User talk:Risker

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 Notes [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] {{subst:User:Alison/c}} {{subst:W-screen}} Wikipedia:SPI/CLERK 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 Reply Oh, that's very different. Never mind. — Emily Litella Nobody Ent 00:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Song This is great. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Glad you like it. I've found myself humming this song at work lately. I'm sure a psychologist could explain why... Risker (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Email Hi Risker, I sent you an email a few days ago, but have not received a reply. I was just wondering if you received it? I'm not sure if you simply chose not to reply, or if you didn't get it at all. --Elonka 15:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Followed up by email. Heyla! cancon There's a request to the Canadian Wikimedia Chapter to find someone who is, and I quote: - female - active - Canadian Terribly sexist and all that, but there you have it. Documentarians wanting to, uhm, document. Wikipedians. Willing to talk to strangers? - Amgine (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Heh. I've also received two emails about this. I'll follow up through that route. Risker (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC) I've quoted you I know we don't see eye to eye on some other things, but I just wanted to let you know I've quoted you in the COI RfC. [7] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Stefanomione discussion I am curious why you're picking this fight over Stefanomione. You're seeing a dozen admins identifying a problem which has been expressed to the editor many times, and seem to be insisting on a dodgy point of protocol rather than attempting to do anything about the problem. Can you explain why this is, or must we continue to spar on ANI? (Note to those fellow admins: I'm interested in Risker's explanation, not in repeating the conflict over here.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Mike, it comes down to this. I've read his talk page; I've also read a whole pile of the CfD entries. I see people talking over Stefanomione, not with him; there are no person-to-person discussions happening here at all. I see nobody posting on his page saying "Tell me about Category:Media by medium - what was in your mind there? Tell me how you think this will help." I see no place on his page where he was invited to a central discussion about what to do with that category, either; was one ever held? That's just one example, although I suspect it's the one that's weighing on most people's minds since it took some significant work to get back on track. I don't see any guidance on how he could help to get things back on track, either. When there's a CCI, the involved editor is usually invited to participate and correct issues, for example. Stefanomione was encouraged a while back to participate more in CfD discussions, and he's been much more active there in the reviews of his own categories and those of other editors. I don't see where the concerns have been expressed to him many times; I've seen concerns expressed in an abstract and indirect (and in some cases almost pejorative) way in CfD: "more thin-slicing by Stefanomione" is not expressing a concern to Stefanomione, it's a comment to the general readership. We all know that the categorization system has lots of issues, and lots of room for improvement and expansion. One of the reasons for the proliferation of those templates at the bottom of articles is that people couldn't get categories through the system, even when they were logical ones, and now our ever-increasing number of mobile users are paying ridiculous data charges to read an article that ends with 120 blue links in templates. We have an eager editor who likes to categorize things, who is mostly right when he is doing it. There are leaders amongst you: take the bull by the horns and actively engage him in working in areas that genuinely DO need improved categorization. Encourage him when he does well, and redirect him when he's running into trouble - early on. By going to his talk page, asking him to pause and rationalize a new category or subcategory, or explain his thinking. That orange bar is usually very effective; it brought me here to answer your question. He's been here since 2005. If he'd done just a bit more editing in the first year, he'd have easily made adminship in 2006 if he'd tried. Try mentoring him rather than being punitive; you'll both gain from the experience, and the project will be better off for it. Risker (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) OK, that's what I wanted to hear, thanks. Now, I'll try to express the position of the admins on CfD and see if you think it makes sense. CfD is as much about the "D" as the "C," in that it is all about discussion. Stefanomione's response, when he responds, is always the following: a reply, a claim that what he is doing is not so bad and easily cleaned up, and then continued rabbit holing as if the discussion had never happened. You can see in those discussions that he is always aware they're going on, and reads them when they do. So imagine you have an editor who seems to be constantly aware that he has been asked to stop what he is doing by dozens of people, and does it anyhow, for at least a year. Do you disagree that some form of punitive action is needed in that case?--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Yes I disagree. I disagree fervently. You are not talking to him. You cannot simply decide that CfD is outside of the rules of the project, that it is somehow exempt from Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. CfD is not a world unto itself. Can you show me that you have made a single post on his talk page that has asked him why he created a category you don't like? I see Elen of the Roads making a post telling him he's doing something wrong, but still not asking him why he has done what he has done, or explaining what's wrong with what he's done. In fact, I don't see those points coming up in the CfDs themselves. None of you has done a single thing to try to resolve your concerns, as far as I can see. You're looking to punish someone because you don't want to have to step away from your safe place at CfD, to have to have an actual conversation with a person rather than talk to the group about your opinion of someone else's work. There's a complete lack of respect being shown for Stefanomione, a demand that he bend to your expectations without explaining what those expectations are, that is not compatible with project-wide standards of behaviour. Your complaint about him is that he's not communicating. I am holding up the mirror to you and your colleagues and pointing out that you aren't, either - and as "admins on CfD", you have the greater responsibility for doing so. Risker (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Understood. I think you're completely wrong about all of that, but I'm glad I heard it nonetheless. Thanks for explaining yourself.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Trying to get in contact with you Hey Risker, sent you an email a while back, never heard back from on whether you got it or not (more likely you did), but would just like to know if it's been taken care of. Also trying to get in contact with you for Wikimania related stuff, is it best to do emails for now? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)