to—personal issues had nothing to do with it and I would have been perfectly content to do and say nothing. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I should perhaps clarify my use of the word "social" in this context. I perceive non-technical activities that don't directly affect article space to be part of the social structure of the project, in the same sense that blocking and banning are social constructs; most behavioural policies are aimed at maintaining the social environment so that it does not detract from the primary objectives of the project. I hope that makes things a bit more clear. Again, sorry that I worded things in such a way that you thought I might be disappointed in you; that is not the case at all. Risker ( talk) 00:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've been watching Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision and I note your concern that the discretionary sanctions might change, and you think it's better to have the sanctions pinned down on the arbitration page.
At one time we had notices posted on the talk page of articles covered by sanctions, and so if things changed presumably clerks would have to buzz around editing the notice on each page. While that's inefficient compared to having a transcluded template with the wording on it, if the remedy isn't changed much it's an acceptable trade-off. This, from mid-2006 when I was a clerk on a case called Shiloh, is the kind of thing we'd do. The notice is still there.
As it happens, the community process for article probations, which was followed in this case prior to arbitration, uses a transcluded probation notice that is used in all community probations (see Template:Community article probation. There has been no substantial change in the wording of the notice since 2008. The editors are kept informed by warning messages--as in these proposed discretionary sanctions, nobody can be sanctioned without being informed that he's doing something sanctionable and advised what to do to conform to policies. -- TS 03:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey. We had a discussion in NYC where I mentioned the dismal state of the Homosexual transsexual article. I didn't start this discussion, but someone initiated one to merge that article with two others. I wanted to get your insight on what's going on. If you're fortified with some wine or caffeine, you can read it here. I have to be honest though, that I feel quite out to sea with the concepts presented. I don't think this is an issue of them being so technical as sources are not being optimally used. There are personality issues related to this suite of articles as you can see on the talk page. The whole thing is hairy, which I why I thought of you, natch. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
See User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 and we're off. Thanks for your encouragement, it's been great. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That's all. Courcelles 16:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I get it. There is no way in which to provide you with constructive criticism in which you will find the critic's perspective to be worthy of your attention; instead you will impugn their motives. I have not shouted at you, I've not lost my temper, and I'm most certainly not angry; disappointed that you seem to be incapable of taking on board any correction of your behaviour, perhaps. I find it very disturbing that you would excuse your inserting of incorrect information into a page by questioning the competence of other editors, and implying that experienced editors who have been on this project for five years longer than you would not be capable of knowing more about the project than you do.
It's becoming clear that your behaviour has been consistently problematic and you now seem unable to accept criticism without attacking those who are trying to mitigate your poor behaviour. You are repeating the behaviour that resulted in your block on Swedish Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that you do not seem to have taken any lessons from that experience, or from the extensive support and advice you've received from a large number of experienced, skilled Wikipedians on this project. Risker ( talk) 15:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today? | ||
---|---|---|
☠ Because we ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠ | ||
![]() |
With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' { {User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699! Cap'nChzz ► 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |
*
How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like * Official website * Auto-translate to pirate speak |
![]() | |
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again. |
[9] Thanks. Minor 4th 20:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know. My apologies, I wasn't aware it wasn't allowed. It seemed marginally relevant given that Wikinews is a sister project, but yeah, I guess that would make sense. Regards, Tempodivalse [talk] 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ask one of the admins directly involved with the Rhode Island Red block, you might like to have a look at the exchanges here when considering his unblock request. In his first entry in that section on 4 July 2007 he complains that "this probing into my personal information is strikingly offensive and is starting to feel like cyberstalking." What he regarded as "probing into his identity" he later referred to as being "invasive". This background needs to be taken into account when considering his much more serious contraventions of policy with respect to the publication of information about another user. He cannot claim to be ignorant of policy in this area; he knew that what he was doing was wrong because he objected to someone trying to establish the sort of information about him that he researched and later revealed about another user. In view of what he did, a 6-month block was considered at the time to be very lenient. -- TraceyR ( talk) 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
^ Might interest you, if you haven't seen it already. I guess it's in the navbox, but I hadn't noticed it until yesterday. Hopefully the analysis will be informative. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comments on the Pending Changes discussion page. As you have probably noticed, I am a huge fan of Wiki and want to continue contributing. I didn't want to apply for any upgrade to my status through the back door, as t'were, but if there is a way I can be 'upgraded' I would like info on that. doktorb words deeds 16:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Reminder to self: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage and also mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap
Talk page watchers are, of course, welcome to comment. Risker ( talk) 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Even with all of this disarray, I still hoped that we could get a reasonable trial of the tool. It was agreed that we'd start off with 2000 articles in the trial, starting with just a few and ramping up so that we'd hit the 2K articles around 2 weeks into the trial, with the expectation that if things went well, we'd add more incrementally, perhaps up to 10K; however, only a handful of administrators participated in adding articles to the trial, and I don't think we ever got above 1500. Further, at that point, we'd pretty well added all of the articles that were eligible under the criteria for the trial, except for ones in categories where one or more administrator had objected to inclusion; as best I can tell, their objections were based on the articles being honey pots for socks. I was one of the most active admins in adding articles to the trial, and I confess I sneaked in a pile of BLPs that technically didn't meet the criteria (they had been semi-protected in the previous 6 months and had fewer than 10 watchers). Indeed, one of the most telling factors on this trial was the fact that very, very few administrators appeared to be interested in using the tool as currently configured. I also note that the time that it has taken edits to be reviewed has continued to lengthen as time has gone on.
A few weeks ago, I led a panel on the topic of Pending changes at the New York City Wiki-conference. Thanks to DGG, Becksguy and Jamesofur, who were also on the panel. That same day, keynote speaker Clay Shirky talked about the fact that once a culture is "broken", it is not able to rebound back to its prior state. In my own closing statement, I reflected on that comment, and wondered if pending changes might be the "culture-breaker" for Wikipedia and, if it was, whether or not that would be a good or bad thing. Certainly the manner in which this entire trial has proceeded has shown that there are some pretty huge differences in what people perceive as the way we do things around here. I don't think the pending changes software or its use will be the culture breaker, but the manner in which it is being integrated and promoted into the project might very well be. I am very considerably concerned that this pressure to keep a bit of trial software running has resulted in a level of divisiveness between good-faith Wikipedians from which the community may not recover. Risker ( talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw from the comment above that I still haven't explained myself properly to you. Now that I'm not tussling with you over an article's protection state, I thought it would be a good time to take a deep breath and try to calmly explain why semi-protection works well against sockpuppeteers, even when autoconfirmation is so easy to get.
I typically detect a sockpuppeteer by the pattern of edits across multiple articles. My watchlist tends to hover around 11,000 articles (right now it's 11,182). When a sockpuppeteer goes active, what I notice is that the same account has edited a telling group. What that telling group is varies from sockpuppeteer to sockpuppeteer, but they all have one. CharlieJS13, for example, edits the credits to a narrow range of popular music articles and articles about F1 racing. That's it. When he's using an account, he stands out like a sore thumb. Those two groups of articles are extremely active, though: an anonymous edit to either one is difficult to notice. That's compounded by the fact that he edits from a DSL line in London. I could never reasonably attribute an individual anonymous edit from a London DSL line to an article about Lady Gaga to him without psychic powers. Show me an account that did a bunch of stupid edits to get autoconfirmed and then proceeded to edit Lady Gaga songwriting credits and F1 standings, and I know that it's him. Further, the contribution list for the account gives me a handy grouping of all of his edits so that after blocking him, I can undo each and every edit he made in a matter of minutes.
That's the basis of my strategy with recurring puppeteers. By keeping articles they are highly interested in semi-protected, the puppeteer is forced to confirm an account. Once he confirms an account, his editing pattern becomes detectable, and he can be dealt with. These tend to be compulsive people: whatever edit they are trying to make is very important to them, and they will return to it time after time in order to make it. I semi-protect the articles they edit for one to three months (depending on how persistent the sockpuppeteer is), they create an account, autoconfirm it, edit, I block and revert all of the edits the account made. Most eventually give up. Even Brexx seems to have nearly stopped (or sufficiently matured that I can no longer detect his edits, which is effectively the same thing). With Brexx, it got pretty silly, since he was so persistent over a wide range of articles. For most socks, it only requires semi-protection of a couple dozen articles.
Basically, that's why the argument "semi-protection is worthless against socks, all they have to do is auto-confirm" isn't a very strong argument. It's true enough if you only look at whether the puppeteer could initially make the edit, but that isn't the right place to measure. If I'm able to undo all of the sock's edits shortly after they have been made, that's nearly as good as if they had never been made at all. Semi-protection allows me to do that. There are certainly ways to get past me, but discussing them in detail has problems with WP:BEANS. Fortunately, the bulk of puppeteers aren't bright enough to figure them out on their own.— Kww( talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact, you were not by any stretch of the imagination the only administrator who objected to articles being included in the pending changes trial for this reason; there were several others, but you were just the only one who posted on my page about it. I recognise that there are differing philosophies on how to best address socks, and it seemed to me that it was a potential hornet's nest that did not need to be stirred up for what was supposed to be a two-month trial, particularly one with a tool that several of us realised almost immediately needed some serious modification in order to possibly be useful for articles where these serial accounts tend to show up. I think that a "reviewer information" infobox on the reviewer page, where admins could write a couple of sentences explaining the reason for PC and telling reviewers what to watch for, would have the potential of expanding the ability to identify these editors, and get more eyes watching for the problems; however, it doesn't look like that is even getting serious consideration for the next "trial" version of the software as far as I can see, according to mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap. Ah well.
I'm pretty tied up with real world and Arbcom obligations in the next few weeks, but I think it might be a good exercise at some point to have a broader discussion, hopefully involving several others who have dealt with socks and serial editors, to see if it would be possible to flesh out a wider range of methods to address both the negative social aspects of these accounts and the utilitarian aspects of content over contributor. I have a feeling we would all learn something from such a discussion, if we all proceed with lots of respect for each other's points of view, and a willingness to recognise that different approaches fit different situations. (The process you've described above, for example, sounds absolutely perfect for catching "sneaky" vandalism, and as I recall, at least one of the sockers you follow does just that.) Thanks again for commenting here. I apologise for having given the impression that you and other administrators who have been using semi-protection of articles to address socking are doing something wrong. While it had a noticeable effect on the number of articles available to be put into the pending changes trial, it is in keeping with current protection processes, and I can definitely see its appropriateness in certain situations. Risker ( talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I just came across a user claiming to be a 13-year-old and my steel-trap memory hazily recalled you telling me someone regularly goes through to remove that sort of mention on the user's page. Is the talk page deleted? Or is just the mention of age deleted? Should I just email you his name and stop trying to be useful in any admin capacity? -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker. Count Iblis has been blocked for advocating for Brews even though the advocacy sanctions expired in July. I would appreciate your attention in this matter. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 04:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Risker, I would pose you a question. While I understand my own role in being banned and how I'm not always civil etc. I'd ask what you mean about Iblis being disruptive leading to another ban possibly. Can you point out what is problematic about his edits? This is of concern because you speak as if it's crystal clear and I don't get that at all. Not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand your viewpoint. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 05:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue of the RFAR title was open. SlimVirgin is not a clerk, AIUI, and therefore her change of the title was something notably out of order. I simply made a note of her action. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 05:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Nominate
Relations between Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis) as a POV fork from
Mahmoud Abbas. Yes, the author is notable, but his thesis is not, and is appropriately covered already in the main article about the author.
Risker (
talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
HI Risker. I see that after a two-month lull, the trivia that was a source of much disruptive editing by a multi IP user has reared its ugly head again. Perhaps we should consider semi-protecting this page for a while. -- Kudpung ( talk) 23:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) Somebody you blocked in July popped up via sock to object at ANI, in section titled Hrotovice was blocked by Arbitrator Risker without a valid explanation. I've blocked the sock and left a note on how to appeal at the original user talk, but I figured you might like to know. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I just blocked them for a few hours for a harrassment campaign; I noted after doing so that you'd CU blocked them in July for disruption and vandalism. I don't know what case that's about, obviously, but if the wider case is back you may want to review it... Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker, you've got full rights on http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs now. I also responded to your comment on mediawiki.org. -- RobLa-WMF ( talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The only way that we can actually see whether or not this software is suitable for use on this project is to properly put it through its paces, figure out both the technical problems (so the developers can try to solve them) and the community issues (so we can see if there is some kind of consensus), and resolve these issues one by one...or be certain that they're unresolvable. I don't know whether or not pending changes are a workable or useful idea for this project, but I am certain that until we work through this issue, together, as a community, it's going to be like a burr under our collective saddle. Risker ( talk) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Risker, it is nice to meet you personally on your talk page. Thank you for investing your time into this. I had my doubts at first, though agree sources are overwhelming. Tthe attention and review only improved the article, so the procedure was positive if you ask me. Thank you for your kind words, hope the article will remain on your watch list. More eyeballs definitely better. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I read in a mainstream (not right of centre) newspaper today that there are paid bloggers that are trained and paid to steer discussion to one political side. The AC and all editors and administrators should be mindful of this. In fact, everyone should be mindful of this. So perceived concensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia should make a new effort to strive for the neutral perspective and even get it into the Wikipedia lexicon and culture. Consensus should remain a goal but neutral perspective should be a higher goal. Neutral perspective cannot be manipulated by paid bloggers but consensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia must not be manipulated!
Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
I wasn't sure which barnstar to choose, but this said "may be awarded to those editors who have shown to be a person of integrity and honor. Or, more simply, a stand-up guy/gal" - seems to fit the bill. You have helped me enormously over a long period of time, with my sporadic requests, and even my need to vent. You're an asset to Wiki?edia, and I suspect some of your behind the scenes actions, which are critical to the project, go unrecognized. Well - I wanted to show that some people notice. I am very grateful for your thoughtful advice, based on enormous experience. Common sense is all too rare, but you have it in abundance. Chzz ► 02:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC) |
Regarding this comment [14]. I'm perfectly willing to submit to a (in- or)voluntary ban from biographical articles. Will you draft the proposal? My suggestion is for a "editing biographies broadly construed, as well as commenting on talk-pages of biographies broadly construed as well as sanction boards or other boards where biographical articles are discussed." - i'll leave the time-period up to you. BLP is (imho) a poor choice of words since that policy encompasses all articles, and isn't limited to biographies. If you want to formalize my (purely voluntary) 1RR in the topic-space as well, then i'm just as game.
Please keep in mind that i have actually never been sanctioned or blocked for anything (topic-space or outside) at all during my period on Wikipedia, and have tried as hard as i could to take criticism to heart, so i do find this a bit unfair - but i am willing to do just about anything to ensure some peace in the area... -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I got an email today saying
Someone from the IP address 90.206.107.237 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.
The new password for the user account "Sophie" is "*******". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.
If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.
think someone might be trying to hack into my account. the ip doesnt have any pages here or any contribs and the host is
5ace6bed.bb.sky.com [1]
thx :) Sophie ( Talk) 13:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I replied towards your email, you have alot of oversighting to do. Secret account 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I send you some links though email, right now, you have a skype account so we could chat, I have an hour of free time (I lost my gmail password as that got hacked as well). Secret account 03:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Sockpuppetry_in_the_Climate_Change_topic_area I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.
Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?
So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.
All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again. Chzz ► 08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You have voted on a finding against me. Please read and respond to this section and explain to me why my warnings directed at these admins were out-of-line. Thank you. ATren ( talk) 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have expanded my evidence in that section. I believe my complaints against at least 3 admins (representing 5 diffs in my finding -- nearly half) had merit. And for the most part, I presented those concerns in a civil, impersonal tone. Given the evidence I've presented there, which establish the context of my complaints, I would like to know why my complaints were unwarranted. Please read and respond there. Thanks. ATren ( talk) 04:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely that it is best to get a user to remove a personal attack, rather than to revert them and get into a mess. Jehochman Talk 23:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm still concerned that it's been credibly alleged that an editor and an arbcom clerk outed two editors by releasing privileged information (that non-CUs obtained just how?), and that evidence has been offered that supports the allegation is in arbcom's hands? Further, that the outing was specifically for the purpose of facilitating real world harassment of these editors. I find this of great concern. Jack Merridew 02:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Risker, please respond to your email. ATren ( talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
In your vote at 25.1, please change "Noroton" to "JohnWBarber". I'd appreciate it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 23:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker -- I recall you once wrote a great essay partly relating to issues or precautions that should perhaps be considered by editors. For my part, I've often thought more generally about simple points that could help new users, as they get started, to avoid mistakes that they might later regret. I just put something together here, so I wonder if you (or anyone else who is interested) would like to check it out. Regards, Mackan79 ( talk) 00:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be an idea to add something about conflicts of interest or agenda-driven editing; oddly enough, I was thinking about writing something along this line earlier today. I'll admit I probably see more of the "dark side" than many others, but it distresses me a great deal to realise how many editors aren't just writing about things they're knowledgeable about or have an interest in (heck, that's most of us!)...but coming here and often using this project to promote positions that bring them personal benefit. It's a tough one to strike the right balance, particularly as my impression is that many who do this think they're actually doing things the "Wikipedia way", and that either (a) they don't have a COI or (b) if they do, nobody will ever know about it. Ah, but I'm waxing philosophical, and heaven knows if there's any point. I think what's on the BBC live feed right now is probably far, far more important. Risker ( talk) 01:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
We would love it if you were interested in joining us. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
[16] Philip Trueman ( talk) 05:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For working way too hard at every hour of the night and never giving up. Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
I wish I could come up with something more original... but I can't. Still, you deserve it. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 31, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 ( talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch Talk C. 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Grace Sherwood was a healer, midwife, and farmer from Princess Anne County and Pungo, Virginia. Sherwood's neighbors claimed that she ruined crops, killed livestock, and conjured storms. She was tried for witchcraft several times, the first in 1697 when she was accused of casting a spell on a bull, resulting in its death. The following year she was charged again, for bewitching the hogs and cotton crop belonging to one of her neighbors. Her final trial took place in 1706, when she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill, causing Hill to miscarry. The court ordered that Sherwood's guilt or innocence should be determined by ducking her in water. If the water rejected her and she floated, then she was guilty; if the water accepted her and she drowned, then she was innocent. Sherwood floated to the surface, and subsequently spent up to seven years and nine months in the jail next to Lynnhaven Parish Church. She was free by 1714 and succeeded in recovering her property from Princess Anne County, after which she lived quietly until her death in 1740 at the age of 80. ( more...)
Hello Risker, I was wondering if you could look at my request on http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs/Talk:Main_Page please. Thanks, -- Alpha Quadrant talk 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I was informed that you ran a CU previously on the accounts reported in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha. Following my blocks based on the CU results there, Cmagha emailed me claiming that they have validated their (separate) identities to you. Could you confirm that? (Feel free to unblock without checking with me further if they are different people.) T. Canens ( talk) 21:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Risker, thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User talk:Risker. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your
user-space drafts or your
talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought I did erase it. Thanks for the reminder. sorry. Joseph507357 ( talk) 02:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
What was the reason for blocking 205.175.113.16 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)? The only edit that I can see was rather helpful. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This drama is unfortunate with Rlevse leaving and such, I had to place the article in FAR, in order to stop some of the drama, maybe you could rewrite the copyrighted sections or something. I would do it myself but it's not my specialty, and I don't know how to properly rewrite it without using that material. Secret account 04:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hiya risker :)
i was on commons when i found images on commons what might not be allowed on the internet as i think i would get in trouble if i saved them on my computer
can you make sure that they are deleted please
thanks :)
Sophie ( Talk) 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Re [17], could I ask you to join the discussion at WT:Plagiarism? If we have a guideline that criminalises the behaviour of a large percentage of our contributors, then either the guideline, or the behaviour, or both, have to change. Any of these require broad input. -- JN 466 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I presume the worst happened, sorry for your lost. Secret account 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The red poppy is the symbol of respect for veterans here in Canada - every Canadian presenter will wear one on his or her lapel for the first 11 days of November, and millions of Canadians from all walks of life sport them as well. (I have two, one on my outdoor jacket and the other on my suit jacket.) The poem " In Flanders Fields" is taught to just about every Canadian school child, and some of the most moving Remembrance Day ceremonies I have attended have involved the group recitation of this very moving poem at war cenotaphs, civic ceremonies, and one time even a hockey game. (I will leave it to you to imagine the emotional impact of hearing 25,000 people recite this poem in unison. My heart stirs just with the memory.)
Thanks very much for your concern, Secret. I'm glad to say that there's no personal tragedy keeping me away from the project. Risker ( talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, so anything around here would be a "return to unusual programming". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hullo Risker. Just wondering if you could have a quick look at the discussion here. I think I recall you saying at one point that arbitrators were cleared for Checkuser and Oversight by default. I wonder if I remember accurately and if so, how that squares with the distinction Coren is proffering. Cheers, Skomorokh 13:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
I think you know why I'm giving this to you without me having to say it. Thank you for convincing me that driving myself insane is not a prudent course of action. Sven Manguard Talk 04:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you very much, Sven. Glad I was able to help. :-) Risker ( talk) 05:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker, I noticed a typo: "if new arbitrators wishes to participate". Thanks for this page. We'll highlight it in the soon-to-be-published Signpost report. Tony (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth again. It is exceptionally rude. I did not say people should pay a few hundred quid to a lawyer. I said, if people don't want to identify to WMF, the should be able to go to a lawyer instead, if they wish. Jehochman Talk 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Last year, you warned this user against adding infoboxes to articles, or tagging them as needing them, specifically featured articles. The user has recently come back from a relatively long absence and is again tagging and boxing. Not sure if it needs to be brought to the admin incident noticeboard, but as you warned him before you might think about doing so again before it needs to go any further. (I am not an admin and can't warn anyone.) -- Hegvald ( talk) 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Neutralhomer wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving and hopes your day is full of good times, good food, good family, good football, a good parade and a good nap...then shopping tomorrow. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Thanksgiving by adding {{subst:HappyThanksgiving}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Thanks very much! Our Canadian Thanksgiving is on the second Monday of October so I was way ahead of you in the turkey dinner, but it's nice to have such kind thoughts!
Risker (
talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this is for oversight. -- Neo139 ( talk) 04:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! that was fast ^^ I will do that in the future. -- Neo139 ( talk) 14:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 12:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering the reason for this. There is currently a discussion about it in #wikipedia-en-help connect and Sophie doesn't know why she has been blocked. Thank you, Alpha Quadrant talk 02:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi I would like to know what is the reason for blocking that user (as I am her friend), blocking policy says there must be a clear reason for block, private information does not sound much like a clear reason. Wikipedia has certain policies on blocks and if administrators and are not following them, regular users like me might be little bit confused by such unexplained actions, I believe administrators should follow wikipedia rules just like regular users, thank you for explaining this to me (and others). Petrb ( talk) 15:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This is response to what you said, it is log from channel where logging is allowed and Sophie gave me permission to post it
<log redacted>
SHE is you, as she has no way how to talk to you, please respond to her email. Petrb ( talk) 17:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to the concern raised in your comment at the YM arbitration request, but -- given that I'm already flaunting the 500 word guideline there -- I thought I'd save that statement any additional pixels and just speak with you directly. Centrally, I disagree that the additional concerns were introduced "after the subject of the RFC started an apparent wikibreak". The first editor to introduce significant, organized allegation of long-term issues was Physchim62 ( talk · contribs) at 12:25 23 November 2010. [18] By coincidence, that was about the time I wandered into the RFC to begin with (indeed, Physchim62's view was a significant factor in my decision to attempt analysis and get involved at all). I posted the first part of my view at 15:26 23 November 2010. [19] Neither of these RFC entries came after the end of YM's editing. Although the main account had not made any edits since much earlier in the day [20], YM was still active on his secondary account, YellowAssessmentMonkey ( talk · contribs), including a series of edits to the RFC Talk page beginning at 19:54, [21] hours after the RFC began to consider a wider scope.
Of course, the RFC aside, these are by and large not new allegations at all. Concerns about policy issues have been raised on AN/I, at SPI (then Checkuser), at DRV, on his talk page, and at other venues throughout the time these actions have been ongoing. To most, there was never any response; when he did address the issues, it did not appear to be followed by significant changes in actions. I provided only limited diffs at RFAR and intend to show a more continuous history at Evidence if accepted. If you would prefer to see more of that history now, I would certainly be willing to do so.
I do, however, agree that the Committee has no need to open this case in an expedited fashion, although should no statement be forthcoming in some reasonable period of time (at your discretion), I would still urge examination of the issues (while previously unfamiliar with it, a quick look doesn't suggest that the deferred adjudication in the A Nobody case went very well). Serpent's Choice ( talk) 15:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping cool and remaining civil at User talk:Sophie and User_talk:Risker#Sophie_block_reason. I understand that you are under fire from quite a few editors for your rather vague actions on behalf of ArbCom (ostensibly). Hopefully we can resolve this peacefully and without misunderstanding. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Shirik has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
In times like these, it's good to let you know we're all thankful for the work you do that nobody else wants to do. Thanks for your hard work! -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please recuse from the calculation and presentation of election results. The coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters can handle it. Jehochman Talk 19:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
No comment, no opinion, just letting you know. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. | ” |
— (Alma 7:10) |
The Thing
T/
C is wishing you a Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks very much for the Christmas wishes, I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas and healthy and joyous 2011. Risker ( talk) 01:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Neutralhomer wishes you a Merry Christmas and hopes your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Thanks so much for sharing the Christmas joy! I hope you and yours have enjoyed an excellent day, and have a happy and healthy 2011. Risker ( talk) 01:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
And may you enjoy during the new year the same degree of fairness, kindness, objectivity, lack of bias, and intelligent concern that you lavished on me this year. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So I removed all my edits, but four more sysops have edited subsequently. I suggest you let them know what's going on with the talkpage/full protection etc. Sometimes it's not that obvious.... The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I post this at your page only for convenience, Risker, but it is addressed to the ArbCom in general. I had GWH at my page earlier telling me what he thinks of the recent thread and threatening me. Let me make very clear that if I do lose perspective and cross any unacceptable line in postings, I will obey the decisions of clerks on the matter (though of course I may protest or appeal). However I don't think I or anyone else in my position should have to fear threats from randomers; after all, who is to say what stake anyone who chooses to intervene has?! I tried very hard to keep my postings respectful, but yes I have felt the need to criticze ArbCom; but how else can interested users keep you guys on track? I hope I haven't done anything the Committee thinks is bad. Please remember the EEML has been by far the largest discovered conspiracy to subvert Wikipedia policies, and wasn't that long ago. If a few people have issues with lax treatment of those responsible for it, they are entitled to be heard. It doesn't deprive the Committe of the power to disregard such sentiment. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hold on, Deacon - are you confirming that you received the link to that specific photo via email from someone who identified the two individuals portrayed, without knowing context or veracity of the information you received, and you posted it onwiki? I had been of the impression that you'd somehow found it in the appropriate Wikimedia Commons category. This was remarkably poor judgment on your part, and an action that you'd likely have found unacceptable under other circumstances. In response to your post on my talk page, I think your desire to achieve a certain outcome is leading you to behave in ways that you yourself would find inappropriate in parallel circumstances. Indeed, several of your peers have already pointed this out to you, and I encourage you to take on board what they are saying. Risker
Do you think it would be best for that thread to be closed now? AGK [ • 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The thread-jacking by GWH and the EEMLers has left my final question unanswered. Why is unreliability an issue with quotes if, as you said, ArbCom still has access to the EEML archive? If someone quotes an email from in EEML list archive, surely ArbCom would verify it anyway, right? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. This was a rangehopping vandal and I blocked for 12h originally, as you can see from the logs. When they started up again (and gave an assurance they wouldn't stop) I blocked for longer, on the basis I could undo them when the issue was sorted out. The issue was later sorted out, but I mistakenly thought I'd blocked them all for a week, not a month. I've gone back and unblocked them all now. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ you've got mail}} Jujutacular talk 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't often get the opportunity to say this ;) but thanks for your really insightful commentary on Foundation-l today. You're "officially" invited to join at the new gendergap list, which is open and hopefully we will be a positive space to talk about welcoming women editors. It would be awesome if you could extend an invitation to people interested who might not normally be on Internal-l or Foundation-l. Cheers, Steven Walling at work 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Risker, nice meeting you here. I have been wondering if adding names who actually attended that meeting would be an invasion of privacy. Obviously there are a few people who signed up but did not attend. What's your idea ? Thanks. I just went ahead adding a few names. -- Ktsquare (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Risker, I didn't realise the situation re the article. Am comfortable with the unsalting and undeletion of the article. Have said as much at AN. Mjroots ( talk) 16:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
On a more humorous note, I'm starting to wonder if I've slipped through the looking glass - for all my reputation as a rabid deletionist, this is the third article in a row I've publicly come forward to say should be kept. Risker ( talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm moving this here to let the ANI discussion conitnue - hope you're ok with that.
The problem with some of the articles that this cadre of editors is connected with is some of them lack secondary sources completely - as in the case of Russ Nelson. The only secondary source has the guy as a racist - which is exactly why I didn't whittle down the article to that.
Sure, the most reliable source for the list of directors at Toyota are primary sources from Toyota, but if that's all you have about someone then you really don't have much on the subject - unless you have a gang of folks trying to fabricate an article or groups of articles.
Regarding self-sources, if someone claims on their blog something on the order of "I've been programming in Java since 1985" on their web site, then it's clear they are just positioning as that is impossible. At the end of the day, blog posts about the authors are really lousy sources. I probably should have used much less sarcasm on ANI in making that point.
The bigger point here is there are a group of tech and open-source cogniscenti who are writing articles about each other with lousy sources. I believe this might be done to puff up each other's web presence but I have no evidence - just a group of lousy articles and indignant folks who aren't used to being challenged.
Sure, I didn't use my charm through all aspects of the discussion, but if you look at the evolution on the talk pages, the charm was dialed down after I tried to politely explain the issues. None of these guys are newcomers except for perhaps the most problematic of this group, Tech.contrarian ( talk · contribs).
And you're right - I have come across tons of people trying to do all those things in my essay and I believe represents a fundamental flaw in biographies. Cheers. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Toddst1,take a look at the histories of these articles. Most of them are 4 or 5 years old and were *not* started by the subjects themselves, and what we had there was hardly quality in most cases. It is the same with many of our biographies; they're so poor, and we as a community are so terribly unresponsive to perfectly reasonable corrections, improvements and concerns that many of the subjects of our articles have started to "fix" them themselves. I don't think we have a leg to stand on in alleging conflict of interest and implying intentional evil intent on "civilians" who just don't want their top google hit to be trash, full of tags that seem to proclaim to the world that the biography is nothing but a work of fiction and self-aggrandisement. That, in itself, becomes a form of BLP violation. I have no knowledge about the notability of anyone involved in software (it took me almost two minutes to remember that the Apple guy is Steve Jobs and the Microsoft guy is Bill Gates), and certain fields do not document their "stars" the way that popular media or sports or the nobility do. We have to find a way to locate information about these people, using nontraditional sources if necessary, or stick only to the most notable people. I understand your frustration, I really do; I'd venture to say, however, that perhaps some changes in tactics might be called for here. Some alternatives:
Just a few suggestions here. My gut instinct is that some of these people are actually quite notable, but for those without extensive knowledge of the field, we can't pick out the really important people. In some cases, the key facts about an individual might be able to be worked into another article (e.g., discussion of the developer of software in the article about said software), but that always runs the risk of getting BLP information messed up in a difficult-to-detect way because the article isn't marked as a BLP. Risker ( talk) 01:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Your reply to my arbitration request was that "community has been provided with some lower-level opportunities for resolution here, which I'd encourage be tried first". Could you please tell me those other opportunities as the ArbCom was suggested to me by the admin User:Amatulic. Thanks you, for any reply!-- Lsorin ( talk) 20:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Risker, hope you're well. I just wanted to drop by and see if can talk about Pending Changes with me?
I'm here because Rob (Lanphier) and the other tech folks working on this felt they needed someone who could devote some time to talking it through with the community, or as they put it, "we've enlisted Steven Walling from the Community Department to work on our behalf to make sure there is better alignment between the Foundation and volunteer wikimedians".
The Foundation tech staff are feeling in limbo. Right now the status is that they're waiting some clear direction from the community about where to take the feature. (See the February engineering update.)
The common ground here is that they agree we cannot continue a perpetual trial. It totally erodes community trust in the developers at the Foundation, and it's a waste of their time and donor funds to keep working on a feature the community doesn't really want to use.
I thought I'd ping you specifically because:
You said, "The community should select a specific group of editors to assess the consensus; it should not be anyone associated with the WMF or the Board of Directors [sic], who have a vested interest."
Rob and I agree that this should definitely happen if we're going to have another RfC or poll.
If the WMF is going to end the trial cycle firmly and either keep and improve Pending Changes, or turn off it for the foreseeable future, then we need a rigorous and (most of all) trustworthy conversation. Not a poll Jimmy designs alone, or one that is unclear and hard for staff to take action based on.
So what I'm asking is: can you help form this group of editors to determine the final consensus? Having Jimmy or the Foundation just hand pick a group is a bad idea, but someone should make a shortlist of thoughtful and diligent people to ask. If you have changed your mind and think a kind of consensus jury is a terrible idea, I'd of course like to hear that too. In the meantime, I'm going to point a few people at this explanation and idea to see if they'd like to help form such a group too.
Thanks, and happy Friday! Obviously we can talk about this more over the weekend. Steven Walling at work 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Just as a reminder, the last major bug fixes on the feature were made in November. Since then we've been consumed by the fundraiser, 10th anniversary, the MediaWiki 1.17 release, and other work. That's been the general lay of the land about our work on the code directly.
When you fully protected the Ralph Nader page you inadvertently protected content from being restored that an IP user has been repeatedly removing against consensus on the talk page. The content is from the 'Criticism' section. Mystylplx ( talk) 16:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Risker, I'm writing to everyone who commented (for or against) on the last deletion debate regarding the Keeplocal image template. This has been proposed for deletion again, and your input would be welcome. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Template:KeepLocal. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
For the next few weeks, I'll be stepping away from most of the mainstream Arbitration Committee matters. There are a few small tasks that I will participate in, but otherwise I will be inactive. Even arbitrators get to have the occasional holiday.
This is also an opportune time for me to say thank you to those who make this job worthwhile: my colleagues on the Committee, the clerks who deal with much of the grunt work, the administrators and editors who identify and often address issues that come to Arbcom/Oversight/CheckUser/AUSC attention, the editors who work to present content that we can all take pride in, the developers who make so many useful tools, the WMF staff who do genuinely care about this community and its growth and development, and those from all walks of wiki-life who find a moment for a friendly or supportive word. You're the reason I continue to log in. Risker ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
please comment on talk page. is she married? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Gold Hat has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
The above-named user has expressed issues with editing after having EnWP IPBE removed. Would you mind reviewing the case for IPBE for this user please?
Thanks! Kylu ( talk) 16:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care... Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that you were in the inactive column on the Arbcom page. You're still editing outside of Arbcom, but it still got me a bit worried. I hope you're alright and all. If not, get better. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note that this case has been re-opened. I've added my findings, but would appreciate any review/input you may have. Cheers! TN X Man 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Risker. Hope you're well and enjoyed your recent travels. Just a note, but I've had "email this user" enabled for years, and as far as I can remember have never disabled it. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 22:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Elockid ( Talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm posting a request on Coren's page and CC:ing you, per NuclearWarfare's advice. -- Ludwigs2 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Basket of Puppies 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is just to let you know that I have submitted two sections of evidence after the deadline because this evidence is based on edits that were themselves made after the deadline:
Regards, Sandstein 06:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Risker. Do you want to go ahead and close this report? WP:AN3#User:Phatboi96 reported by User:S43 (Result: ). The apparent closure was by User:Jasper Deng, a non-admin. (I have reverted his close). Per your comment there, I assume you would close this as 'Stale', which seems logical. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The user called Mindbunny has made his IP address known via editing, if not downright owning up to it. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you guys are still having a ball over at AC. :). Hey, how you doing Risker? Hope all is well. — Ched : ? 05:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me know if you got the first email, there should be two, although I'm not sure you got the first email.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Were you looking for this? There's no video and sound quality isn't great, but the Australian humor shines through. Geometry guy 23:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I welcome you to do so. Let the community decide whether my occasional outbursts are worth retiring the most prolific contributor this website has ever had. Go for it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm feeling offended right now that both you and Giano think I'm a troll but I'm strangely calm. The difference is that the tolerance levels and indefinate blocks are for editors who intentionally troll the site and intentionally make life tough and horrible for others. 99% of the time I am a genuinely good person who occaisonally if crossed is prone to losing his temper and saying some things which can be seen as uncivil. But anybody who knows me properly on wikipedia can vouch that I am neither a troll or a belligerent and would rather just get on with building an encyclopedia and stay well aware of trouble. What happened yesterday didn't exactly help my cause but most editors are aware that debates and conflicts can get heated. I'm actually one of the few here who genuinely want to build an encyclopedia to help further the cause of free knowledge and help cover parts of the world rarely covered in the anglosphere in the past!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you're a troll, I think you're burning out, as I have explained to you in private correspondence. Longterm editor burnout can be very harmful to both the editor and the project, particularly when the editor is not self-aware enough to differentiate what could be referred to as a "professional" disagreement amongst peers from a genuine personal affront. You received feedback from a large number of editors who have a long history of developing and maintaining high quality articles (including plenty with GA and FA flags) that there is no mandatory project-wide standard for infoboxes, and that in several areas of the project they have been found to be unhelpful. This was not personal, it was a discussion about quality of the project. On the other hand, your responses to this feedback (much of which was trying to explain to you the reason that infoboxes aren't considered mandatory throughout the project) became increasingly personal and insulting to other editors; at least two formally qualified as personal attacks, and you received warnings and advice to step back because of this. I repeat my recommendation to you: take a break from the project for a bit; when something that happens on Wikipedia causes you to behave in a way that could legitimately have forced your (temporary) removal from the project, it is time to reconsider your activity levels. Plant a garden, read a book, do the chores you've put off, visit an old friend, help out at the Spring Bazaar at the local community centre. Take the time to step away and revitalize yourself so that you are able to keep the project in perspective.
I have watched many valued editors lose perspective about the project and cause harm to their own reputations as well as to the project. Sometimes some firm but kind words from a respected colleague is sufficient for an editor on the verge of burnout to recognize that it's time for a break or to focus on a completely different area. Unfortunately, many people find it really hard to do this, and it falls to people without an established positive relationship to point out the issues. I suppose I fall into the second category with respect to you, Dr Blofield; however, please consider that my objective is not to run you off the project; it is to prevent you from flaming out in way that causes harm to both your own self-image and to other aspects of the project. Risker ( talk) 15:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I studied the Tsars and Russian Revolution and events at the Winter Palace at college. I'm a damn good researcher and am capable of producing high quality content on subjects I knew nothing about. I find is impossible to believe that you genuinely believe Giano's complete revert is appropriate. And please shut up about personal attacks, the only person responsible for those of late has been Giano, I've tried very hard to sort him out. The only people causing disruption to the betterment of our proportion of good articles on wikipedia here is you and Giano. His current version would not be promoted because of several OR claims and reference problems. My version, providing I completlely sorted out the refs and url links would very likely have passed. You have both illustrated to me very serious violations of WP:OWN. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it within WP policy for users to make unsupported allegations of this kind on ArbCom case pages? I have made no allegations about Ludwigs2 of any kind on the ArbCom pages, beyond supplying diffs of incivility by Ludwigs2, verging on personal attacks. I would have no objection to all the dialogue concerning slander being removed entirely from the page. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 17:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I just happened to see your recent actions with regard to the AN page, and I want to thank you for reminding people to keep a cool head. I don't know if you can help me, but I was hoping to learn how to find admins on Wikipedia. I recently asked an admin for help with an issue and it turned out quite badly, so I wanted to maybe screen them more in advance before asking one of the limited few admins I know of so far. I appreciate any help you can offer. Thank you. -- Avanu ( talk) 05:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Risker,
Would like your advice about an issue about Mathsci. When Mathsci's topic ban from race and intelligence articles was lifted in December, he promised ArbCom that he would stay out of disputes in the area. [28] When he's gotten involved in them again, you also reminded him that he should stop. [29]
But the R&I topic area is the only articles Mathsci has been involved in for the past week. As far as I can tell he isn't doing the same things that got him sanctioned in the R&I case, but he's being somewhat disruptive in a different way. When others have requested input from uninvolved editors at noticeboards, Mathsci has been taking over the discussions so that uninvolved editors can't keep up with him. The noticeboard threads just become extensions of the article talk page- where Mathsci is also heavily involved. Most recently this has been at the RS noticeboard: [30] In doing this, Mathsci is making it really hard to get input from uninvolved editors. Another editor involved in these articles has also complained about Mathsci doing this: [31]
I feel that Mathsci should not be involved in these articles at all, because his agreeing not to was why his topic ban was lifted to begin with. I was wondering if there was anything you or the other arbitrators can do about the fact that his current heavy involvement is now preventing noticeboard threads from serving their intended function. Thanks- SightWatcher ( talk) 02:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Now, everyone who is involved in the R&I case, please clear off this page and either start an amendment request or move on. Risker ( talk) 02:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Remember that little mess re: the "Tomboy and Girly Girl" image?
There's a bit of a fuss that's popped up on Commons. Come by IRC and I'll explain. DS ( talk) 18:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Risker. I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. Despite being recused on all matters concerning WP:ARBR&I, you nevertheless made a comment during a request for amendment to that case. [34] I imagine that was just a mistake. You did recuse prior to that here when ArbCom proposed lifting my topic ban. [35] I am sure the first comment was an oversight. If you were recused and unaware of any problems that had arisen with the case since its closure in August 2010, would it not have been a good idea to refer SightWatcher's query about the case to another non-recused member of ArbCom? I understand that in all this, you were just trying to be helpful, as you are always. Sometimes, however, things can be more complicated than appears at first sight. Charles Matthews was approached in a similar way by an IP, now range blocked, who was subsequently identified as a long term wikistalker (he has posted twice during the AE case, and four accounts have been indefinitely blocked within the last month). By approaching you, the user put you in an impossible situation. Regarding the current case, I have followed all your guidance the moment it was given. I apologize again if there has been any misunderstanding. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 02:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your advice regarding the warning to Hans Adler. I hope you won't mind if I contact you here to seek further advice about the issue of "involvement" in this case. Apparently, you believe that the standard of WP:UNINVOLVED applies. As that policy says, "involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community", and in this light, I understand why you believe that I am involved with respect to remarks made in the context of a case involving me. But if that broad standard applies, why did the Committee explicitly establish a much narrower standard for involvement at WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, to wit:
Or in other words, if the broad standard of WP:UNINVOLVED applies, what is the meaning of the rule cited above? Sandstein 21:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
In light of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editing_from_125.162.150.88 and [36], I request a clarification on Merridew's status - is Merridew blocked or banned? Which, if any accounts or IP addresses may Merridew edit from? Gimmetoo ( talk) 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
IP:125.162.150.88 is continuing a pattern of questionable editing. Again, if this is Merridew, what is the position of the arbitration committee? Gimmetoo ( talk) 04:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello — are you sure about r64228? Why couldn't Prodego self-unblock? ( User talk:Prodego#Blocked Yourself????.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC) — edited 06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
bugzilla:28352, apparently. Prodego talk 19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
1 August 2010 -
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Interim restriction Polargeo ( talk) 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session.
Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up
here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the DYK main page lead DYK hook right now! Yeah! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
See the log for edit filter 294. These are IPs being recruited by User:JarlaxleArtemis on 4chan /b/ to make attacks (for proof, see here, where the idiot forgot to remove the directions from the edit summary). NawlinWiki ( talk) 05:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your tireless work last night (I'm sure you know what I'm referring to), I hereby award you with this long-overdue Tireless Contributor barnstar. I know you probably don't get this enough but I think I speak for everyone when I say "thanks" for all the work you do around here. Now go to sleep. Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 05:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Brad, any idea when there might be some movement on this case? Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Risker, I just don't know policy well enough, and considering yesterday's debacle, am reluctant to make a fool of myself :) What is the best way to handle this likely meat/sockpuppetry? Google reveals a lot about the users removing the tags (an entire list of students at a particular University). Do I submit an SPI, or are they just blocked for obvious meatpuppetry? It's not a "fringe" topic, because there is medical research, but the research is often poor, it is an area that is ripe with quackery, and poor or primary sources are used in the article, instead of secondary review sources per WP:MEDRS. Now that I've reviewed all of the edits, perhaps the University would warrant a block? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the random question but I was just wondering how you create a belligerent list when creating/contributing to a article, I've been looking around on the help page on creating an article but haven't found anything I thought I would ask you as you seem like you know what to do seeing as your an administrator. Davido488 ( talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If you feel like a break from the weighty stuff, you might remember that you are a pretty damn good copy editor, and help out with Ezra Pound which is close enough to FAC that I'm calling in all the heavies I know. If you are bogged down and busy no worries. No harm in asking, but you imput would be very much appreciated. Ceoil ( talk) 11:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I have not reverted once. Only left a new message every time. I would however appreciate it, if you could at least warn them to stop attacking me.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to request that you remove this attack directed at me from their user page.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of the assigned clerk, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Risker, I just renominated the DVP for featured article status, was hoping you'd be able to drop by. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. PS: love the xkcd comic! Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely as the account has been advised of the other routes (although mybe not specifically, and you may like to add an email link to arbcom) a talk page block is also in order? AGF does not say "act all nice to the bitter end". It's likely a 4chan troll anyway, and should be treated as such but if not well..... Either way further talk comments are likely to be useless. Just my 2p. Pedro : Chat 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any hope of getting all this courtesy blanked? DrKiernan ( talk) 07:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
With apologies to Risker, I am going to continue the abuse of her talk page because 1) everyone involved seems to be following here, 2) I prefer to keep discussions together, 3) in this case, I prefer to not extend this delicate discussion to more pages than necessary, 4) I don't want to join in already politically-charged discussions at Signpost talk pages, and 5) I get on well with Ncm and see no reason to join in there.
There are three different issues here, and I don't want to leave any implication that my concerns are all aimed at Ncm's arb report. One issue involved grossly ill-prepared articles being put forward in a Dispatch, without the benefit of prior review (the Tools Dispatch, which later required significant editing by other editors and yourself). A second issue involves editorial oversight at The Signpost being exercised by editors other yourself (HaeB-- the 3000th FA), and your summary of that incident on my talk page seems to have overlooked previous discussion at Signpost talk pages; [7] [8] an editorial decision to eliminate that Dispatch was made by an editor other than yourself, even though it was clearly in progress. The third and separate issue is the arb report.
My concerns with that report can be seen in the version I suggested (although there was an interim complication in the misquote of Coren to Xeno, and if my inappropriate editing there accomplished anything, at least that misquote was corrected). Some of the language appears to be unnecessary editorializing which leads the reader: the whole issue of the timing suggests that there was more than usual interest and commentary on this particular desysopping. Is it not true that any such arb action usually generates significant and immediate commentary, and arbs are presumed to follow these cases closely and act quickly? Is all of that language necessary, or is editorial opinion creeping in? Can't a more straightforward account of the times involved, without adding qualifying editorial language, accomplish the same goal which Ncm rightly expresses above? My second concern is that, in spite of multiple arb requests clearly discussing the sensitivity here, was it necessary to highlight this desysopping first in The Signpost summary? This is an admin who conributed greatly to the Project and remains a signficant contributor to featued content, who hasn't used the tools-- in fact, has barely edited-- for years. We had CU/OS appointments, a significant case (Climate change) underway, and yet a relatively insignificant interim desysop is highlighted in the Signpost headline, even when mutliple arbs and clerks have expressed clear concerns that this matter is not conducive to on-Wiki discussion.
In summary, HaeB, I'm suggesting that you get the "big bucks" that we all get because you are the editor here, and you must retain and exercise editorial oversight and control to minimize what is increasingly looking like politicization of The Signpost, with editorial discretion being extended to editors other than yourself. You are the editor, and the buck ultimately stops with you; there will be times when that means delaying an article to make sure you get it right, or even disagreeing with a highly respected editor, and I hope that the pressure to maintain deadlines is not leading to these problems. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your tireless work on Pending Changes and your excellent panel presentation at the Wiki-Conference NYC 2010 on Pending Changes, and all the work that went into that, I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence with much appreciation. This makes a difference to Wikipedia. — Becksguy ( talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
You did so much more work on this project, but you were kind and gracious enough to let me share a few moments on the panel. And your company (and let's not forget the sangria and salsa/chips) was a welcome change from banging away at the computer for the most of the rest of the year. Thank you for the opportunity, and thank you for your note on the WikiConference. — Becksguy ( talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The link from this " editor's" page seems to suggest that they are me! They are not; in fact they seem to be a banned editor. Please vaporise/delete that page and link and ensure that they stay banned. Thank you. Giacomo 20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker, I have a lot of respect for all the hard work you've done as an arbitrator (I don't say that glibly—it's really very true), but I was a bit taken aback by this comment (it was not directed at any one person, and you may or may not have had me in mind) even though I understand your underlying point. I'm not very active at the moment and was not really attuned to what might or might not be going on with ChildofMidnight, with whom I am familiar as one of many admins who spent too much time trying to deal with some of the issues with his editing. When someone tapped me on the shoulder about it I looked into it further, and when I saw that you and other Arbs were skeptical of a connection (which to me seemed pretty obvious) I provided some more info, which I suppose constitutes "building a case" (and just FYI, my comments were completely my own and not coordinated with anyone in any way whatsoever).
You have not said otherwise, but I just want to make sure you know that I did not do this because it was fun or because I like going after people. As you are no doubt well aware a huge amount of community time was wasted dealing with C of M, and if that user is back editing under another account and being disruptive in the same way that seemed worth knowing so I looked to see if it was true. I would have assumed the ArbCom would also be concerned and would appreciate some help on a matter like this from admins familiar with the background, but your statement seems to suggest otherwise.
As an admin with experience dealing with a problem user sanctioned by ArbCom who is asked to come and look at a situation that seems related, I'm wondering what you think I should have done other than what I did—i.e looked into it and reported back as to what I found, which did indeed seem troubling. Again you may have had others in mind than me when you wrote your comment, and I'm a staunch advocate of reducing/limiting drama and personal confrontations, but the suggestion that examining what seems to be a problematic socking issue is an example of "far too much attention paid to 'social' issues" rubbed me the wrong way, and perhaps did others as well, though maybe it was just the wording and the underlying sentiment is different. Like you I'm obviously just a volunteer here and was merely trying to help when someone asked me to—personal issues had nothing to do with it and I would have been perfectly content to do and say nothing. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I should perhaps clarify my use of the word "social" in this context. I perceive non-technical activities that don't directly affect article space to be part of the social structure of the project, in the same sense that blocking and banning are social constructs; most behavioural policies are aimed at maintaining the social environment so that it does not detract from the primary objectives of the project. I hope that makes things a bit more clear. Again, sorry that I worded things in such a way that you thought I might be disappointed in you; that is not the case at all. Risker ( talk) 00:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've been watching Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision and I note your concern that the discretionary sanctions might change, and you think it's better to have the sanctions pinned down on the arbitration page.
At one time we had notices posted on the talk page of articles covered by sanctions, and so if things changed presumably clerks would have to buzz around editing the notice on each page. While that's inefficient compared to having a transcluded template with the wording on it, if the remedy isn't changed much it's an acceptable trade-off. This, from mid-2006 when I was a clerk on a case called Shiloh, is the kind of thing we'd do. The notice is still there.
As it happens, the community process for article probations, which was followed in this case prior to arbitration, uses a transcluded probation notice that is used in all community probations (see Template:Community article probation. There has been no substantial change in the wording of the notice since 2008. The editors are kept informed by warning messages--as in these proposed discretionary sanctions, nobody can be sanctioned without being informed that he's doing something sanctionable and advised what to do to conform to policies. -- TS 03:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey. We had a discussion in NYC where I mentioned the dismal state of the Homosexual transsexual article. I didn't start this discussion, but someone initiated one to merge that article with two others. I wanted to get your insight on what's going on. If you're fortified with some wine or caffeine, you can read it here. I have to be honest though, that I feel quite out to sea with the concepts presented. I don't think this is an issue of them being so technical as sources are not being optimally used. There are personality issues related to this suite of articles as you can see on the talk page. The whole thing is hairy, which I why I thought of you, natch. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
See User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 and we're off. Thanks for your encouragement, it's been great. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That's all. Courcelles 16:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I get it. There is no way in which to provide you with constructive criticism in which you will find the critic's perspective to be worthy of your attention; instead you will impugn their motives. I have not shouted at you, I've not lost my temper, and I'm most certainly not angry; disappointed that you seem to be incapable of taking on board any correction of your behaviour, perhaps. I find it very disturbing that you would excuse your inserting of incorrect information into a page by questioning the competence of other editors, and implying that experienced editors who have been on this project for five years longer than you would not be capable of knowing more about the project than you do.
It's becoming clear that your behaviour has been consistently problematic and you now seem unable to accept criticism without attacking those who are trying to mitigate your poor behaviour. You are repeating the behaviour that resulted in your block on Swedish Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that you do not seem to have taken any lessons from that experience, or from the extensive support and advice you've received from a large number of experienced, skilled Wikipedians on this project. Risker ( talk) 15:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today? | ||
---|---|---|
☠ Because we ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠ | ||
![]() |
With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' { {User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699! Cap'nChzz ► 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |
*
How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like * Official website * Auto-translate to pirate speak |
![]() | |
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again. |
[9] Thanks. Minor 4th 20:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know. My apologies, I wasn't aware it wasn't allowed. It seemed marginally relevant given that Wikinews is a sister project, but yeah, I guess that would make sense. Regards, Tempodivalse [talk] 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ask one of the admins directly involved with the Rhode Island Red block, you might like to have a look at the exchanges here when considering his unblock request. In his first entry in that section on 4 July 2007 he complains that "this probing into my personal information is strikingly offensive and is starting to feel like cyberstalking." What he regarded as "probing into his identity" he later referred to as being "invasive". This background needs to be taken into account when considering his much more serious contraventions of policy with respect to the publication of information about another user. He cannot claim to be ignorant of policy in this area; he knew that what he was doing was wrong because he objected to someone trying to establish the sort of information about him that he researched and later revealed about another user. In view of what he did, a 6-month block was considered at the time to be very lenient. -- TraceyR ( talk) 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
^ Might interest you, if you haven't seen it already. I guess it's in the navbox, but I hadn't noticed it until yesterday. Hopefully the analysis will be informative. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comments on the Pending Changes discussion page. As you have probably noticed, I am a huge fan of Wiki and want to continue contributing. I didn't want to apply for any upgrade to my status through the back door, as t'were, but if there is a way I can be 'upgraded' I would like info on that. doktorb words deeds 16:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Reminder to self: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage and also mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap
Talk page watchers are, of course, welcome to comment. Risker ( talk) 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Even with all of this disarray, I still hoped that we could get a reasonable trial of the tool. It was agreed that we'd start off with 2000 articles in the trial, starting with just a few and ramping up so that we'd hit the 2K articles around 2 weeks into the trial, with the expectation that if things went well, we'd add more incrementally, perhaps up to 10K; however, only a handful of administrators participated in adding articles to the trial, and I don't think we ever got above 1500. Further, at that point, we'd pretty well added all of the articles that were eligible under the criteria for the trial, except for ones in categories where one or more administrator had objected to inclusion; as best I can tell, their objections were based on the articles being honey pots for socks. I was one of the most active admins in adding articles to the trial, and I confess I sneaked in a pile of BLPs that technically didn't meet the criteria (they had been semi-protected in the previous 6 months and had fewer than 10 watchers). Indeed, one of the most telling factors on this trial was the fact that very, very few administrators appeared to be interested in using the tool as currently configured. I also note that the time that it has taken edits to be reviewed has continued to lengthen as time has gone on.
A few weeks ago, I led a panel on the topic of Pending changes at the New York City Wiki-conference. Thanks to DGG, Becksguy and Jamesofur, who were also on the panel. That same day, keynote speaker Clay Shirky talked about the fact that once a culture is "broken", it is not able to rebound back to its prior state. In my own closing statement, I reflected on that comment, and wondered if pending changes might be the "culture-breaker" for Wikipedia and, if it was, whether or not that would be a good or bad thing. Certainly the manner in which this entire trial has proceeded has shown that there are some pretty huge differences in what people perceive as the way we do things around here. I don't think the pending changes software or its use will be the culture breaker, but the manner in which it is being integrated and promoted into the project might very well be. I am very considerably concerned that this pressure to keep a bit of trial software running has resulted in a level of divisiveness between good-faith Wikipedians from which the community may not recover. Risker ( talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw from the comment above that I still haven't explained myself properly to you. Now that I'm not tussling with you over an article's protection state, I thought it would be a good time to take a deep breath and try to calmly explain why semi-protection works well against sockpuppeteers, even when autoconfirmation is so easy to get.
I typically detect a sockpuppeteer by the pattern of edits across multiple articles. My watchlist tends to hover around 11,000 articles (right now it's 11,182). When a sockpuppeteer goes active, what I notice is that the same account has edited a telling group. What that telling group is varies from sockpuppeteer to sockpuppeteer, but they all have one. CharlieJS13, for example, edits the credits to a narrow range of popular music articles and articles about F1 racing. That's it. When he's using an account, he stands out like a sore thumb. Those two groups of articles are extremely active, though: an anonymous edit to either one is difficult to notice. That's compounded by the fact that he edits from a DSL line in London. I could never reasonably attribute an individual anonymous edit from a London DSL line to an article about Lady Gaga to him without psychic powers. Show me an account that did a bunch of stupid edits to get autoconfirmed and then proceeded to edit Lady Gaga songwriting credits and F1 standings, and I know that it's him. Further, the contribution list for the account gives me a handy grouping of all of his edits so that after blocking him, I can undo each and every edit he made in a matter of minutes.
That's the basis of my strategy with recurring puppeteers. By keeping articles they are highly interested in semi-protected, the puppeteer is forced to confirm an account. Once he confirms an account, his editing pattern becomes detectable, and he can be dealt with. These tend to be compulsive people: whatever edit they are trying to make is very important to them, and they will return to it time after time in order to make it. I semi-protect the articles they edit for one to three months (depending on how persistent the sockpuppeteer is), they create an account, autoconfirm it, edit, I block and revert all of the edits the account made. Most eventually give up. Even Brexx seems to have nearly stopped (or sufficiently matured that I can no longer detect his edits, which is effectively the same thing). With Brexx, it got pretty silly, since he was so persistent over a wide range of articles. For most socks, it only requires semi-protection of a couple dozen articles.
Basically, that's why the argument "semi-protection is worthless against socks, all they have to do is auto-confirm" isn't a very strong argument. It's true enough if you only look at whether the puppeteer could initially make the edit, but that isn't the right place to measure. If I'm able to undo all of the sock's edits shortly after they have been made, that's nearly as good as if they had never been made at all. Semi-protection allows me to do that. There are certainly ways to get past me, but discussing them in detail has problems with WP:BEANS. Fortunately, the bulk of puppeteers aren't bright enough to figure them out on their own.— Kww( talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact, you were not by any stretch of the imagination the only administrator who objected to articles being included in the pending changes trial for this reason; there were several others, but you were just the only one who posted on my page about it. I recognise that there are differing philosophies on how to best address socks, and it seemed to me that it was a potential hornet's nest that did not need to be stirred up for what was supposed to be a two-month trial, particularly one with a tool that several of us realised almost immediately needed some serious modification in order to possibly be useful for articles where these serial accounts tend to show up. I think that a "reviewer information" infobox on the reviewer page, where admins could write a couple of sentences explaining the reason for PC and telling reviewers what to watch for, would have the potential of expanding the ability to identify these editors, and get more eyes watching for the problems; however, it doesn't look like that is even getting serious consideration for the next "trial" version of the software as far as I can see, according to mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap. Ah well.
I'm pretty tied up with real world and Arbcom obligations in the next few weeks, but I think it might be a good exercise at some point to have a broader discussion, hopefully involving several others who have dealt with socks and serial editors, to see if it would be possible to flesh out a wider range of methods to address both the negative social aspects of these accounts and the utilitarian aspects of content over contributor. I have a feeling we would all learn something from such a discussion, if we all proceed with lots of respect for each other's points of view, and a willingness to recognise that different approaches fit different situations. (The process you've described above, for example, sounds absolutely perfect for catching "sneaky" vandalism, and as I recall, at least one of the sockers you follow does just that.) Thanks again for commenting here. I apologise for having given the impression that you and other administrators who have been using semi-protection of articles to address socking are doing something wrong. While it had a noticeable effect on the number of articles available to be put into the pending changes trial, it is in keeping with current protection processes, and I can definitely see its appropriateness in certain situations. Risker ( talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I just came across a user claiming to be a 13-year-old and my steel-trap memory hazily recalled you telling me someone regularly goes through to remove that sort of mention on the user's page. Is the talk page deleted? Or is just the mention of age deleted? Should I just email you his name and stop trying to be useful in any admin capacity? -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker. Count Iblis has been blocked for advocating for Brews even though the advocacy sanctions expired in July. I would appreciate your attention in this matter. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 04:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Risker, I would pose you a question. While I understand my own role in being banned and how I'm not always civil etc. I'd ask what you mean about Iblis being disruptive leading to another ban possibly. Can you point out what is problematic about his edits? This is of concern because you speak as if it's crystal clear and I don't get that at all. Not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand your viewpoint. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 05:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue of the RFAR title was open. SlimVirgin is not a clerk, AIUI, and therefore her change of the title was something notably out of order. I simply made a note of her action. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 05:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Nominate
Relations between Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis) as a POV fork from
Mahmoud Abbas. Yes, the author is notable, but his thesis is not, and is appropriately covered already in the main article about the author.
Risker (
talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
HI Risker. I see that after a two-month lull, the trivia that was a source of much disruptive editing by a multi IP user has reared its ugly head again. Perhaps we should consider semi-protecting this page for a while. -- Kudpung ( talk) 23:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) Somebody you blocked in July popped up via sock to object at ANI, in section titled Hrotovice was blocked by Arbitrator Risker without a valid explanation. I've blocked the sock and left a note on how to appeal at the original user talk, but I figured you might like to know. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I just blocked them for a few hours for a harrassment campaign; I noted after doing so that you'd CU blocked them in July for disruption and vandalism. I don't know what case that's about, obviously, but if the wider case is back you may want to review it... Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker, you've got full rights on http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs now. I also responded to your comment on mediawiki.org. -- RobLa-WMF ( talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The only way that we can actually see whether or not this software is suitable for use on this project is to properly put it through its paces, figure out both the technical problems (so the developers can try to solve them) and the community issues (so we can see if there is some kind of consensus), and resolve these issues one by one...or be certain that they're unresolvable. I don't know whether or not pending changes are a workable or useful idea for this project, but I am certain that until we work through this issue, together, as a community, it's going to be like a burr under our collective saddle. Risker ( talk) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Risker, it is nice to meet you personally on your talk page. Thank you for investing your time into this. I had my doubts at first, though agree sources are overwhelming. Tthe attention and review only improved the article, so the procedure was positive if you ask me. Thank you for your kind words, hope the article will remain on your watch list. More eyeballs definitely better. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 02:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I read in a mainstream (not right of centre) newspaper today that there are paid bloggers that are trained and paid to steer discussion to one political side. The AC and all editors and administrators should be mindful of this. In fact, everyone should be mindful of this. So perceived concensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia should make a new effort to strive for the neutral perspective and even get it into the Wikipedia lexicon and culture. Consensus should remain a goal but neutral perspective should be a higher goal. Neutral perspective cannot be manipulated by paid bloggers but consensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia must not be manipulated!
Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
I wasn't sure which barnstar to choose, but this said "may be awarded to those editors who have shown to be a person of integrity and honor. Or, more simply, a stand-up guy/gal" - seems to fit the bill. You have helped me enormously over a long period of time, with my sporadic requests, and even my need to vent. You're an asset to Wiki?edia, and I suspect some of your behind the scenes actions, which are critical to the project, go unrecognized. Well - I wanted to show that some people notice. I am very grateful for your thoughtful advice, based on enormous experience. Common sense is all too rare, but you have it in abundance. Chzz ► 02:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC) |
Regarding this comment [14]. I'm perfectly willing to submit to a (in- or)voluntary ban from biographical articles. Will you draft the proposal? My suggestion is for a "editing biographies broadly construed, as well as commenting on talk-pages of biographies broadly construed as well as sanction boards or other boards where biographical articles are discussed." - i'll leave the time-period up to you. BLP is (imho) a poor choice of words since that policy encompasses all articles, and isn't limited to biographies. If you want to formalize my (purely voluntary) 1RR in the topic-space as well, then i'm just as game.
Please keep in mind that i have actually never been sanctioned or blocked for anything (topic-space or outside) at all during my period on Wikipedia, and have tried as hard as i could to take criticism to heart, so i do find this a bit unfair - but i am willing to do just about anything to ensure some peace in the area... -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I got an email today saying
Someone from the IP address 90.206.107.237 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.
The new password for the user account "Sophie" is "*******". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.
If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.
think someone might be trying to hack into my account. the ip doesnt have any pages here or any contribs and the host is
5ace6bed.bb.sky.com [1]
thx :) Sophie ( Talk) 13:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I replied towards your email, you have alot of oversighting to do. Secret account 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I send you some links though email, right now, you have a skype account so we could chat, I have an hour of free time (I lost my gmail password as that got hacked as well). Secret account 03:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Sockpuppetry_in_the_Climate_Change_topic_area I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.
Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?
So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.
All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again. Chzz ► 08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You have voted on a finding against me. Please read and respond to this section and explain to me why my warnings directed at these admins were out-of-line. Thank you. ATren ( talk) 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have expanded my evidence in that section. I believe my complaints against at least 3 admins (representing 5 diffs in my finding -- nearly half) had merit. And for the most part, I presented those concerns in a civil, impersonal tone. Given the evidence I've presented there, which establish the context of my complaints, I would like to know why my complaints were unwarranted. Please read and respond there. Thanks. ATren ( talk) 04:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely that it is best to get a user to remove a personal attack, rather than to revert them and get into a mess. Jehochman Talk 23:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm still concerned that it's been credibly alleged that an editor and an arbcom clerk outed two editors by releasing privileged information (that non-CUs obtained just how?), and that evidence has been offered that supports the allegation is in arbcom's hands? Further, that the outing was specifically for the purpose of facilitating real world harassment of these editors. I find this of great concern. Jack Merridew 02:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Risker, please respond to your email. ATren ( talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
In your vote at 25.1, please change "Noroton" to "JohnWBarber". I'd appreciate it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 23:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker -- I recall you once wrote a great essay partly relating to issues or precautions that should perhaps be considered by editors. For my part, I've often thought more generally about simple points that could help new users, as they get started, to avoid mistakes that they might later regret. I just put something together here, so I wonder if you (or anyone else who is interested) would like to check it out. Regards, Mackan79 ( talk) 00:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be an idea to add something about conflicts of interest or agenda-driven editing; oddly enough, I was thinking about writing something along this line earlier today. I'll admit I probably see more of the "dark side" than many others, but it distresses me a great deal to realise how many editors aren't just writing about things they're knowledgeable about or have an interest in (heck, that's most of us!)...but coming here and often using this project to promote positions that bring them personal benefit. It's a tough one to strike the right balance, particularly as my impression is that many who do this think they're actually doing things the "Wikipedia way", and that either (a) they don't have a COI or (b) if they do, nobody will ever know about it. Ah, but I'm waxing philosophical, and heaven knows if there's any point. I think what's on the BBC live feed right now is probably far, far more important. Risker ( talk) 01:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
We would love it if you were interested in joining us. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
[16] Philip Trueman ( talk) 05:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For working way too hard at every hour of the night and never giving up. Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
I wish I could come up with something more original... but I can't. Still, you deserve it. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 31, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 ( talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch Talk C. 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Grace Sherwood was a healer, midwife, and farmer from Princess Anne County and Pungo, Virginia. Sherwood's neighbors claimed that she ruined crops, killed livestock, and conjured storms. She was tried for witchcraft several times, the first in 1697 when she was accused of casting a spell on a bull, resulting in its death. The following year she was charged again, for bewitching the hogs and cotton crop belonging to one of her neighbors. Her final trial took place in 1706, when she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill, causing Hill to miscarry. The court ordered that Sherwood's guilt or innocence should be determined by ducking her in water. If the water rejected her and she floated, then she was guilty; if the water accepted her and she drowned, then she was innocent. Sherwood floated to the surface, and subsequently spent up to seven years and nine months in the jail next to Lynnhaven Parish Church. She was free by 1714 and succeeded in recovering her property from Princess Anne County, after which she lived quietly until her death in 1740 at the age of 80. ( more...)
Hello Risker, I was wondering if you could look at my request on http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs/Talk:Main_Page please. Thanks, -- Alpha Quadrant talk 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I was informed that you ran a CU previously on the accounts reported in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha. Following my blocks based on the CU results there, Cmagha emailed me claiming that they have validated their (separate) identities to you. Could you confirm that? (Feel free to unblock without checking with me further if they are different people.) T. Canens ( talk) 21:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Risker, thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User talk:Risker. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your
user-space drafts or your
talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought I did erase it. Thanks for the reminder. sorry. Joseph507357 ( talk) 02:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
What was the reason for blocking 205.175.113.16 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)? The only edit that I can see was rather helpful. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This drama is unfortunate with Rlevse leaving and such, I had to place the article in FAR, in order to stop some of the drama, maybe you could rewrite the copyrighted sections or something. I would do it myself but it's not my specialty, and I don't know how to properly rewrite it without using that material. Secret account 04:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hiya risker :)
i was on commons when i found images on commons what might not be allowed on the internet as i think i would get in trouble if i saved them on my computer
can you make sure that they are deleted please
thanks :)
Sophie ( Talk) 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Re [17], could I ask you to join the discussion at WT:Plagiarism? If we have a guideline that criminalises the behaviour of a large percentage of our contributors, then either the guideline, or the behaviour, or both, have to change. Any of these require broad input. -- JN 466 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I presume the worst happened, sorry for your lost. Secret account 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The red poppy is the symbol of respect for veterans here in Canada - every Canadian presenter will wear one on his or her lapel for the first 11 days of November, and millions of Canadians from all walks of life sport them as well. (I have two, one on my outdoor jacket and the other on my suit jacket.) The poem " In Flanders Fields" is taught to just about every Canadian school child, and some of the most moving Remembrance Day ceremonies I have attended have involved the group recitation of this very moving poem at war cenotaphs, civic ceremonies, and one time even a hockey game. (I will leave it to you to imagine the emotional impact of hearing 25,000 people recite this poem in unison. My heart stirs just with the memory.)
Thanks very much for your concern, Secret. I'm glad to say that there's no personal tragedy keeping me away from the project. Risker ( talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, so anything around here would be a "return to unusual programming". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hullo Risker. Just wondering if you could have a quick look at the discussion here. I think I recall you saying at one point that arbitrators were cleared for Checkuser and Oversight by default. I wonder if I remember accurately and if so, how that squares with the distinction Coren is proffering. Cheers, Skomorokh 13:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
I think you know why I'm giving this to you without me having to say it. Thank you for convincing me that driving myself insane is not a prudent course of action. Sven Manguard Talk 04:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you very much, Sven. Glad I was able to help. :-) Risker ( talk) 05:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Risker, I noticed a typo: "if new arbitrators wishes to participate". Thanks for this page. We'll highlight it in the soon-to-be-published Signpost report. Tony (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth again. It is exceptionally rude. I did not say people should pay a few hundred quid to a lawyer. I said, if people don't want to identify to WMF, the should be able to go to a lawyer instead, if they wish. Jehochman Talk 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Last year, you warned this user against adding infoboxes to articles, or tagging them as needing them, specifically featured articles. The user has recently come back from a relatively long absence and is again tagging and boxing. Not sure if it needs to be brought to the admin incident noticeboard, but as you warned him before you might think about doing so again before it needs to go any further. (I am not an admin and can't warn anyone.) -- Hegvald ( talk) 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Neutralhomer wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving and hopes your day is full of good times, good food, good family, good football, a good parade and a good nap...then shopping tomorrow. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Thanksgiving by adding {{subst:HappyThanksgiving}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Thanks very much! Our Canadian Thanksgiving is on the second Monday of October so I was way ahead of you in the turkey dinner, but it's nice to have such kind thoughts!
Risker (
talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this is for oversight. -- Neo139 ( talk) 04:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! that was fast ^^ I will do that in the future. -- Neo139 ( talk) 14:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 12:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering the reason for this. There is currently a discussion about it in #wikipedia-en-help connect and Sophie doesn't know why she has been blocked. Thank you, Alpha Quadrant talk 02:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi I would like to know what is the reason for blocking that user (as I am her friend), blocking policy says there must be a clear reason for block, private information does not sound much like a clear reason. Wikipedia has certain policies on blocks and if administrators and are not following them, regular users like me might be little bit confused by such unexplained actions, I believe administrators should follow wikipedia rules just like regular users, thank you for explaining this to me (and others). Petrb ( talk) 15:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This is response to what you said, it is log from channel where logging is allowed and Sophie gave me permission to post it
<log redacted>
SHE is you, as she has no way how to talk to you, please respond to her email. Petrb ( talk) 17:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to the concern raised in your comment at the YM arbitration request, but -- given that I'm already flaunting the 500 word guideline there -- I thought I'd save that statement any additional pixels and just speak with you directly. Centrally, I disagree that the additional concerns were introduced "after the subject of the RFC started an apparent wikibreak". The first editor to introduce significant, organized allegation of long-term issues was Physchim62 ( talk · contribs) at 12:25 23 November 2010. [18] By coincidence, that was about the time I wandered into the RFC to begin with (indeed, Physchim62's view was a significant factor in my decision to attempt analysis and get involved at all). I posted the first part of my view at 15:26 23 November 2010. [19] Neither of these RFC entries came after the end of YM's editing. Although the main account had not made any edits since much earlier in the day [20], YM was still active on his secondary account, YellowAssessmentMonkey ( talk · contribs), including a series of edits to the RFC Talk page beginning at 19:54, [21] hours after the RFC began to consider a wider scope.
Of course, the RFC aside, these are by and large not new allegations at all. Concerns about policy issues have been raised on AN/I, at SPI (then Checkuser), at DRV, on his talk page, and at other venues throughout the time these actions have been ongoing. To most, there was never any response; when he did address the issues, it did not appear to be followed by significant changes in actions. I provided only limited diffs at RFAR and intend to show a more continuous history at Evidence if accepted. If you would prefer to see more of that history now, I would certainly be willing to do so.
I do, however, agree that the Committee has no need to open this case in an expedited fashion, although should no statement be forthcoming in some reasonable period of time (at your discretion), I would still urge examination of the issues (while previously unfamiliar with it, a quick look doesn't suggest that the deferred adjudication in the A Nobody case went very well). Serpent's Choice ( talk) 15:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping cool and remaining civil at User talk:Sophie and User_talk:Risker#Sophie_block_reason. I understand that you are under fire from quite a few editors for your rather vague actions on behalf of ArbCom (ostensibly). Hopefully we can resolve this peacefully and without misunderstanding. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Shirik has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
In times like these, it's good to let you know we're all thankful for the work you do that nobody else wants to do. Thanks for your hard work! -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please recuse from the calculation and presentation of election results. The coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters can handle it. Jehochman Talk 19:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
No comment, no opinion, just letting you know. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. | ” |
— (Alma 7:10) |
The Thing
T/
C is wishing you a Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks very much for the Christmas wishes, I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas and healthy and joyous 2011. Risker ( talk) 01:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Neutralhomer wishes you a Merry Christmas and hopes your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Thanks so much for sharing the Christmas joy! I hope you and yours have enjoyed an excellent day, and have a happy and healthy 2011. Risker ( talk) 01:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
And may you enjoy during the new year the same degree of fairness, kindness, objectivity, lack of bias, and intelligent concern that you lavished on me this year. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So I removed all my edits, but four more sysops have edited subsequently. I suggest you let them know what's going on with the talkpage/full protection etc. Sometimes it's not that obvious.... The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I post this at your page only for convenience, Risker, but it is addressed to the ArbCom in general. I had GWH at my page earlier telling me what he thinks of the recent thread and threatening me. Let me make very clear that if I do lose perspective and cross any unacceptable line in postings, I will obey the decisions of clerks on the matter (though of course I may protest or appeal). However I don't think I or anyone else in my position should have to fear threats from randomers; after all, who is to say what stake anyone who chooses to intervene has?! I tried very hard to keep my postings respectful, but yes I have felt the need to criticze ArbCom; but how else can interested users keep you guys on track? I hope I haven't done anything the Committee thinks is bad. Please remember the EEML has been by far the largest discovered conspiracy to subvert Wikipedia policies, and wasn't that long ago. If a few people have issues with lax treatment of those responsible for it, they are entitled to be heard. It doesn't deprive the Committe of the power to disregard such sentiment. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hold on, Deacon - are you confirming that you received the link to that specific photo via email from someone who identified the two individuals portrayed, without knowing context or veracity of the information you received, and you posted it onwiki? I had been of the impression that you'd somehow found it in the appropriate Wikimedia Commons category. This was remarkably poor judgment on your part, and an action that you'd likely have found unacceptable under other circumstances. In response to your post on my talk page, I think your desire to achieve a certain outcome is leading you to behave in ways that you yourself would find inappropriate in parallel circumstances. Indeed, several of your peers have already pointed this out to you, and I encourage you to take on board what they are saying. Risker
Do you think it would be best for that thread to be closed now? AGK [ • 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The thread-jacking by GWH and the EEMLers has left my final question unanswered. Why is unreliability an issue with quotes if, as you said, ArbCom still has access to the EEML archive? If someone quotes an email from in EEML list archive, surely ArbCom would verify it anyway, right? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. This was a rangehopping vandal and I blocked for 12h originally, as you can see from the logs. When they started up again (and gave an assurance they wouldn't stop) I blocked for longer, on the basis I could undo them when the issue was sorted out. The issue was later sorted out, but I mistakenly thought I'd blocked them all for a week, not a month. I've gone back and unblocked them all now. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ you've got mail}} Jujutacular talk 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't often get the opportunity to say this ;) but thanks for your really insightful commentary on Foundation-l today. You're "officially" invited to join at the new gendergap list, which is open and hopefully we will be a positive space to talk about welcoming women editors. It would be awesome if you could extend an invitation to people interested who might not normally be on Internal-l or Foundation-l. Cheers, Steven Walling at work 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Risker, nice meeting you here. I have been wondering if adding names who actually attended that meeting would be an invasion of privacy. Obviously there are a few people who signed up but did not attend. What's your idea ? Thanks. I just went ahead adding a few names. -- Ktsquare (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Risker, I didn't realise the situation re the article. Am comfortable with the unsalting and undeletion of the article. Have said as much at AN. Mjroots ( talk) 16:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
On a more humorous note, I'm starting to wonder if I've slipped through the looking glass - for all my reputation as a rabid deletionist, this is the third article in a row I've publicly come forward to say should be kept. Risker ( talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm moving this here to let the ANI discussion conitnue - hope you're ok with that.
The problem with some of the articles that this cadre of editors is connected with is some of them lack secondary sources completely - as in the case of Russ Nelson. The only secondary source has the guy as a racist - which is exactly why I didn't whittle down the article to that.
Sure, the most reliable source for the list of directors at Toyota are primary sources from Toyota, but if that's all you have about someone then you really don't have much on the subject - unless you have a gang of folks trying to fabricate an article or groups of articles.
Regarding self-sources, if someone claims on their blog something on the order of "I've been programming in Java since 1985" on their web site, then it's clear they are just positioning as that is impossible. At the end of the day, blog posts about the authors are really lousy sources. I probably should have used much less sarcasm on ANI in making that point.
The bigger point here is there are a group of tech and open-source cogniscenti who are writing articles about each other with lousy sources. I believe this might be done to puff up each other's web presence but I have no evidence - just a group of lousy articles and indignant folks who aren't used to being challenged.
Sure, I didn't use my charm through all aspects of the discussion, but if you look at the evolution on the talk pages, the charm was dialed down after I tried to politely explain the issues. None of these guys are newcomers except for perhaps the most problematic of this group, Tech.contrarian ( talk · contribs).
And you're right - I have come across tons of people trying to do all those things in my essay and I believe represents a fundamental flaw in biographies. Cheers. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Toddst1,take a look at the histories of these articles. Most of them are 4 or 5 years old and were *not* started by the subjects themselves, and what we had there was hardly quality in most cases. It is the same with many of our biographies; they're so poor, and we as a community are so terribly unresponsive to perfectly reasonable corrections, improvements and concerns that many of the subjects of our articles have started to "fix" them themselves. I don't think we have a leg to stand on in alleging conflict of interest and implying intentional evil intent on "civilians" who just don't want their top google hit to be trash, full of tags that seem to proclaim to the world that the biography is nothing but a work of fiction and self-aggrandisement. That, in itself, becomes a form of BLP violation. I have no knowledge about the notability of anyone involved in software (it took me almost two minutes to remember that the Apple guy is Steve Jobs and the Microsoft guy is Bill Gates), and certain fields do not document their "stars" the way that popular media or sports or the nobility do. We have to find a way to locate information about these people, using nontraditional sources if necessary, or stick only to the most notable people. I understand your frustration, I really do; I'd venture to say, however, that perhaps some changes in tactics might be called for here. Some alternatives:
Just a few suggestions here. My gut instinct is that some of these people are actually quite notable, but for those without extensive knowledge of the field, we can't pick out the really important people. In some cases, the key facts about an individual might be able to be worked into another article (e.g., discussion of the developer of software in the article about said software), but that always runs the risk of getting BLP information messed up in a difficult-to-detect way because the article isn't marked as a BLP. Risker ( talk) 01:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Your reply to my arbitration request was that "community has been provided with some lower-level opportunities for resolution here, which I'd encourage be tried first". Could you please tell me those other opportunities as the ArbCom was suggested to me by the admin User:Amatulic. Thanks you, for any reply!-- Lsorin ( talk) 20:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Risker, hope you're well. I just wanted to drop by and see if can talk about Pending Changes with me?
I'm here because Rob (Lanphier) and the other tech folks working on this felt they needed someone who could devote some time to talking it through with the community, or as they put it, "we've enlisted Steven Walling from the Community Department to work on our behalf to make sure there is better alignment between the Foundation and volunteer wikimedians".
The Foundation tech staff are feeling in limbo. Right now the status is that they're waiting some clear direction from the community about where to take the feature. (See the February engineering update.)
The common ground here is that they agree we cannot continue a perpetual trial. It totally erodes community trust in the developers at the Foundation, and it's a waste of their time and donor funds to keep working on a feature the community doesn't really want to use.
I thought I'd ping you specifically because:
You said, "The community should select a specific group of editors to assess the consensus; it should not be anyone associated with the WMF or the Board of Directors [sic], who have a vested interest."
Rob and I agree that this should definitely happen if we're going to have another RfC or poll.
If the WMF is going to end the trial cycle firmly and either keep and improve Pending Changes, or turn off it for the foreseeable future, then we need a rigorous and (most of all) trustworthy conversation. Not a poll Jimmy designs alone, or one that is unclear and hard for staff to take action based on.
So what I'm asking is: can you help form this group of editors to determine the final consensus? Having Jimmy or the Foundation just hand pick a group is a bad idea, but someone should make a shortlist of thoughtful and diligent people to ask. If you have changed your mind and think a kind of consensus jury is a terrible idea, I'd of course like to hear that too. In the meantime, I'm going to point a few people at this explanation and idea to see if they'd like to help form such a group too.
Thanks, and happy Friday! Obviously we can talk about this more over the weekend. Steven Walling at work 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Just as a reminder, the last major bug fixes on the feature were made in November. Since then we've been consumed by the fundraiser, 10th anniversary, the MediaWiki 1.17 release, and other work. That's been the general lay of the land about our work on the code directly.
When you fully protected the Ralph Nader page you inadvertently protected content from being restored that an IP user has been repeatedly removing against consensus on the talk page. The content is from the 'Criticism' section. Mystylplx ( talk) 16:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Risker, I'm writing to everyone who commented (for or against) on the last deletion debate regarding the Keeplocal image template. This has been proposed for deletion again, and your input would be welcome. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Template:KeepLocal. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
For the next few weeks, I'll be stepping away from most of the mainstream Arbitration Committee matters. There are a few small tasks that I will participate in, but otherwise I will be inactive. Even arbitrators get to have the occasional holiday.
This is also an opportune time for me to say thank you to those who make this job worthwhile: my colleagues on the Committee, the clerks who deal with much of the grunt work, the administrators and editors who identify and often address issues that come to Arbcom/Oversight/CheckUser/AUSC attention, the editors who work to present content that we can all take pride in, the developers who make so many useful tools, the WMF staff who do genuinely care about this community and its growth and development, and those from all walks of wiki-life who find a moment for a friendly or supportive word. You're the reason I continue to log in. Risker ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
please comment on talk page. is she married? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Gold Hat has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
The above-named user has expressed issues with editing after having EnWP IPBE removed. Would you mind reviewing the case for IPBE for this user please?
Thanks! Kylu ( talk) 16:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care... Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that you were in the inactive column on the Arbcom page. You're still editing outside of Arbcom, but it still got me a bit worried. I hope you're alright and all. If not, get better. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note that this case has been re-opened. I've added my findings, but would appreciate any review/input you may have. Cheers! TN X Man 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Risker. Hope you're well and enjoyed your recent travels. Just a note, but I've had "email this user" enabled for years, and as far as I can remember have never disabled it. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 22:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Elockid ( Talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm posting a request on Coren's page and CC:ing you, per NuclearWarfare's advice. -- Ludwigs2 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Basket of Puppies 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is just to let you know that I have submitted two sections of evidence after the deadline because this evidence is based on edits that were themselves made after the deadline:
Regards, Sandstein 06:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Risker. Do you want to go ahead and close this report? WP:AN3#User:Phatboi96 reported by User:S43 (Result: ). The apparent closure was by User:Jasper Deng, a non-admin. (I have reverted his close). Per your comment there, I assume you would close this as 'Stale', which seems logical. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The user called Mindbunny has made his IP address known via editing, if not downright owning up to it. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you guys are still having a ball over at AC. :). Hey, how you doing Risker? Hope all is well. — Ched : ? 05:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me know if you got the first email, there should be two, although I'm not sure you got the first email.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Were you looking for this? There's no video and sound quality isn't great, but the Australian humor shines through. Geometry guy 23:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I welcome you to do so. Let the community decide whether my occasional outbursts are worth retiring the most prolific contributor this website has ever had. Go for it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm feeling offended right now that both you and Giano think I'm a troll but I'm strangely calm. The difference is that the tolerance levels and indefinate blocks are for editors who intentionally troll the site and intentionally make life tough and horrible for others. 99% of the time I am a genuinely good person who occaisonally if crossed is prone to losing his temper and saying some things which can be seen as uncivil. But anybody who knows me properly on wikipedia can vouch that I am neither a troll or a belligerent and would rather just get on with building an encyclopedia and stay well aware of trouble. What happened yesterday didn't exactly help my cause but most editors are aware that debates and conflicts can get heated. I'm actually one of the few here who genuinely want to build an encyclopedia to help further the cause of free knowledge and help cover parts of the world rarely covered in the anglosphere in the past!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you're a troll, I think you're burning out, as I have explained to you in private correspondence. Longterm editor burnout can be very harmful to both the editor and the project, particularly when the editor is not self-aware enough to differentiate what could be referred to as a "professional" disagreement amongst peers from a genuine personal affront. You received feedback from a large number of editors who have a long history of developing and maintaining high quality articles (including plenty with GA and FA flags) that there is no mandatory project-wide standard for infoboxes, and that in several areas of the project they have been found to be unhelpful. This was not personal, it was a discussion about quality of the project. On the other hand, your responses to this feedback (much of which was trying to explain to you the reason that infoboxes aren't considered mandatory throughout the project) became increasingly personal and insulting to other editors; at least two formally qualified as personal attacks, and you received warnings and advice to step back because of this. I repeat my recommendation to you: take a break from the project for a bit; when something that happens on Wikipedia causes you to behave in a way that could legitimately have forced your (temporary) removal from the project, it is time to reconsider your activity levels. Plant a garden, read a book, do the chores you've put off, visit an old friend, help out at the Spring Bazaar at the local community centre. Take the time to step away and revitalize yourself so that you are able to keep the project in perspective.
I have watched many valued editors lose perspective about the project and cause harm to their own reputations as well as to the project. Sometimes some firm but kind words from a respected colleague is sufficient for an editor on the verge of burnout to recognize that it's time for a break or to focus on a completely different area. Unfortunately, many people find it really hard to do this, and it falls to people without an established positive relationship to point out the issues. I suppose I fall into the second category with respect to you, Dr Blofield; however, please consider that my objective is not to run you off the project; it is to prevent you from flaming out in way that causes harm to both your own self-image and to other aspects of the project. Risker ( talk) 15:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I studied the Tsars and Russian Revolution and events at the Winter Palace at college. I'm a damn good researcher and am capable of producing high quality content on subjects I knew nothing about. I find is impossible to believe that you genuinely believe Giano's complete revert is appropriate. And please shut up about personal attacks, the only person responsible for those of late has been Giano, I've tried very hard to sort him out. The only people causing disruption to the betterment of our proportion of good articles on wikipedia here is you and Giano. His current version would not be promoted because of several OR claims and reference problems. My version, providing I completlely sorted out the refs and url links would very likely have passed. You have both illustrated to me very serious violations of WP:OWN. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it within WP policy for users to make unsupported allegations of this kind on ArbCom case pages? I have made no allegations about Ludwigs2 of any kind on the ArbCom pages, beyond supplying diffs of incivility by Ludwigs2, verging on personal attacks. I would have no objection to all the dialogue concerning slander being removed entirely from the page. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 17:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I just happened to see your recent actions with regard to the AN page, and I want to thank you for reminding people to keep a cool head. I don't know if you can help me, but I was hoping to learn how to find admins on Wikipedia. I recently asked an admin for help with an issue and it turned out quite badly, so I wanted to maybe screen them more in advance before asking one of the limited few admins I know of so far. I appreciate any help you can offer. Thank you. -- Avanu ( talk) 05:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Risker,
Would like your advice about an issue about Mathsci. When Mathsci's topic ban from race and intelligence articles was lifted in December, he promised ArbCom that he would stay out of disputes in the area. [28] When he's gotten involved in them again, you also reminded him that he should stop. [29]
But the R&I topic area is the only articles Mathsci has been involved in for the past week. As far as I can tell he isn't doing the same things that got him sanctioned in the R&I case, but he's being somewhat disruptive in a different way. When others have requested input from uninvolved editors at noticeboards, Mathsci has been taking over the discussions so that uninvolved editors can't keep up with him. The noticeboard threads just become extensions of the article talk page- where Mathsci is also heavily involved. Most recently this has been at the RS noticeboard: [30] In doing this, Mathsci is making it really hard to get input from uninvolved editors. Another editor involved in these articles has also complained about Mathsci doing this: [31]
I feel that Mathsci should not be involved in these articles at all, because his agreeing not to was why his topic ban was lifted to begin with. I was wondering if there was anything you or the other arbitrators can do about the fact that his current heavy involvement is now preventing noticeboard threads from serving their intended function. Thanks- SightWatcher ( talk) 02:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Now, everyone who is involved in the R&I case, please clear off this page and either start an amendment request or move on. Risker ( talk) 02:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Remember that little mess re: the "Tomboy and Girly Girl" image?
There's a bit of a fuss that's popped up on Commons. Come by IRC and I'll explain. DS ( talk) 18:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Risker. I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. Despite being recused on all matters concerning WP:ARBR&I, you nevertheless made a comment during a request for amendment to that case. [34] I imagine that was just a mistake. You did recuse prior to that here when ArbCom proposed lifting my topic ban. [35] I am sure the first comment was an oversight. If you were recused and unaware of any problems that had arisen with the case since its closure in August 2010, would it not have been a good idea to refer SightWatcher's query about the case to another non-recused member of ArbCom? I understand that in all this, you were just trying to be helpful, as you are always. Sometimes, however, things can be more complicated than appears at first sight. Charles Matthews was approached in a similar way by an IP, now range blocked, who was subsequently identified as a long term wikistalker (he has posted twice during the AE case, and four accounts have been indefinitely blocked within the last month). By approaching you, the user put you in an impossible situation. Regarding the current case, I have followed all your guidance the moment it was given. I apologize again if there has been any misunderstanding. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 02:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your advice regarding the warning to Hans Adler. I hope you won't mind if I contact you here to seek further advice about the issue of "involvement" in this case. Apparently, you believe that the standard of WP:UNINVOLVED applies. As that policy says, "involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community", and in this light, I understand why you believe that I am involved with respect to remarks made in the context of a case involving me. But if that broad standard applies, why did the Committee explicitly establish a much narrower standard for involvement at WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, to wit:
Or in other words, if the broad standard of WP:UNINVOLVED applies, what is the meaning of the rule cited above? Sandstein 21:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
In light of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editing_from_125.162.150.88 and [36], I request a clarification on Merridew's status - is Merridew blocked or banned? Which, if any accounts or IP addresses may Merridew edit from? Gimmetoo ( talk) 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
IP:125.162.150.88 is continuing a pattern of questionable editing. Again, if this is Merridew, what is the position of the arbitration committee? Gimmetoo ( talk) 04:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello — are you sure about r64228? Why couldn't Prodego self-unblock? ( User talk:Prodego#Blocked Yourself????.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC) — edited 06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
bugzilla:28352, apparently. Prodego talk 19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)