User talk:Risker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Navy binoculars.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog
Stats for pending changes trial
Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages
User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js in case I need it


[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
{{subst:W-screen}} {{subst:User:Alison/c}} Wikipedia:SPI/CLERK and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators

Note to self: Research Laura Muntz Lyall (or persuade one of the Riggrs to do so), consider writing an article about the Forster Family Dollhouse in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Some day.

Messages below please[edit]

SPI on hold[edit]

Hello Risker! I appreciate your previous work looking into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Majogomezsz. I was wondering if there were any further developments on the investigation. Although I believe its possible that someone had been skirting WP Policies for what they believed to be noble intentions, I still would like to see what other revelations are made. I dont want to cause any animosity but if there are any new discoveries, then there may be implications for the pages of interest. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Righteousskills (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Just confirming that I have seen this. My life is returning to normal, and I will look at this issue in the next day or two. Risker (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Great! Thank you so much. Let me know if there is any way I can help out or if there's anything else you need to know. Righteousskills (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Risker. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC[edit]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about elections[edit]

Hello, I have a few questions about ArbCom elections in EnWiki. How do you make sure that extreme cases where a candidate with only a few votes (like 45 positive and 5 oppose with a percentage of %90) do not happen in here. In case they happened they would have definitely got elected. You do not have any barrier limiting this (do you?), so why it does not happen?--Drako (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sicaspi (Drako) - there was an RFC a while ago about criteria for the forthcoming election, but I don't think this specific question was addressed. It might be worthwhile to suggest that a criterion for minimal support be added, such as a minimum of 150 support votes, as well as a support percentage of greater than 50%, if that isn't already in the criteria. It's late here so I'll leave it to you to try to dig up the page (try Category:Arbitration Committee elections or something like that). I think candidacies will be opening pretty soon so now's the time to ask the questions and get people on board. Risker (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Risker, but my question was rather general, I do not see any cases like that happening and in absence of any criteria preventing them it seems weird to me. I don't really know why such cases do not happen here. I mainly asked this to apply it to the election in an other wiki. --Drako (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the largest Wikipedia, and there are always at least a few hundred votes, so generally it's not an issue. Also, we use the SecurePoll extension rather than doing public voting, so that tends to affect matters. --Rschen7754 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Why are the number of nominees so small? The voting not being public should do the opposite, as more people would oppose little-known candidates to prevent them from getting elected had the voting been public.Drako (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sicaspi, long ago we would regularly see 30 or more candidates for Arbcom, but as the job became more complex, and the level of unpleasantness directed at arbitrators increased, fewer people were willing to take on the responsibilities. The year I was first elected (2008), I had to answer more than 100 questions from editors (many of them multi-part) making even the election process rather horrible, and candidates who don't respond to the majority of questions posted to them are unlikely to be elected.

I see that your primary project is Farsi Wikipedia, so you are talking about a much smaller project. I am not certain what the scope of the Arbitration Committee is on Farsi Wikpiedia - on English Wikipedia, it includes very complex disputes with multiple parties based on the intersection of multiple policies, as well as determining checkuser and oversight rights, last resort for unblock requests, management of blocks related to paedophile advocacy, and anything that someone considers a "privacy" issue. It looks like they're now getting requests to address allegations of conflict of interest, too, though heaven only knows why they'd agree to take that on. This is a rather difficult package and the committee has been very resistant to dropping anything. If your project is looking at having a simple straight-up vote for arbitrators who will be responsible for a much more limited scope of responsibilities, then you're likely to get more people willing to do the job. Myself, I'd suggest that you rethink the idea entirely: several arbitration committees do not have any real ability to enforce their decisions, and then there's English Wikipedia's committee with enormous scope. It will be very difficult to find the point in between. I wish you luck. Risker (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the great answer. There is no ArbCom there right now but there are plans to upgrade the current admin oversight committee to an ArbCom. Their elections is the opposite of here, candidates usually do not take questions seriously and even do not post any agendas for their nomination. The current election process is double-stage, in the first one candidates are qualified if they have gained at least average of the votes for every candidate (including oppose votes). In the second one candidates are ranked based on their percentage similar to here. The first stage is placed to prevent candidates with little votes but high percentage (like 4 pro and 1 con and 80%) to get elected. The problem is that oppose votes in the first one can contribute to the candidate getting elected. I am trying to look at other experiences and how they handle this problem. Thanks :) Drako (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure how important this is, but my experience brings me to the opposite conclusion. I was twice elected and served two helf-year terms in the arbcom of the Russian Wikipedia, in 2009 and 2010. My impression is that the complexity of problems is comparable, the number of candidates is comparable, the degree of scrutiny at the elections is comparable between English and Russian Wikipedias, but it is more work in the Russian arbcom (we used to have 5 to 7 members and to consider about 70 cases in 6 month, of which more than 50% we accepted), and, since it is a smaller project, one always has collisions between personal sympathies and the policies - which we solved in favor of the policies, but that obviously created very difficult emotional background. At the time, it was very uncommon to agree to run for the arbcom after having served six month, and typically people who served two consecutive terms became long-time inactive in Wikipedia. Nobody ever successfully run three times in a row. It was so difficult, that at some point (after my time) an elected arbcom decided to follow personal preferences rather than policies, and in this way undermined the credibility of an arbcom as an institution. Right now, the arbcom there still exists, but they get about 20 cases per half a year, and they do not work much, from what I know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Retired Editor violating No Personal Attack Policy[edit]

As you were the original blocking administrator can you please take a look at it or should I go to WP:ANI or contact WP:ARB members for this if you do not wish to get involved or busy Please let me know. This User is tagged as Retired now the User is clearly editing using IP is a clear case of WP:DUCK and the user admits it here. Now this is a clear Personal attack on another contributor calling another editor a Jerk ,engages in inappropriate communications with female editors bordering sexual harassment and a liar while banned .How can users get away with statements like that and while being tagged Deceptively as retired. This courtesy is not given to those who had taken WP:Vanish including former Arb members and then returned. Now Why is the user still tagged as Retired and protected ,why is not the Banned Tag put on.Neither has the user left the Project or has he been unblocked but the editor is clearly violating Personal attack Policy while being banned there is no case for the retired tag but the banned tag to put on and added to WP:LTA if it continues. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing, for all intents and purposes, that you can do about this user one way or the other; their IP is dynamic, so unless the community is willing to softblock a goodly portion of Southern California for a couple of years (not something I'd recommend under any circumstances) you will have only limited success in keeping this person completely off the project. In fairness, the same is true of most banned users who insist on continuing to show up. I wouldn't recommend doing *anything* in this case, except perhaps suggesting to the user on whose page that discussion is occurring that they consider reverting edits that start making accusations about other editors. The banned user in question still seems to have no understanding of the reason that they are not welcome on this project (the "personal attacks" they're complaining about here are small potatoes compared to the personal attacks the BU was flinging around on another project that resulted in the BU getting blocked indefinitely there too - lifted after two years to try to address a global request to have the account locked). Sorry I do not have anything more hopeful to offer to you, but this is the reality that we have known for almost 14 years. As long as the project is an open-participation project, a few people who have already been asked to leave will still keep coming back. In this case the disruption is fairly minimal, and I'd suggest that any reaction more than reverting or blanking (on the part of the owner of the talk page, not someone else) is more likely to have a paradoxical effect, resulting in more rather than less posting. Risker (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response ,I was not asking for blocking which is not possible.My only question was why was user tagged Retired instead of banned which is the normal case (I note the retired Tag has been put by an Arb should I take it up with them) ?.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Pharaoh of the Wizards, I thought I'd answered that by saying that I think the best solution is to do nothing — and I'd include monkeying around with the userpage. There's no point in doing an LTA, the user comes and goes on a cycle that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, often going half a year or more without showing up anywhere, and when they do show up they're editing as an IP. I'd just say that users whose pages they show up on should treat the edits like any other unwanted and/or inappropriate comments. Risker (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Institute of Management Nirma University[edit]

Dear Sir,

I didn't create Institute of Management Nirma University for advertisement or promotion.

Its a factual page about my college.

I would be editing the content as per your suggestions but please don't delete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnu.culturalcommittee (talkcontribs) 12:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS email[edit]

Thanks for the explanation - I should have looked - and for the advice and for the reasoning behind the advice, which I'd not considered before but makes perfect sense. All appreciated. NebY (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action on the Amanda Smalls issue. I was just wondering...[edit]

If anything needs to be done with this page: User:Amanda Smalls/Old Userpage? Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Addressed. There is, no doubt, someone in this world whose name really is Amanda Smalls. We have reason to believe it is not the same person as the one who was editing here. I've deleted this page, and also the "current" userpage as a BLP violation. I've not poked around the rest of the userspace, but if you see any more, please let me know. Risker (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yo0u should delete these as well: User:Amanda Smalls/Infobox (Personal info) , User:Amanda Smalls/Gallery (Now a blank page). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Dennis - 15:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


I'm sorry I was unable to figure it out. I just do not understand trolling that well yet. Before I joined Wikipedia, I thought it was "trawling", like people fishing for trouble. I guess I just can't get my head around why people would waste everyone's time, including their own. I mean, what on Earth did all that achieve? This case probably cost me over 1 hour, with only around 15 minutes of returned article work from that user. I'm very cross. Anyhow, I'll be more cautious next time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, please don't be disappointed in yourself. It's vitally important for the project that we have a good balance of people willing to work with difficult users (some of whom turn out to be really excellent if given positive and useful feedback and support) as well as people with what might be called hyperdeveloped olfactory talents. You did nothing wrong at all here, and in fact one of the things that caught my attention was the fact that even someone as kind and full of good faith as you are was concerned about the amount of "drama time" this user was generating. It's a useful metric I'm going to keep in my toolbox: "if even Anna Frodesiak is wondering about this user..."  :-) Risker (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
A very useful tool indeed. Good catch, and good timing as well Risker. Additionally, I thought the ANI discussion went relatively smooth considering the situation and potential for dramah. These are always touchy situations, and it helps when people can speak openly about their concerns without questioning each others motivations. And Anna, I've always said that if you have to err, err on the side of assuming good faith, so like Risker, I would say you have nothing to be disappointed about. The evidence in this case was subtle and not obvious at first glance, and this sock is experienced at doing this. Dennis - 14:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Should we move the SPI case to the master Kaka1987654? After reading your findings, I went back and looked at the accounts laid out originally by Tiptoety and I see that I made the mistake of identifying SkaterLife as the oldest. The master, Kaka1987654, does match the account of same name on and is the oldest account. If you wish, I'll take care of moving them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Part of me wants to move it to Amanda isn't the oldest but it is the best known. I don't think that is a normal procedure, however. Dennis - 15:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Since I was often a target of this user in their MF (and other) personas I have been following this with interest. Just to put you more at ease, I know that Florida law would never allow a girl this young with, as stated on the user's page, anorexia to perform a gender change. See this for more info. w.carter-Talk 15:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Put at ease!!!! You must be joking "you can be done as an outpatient at our facility with a 24 would then be transferred to a nearby motel" You can be done - Done? It sound like an oversexed labrador being taken to the vet; and as for 24 hours, I would want to be unconscious for at least six weeks. Then this motel business- what happens at the motel pray ? Even a decent five star hotel is not known for its medical staff. I'm far from put at my ease. It's a wonder anyone in USA has the procedure at all. Giano (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There's always Argentine law. And, as stated on the user page, a user with anorexia and *an enjoyment of pranks*. —Neotarf (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally know just one person that went all out and surgically changed their gender from male to female. It was more than a 24 hour stay in a hotel, and more than one operation, but then, this was a few years ago and she was in her 40s at the time. She and her girlfriend come into the shop regularly. Dennis - 16:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Giano: Sorry, the wording did not come out right. With "put at ease" I was of course referring to the decision to block the user since their user info is clearly not right, not to the clinic's stated treatment schedule. w.carter-Talk 17:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you W because I am still sitting her cross legged with watering eyes, almost unable to type. Giano (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow, thank you everyone for all this positive feedback; between the comments here and the "thanks" I received, it's a sigh of relief to know that what could potentially have been a very controversial block turns out to be not particularly controversial at all. Myself, I'd be inclined to leave the SPI under the name it is now, except perhaps to copy/paste the paragraph and links I posted to the user's talk page. My own thought is that we should be linking cases to the "most known" name rather than the oldest most of the time (it's what people search for most of the time), but in this case the most known name is undoubtedly someone else's real name and we don't want to tar them with the "Wikipedia troll" brush. I'm wondering though what we should do with the userspace stuff; I'll leave it to others in the community to work that out, though. Risker (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
And while we're on the subject. Could you check out this diff? Might be nothing, but the MO of this account is very similar to the MF & Co. w.carter-Talk 17:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Mysterious accounts[edit]

There's another editor who has been mostly frequenting the GGTF Arbcom case & Jimbo Wales' talkpage, that I've suspicions about. But, I'll let others pursue that concern. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not you GoodDay surely? Giano (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
"A man, duh" was busy defending him, I would note. I just haven't connected enough dots on him, but yes, I'm quite confident that we will soon see a CU block there as well. Dennis - 19:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • He's blocked, after ANI (Adjwilley independently blocked him), reviewed, declined, rinse, repeat. Dennis - 13:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a look[edit]

Hi Risker, could you take a look at these two users: [7] (blocked) and [8]. I'm concerned that they are the same person, but more importantly that the person is underage and on the second account's user page has revealed too much personal information. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My antennae are also twitching, after today's post at the Teahouse by this user. w.carter-Talk 11:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

BASC Reform RfC[edit]

I'm still not convinced why the community (and all functionaries) are not being asked to specifically comment onwiki in the first instance as to whether BASC is needed, and/or proposals to amend the scope of what BASC is dealing with. I know time is not something you have a lot of, though I can confidently say you have more than me overall. Also, as you originally did raise these issues with your comment, I think it's only fitting if you were to follow through by raising it as a separate section or RfC or something - depending on what you deem appropriate. Could you please? I am sure I am not the only person who would appreciate it if you did.... :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Long time no see, Ncmvocalist, I hope you are well and that it is only good things that have resulted in your reduced activity. I am very busy right now with a lot of work related to the FDC as we come up on our retreat in 2.5 weeks, and my "real world" life is also hectic, but I will see if I can come up with something, perhaps with the assistance of a few others. Risker (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Belated wishes for the New Year Risker; hope you are well too (I seem to have neglected to click post when I replied the first time some time ago). You share the same hopes I have (and had). Actually, I also hoped good things resulted over time around here, full stop, but I can't help but wonder sometimes whether that is actually the case. I'm not surprised you got caught up with other stuff and projects; we all seem to have so little time nowadays, but any time we can spare is something I suppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Krishna ballesh[edit]

Hello! I'm investigating copyright warnings on this article. It looks like the Coren bot flagged a mirror site as the source, but on further checking, this article was AfD Here, and then recreated and G4'ed 3 more times. Since you did all the cleanup and histmerging of the latest re-creations, can you opine as to the G4 status of the article in its current form? If you think it is sufficiently different and not a G4 candidate, that's good, though for attribution it probably needs a history merge/restore with the deleted version. Thanks, CrowCaw 23:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Crow, thanks for your message. The "deletion reason" is actually the automatically cut-and-pasted deletion request rationale, and in this case not something I wrote; I can see why I should have modified this. The CSD request was made by MatthewVanitas, whom I understand was doing the rest of the legwork on this one. I've pinged him to this thread, but if he doesn't get back to you either here or on your talk page, you might want to touch base with him directly. Sorry for the confusion. Risker (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice please[edit]


I found your name on a page for resolving uncivil behavior and was hoping to get your advice about next steps for a pattern of ignoring advice / points about guidelines that has degraded to an ongoing pattern of uncivil behavior. See Talk:LG Williams and BLP noticeboard discussion, which has not resulted in a resolution - just a continued and escalated pattern of negative comments. I think it's not been resolved there because the issues are primarily behavioral and the volume of rhetoric is overwhelming.

I'm wondering what you would do. If you could take a quick peak (vs. detailed, timely review) - your input is much appreciated. I don't want to kick-off another process unless it's the right avenue to take. What would you do? Is Civiliy enforcement / arbitration the right way to go? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned you[edit]

Hi, I'm becoming a bit confused about a related WMF resource that people have been mentioning on various en-WP pages. My confusion relates to whether citing something from it might be considered citation of an external website etc and thus arguably an outing. The same pages cite a resource hosted on meta, which adds to my confusion.

I've just mentioned you in such a connection here. If you feel it does step over the mark or are otherwise unhappy with it then please accept my profound apologies and note that I wouldn't consider a revdel by you to be an involved edit. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, Sitush. I have responded at your link, but just in case anyone prefers to know my response without having to cross the Rubicon into Arbcom territory, I do not have a problem with being quoted (with appropriate links) from publicly available WMF-based mailing lists where I self-identify as "Risker/Anne" or some variation thereof. Risker (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


Just wanted to thank you and Cas both for the reply. So much seems to be so complex anymore there (arbcom), so I'm likely very out of touch with what is going on. Thank you again for taking the time to respond; and I hope you and yours are doing well. Best always. — Ched :  ?  15:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I always think of you when I go buy one of those homemade brownies. :-) — Ched :  ?  15:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

MATTE Projects[edit]

As a courtesy notice, MATTE Projects, an article that was deleted per your PROD, has now been undeleted. You may now want to send it to AfD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. You're telling me that someone whose username was MATTE Projects got to get the article MATTE Projects undeleted, without even putting a COI tag on their page? You're kidding me, right? Wow. Risker (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
AFD started. Thanks for the heads up, Jackmcbarn. Risker (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom thread was locked so I will answer here[edit]

Some time ago we had a stupid argument. Stupid because I don't even remember what it was about. But since then you seem to make only hostile remarks to me. Regarding a blocked user starting a new account and abandoning an old one, this is routinely tolerated if the user doesn't return to prior trouble and doesn't announce it. Lots have done this and we don't seek them out. No harm no foul. I had suggested that a disappeared editor might have done this and that might be why we don't hear from him. I was not suggesting that he did anything wrong and, in fact, I wished him well. If there was a doubt, you could have asked if I was suggesting wrongdoing but instead you assumed bad faith of me. Now that I have explained myself I am going to leave. If you want to chat with me you are welcome on my talk page. Jehochman Talk 10:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Angelos Akotanos - Saint Anne with the Virgin - 15th century.jpg
Nollaig shona duit
RozdestvoHristovo RublevBlagSoborMK.jpg
Best christmas and new year. Another year down, and so much more to write. Thanks for all your contribuitions and being such an important part of the community. Hope January is at least resonabally tolerable for you. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
==Yo Ho Ho==
Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from nl-wiki[edit]

Hi, you helped out with a cross wiki vandal. Thank you so much. Find the file I compiled in the mean time here: nl:Wikipedia:Checklijst_langdurig_structureel_vandalisme/Straatmeester. Have checked everything and blocked on nl-wiki and elsewhere where active as global sysop. Still have to list the target articles but that is a holiday chore to do. As you can see you still can block several socks on en-wiki. Let's keep in touch since this is a very harmful editor. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

American political infoboxes & succession boxes[edit]

Howdy Risker. Would you have a talk with User:Therequiembellishere, concerning his/her persistant edits on American political infoboxes & successions? He doesn't seem to want to wait until the new Senators, Representatives, Governors, Lieutenant Governors take their respective offices, before making updates. I've contacted him many times about this, but he's basically ignored me by continuing his updates & not responding to 'anyone' on his talkpage. He/she does this every Nov-Jan cycle. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes[edit]

Risker, you are mistaken about the average time it takes to approve a change in the German Wikipedia: the average waiting time is 14 h 51 min, with a median of 1 h 32 min. [9] The 8 d 9 h refers to pages with unreviewed changes only and measures how old the oldest unreviewed change is on such pages, on average; there are currently about 8,000 pages in the German Wikipedia with unreviewed changes: [10] That is well below 0.5% (the German Wikipedia contains 1.7 million articles in total).

Also note that there is a key difference between the pending changes implementations on the Russian and German Wikipedias: in the Russian Wikipedia, changes are shown to all readers immediately by default. Approving them only means that they become part of an "approved" article version. In the German Wikipedia, the default is that non-logged-in readers are not shown the changes at all until they are approved: the changes are only visible to logged-in readers viewing the draft version of the article.

This explains why approving changes takes so much longer in the Russian Wikipedia: since it doesn't change the default appearance of the article, it's seen as a lesser priority by editors. Best, Andreas JN466 09:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

IdeaLab proposal[edit]

There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


The Wikipedia notification system is nice; one can see random references to one's self even if one hardly logs in.

Just wanted to say I agree with your reasoning here. The distinction between arbitrators, CUs, etc. and other Wikipedians (who may be pseudonyms only for the purpose of keeping a private IP), is precisely why I revealed the connection in my ArbCom candidate statement. Random private Wikipedians shouldn't need to care about pseudonyms elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 23:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


I wonder if you have any insight.

And now we are And

I'm confused by this behavior. Can you please advise me on whether this is WP:COATRACK as a way to subvert the Consensus of the Three AFDs? It's confusing to me how this isn't a Blatant attempt to ignire the consensus simply to make a WP:POINT...I attempted to revert as it seemed to violate the BLP issues previously discussed, and it seems like he's trying to insert the material just for spite, but i was warned for 3rr. I thought that BLP exception would apply but not everyone sees it that way... I just don't see how if both parties were found to be not notable and if even the event was not notable, and if the consensus was that it was all poorly sourced and had BLP concerns, why this discussion is now being held a 4th and 5th time. At some point doesnt someone hafta drop the stick? Any advice is appreciated07:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)🐍

Hello Shark310. Apologies for taking a while to get back to you; real life kind of took over this week, and I've barely had more than a few minutes here and there to review complex things like this. I'm going to assume the best of faith on Scalhotrod's part, because I do not believe he created the redirects maliciously or to "win" an argument; I think he simply wasn't aware of how Google develops its search results in relation to Wikipedia. Google has bots that "crawl" our article pages pretty much constantly to capture changes and drop deleted pages, but with millions of pages to crawl (including user pages and those in the "project" space), it can take anywhere from a few hours to a week or more. I've left a message for him to discuss this, proposing that I delete the redirects as a "housekeeping" measure. If he does not find that reasonable, I'll probably take it to Redirects for discussion.
While I'm here, I should mention that your signature doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements because it does not link to either your user page or your user talk page. It's also pretty much impossible to tell who you are simply by the "snake" squiggle. I'd like to encourage you to change your signature voluntarily now, before someone gets hardnosed about it. If you are really attached to the snake symbol, you can build a link in your preferences that shows the squiggle but links to your user talk page. I hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only[edit]

Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only (cisgender or transgender, lesbian or straight).

It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Lightbreather. Since I very much disagree with the concept of using any kind of classification or modifiers to categorize types of women by orientation or gender identity in order to participate in anything on Wikipedia, and I choose not to use the categories identifying me as a woman, nor do I choose to use the preference to identify as a woman, I'm not eligible to participate. Of course, I have no objection at all to others participating. I guess that pretty much puts me in the "oppose" camp for the IdeaLab suggestion as well. Risker (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I understand that some oppose the notion, but, considering the gender gap on Wikipedia, I want every woman (or person who identifies as a woman) who would like such a space to have such a space as an option.
I'm going to take your page off my watchlist now, so if you want me for anything else, please ping me or come to my talk page. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Same IP?[edit]

Let's just say Jackmcbarn's revert of the edit is entirely appropriate. :-) Risker (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

4Chan BLP Discussion[edit]

Hello. I noticed you closed a section I had created on the 4Chan talk page due to "BLP reasons." Now I understand that there is some sensitivity regarding this topic, and I know for a fact that I can be incredibly dense at times, but I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on the specific BLP reasons so I might not repeat this error in the future. From what I found in my research, the fact that allegations were made against Ms. Quinn has been covered in more than 15 articles from highly reliable sources -- top tier news organizations like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, and the BBC. The fact that allegations were made is not gossip or a fringe theory, and basic details of the allegations were included in nearly every article I reviewed. My research was about as far from "unsourced or poorly sourced" as a talk page comment can possibly get. I believe there is an important discussion to be had regarding the proper use of the sources in that article space. I'm not interested in the veracity of the allegations, only in striking a more dispassionate, disinterested tone. I'm concerned that the sources are not being properly reflected in the article space at present, and I would like to have the ability to discuss them without being immediately shut down for unspecified "BLP reasons." ColorOfSuffering (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ColorOfSuffering. Thanks for your post. To start off with, you were posting BLP-related material on the talk page of an article that is only peripherally related to the BLP subjects. Gamergate isn't really very important in relation to 4chan, believe it or not; it's just one more episode of dozens over the years, many of which have received publicity but many of which have long since been forgotten. None of the links you posted were really about 4chan, they were all about Gamergate, and 4chan was mentioned in some of them but was not the crux of the linked material. Your assessments of the links continuously repeated long-since-disproven allegations with your own comments such as X denies the allegation. This is not the same thing as calling it "false." Please note that the article about which you posted that analysis does not even mention 4chan. In fact, it is completely unclear why you posted that section to that particular article; 4chan is only one of dozens of websites affected by Gamergate. Just about all of those links had already been analysed in depth on the more immediate articles (i.e., the BLPs of the subjects and the Gamergate controversy article), so as interesting as your personal research may have been, it was a poor choice to link it to the article you chose. I'm going to assume good faith here and presume that it never occurred to you that after all these months nobody else had bothered to do this leg work.
I'm going to copy over this entire section to your talk page as well, and we can continue the discussion there if you would like. As the relevant arbitration case is just closing as I write, it's unclear to me exactly how to go about formally advising you that this topic is the subject of Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions in any number of ways (including the special BLP provisions, which is the basis for my having closed the section on the 4chan talk page). However, please consider yourself advised. Risker (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
See WP:GS/GG for instructions. Those notices and sanctions automatically will "upgrade" when the case closes. Jehochman Talk 06:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


I thought it was sexist immediately. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. It is an absolutely classic example of how to insult someone civilly. Kind of like one of my Southern belle friends saying "bless your little heart!" Risker (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Calling out bias[edit]

Womanpower logo.svg Calling out bias
For calling out systemic sexism and instances of personal bias. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Protonk thing[edit]

I think it might have been better to wait and see what HJM had to say; he may have a better idea of history etc. I would say uninvolved admins were leaning towards that resolution but there was no need for immediate action?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

Leaning? Actually there was nobody saying "good block" there, and a rather remarkable number of administrators (and even editors who believed there was a BLP violation) clearly saying "too harsh". When dealing with such a short block (and with the administrator likely not available for many more hours given the time difference), it's not an unreasonable outcome. I think HJM actually gave a pretty good explanation of his thinking in his post to the GG talk page, and it was certainly the consensus that he wasn't completely off the mark in his evaluation of the relevant edit; the only issue was the sanction. Risker (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)