:Hi King4057. Provided it doesn't conflict with other panels/presentations I'm being tapped for, I'd be happy to participate. I must warn you though, my thoughts on "paid editing" are much more nuanced than just pro/anti. They would touch on how (in)effective/(un)responsive the project is in addressing legitimate complaints of article subjects; whether or not there is a difference between people paid by some sort of WMF partner or affiliate (chapters, GLAMs, or other organizations working through chapters/projects) and paid editing where the exchange of funds is not linked in any way to WMF or its partners, affiliates or projects. Then there's the question of editors writing within their professional field. And we haven't even touched on people who don't get paid in dollars and cents but are editing in a manner that advocates for a particular point of view.
:Hi King4057. Provided it doesn't conflict with other panels/presentations I'm being tapped for, I'd be happy to participate. I must warn you though, my thoughts on "paid editing" are much more nuanced than just pro/anti. They would touch on how (in)effective/(un)responsive the project is in addressing legitimate complaints of article subjects; whether or not there is a difference between people paid by some sort of WMF partner or affiliate (chapters, GLAMs, or other organizations working through chapters/projects) and paid editing where the exchange of funds is not linked in any way to WMF or its partners, affiliates or projects. Then there's the question of editors writing within their professional field. And we haven't even touched on people who don't get paid in dollars and cents but are editing in a manner that advocates for a particular point of view.
:So...if you're still interested, let me know. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker#top|talk]]) 19:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:So...if you're still interested, let me know. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker#top|talk]]) 19:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:: I need to refine the title of the session. This is generally about corporations, lobbying groups and subjects of a biography - areas with a history of misbehavior, an overwhelming COI and significant controversy. GLAM has their own track and other non-profits aren't generally problematic. The CREWE group is PR people serving their clients, who aren't affiliated with WMF, but insist Wikipedia doesn't allow them to make factual corrections and so forth. Generally to edit the articles of their clients.
:: So I'm reading that (a) I need a better title (ideas?) and (b) This would put you in the anti-camp, once I refine the title to reflect the scope? I am a paid editor of this nature, but one that has taken the time to understand the rules, get involved and vowed to not touch articles directly, but collaborate with neutral editors. [[User:King4057|King4057]] ([[User talk:King4057|talk]]) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 19:46, 12 February 2012
If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together. I tend to watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a few weeks after my initial post. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. --Risker (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links
Column-generating template families
The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.
† Can template handle the basic wiki markup{| | || |- |}used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.
Husnock - Dec 06. Admitted shared password, desysop confirmed by Arbcom in full case.
Messages below please
Request
Hi Risker, I've just dumped a bunch of diffs at the AN\I thread where Maunus requests a block review. My request to you is to have a look at the diffs and I can provide many many more, but haven't the time at the moment (am on a lunch break!). Frankly the situation with Alarbus has become intolerable to me, to the point that I considered leaving and asked Casliber to delete my page. I changed my mind, restored the page and created an article. Within 24 hours the disruption began again. I believe my contribs are being watched and it feels as though I'm being hounded. This is exactly the type of behavior that makes women editors not want to edit here, and until this situation is resolved I'll probably be gone. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Within five minutes of posting diffs that took my lunchtime to gather, Alarbus has been unblocked. Apparently the diffs are irrelevant. You've lost Maunus, who is a very good content contributor and a fair admin, and you've lost me. All I do is write. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Truthkeeper. It strikes me that this may be more of a "once bitten, twice shy" situation than anything else. You're upset that an IP edited the same template as Modernist did to include your new article. You've also had a negative encounter with Alarbus, who is also known to edit templates. I can understand your instinctive desire to connect these two events, but I'm afraid there is no tangible reason to do so. The IP editor was cleaning up the template to bring it into standard, and did not in any way change anything that Modernist added. Alarbus had nothing to do with that edit. In other words, it appears that Alarbus was actually doing as told (i.e., not to hound you) and you were doing your usual good work, and a completely separate editor made an entirely proper change to a template you're very familiar with. I am not certain I understand entirely why you would feel hounded if another editor improves a template you're watching; would you respond the same way if someone improved sentence structure or added a reference to an article you have written? Based on your previous interactions with Alarbus, I can understand you don't want anything to do with him, but I'm concerned that anyone who makes even perfectly reasonable changes to something that you've edited or are aware has been edited will be on the receiving end of blocks and anger. This is not a positive situation for anyone, yourself included.
It's clear from Maunus' initial report to ANI that he had blocked the IP as a sock of Alarbus, but review of the block has indicated that Maunus' assumption, valid as it may have been, has proved incorrect. It's alright to make an occasional error, and the high quality of Maunus' editorial and administrator work means he's qualified to act first and follow up later in situations like this. I don't think his initial block was completely off-base; he presented grounds for it that were acceptable. However, subsequent information showed that his usually-reliable instincts were off on this one occasion. Given the situation, the appropriate thing to do is lift the blocks on both accounts, since they didn't meet the standard. While I appreciate the diffs you pulled up, the worst I can say on most of them is that some edits were repeated before discussion went to the talk page. In fact, one of the examples you give as "edit warring" is actually an unbroken series of edits improving the template.
I hope you'll return to editing. At the same time, I hope you'll also consider what it would feel like to be the editor who'd already left the topic area and then got blindsided by a block because someone else had edited a related page. Risker (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not a template I watch at all. I was completely unaware of what happened until I saw Modernist's help request posted on pages that I watchlist. At any rate, that you think Alarbus' behavior toward me has been acceptable is all I need to know. Thanks for the response. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cow, Truthkeeper, I don't know where you came up with that. I've not even addressed Alarbus' behaviour toward you except to say that I understand that it would have an impact on how you perceived others' edits. Don't put words in my mouth, please, particularly when they're untrue. Risker (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps re-reading what you've written above will help you to understand. Much of it is incorrect and clearly the diffs I spent time providing showing underlying behavioral issues have no relevance, which, yes, in my mind indicates that the behavior must be considered acceptable. Anyway, thanks for the response. I'll be on my way. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you've had a bad experience with Alarbus (and I largely agree with you about the initiating issue, which was templated references). I can certainly understand that that bad experience has coloured your view of the actions of other editors; it's not optimal, but we're all human and I wouldn't fault you for it at all. I don't fault Maunus for carrying out the blocks in the first place, based on the information he had at the time. Where I'm having trouble is when the "second look" showed that the IP and Alarbus were not the same person (and in fact were working in different topic areas at pretty much the same time), a few people (yourself included) have held forth that the blocks should stand and that Alarbus should be sanctioned for actions he did not do, and the IP should be blocked for legitimate edits. The initial confrontation between you and Alarbus has already been addressed; he is staying away from you and the articles to which you contribute - which I understand would be your desired outcome. I hope that with a bit of time, you'll reconsider your retirement. That doesn't mean I'm going to support a block that was found on review to have been made in error. Risker (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking about two different things. You're addressing the IP block; I'm addressing behaviour that I perceive to be aggressive and intimidating. I can provide many diffs, but not at the moment because I want to be away from here for a while. As for Alarbus staying away from articles I edit you might want to have a look at his contribution history [7] and in particular the first places he went after being unblocked. I realize these are non-controversial edits; what I'm trying to say, and without success, is that I've been going through this on numerous pages for about three weeks. At some point, enough is enough. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, and commented on Alarbus's talk page. I agree that, even assuming the best of faith, it is pretty well impossible to see editing that template immediately after being unblocked as anything but inflammatory and provocative. Risker (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm taking a big sigh and trying again. I hadn't seen the entire AN/I thread as I was at work and at lunch and I didn't understand why the earlier thread and the Hemingway page were dragged into it again. As the IP is not Alarbus, then clearly the IP shouldn't be blocked. I took umbrage at the suggestion above that anyone who edits a page I edit will be on the receiving end of a block or my anger. That was a quite a surprise since I have a good working relationship with the people I collaborate with, with the exception of a sockpuppet who leaves interesting messages on my page. That said, I'll take your advice on board and take a break. I have been working very hard, which, combined with the holidays, seems to have put me unnecessarily on edge. Thanks again. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rhetoric
err… I'm somewhat embarrassed to say it, but that's not rhetoric; that's the way I talk. You should hear me pontificate after a couple of beers. Sorry… --Ludwigs200:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
Or maybe not. Did you see the two ANI threads discussing an Orangemarlin block/interaction ban/ final warning, etc? This active one and the previous, archived, one. No consensus yet, at least not a consensus to block right now. I'm pretty sure not. I don't see any summary, and it's all a bit.. huge. Difficult to get an overview of. Bishonen | talk00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Bishonen. Huge is right; I've been reading it over dinner, I'll probably wind up with indigestion. I'm comfortable with the block and, to be honest, would have made it in a more timely way if I had been checking my watchlists rather than traveling at the time. At the end of my reading, I'll probably have words with Captain Occam and DSMBel as well. Risker (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the block itself. Certainly there are objective grounds for it, and while there was a consensus against an indefinite block at AN/I, I'd be the last person to argue that an admin needs to follow the whims of the first 10 people to comment in an AN/I thread (if it were re-posted, there might well be consensus for the block). On the other hand, the way this played out epitomizes everything that I detest about civility "enforcement", in particular the way it rewards professional plaintiffs and forum-shoppers. But in the end Orangemarlin is a grownup and responsible for his own actions, and I doubt this was a total shock to him. MastCellTalk01:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self - 10 day old diffs are ok to block if you're going to indef about it, with the "apologize and be unblocked" demand. Got it. Hipocrite (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My three cents - I am concerned that there was significant and obvious multi-party baiting going on, and this response is (so far) asymmetrical. I did nothing so far personally because I wanted to see if the article talk page warning I left had taken and stayed that way. It seemed so for a day-ish, but then broke down on all sides.
I personally very much don't want to reward professional plaintiffs / forum shoppers / people who bait. That has happened a lot here. You say you're not done reviewing; I trust and assume you're working on that and have those concerns in mind. If you want other relatively uninvolved admin assistance or sounding boards on those, let us and me know. If you for some reason decide there's a conflict of interest or should back out, let us and me know.
Okay, almost done. Anyone who's been waiting with baited breath can look at my most recent edits/block log while I go write something up for AN/I. Risker (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC) And for the record: [8]Risker (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Email
I sent you an email and tried to cc ArbCom at the same time, but I got a weird bounceback for at least one of the addresses. Just trying to confirm if you received my email. It's not super time-sensitive or anything. NW(Talk)06:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have come through the Clerks mailing list, and I've responded to it now. It's not possible to send to two WMF mailing lists at the same time; the server treats it as spam and bounces at least one copy of it, and often all copies. Thanks for following up, though; I know these things sometimes go astray. Risker (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, Hipocrite. Wouldn't have taken me long to throw in a half-dozen other links to OrangeMarlin's bad behaviour in the last 10 days, although the one selected was beyond the pale (even MastCell pointed out one on his talk page which was sufficient for an indef). Keep in mind that the block does not have a set duration; if and when OrangeMarlin is prepared to participate without making personal attacks, I'll be happy to unblock him. That may be tomorrow...or when the cows come home. The ball is in OrangeMarlin's court. Risker (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming late to the discussion, so if there's someplace else I should be posting, please let me know. For the record though, I am in strong support of the idea of requiring disruptive editors to promise to do better before we let them back onto the project. I realize the wiki-culture has long had a pattern of, "Block for a short time, and hope they do better when they return", but I am a strong advocate of requiring the blockee to acknowledge the behavior first, before we allow them back. --Elonka18:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that in the case of established editors like OM, we need to tediously discuss whether we should warn them that they'll be facing a block for personal attacks. I give you props for stepping up and taking action while the discussion languished at ANI. SwarmX19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I support the requirement for OM (or any editor in this position) to explicitly acknowledge community norms. I don't see it as being about "forgiveness" so much as an empirical observation that people who have explicitly agreed to do something are ipso facto more likely to do it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grovelling is not what happens on wikipedia. If Orangemarlin agrees to avoid personal attacks in the future, that is all that is needed. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this whole Orangemarlin thing is really making me rethink my approach to Wikipedia. OM habitually does things that make me look practically Amish by comparison (yes, I know this from experience; OM was one of the people who introduced me to the ways of Wikipedia), and yet so many people are willing to downplay - or even actively support - his immense truculence. Apparently I'm simply not being mean-spirited enough to gain the support and respect of the community.
Yes, that was sarcasm (which I'm only noting so I can point to it when people enter this diff into evidence against me). Wikipedia cracks me up sometimes… --Ludwigs214:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't you recuse as Coren did?
While you may have been less involved on en.wiki, I distinctly recall some discussions on meta where you and Coren were flaming each other over images issue. It's clear both of you have clearly stated and strongly held opinions on image filtering/censorship. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
o.O No comment on whether Risker should recuse or not, but while she and I stand pretty much on opposite sides of the whole debate about images, I don't think we ever flamed each other over it. — Coren(talk)21:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I share Coren's o.O - my communications on meta with respect to the "images issue" were pretty much exclusively in my role as a member of the group overseeing the referendum/plebiscite process and release of results, and my interest there was in getting accurate and informative results out to the community. I'm not entirely certain what people perceive my position on images, but I've been genuinely impressed by some of the points raised by people on all sides of the debate...and there are certainly more than two sides here. Should the case be accepted (and technically, I think it is in line to be accepted within the next 24 hours depending on any subsequent voting), I'll be reading the evidence very closely here. Risker (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly my perception as well. Your participation in the process, for one, does lead people to conclude that the basis is legitimate, and the feeling I got is that you believed the image filter to be beneficial at least in principle. It may simply be an erroneous impression, but I'm not surprised that it is shared.
That said, I feel that this is a fork-worthy problem, and I've been arguing against it (and with some of the parties to the case) with some vehemence so it seemed reasonable for me to recuse. I don't remember you having participated in the debate(s) outside your implication in the logistics of the poll attempt, so unless you have a strong enough position that you'd feel prejudiced for one side or another (something you alone can tell) I can think of no reason why you'd have to recuse. — Coren(talk)23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find that thread, again. [9] IMO, Coren did flame you starting at "Good job with the spin", while you kept your composure. I suppose that's one of the reason why you're still in ArbCom and he isn't. I had also confused you with another female editor (W...) who had posted a lot more messages in those filter discussions on various pages and whose messages were slightly more vehement. Please accept my apologies. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Office Hours
Hey Risker; another Article Feedback Tool office hours session! This is going to be immediately after we start trialing the software publicly, so it's a pretty important one. If any of you want to attend, it will be held in #wikimedia-office on Friday 16th December at 19:00 UTC. As always, if you can't attend, drop me a line and I'm happy to link you to the logs when we're done. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I do know that most of the time it is a false positive, for example leaving the page open for too long. But if we know that there is still a possibility, it seems irresponsible... There are quite a number of them flagged as CSRF. We contacted them and most of them confirmed the vote, 5 did not respond after a week so Vituzzu decided to strike the votes. Feel free to email me or find me on IRC (nick: Bencmq but I'm logging off soon)... Ben.MQ (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We discovered that certain browser configurations, including some that are relatively common, do this too. I'd suggest that if you are striking votes based on this, that you specifically and publicly state what criteria you were using in deciding which ones to strike. To be honest, if 100% of the users who responded to you said that it was indeed their vote, you might want to consider how likely it is that the 5 voters who didn't respond to you were indeed forged votes. I have to say that if you were seeing a LOT of CSRFs (more than 0.5%), you might want to contact Tim Starling regardless, because there may be something else going on here. If you're striking 5 votes because of this, that's a non-trivial technical problem that has the potential to directly affect the outcome of the election. Risker (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the page to keep it up with the actual vote list (another scrutineer struck the vote). I am emailing them now though and I'll discuss with them again. Thank you for the info :) Ben.MQ (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me as well! You've become an integral part of the Committee over the past three years, and I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future. Kirill[talk][prof]01:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! I look forward to working with all of the new and returning arbitrators. I've been a little busy in the last few hours, initiating the induction process for the new arbitrators, so I'll be leaving messages for my new colleagues - and the other candidates - some time tomorrow. It's reassuring to see the level of continued community support that I was granted, and I'll do my best to live up to it. Risker (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! I must say it's a well-deserved result, and on a slightly more selfish note it's also a reassurance to me that you're still on the committee. Let me know if you ever need my assistance with anything. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp16:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You do a lot of fantastic work with Wikipedia (especially ArbCom) and other projects. Given that, I wanted to personally invite you to attend WikiWomenCamp being held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in May 2012. This is a women's only conference, followed by a two day gender gap conference open to every one. Your experiences and knowledge base would be a great thing to add to the event. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the invitation; however, I think I'll put the money toward a down payment for a new car. I'm not sure what the attraction is in Buenos Aires in winter (January, I might consider!), and I'm not a big fan of sex-restricted conferences. Indeed, I believe my experience in working collaboratively with men was a very valuable preparation for success in working on Wikipedia. But I do appreciate the fact that you've made this gesture, and I wish you all a lovely time. Risker (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. :) Completely understand and it obviously isn't for everyone. Can totally understand why you might not be interested. :) Best of luck and keep up your good work. :) --LauraHale (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very churlish of Mrs Risker to refuse the invitation – if it's a matter of money I am more than willing to finance her trip on behalf of the women of Wikipedia – I feel it imperative that members of the Arbcom should be at the camp. Perhaps Mr Wales and the men could be housed in separate tents with some sort of alarm system should they try to 'explore' after lights out. I only wish I could be there too, but unfortunately I am persona non grata in the Argentine, ever since that frightful Perón woman thought I was trying to steal her boring, overweight husband back in the late 40s. I implore you Mrs Risker reconsider – just think what you will be missing. Catherine Rollbacker de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that Mrs Risker, quite wisely, has no intention of leaving the seat of government until her new appointment has been officially announced – I would imagine it's rather like Ancient Rome with assassins and conspirators around every street corner. Mind you, the thought of Mr Wales hovering above me with his ampulla in hand and 'ceremonial' designs on my bosom would send me hotfoot to the other side of the world pretty pronto. Furthermore, Ms Georgia we European ladies are able to control our urges, although looking at those male Wikipedians who do display their images, there are unlikely to be many urges in that direction. Catherine Rollbacker de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an active email account, and didn't want to go down a possible dead end if didn't overlook the absence of an account. I hadn't found or read the oversight board before, and it seemed the better choice over Help or ANI. It seems a bit reactionary, but I don't have a Polyanna worldview. Dru of Id (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My perspective
I seem to be having difficulty communicating with you. I don't necessarily think I will get you to agree with me, but I hope that I can put together a short description of my perspective so that at least you can understand me. Then, you can read back over my proposed principles and agree or disagree based on that understanding.
I don't think that religions can be evaluated in the same manner as we evaluate other material. With most material, we weight according to popularity. If 90% of scientists agree about something, it's fair for us to present that conclusion as being basically true, and the other 10% as being fringe beliefs. That doesn't hold with religion. Take the people that believe in transubstantiation, for example. This is the belief that the communion wafer and wine turns into the physical flesh and blood of Jesus Christ during the ceremony. It's clearly a minority belief: primarily Catholics, so somewhere around 10% of the world's population believes it. I could set up tests to look at people's urine after the ceremony and could probably prove that they had metabolised a cracker and some wine. The results of those tests wouldn't change a thing: people that believed would still believe, people that did not would still not, and most people would think it was incredibly rude to even conduct the experiment. If someone ever did conduct such an experiment, the results would probably not be included in our article on the topic. As a society (and as a project) we simply don't weigh the "truth" of a religion, and "verifiability" doesn't even enter into the discussion. Religions just are.
This deprives us of our normal methods of weighing objections. We can't and won't take a position that one sect is more likely to be right than another. There being more Muslims than Latter Day Saints doesn't mean that the Muslim belief that Jesus Christ was whisked off the cross prior to crucifixion and lives as a physical being in Heaven is any more or less likely to be true than the LDS belief that he returned to North America after spiritually arising to Heaven and exists today in spiritual form. The two groups object to depictions of different things for different reasons, and the objections of both groups are equally valid. We have no method of discounting one group's objections without discounting both.
That extends to all religions, great and small. The aboriginal prohibition against depicting dead people is just as valid as the Sunni objection to depicting Muhammad. If we yield on the depictions of Muhammad, it would be wrong not to also yield on the depictions of dead people. There are sects that object to depictions of unveiled women: again, just as valid as the objections to pictures of Muhammad. There are some Islamic sects that object to all depictions of people: again, just as valid as the objections to pictures of Muhammad. There's essentially no end to it. I suspect that over 90% of our imagery offends some religious group.
So there's the dilemma: there's no valid reason to yield to one religious group without yielding to them all. Yielding to them all leaves us without an encyclopedia, and yielding to one (or two, or three) leaves us with a project that has editorial policies biased in favor of certain religious groups. Both alternatives are unacceptable. The only approach that I think is acceptable is the one I champion: ignore all religious offense when making editorial decisions.
Could you please undelete this category per my comments here [11]. The central and explanatory page of this category is Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain it explains the category which was built around it. It is unaceptable that categories can be deleted by Admins with no word, understanding or even a polite mention to their creator who in this instance clearly knew better then those few commentating. You are keen to talk of civility perhaps genuine, basic good manners from Admins would be a very good start. You might also like to check out the nominator User:CircleOfWillis. Thank you. GiacomoReturned13:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It so happens that I am one of the "few commentating", although I had this talk page on my watchlist for other reasons. I wonder why GR is so sure that he "clearly knew better" than me? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're much more knowledgeable about that than myself, you could certainly improve it. There's a discussion on Jimbo's talk page at the origin of that and another one on WP:AN. Best wishes for the New Year! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:
File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia
This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.
Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours
Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.
First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.
All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).
Things we'll be discussing include:
The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.
If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight issue, I think
Hi Risker, I notice you've been posting so I'm hoping you can see this quickly. I'd like to draw your attention to this section: User talk:John#Help regarding User:Gregory Goble please. Gregory Goble has been posting personal information (address, phone number, email address) on several pages, and has now posted a long list of email addresses of American academics. I thought this could use the attention of a oversighter. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, I was still online so saw your message, EdChem, and I've addressed the situation. If you find similar issues, you can also go to User:Oversight and click "email this user", which sends an email to the Oversight OTRS queue and ensures that the first available oversighter will be in a position to address the problem edits. Thanks very much for letting me know; I suspect that some sort of administrative action will be required with that user. Risker (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the AE suggestion, GG has already posted that he did nothing wrong so AE may become necessary. I've had a look at the pages on discretionary sanctions and AE procedures and they reminded me of the requirement for a warning / notification about the relevant case. I am unsure, however, whether this notification can be given be a non-admin like me. If the notice has to come from an administrator, is it appropriate to approach one active on the page to make the suggestion, or just an admin I happen to know, or should I go to a general noticeboard? I did post to ANI about cold fusion recently but nothing much resulted, likely 'cos I was not posting about any single action but rather as what I fear is a growing mess. Any advice appreciated. Regards, EdChem (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Risker; I don't want to harp on about this (my faith in arbitration being anything but a kangaroo court is trashed right now) but I think your actions yesterday are an example of the huge civility issue that exists here - once we get away from the curse words misdirection. I stuck my contribution down, which OK apparently is not in the right place (though where exactly I can post an opinion/analysis where it can be reviewed as evidence is beyond me :)). No one came to me to explain the issues with the evidence and suggest a better placement. It was just moved to the talk page (an echo chamber where it will go unnoticed, I suspect) - where people then began to reply without my knowledge. I only happened to notice by accident today, nearly 24 hours later. The lack of notification at any stage is, in my opinion, the exact level of incivility that Arbcom should be looking at (honestly; I'd prefer it if people used curse words at me!). I'm not blaming or attacking you for it - I am certain it was good faith oversight or something that just got forgotten. But just food for thought :) --Errant(chat!)10:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an asided; to help me understand the problem. What is the difference between my evidence and ScWizard's that makes mine opinion and his factual evidence (as I read it he simply links to NPA and then expresses a personal view of what extent that applies and how Malleus is normally treated). --Errant(chat!)10:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An answer here would be, you know, civil. Especially as a number of other non-evidential opinions have been entered into the case without action. It feels like I am being censored and I have growing suspicions with the lack of any response. --Errant(chat!)20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, ErrantX. I did read your comments the other day but was unable to respond online at the time, although I did give your comments some thought. I neglected to return and put them in writing to you, and for that I am sorry.
Your statement on the evidence page was just that, a statement. There's nothing to back it up. Your first subheading is about problems with de-escalation, but you give no examples. I'm the first to admit that "civility is not simple", but links to attempts at analysing whether or not an edit is uncivil would give credence to your words. The same is true of the remainder of your statement; it's your opinion, but there's nothing backing it up. It can't be turned into any findings of fact, or even any principles.
In fairness, I'm finding that the kind of evidence that would be helpful is not there, whereas there's lots of evidence that isn't particularly useful. As a result, I'm going to ask all participants to do some collaborative work to collect some actual evidence of problems relating to civility and enforcement of the civility policy. The case was taken because such a large number of editors insisted that this is a big problem, but based on what has been provided on the evidence page, there's no basis on which to believe this is true. We all know that "gut instinct" is a poor substitute for facts.
Thanks for responding; and I really like the way you are thinking about this. FWIW I wouldn't call what I wrote "gut" feeling exactly, just what I commonly think when seeing a lot of AN/I threads - which is "this could have been sorted out on a talk page if someone had taken the initiative and been firm". You're right it needs evidencing, but I am unsure of the best way to do it - I could post some AN/I threads but that wouldn't mean an awful lot (because it is a bit speculative as to what might have happened had a common sense approach been taken). I'll think on it a bit more and go back to the drawing board now I know what you are after. When is the deadline for evidence? --Errant(chat!)22:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Risker, I've read the sentence "Please verify that there is nothing on the talk page of the user before including," a few times, but can't understand what it means... Could you please clarify? Thanks, --Elonka07:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:
We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!
I apologize that I don't have the sufficient resources (time and otherwise) to create a fancy chart, but please leave what evidence I have presented intact. The people have a right to know! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You and your two colleagues are playing a very important role in an historic reassertion of the rights of all people everywhere to be able to freely access the storehouse of information and human knowledge. For generations to come, these moments will be remembered and commemorated. Thank you for your service. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
Thank you both; however, this was a team effort, so I'm not going to take all the credit. Most of it should go to the 1800+ Wikipedians who participated in the discussion. Risker (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Civility Enforcement Arbitration case, Evidence and Workshopping period closed
Fifelfoo, the clerks have now closed the pages (with the exception for GWH which is discussed on the evidence talk page). Giano, I am aware of the concerns of which you speak, and I agree it's time to try to get this thing wrapped up. I'll be reading tomorrow night (I made downloads of the pages so that I could), and we're planning to start the really heavy lifting over the weekend. It may take a bit. Risker (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker, I suggested that an invitation be extended to GTBacchus to add his perspective as a departing editor. As you are likely aware, the final straw for him was a thread that displays characteristics of civil-at-the-surface harrassment, and his response included "bad" words, the exact situation that makes the civility policy such a dangerous weapon given the tendency to not sanction civil provocation and POV-pushing. I am noting this here as my post on the workshop talk page was reverted, and I believe that the departure being post-deadline means the opportunity to seek a departing editor's prespective was not open earlier. If he could contribute in the next day or so (assuming he is interested) offering him the chance need not interfere with your intention to work on the case over the weekend. Just a suggestion. EdChem (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to GTBacchus' comments on the evidence page, as I believe it may be relevant. However, the pages should be considered closed by all parties. Risker (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please undelete this picture File:Olga Rudge.jpg that I uploaded, it is used inan article and is a book cover used for perfectly legitimate reasons. This obsession with copyright is becoming a little over accute. It's not a great read, so I expect the author will be glad of the plug anyway. GiacomoReturned08:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article Feedback Tool
Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies (re ArbCom pages)
Hi Risker,
Just responding to your comment "Removing the "restored with permission" material: That wasn't permission, that appears to be more like resignation that you were going to ignore him on the part of the case clerk, Pesky. Do not reinsert the material again."
I'm sorry if that caused a problem; I genuinely read Salvio's comment as meaning that I could put those back; I certainly wouldn't have restored anything without permission, and I also made it clear that if they were removed I would not revert that removal. I'm probably feeling over-sensitive, but I was a little hurt that you considered the points I made to be "not helpful", and also that you felt you had to instruct me not to reinsert the material, after I had explicitly told Salvio that I wouldn't do so if they were removed.
This case must be nightmarish for everyone who is actually obliged to be involved with it, parties, Arbs and clerks alike. I apologise if anything I did made that worse for anyone. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand 3 needs your votes
You are listed as an active Arbitrator in the Betacommand 3 case, but you have yet to vote on any remedies. I understand that you may be busy with other concurrent cases, but at this point a wide spectrum of remedies have been put up for consideration. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Civility enforcement evidence
Evidence pages are closed, but here's a classic example of uneven enforcement of what wouldn't be tolerated from Malleus, complete with a long-term editor turning in her bits, and two sexist attacks defended and ignored by an admin, who is a MilHist buddy with the offending editor. I know it's late to add this to the case, but thought you might take it into consideration. Timeline of diffs on that page. [13]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already defended my actions there and over email with Bishonen. I've apologized to Bish via email as well. I don't make special accommodations for Milhist people, I did not take the WWofW comment as sexist, and I'd appreciate if you wouldn't claim to know what I was thinking. Anyway, I'm going to go 'hibernate' for a little bit too. This strong of interactions is why I tend to just write articles. Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Ed, but I don't understand how one could read the "Wicked Witch of the West" and the corruption of a username to include the word "bitch" as anything other than sexist personal attacks. They are gender-oriented. They're personal attacks, without question, both of them. Is it any wonder that we have a hard time attracting and retaining female editors? I just shake my head. Risker (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, but, but, he's an admin, and they're in the vaunted MILHIST (which never, ever does anything wrong), so I predict that you will block no one, and strip no bits. You will not post a public motion to admonish, nor will this impact anything other than your talk page. Prove me wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think anything of that nature is necessary, much less almost a month after the fact-- it's only intended as an illustration of the undue attention paid to Malleus, even when he's less offensive than regulars everywhere on the Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the snap judgement, Hipocrite. Anyway, Risker, I didn't take 'Wicked Witch of the West' as sexist and fail to see how it you both think it is. Yes, the WWotW is a woman, and so is Bish. That doesn't automatically make it sexist. I also took him at face value of trying to make a metaphor, and responded by trying to show why it could have been expected (and I wasn't supporting cabalism, as Sandy has said elsewhere...) On the other hand, 'bitch' obviously is. I changed his wording to avoid piling on even more drama on what was already a heated discussion. Ed[talk][majestic titan]19:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm ... seeing your sincere confusion, Ed, I'll attempt an explanation. Although I've not been a fan of these "gender bias" claims lately on Wikipedia, seeing Brad's "Wicked Witch of the West" and "Bitch" pointed at Bishonen, along with Alarbus (talk·contribs) et al referring to me as Nurse Ratched (terms which would never be applied to a male, with, naturally, admin Wehwalt turning another blind eye), has given me a new perspective. [14] These terms attempt to diminish a woman's femininity, just as one could attack a male's masculinity by any number of well known epithets that refer to their male parts or mannerisms. It's gender bias, pure and simple. That it was an attack, surely you recognize, even if you don't see the gender bias? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see how it could be taken as an attack, but I've seen much worse and much more direct statements too. I mean, even as our article over at Ratched notes, "She has also become a popular metaphor for the corrupting influence of power and authority in bureaucracies such as the mental institution in which the novel is set." These characters are used as metaphors for people in real life, so it's at least somewhat understandable to see them on here. Maybe I just have thick skin, though. Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... or even if I described him as a sycophant, or a wikilawyer? on the bitch thing though, I'm sure I have in the past called Lara a bitch, just as she's called me a dick. And I know that you've called me a dork. It's just water off a duck's back though, or at least it ought to be. MalleusFatuorum20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, which is a shame. But what went wrong there goes deeper than just a bit of name calling. Balloonman, for instance, has called me an arse more times than I can remember, but "does this face look bovvered?" The disputes that grind away at you are those like wife selling, or your Chavez stuff, which may end up in a bit of name calling, but that's rarely the real problem, although it's usually the only one addressed. MalleusFatuorum20:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandy, I'd view that as an odd choice for name calling. ;-) But more realistically, I can see where you're coming from (now) but agree a bit with Malleus here – it's not horrible, especially if you're trying to illustrate a point. Comparing someone to Hitler or anyone semi-similar is an obvious exception to this. Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oh, well your friend Brad resorted to the Hitler attacks on me as well :) [15] (Trying my *darndest* to figure out where *I* followed *him*, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.) Anyway, as long as FAR can get back on track, he can call me all the names he wants. And admins will continue to ignore it. They're too busy picking on Malleus to care about the rest. Female editors like Bish and me are tough enough to keep taking it, right? Or not, in Bish's case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did follow him to my talk page, at least. That's an interesting reference, though I think he meant her husband. Even if it is an attack, though, you can learn from it... what he's trying to say (I think) is that you are posting the same inaccurate items all over. And even if he didn't mean that, I'm going to continue anyway. ;-) For example of inaccuracies against me, the assertion that Brad and I are "Milhist buddies" is just wrong – he's not a member of the project, and we've only run into each other on a few ship articles. Or how I "defended" Brad, when I just said that we needed to wait for a reply from him and that no sane admin would block over "drones". Yet even after I replied to these, you kept posting on the subject with the same word choices. Assumptions on your part are fine, but when the assumptions are refuted, it's very frustrating to see them reoccurring in other places. All of that is meant in the best of spirits. :-) And Risker, I'm sorry that we're clogging your talk page! Ed[talk][majestic titan]01:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I followed him to your talk page? What a strange assertion-- based on what? You and I were already engaged in quite a few discussions, and you've been on my watchlist for longer than I can remember. Ed, I can see something is still troubling you, and you think I'm misrepresenting something, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what. You say you aren't MilHist buddies, but it was your post that first asserted that notion,[16] I link the diff so that it's clear what I'm basing my posts on, you're both ship editors and cross paths there, you referenced that (not me), and you're the single highest contributing editor to his talk page.[17] I believe the diffs back that you defended him. I'm not pulling statements out of thin air. Although I'm really unsure why any of this still matters-- that he got away with gender-based personal attack, and that Bish is gone, is quite clear. It's only intended as a comparison of what goes on routinely thoughout the Wikipedia, but only Malleus is blocked for similar. It's really not about either you or Brad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :)
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.
My Talk Page
Okay, folks, enough. Drop the sticks. Stay away from each other and stop commenting on each other. Contribute to the content of the project. But both of you need to stop pursuing this. Risker (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Neutralhomer has replaced the sock puppet banner he put on my talk page after you removed it. I really need this to stop. If arbcom's word isn't good enough... then I don't know what is. This editor has crossed a line, and he's compromising my ability to be an effective contributor here by attaching this type of uselessness to my account. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same user also removed a message of mine from the talk page of the administrator who dealt with the other account. I'm not sure I want to take this to ANI, but I am considering it. This feels like harassment. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you alleging claims of "admin abuse" against that admin, exactly? On what basis? Is this some kind of joke? See you at AN/I: and this should be interesting. Doctalk09:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request denied. That's part of being on a public website, ya know. As far as adminship: I'd wager you don't have it. I don't want or need it: but I know I'd be good at it. Probably a lot better than you. So, you want to conduct half of your business off-wiki, and pick and choose who you feel is worthy of talking to you on-wiki. Good luck with that. Doctalk10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: there should be some explaining alright. How many "secret accounts" are we allotted without proper disclosure? Ones we can resurrect at will? And is it true that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others? This is worthy of passing on to the curious commoners, if this is the case. Doctalk10:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Risker, this is the post that is in question. It was taken from User:MuZemike's talk page. In it, User:Fortheloveofbacon claims that Mike "inappropriately blocked an account of mine" and asks Mike to direct him to "any sort of discussion relating to your block of User:RelevantUsername". Bacon says the RelevantUsername account is his, that makes him a sockpuppet. Since the RelevantUsername account was blocked for "abusing multiple accounts", that means we are looking at a long-term sockpuppet (a few names spring to mind there, probably in yours too).
As we all know, MuZemike is a competent admin who thinks things through before issuing any block. I have never seen him issue a block that for an account that shouldn't have been issued. If he says RelevantUsername was "abusing multiple accounts", I have to believe he had a reason for blocking that account and will tell us (or you via private communication). But since it is 5:40am on the east coast (as of this writing) and he lives in the Central Time Zone (4:40am there) I believe, there is little we can do until he wakes up and has some coffee. Not to mention real life stuff. So, I recommend all of us (myself included) break for the night (or is it morning?) and either go to bed or get our day started until Mike wakes up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the ArbCom case that Bacon is referencing above is not a case at all. ArbCom was called in reference to this SPI about a connection between Bacon and CoM (we all remember him). They cleared Bacon of being CoM, but not any other sock. So ArbCom only clear him of that charge, not any others. We need to wait for Mike.
@Bacon: Don't threaten anyone with ANI unless you have clear proof of "harrassment" and "compromising [one's] ability", plus are willing to start naming past accounts. ANI admins tend to shootin' when they start hearin' quackin' or will hand out sanctions quickly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking to a user (ie: Risker) who is asleep. She hasn't edited since 1:57am EST. She isn't here. Plus, I am pretty sure she would deny it, since we are doing our "jobs" around here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that wouldn't be a problem if MuZemike hadn't blocked the other account for "abusing multiple accounts". That's where I run into a problem. Also, normally people who have a "declared alternative account" actually put it somewhere, like say, on their userpage (like you have and others). This user is hiding it. Not cool. That's another problem I have. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of bacon, can someone explain why an account with zero edits like User:RelevantUsername is of such great concern? Am I missing something? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have to as Mike that? What are you getting at with all of this? It's a declared alt account. Please, drop the stick and start trying to make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for people trying to edit. Do you have an issue with Fortheloveofbacon's edits? If so, please state that. Otherwise I don't see a need for your behavior to continue. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because Mike blocked that account, that account is still blocked, Mike blocked it for a reason. The User:RelevantUsername account was created at 01:21 on January 21, 2012 while Fortheloveofbacon was still under the accusation of sockpuppetry at the SPI (which was started at 16:06 on January 20, 2012) that Risker won't let me talk about. January 21, 2012 is the exact same day that Fortheloveofbacon was indef blocked at 17:42 by Elen of the Roads and unblocked at 20:16 by Hersfold. If you are being accused of sockpuppetry, the last thing you would do is make a "declared alternative account". Now, call it whatever you want, but I call it high suspicious and I call it a sleeper account lying in wait, which is called sockpuppetry. The fact that I have to tell you all this (did anyone even bother looking?) and post it here shows someone isn't doing their job very well. I also weld a very big 2x4 and I don't own a horse. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did not tell me anything I did not already know. Other than the nonsense in the last few sentences. Are you suggesting a blocked account (which the user admitted was theirs) is a "sleeper"? I think you have a wildly different definition of what a sleeper account is, if so. Fortheloveofbacon was exonerated from all suspicion of socking by arbs/CUs. Again, do you have any problems with his edits? Killiondude (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the timing of the creation of the "declared alternative account" is extremely suspect. To me, it looks like the "declared alternative account" was created in case he was blocked. He was, then unblocked, so while he does the honorable thing and declares it, the timing is suspect. I sense bad faith behind it's creation. As for sleeper accounts, if you check my block log (and a couple SPIs) you will find I have had a couple sleepers in my time (which have all been declared and blocked). As for his edits, from the extremely small amount of article edits, I see one poor use of the term "vandalism" and the systematic deletion of the Arthur Rubin article. But the bulk of his edits are all talk page or Wikipedia space edits, so I can't judge his work on just 21 article edits (where it really matters). His talk page style needs some work, especially his snarky little attitude. That, he could lose really fast as it will get him in trouble here. But I am more worried on this "declared alternative account" than his talk page style and complete lack of article edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know who you are. All I know is that you've appeared out of nowhere, after I've already gone over all of this with the admins/arbcom, and started digging the same stuff back up. The biggest problem is that since you don't have the ability to actually do anything, you're just throwing up banners and filling up talk pages. The more time I spend here, the less time I get to spend in article space being productive. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have been so productive. The bulk of your edits were to you talk page and other talk pages. Sorry, talking does not equal productivity. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do have the impression you are moving the goal posts here. If you have concerns with Fortheloveofbacon's editing in general, then start a RfC/U. Perhaps Doc9871 or Arthur Rubin are willing to certify that as well. Tagging his page with an inappropriate sockmaster tag as a proxy for {{unproductive}} is not what WP:DR recommends. And I can't help but notice in this context that you, Neutralhomer, have been blocked for both harassment and sockpuppeting in the past. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um...Arthur Rubin is not a Wikipedia account holder to my knowledge. According to his Wikipedia page, it says he is "an American mathematician" and "aerospace engineer". If you look above, I admitted the sockpuppetry, but this isn't harrassment. I see an editor creating a "declared alternative account" while under suspicion of sockpuppetry (that I am not allowed to link to). That sets off red flags for me, maybe not for you, but it does for me. Plus, having not one, but two admins trying to make me stop talking about this, tends to make me talk more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neat! OK, another notable person with a Wikipedia article who also is a Wikipedian. Still doesn't answer really any of the other points that I made. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so many quotes from Alice in Wonderland and between "Off with their heads" from the Queen of Hearts and "I'm Late" from the White Rabbit, those are the only two that people remember. Sad. Anywho, you have only been here since September 2011, when you are here longer, you will learn that coverups and sweeping things under the rug or just plain ignoring it until it goes away is classic Wikipedia behavior around here.
But since I am not getting the answers I want, plus this conversation is boring me greatly, and I have to be up in 22 minutes (even though I never went to sleep), I am going to wait until MuZemike comes back. He is the end-all be-all when it comes to the blocked "declared alternative account". He has a lot more pull around here than I do. Until then, we can call this particular conversation closed, but not the entire discussion (that's to be continued). You have yourself a good morning, I am going to go sit in traffic with the cranky commuters. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just needs to pick a fight. He's already on restricted communication with 5 separate users... Wouldn't it be great to bump that up to 6? Seriously, how much more decorum could I possibly show here? Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to get your facts straight, I am only on interaction bans with three people, but the one is considered null and void by the person themself, as we are now on friendly, speaking terms. So, do get your facts straight. Two admins (Risker and now Hersfold) have ignored your interaction ban request, Doc9871 pretty much opened the door to you going to ANI to request it above, and I laughed at you when actually had the gall to ask if I would "voluntarily adhere to the terms" of an interaction ban. Sorry dude, you might want to read WP:ADMINSHOP, cause we have rules against that kind of behavior. You might also want to read WP:ROPE. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Risker. You are well known to be rather keen at conjoining technical CU data and behavioral analysis to reach the closest thing to a consensusproof conclusion possible. That skill-set is in dire need at WP:AN where an impromptu SPI has flourished regarding BarkingMoon. I regard Keegan highly yet some in the discussion are openly challenging his assessment to the point of near disruption. In short, regardless of the position you take, I feel it would go far to set the matter in perspective, which is exactly what the discussion needs currently. Thank you for considering these things. Best - My76Strat (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to bait Risker into issuing another unpopular block or something? Let Baseball Bugs deal with AN[I] clerking. He is soon going to be officially invested in that capacity anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not be taking part there. I have already spoken on the general subject and, simply put, either people believe me or they don't. My making further statements isn't going to change that. There's already been more than enough innuendo and intrusion into the personal lives of those involved, and I'm not going to lend this behaviour further credibility by participating. Risker (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did invite the community to decide if the behavioral evidence is compelling or not. [19] You can't just punt back to the community and then frown upon them for basically doing what you said they should do. On the other hand, I agree that the discussion as to whether his wife even existed was surreal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you for that response. I won't press further because I generally agree there has been an intrusion. I haven't seen where you addressed this topic elsewhere, but your credibility is strenuously intact to my regards. Best - My76Strat (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SandyGeorgia. I think sometimes it's hard for everyone to get on the same page; while the Rlevse situation is very engrossing to a goodly chunk of the community, it's only one of several "big ticket" items for Arbcom, where we have five open cases (two in voting and two in drafting), the vetting of candidates for the AUSC, and the never-ending river of block/ban appeals, as well as the daily complaints about various admins and editors. Realistically, the Rlevse/PumpkinSky situation is almost entirely within the scope of the community to manage, and it came completely out of the blue to everyone on the Committee.
I can understand the concerns about the behaviour at the FAC request for comment, which I scanned last night; however, I'll tell you that something like that, where there seems to be a lot of contention, is pretty much exactly why arbitrators *don't* wander the project looking at contentious behaviour. If any of us had commented there, even in an unrelated manner, we'd have to recuse from any matter that came out of it. For the record, I did have a question which I am certainly not going to post over there: What's the plan if Raul gets "hit by a bus"? - meaning any unplanned and unexpected extended absence. FAC and TFA are highly visible, important parts of the project and organizationally we need to make sure that they're not dependent on only one or two people. I don't know what the best way of handling this would be, but it's wild enough on those rare occasions when he's missed a day or two. But given the tone of the RFC, I have little doubt that even a relatively calm, organizationally focused question like that would have exacerbated the already-tense situation. Risker (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know ... in hindsight, that all makes sense to me, but it's frustrating as all heck when work is being diminished and FAC is being undermined by people who have old axes to grind, and we're getting contradictory messages from CUs.
In the "Raul gets hit by a bus" scenario, I used to think there was enough depth among delegates to handle it seamlessly. Honestly-- because of the damage that has been done there since November-- now I worry. The delegates would have handled it seamlessly before; now we need to see if FAC can be rebuilt and if the numbers and comraderie will return to levels before a certain other arb case of 2009 (or was it 10?). The disruption has been monumentally destructive-- which is part of what led to my frustration that I felt like double standards were in play and community feedback was being stifled, and I'm being told to shut up all over the place. FAC was a functioning place. I think we just have to see what emerges in the coming weeks, and if the disruption subsides. I just reread a very long, old thread on Cas's page, and it makes me so angry that I wasted so much time there with PumpkinSky's deceptive posts there, trying to reason with him-- it's hilarious reading in the light of a new day, to realize how much time he wasted. Well, onward and upward. I'm sorry again-- I do understand the difficulties, as well as anyone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since he has asked I not posted on his talk page (and if I am under SANCTIONS I can't anyway), but you might want to speak to Fortheloveofbacon about this edit. Even though it is hidden, it is still a personal attack under NPA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It's best to let this one slide in my opinion, Homie. I don't think the diff is a personal attack because it's not directed at anyone in particular. There are plenty of fish to fry out there, but this particular one is best let go. Just looking out for you, and YMMV. Cheers :> Doctalk05:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom
God knows I am in no position to tell other people what to do, particularly on as difficult and highly discussed topic as the current Civility ArbCom case. But there have been a few comments on the proposed decision talk page questioning the apparent delay. We all know that unexpected things can and do arise, and sometimes we can't do what we intended on the original schedule. But, maybe, a note on the talk page, perhaps indicating the amount of material to be gone through being greater than normal (I think it may well be) and that action in coming to a decision is still actively ongoing, even if no proposals are being made yet, might help quiet those who are questioning the delay. I myself know how monstrousy long some of the evidentiary printouts can get, and am more than grateful that qualified people like yourself are willing to take on the task of arbitrating here, and have no real reservations myself. I remember how Roger was kind of amazed by the amount of evidence in the Scientology case, for instance. So, for my own part, if I haven't said so before, thanks for taking on the task of Arbitrator. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words, John; it really means a lot. You're quite correct about the importance of communication here, and I will go over to the talk page and give an update. Risker (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I think we can get a PD posted over the weekend, and have updated the page to reflect that. Courcelles 21:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)" So, I think it can wait until the weekend is over. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're relatively close; however, so is the TimidGuy case. Just so that we don't overwhelm everyone, the two cases will be posted some days apart. Whichever is ready first will go up first. We're not aiming for perfection but given the masses of evidence and the enormous workshop, we need to select the best focuses to assist both the Committee in making a useful and well-informed decision, and the community in understanding its rationale. Risker (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my administrator and arbitrator decisions are unpopular with at least a segment of the community; this is just another day at the office. Now I remember why so few administrators are willing to participate at ANI. Risker (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe it's time to look at the format. I hate to go there, but sometimes I need to comment on something, and never enjoy the experience. Whilst it remains a "free for all", the ambience is unlikely to change without change being imposed. Begoontalk02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Established/non-established" is probably not the right paradigm or criteria. "Editor aligned/unaligned with the dominant ANI ethos" is probably more appropriate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, perhaps this is Step 1 in changing the ambience there. The continued baiting that happened there (on the part of both parties) was unacceptable. Risker (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC) And wow, I'm not used to edit conflicting twice in a row on my own talk page...[reply]
That would be nice. Something positive out of a mess. Novel idea. I posted some primitive ideas in NYB's ANI thread. Not much, but you have to start somewhere. Begoontalk02:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The amusing part there is that some oppose the block because they say you didn't warn him. And others oppose the block because your warning was obviously just "respect my autoritah". Catch 22. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ASCII, I hope you're not weaseling me ("some") in here. I oppose the length of the block, and I am still not happy there was a block in the first place. Yes, after it was pointed out I did see the warning, halfway toward the right margin of a lengthy thread that I had lost interest in already; I didn't see one on Bugs's talk page, where I would have expected it. (Risker, that's an explanation of why I didn't see it, not a critique of your actions.) If the block was indeed in response to Bugs's comment toward Marek (a post I asked Marek on my talk page to retract, which he did), well, that comment by Marek really wasn't acceptable, and Bugs's response very measured. Moreover, Marek retracted, wisely, and that could have been the end of it. I think. I hope, vainly (or at least hoped). Drmies (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually tricky, since we don't do punitive, warnings are a little weird. I was hoping MSK would come back successfully, but I really doubted it. Now she is indeffed once more, the only reason to maintain BBB's block is if he needs coolign down time. RichFarmbrough, 02:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Where on Earth did you get the idea from that "we don't do punitive blocks"? A very substantial proportion of all blocks are punitive. If not, how do you explain the phenomenon of 10-second blocks? MalleusFatuorum02:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're quite incorrect there, Rich. I think this is pretty standard Baseball Bugs behaviour, and it's been tolerated if not encouraged on AN/I. That he happened to come across someone who won't accept it is his bad fortune. But it is absolutely not acceptable behaviour to keep pushing the buttons. Yes, I get that VM's statement was not appropriate. And did Bugs's response improve the situation any? Was it going to resolve any problem? No, they weren't. Baseball Bugs needs to understand that this sort of antic, including all the snarky and sarcastic and baiting posts on MSK's page, are not okay. I would consider an unblock if he was page-banned from AN/I or AN for six months instead. Otherwise, we're just going to have a repeat performance; this block is preventative in that there's no indication Baseball Bugs will stop this kind of behaviour otherwise. And Malleus, I don't do 10-second blocks. I think just about everyone has figured that out by now. Risker (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that on Commons he was blocked much quicker for trying to pull a similar stunts on COM:AN/U [22]. Of course, that's his evidence that Commons is corrupt or something like that [23]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but honestly I prefer that honesty to the multitude of wikilegalism that would be likely to sink any attempt to reform ANI for the better. At least saying "Don't take my drama board away because I like it", is truthful. Begoontalk03:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the situation, and why people in that situation block (I supported the block, but requested reduction to time served). My comment is that the warn/block combination is not compatible with our stated principles. It is a sufficiently common occurrence that either we should modify the principle or we should modify the practice or both. I don't have a solution. RichFarmbrough, 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I was wondering ...
I have no idea if you remember me (IRC? Brownies?)... anyway - I noticed that several of you (AC, more experienced admins, former big guns, etc.) have been getting involved a very productive way lately. (hope it's a new trend) .. Anyway - would you have time to take an email? Nothing about any cases, or other editors; but rather seeking some personal advice from someone I have the utmost trust in. Hope you are well, and if you're too busy - I completely understand. — Ched : ? 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ched. Don't be silly. Of course I remember you! Feel free to email me, it might take me a bit to respond, but I will watch for it. Risker (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
awwww <blushes>. With the number of people that come and go here, it's never always a certainty - but you just wrapped a warm fuzzy blanket around my heart. :) ... I'll try to get the email out by the weekend, and will be in no big rush for a reply. With respect to some of the other items currently being discussed, you may be interested in this post. The two thread immediately prior to that are somewhat related, but only in that they are a bit of a tangent to the larger issues. Cheers. — Ched : ? 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost mention
Hi, just a courtesy note to inform you that I am mentioning you by username in the Discussion report including in the next issue of The Signpost. You can see the draft text here. Please leave any feedback on the talk page there. --Surturz (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Risker, we've had a few disagreements over the years, some bigger than others and I'd be surprised if we didn't have others down the road. I want to thank you for rising above those conflicts and doing the good work you do around here. Much of what we do here is thankless, and you do a lot. Thank you for your dedication. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PD question
Hello Risker! I am one of the editors involved in the weekly Arbitration Reports that are posted on the Signpost (along with Steven Zhang) and I was curious to know if any proposed decisions are slated to be posted in the next two days. On the Civility enforcement case talk page you indicated that some PDs were soon to be posted, whichever one was ready first. I just want to ensure everything is covered in the Report, and if a decision is anticipated, I need to adjust my work time accordingly.
I knew I would take flak for looking through the history of that article but it was the right thing to do
I'm sorry if you're angry at me, I've replied on my talk page - I knew I'd get shouted at by some for helping you but I did it anyway because someone had to - I didn't think you would actually be shouting at me too --Mistress Selina Kyle(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)16:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am really really surprised you would criticise me for that, honestly, if you want to talk I'd love to, I thought you'd be happy? Some of that stuff is really old and it looks like no one bothered to look, it was right in front of you. Even the revision history has links in it --Mistress Selina Kyle(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody shouted at you; please do not mischaracterize my communication. You're tagging accounts and IPs as socks without any basis other than that they edited a particular article. That is inappropriate. I have, on your talk page, asked you to revert yourself and remove the tags. Risker (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wikimania on Paid Editing
Hi Risker,
I'm fishing for potential panelists with a specific, strong and intelligent point-of-view for a Wikimania panel here on paid editing. Philippe Beaudette said you were going and might be interested. Though he didn't indicate if you fell in the pro or anti category.
Hi King4057. Provided it doesn't conflict with other panels/presentations I'm being tapped for, I'd be happy to participate. I must warn you though, my thoughts on "paid editing" are much more nuanced than just pro/anti. They would touch on how (in)effective/(un)responsive the project is in addressing legitimate complaints of article subjects; whether or not there is a difference between people paid by some sort of WMF partner or affiliate (chapters, GLAMs, or other organizations working through chapters/projects) and paid editing where the exchange of funds is not linked in any way to WMF or its partners, affiliates or projects. Then there's the question of editors writing within their professional field. And we haven't even touched on people who don't get paid in dollars and cents but are editing in a manner that advocates for a particular point of view.
I need to refine the title of the session. This is generally about corporations, lobbying groups and subjects of a biography - areas with a history of misbehavior, an overwhelming COI and significant controversy. GLAM has their own track and other non-profits aren't generally problematic. The CREWE group is PR people serving their clients, who aren't affiliated with WMF, but insist Wikipedia doesn't allow them to make factual corrections and so forth. Generally to edit the articles of their clients.
So I'm reading that (a) I need a better title (ideas?) and (b) This would put you in the anti-camp, once I refine the title to reflect the scope? I am a paid editor of this nature, but one that has taken the time to understand the rules, get involved and vowed to not touch articles directly, but collaborate with neutral editors. King4057 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Goatse.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Goatse.gif){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_September_15#Image:Goatse.JPG){kind=link}
