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 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. Column templates Type Family Handles wiki table code?† Responsive/ mobile suited Start template Column divider End template Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}} "columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}} Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}} "columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – – Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – – Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}}, {{col-begin-fixed}} or {{col-begin-small}} {{col-break}} or {{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} {{col-end}} † 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. Notes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] {{subst:User:Alison/c}} 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. December maybe, barring any three ring circuses. Messages below please Recuse Please recuse from the calculation and presentation of election results. The coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters can handle it. Jehochman Talk 19:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Jehochman, Sandy's edit rendered a significant part of the table unreadable. If I wanted to read it (as I did), I had to fix it first. Now, given the fact that everyone and their brother has been editing that page, unless you're going to post messages like this on every single one of their talk pages insisting on recusal by every editor other than the "coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters", you've got no grounds to ask me to recuse either. If nobody other than "coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters" should be editing that page, please put the appropriate edit notice on and consider semi- or full protection. Perhaps more effective would have been the insistence that "coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters" had recused from any form of commentary or non-administrative participation with respect to the election, but it's a little late for that. Risker (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Holy cow, Jehochman, you reverted to this unreadable version of the page just because I am a current arbitrator? I think you've got some rethinking to do if this is the way you want to administrate elections. That's downright pitiful. Risker (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Risker is correct, requesting full page protection. Only the "coordinators, scrutineers and vote counters" (as Risker put it) should edit the page, not everyone. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Fully protected for 24 hours by User:SarekOfVulcan. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sophie No comment, no opinion, just letting you know. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Merry Christmas! “ And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. ” — (Alma 7:10) The Thing T/C is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks very much for the Christmas wishes, I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas and healthy and joyous 2011. Risker (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Merry Christmas Neutralhomer wishes you a Merry Christmas and hopes your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks so much for sharing the Christmas joy! I hope you and yours have enjoyed an excellent day, and have a happy and healthy 2011. Risker (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Happy New Year!!! And may you enjoy during the new year the same degree of fairness, kindness, objectivity, lack of bias, and intelligent concern that you lavished on me this year.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Giffords So I removed all my edits, but four more sysops have edited subsequently. I suggest you let them know what's going on with the talkpage/full protection etc. Sometimes it's not that obvious.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks, The Rambling Man. If I was technically competent enough, I'd create a giant edit notice saying "IF THIS IS FULLY PROTECTED, DISCUSS *ALL* EDITS ON THE TALK PAGE. THIS INCLUDES ALL ADMINISTRATORS, EVEN YOU" or words to that effect. Risker (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Now we have a number of other sysops editing, and Newyorkbrad calling for WP:IAR to make the page presentable (which I agree with, as it happens). So I think I'll WP:IAR and make the page better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC) At the moment I believe the protection has been downgraded to semi. Even were that not the case, I would authorize cosmetic and similar edits by administrators, though not potentially controversial ones, of course. This page is going to be viewed, over the next several hours, by tens of thousands of persons. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, a very substantial portion of the edits made by administrators were not cosmetic or insignificant, and indeed I would go so far as to say we were facing an admin-only edit war on that page with respect to different admins deciding their source was better than other sources and changing the article. That this just kept continuing after the article was reprotected is completely unacceptable. If they're only cosmetic changes, then semi-protection is just fine. But to protect the article and then have administrators continuing the edit war that protection was supposed to stop is unacceptable. Risker (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, well I'm glad my edits worth nothing but cosmetic and that I reverted them once warned. This is threatening to become Wikipedia's lamest "edit war" in months. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I agree that the editing was problematic, and not at all what I had imagined when I fully protected page. I thought we would all discuss sources calmly on the talkpage until we came to a consensus that a bar had been reached. No such luck. But I admit I did edit that page once (in two edits) early on, to remove subsequently added claims that she'd died; I did this partly because they had no consensus on the talkpage and mainly because of the BLP concerns, which I do think is a factor to be considered in this event too when discussing editing through protection. --Slp1 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC) if I have been pushing the boundaries I post this at your page only for convenience, Risker, but it is addressed to the ArbCom in general. I had GWH at my page earlier telling me what he thinks of the recent thread and threatening me. Let me make very clear that if I do lose perspective and cross any unacceptable line in postings, I will obey the decisions of clerks on the matter (though of course I may protest or appeal). However I don't think I or anyone else in my position should have to fear threats from randomers; after all, who is to say what stake anyone who chooses to intervene has?! I tried very hard to keep my postings respectful, but yes I have felt the need to criticze ArbCom; but how else can interested users keep you guys on track? I hope I haven't done anything the Committee thinks is bad. Please remember the EEML has been by far the largest discovered conspiracy to subvert Wikipedia policies, and wasn't that long ago. If a few people have issues with lax treatment of those responsible for it, they are entitled to be heard. It doesn't deprive the Committe of the power to disregard such sentiment. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but as ArbCom (at that time) is well aware, the vast bulk of EEML Emails had nothing to do with Wikipedia. And I'm not going to belabor the point that in my own regard, EEML did not affect my on-Wiki conduct in any way whatsoever. Deacon is free to dispute any edit I (or any other "EEML editor") made on-Wiki that he feels did not fairly and accurately represent reliable sources, or otherwise hold his peace. I did not sit out my topic ban for a year (for responses to canvassing I was not guilty of because I had posted based on my watch list before reading my Emails, but circumstantial timings being what they are...) to have an admin lobby for the privilege of permanently quoting personal correspondence to endlessly relitigate a conflict which is closed. I have no desire to be combative here. I can only trust that EEML is sealed and done, and that choosing to sit out my topic ban without appeal—demonstrating my contrition and good faith in hoping to move on from conflict upon my return—was the correct decision. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. I am nobody's "meat". PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Hold on, Deacon - are you confirming that you received the link to that specific photo via email from someone who identified the two individuals portrayed, without knowing context or veracity of the information you received, and you posted it onwiki? I had been of the impression that you'd somehow found it in the appropriate Wikimedia Commons category. This was remarkably poor judgment on your part, and an action that you'd likely have found unacceptable under other circumstances. In response to your post on my talk page, I think your desire to achieve a certain outcome is leading you to behave in ways that you yourself would find inappropriate in parallel circumstances. Indeed, several of your peers have already pointed this out to you, and I encourage you to take on board what they are saying. Risker Risker, I am not trying to achieve any specific outcome, and if I were I wouldn't be criticizing the ArbCom the way I have. Piotrus will be out of his ban in two months anyway, and I don't contrary to popular myth actually even edit in the topic area. I am criticizing ArbCom for the sake of making it better. I am fairly well attuned to how these things go ... if NYB and others are already supporting something, I know well enough how seriously my views will be taken. But when it all goes up in flames again I can at least say I tried. Though each individual arb is important now, in the long term it is the community that is more important. Many people other than myself would like to know how cozy some arbs are with those they are entrusted with monitoring on behalf of the community. You are elected after all and the Wikipedia has a right to evaluate your judgment on these matters. They can only do so if there is proper disclosure (which we still await). Re the picture, it was already posted on the Pittsburg meetup wiki page as far as I know, but you are right that I should have been more cautious; all I did was compare the pic to her own profile pic and was too distracted to give much thought to whether use of it would be an issue. And lastly, I will evaluate if I have been crossing any lines, though in fairness to me the only user claiming to be uninvolved who had said anything in this respect was GWH. I have come to learn through observation and experience that in wiki-drama matters the line between involved/uninvolved is almost meaningless; generally if someone is giving one 'advice', it is probable there is some kind of involvement or stake even if it is not provable or worth stating. In that context the current process of relying on arb clerks is the best of all worlds. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC) EEML thread on WT:A/R Do you think it would be best for that thread to be closed now? AGK [•] 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, I think so, AGK. Thanks! Risker (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC) The thread-jacking by GWH and the EEMLers has left my final question unanswered. Why is unreliability an issue with quotes if, as you said, ArbCom still has access to the EEML archive? If someone quotes an email from in EEML list archive, surely ArbCom would verify it anyway, right? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Deacon, you are far too knowledgeable a content editor not to know that it is incredibly simple to select quotes from a text that may give the appearance of meaning something entirely different than the author was actually conveying when the text is read in toto. Many good editors have even done this unintentionally, which is why there are often discussion page threads about "what X really meant". That's the key reason that, even before the project wanted references for almost everything, quotations had to be properly sourced. You must remember that not only Arbcom reads what is posted onwiki, and having to defend oneself from out-of-context quotes that may well have been appropriate responses to prior emails that are not quoted places the "accused" editor in an untenable position. Risker (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC) In that respect such postings are like diffs, whose context is almost as unlikely to be investigated. Diffs too are usually presented with a narrative/interpretation provided by someone with a strong incentive to mislead; in most cases, it is not reasonable to expect a third party to reconstruct much context (due to the work involved), and such observers when they try are almost always unable to come up with an interpretation that is more credible or accurate. On this concern alone, the benefits of using such evidence in public outweigh this concern. If most Wikipedians can't read the archive, yet the content of it is relevant to a case, they will rely on those who can. And if those who can are permitted to be threatened or bullied into silence because of alleged NPA or AGF violation resulting from use, they are surely entitled to substantiate their claims publicly. The benefits of being able to quote from significantly outweigh loss of context here, esp. as the ultimate decision-makers are able to access the relevant context of such quotes very easily while those who need to defend themselves are as free to defend themselves as with diffs. I do though very much agree that quoting from it outside Arbitration or AE hearings should be banned, and I appreciate that ArbCom are acting against a background of privacy and copyright concerns too and may be taking a risk by explicitly authorizing quotes. This what I had thought was ArbCom's actual reason for not permitting it. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC) I'm concerned that you seem to have difficulty seeing the difference between diffs of a fully accessible page history (which is easily resolved by simply looking at the entire conversation, which is also publicly accessible), and quotes from an archive that is not publicly accessible or does not meet our terms of use and licensing requirements. There is a certain irony in this discussion because I was on the hardliner side of this case. Risker (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC) That's a different argument though (which I even acknowledge), and it should be quite obvious that I do see the differences and similarities between diffs and email evidence. :) Anyway, I've given my thoughts and don't really want to press the matter too hard. Thanks for the explanation. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Deacon, the problem is unauthorized access to private correspondence. I have attempted to put it all behind, including my topic ban. You appear to be looking to re-engage in conflict, there is no other reason for your fixation on quoting personal correspondence from over a year ago. Please do not continue to advocate for committing privacy violations (I state what follows in manner which protects WP and prevents my advice here from being construed as a legal threat) of potentially questionable legality. The choice from here forward is yours, I've said all I'm going to say on-Wiki. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Rangeblocks My mistake. This was a rangehopping vandal and I blocked for 12h originally, as you can see from the logs. When they started up again (and gave an assurance they wouldn't stop) I blocked for longer, on the basis I could undo them when the issue was sorted out. The issue was later sorted out, but I mistakenly thought I'd blocked them all for a week, not a month. I've gone back and unblocked them all now. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks much, Black Kite. Risker (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Email {{you've got mail}} Jujutacular talk 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Jujutacular; luckily I just logged on to my computer a few minutes before you sent that. Things are taken care of, and I'll respond to you directly via email as well, but only after I get some lunch. ;-) Risker (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Invitation I don't often get the opportunity to say this ;) but thanks for your really insightful commentary on Foundation-l today. You're "officially" invited to join at the new gendergap list, which is open and hopefully we will be a positive space to talk about welcoming women editors. It would be awesome if you could extend an invitation to people interested who might not normally be on Internal-l or Foundation-l. Cheers, Steven Walling at work 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Steven, although I hasten to add that my comment was on wiki-en-L (though I hear it's been passed around a bit since then). Fred Bauder has posted a link on wiki-en-L, which may attract some more project-specific interest, particularly amongst women editors. [Talk page watchers, here's your big chance to get in on the ground floor.] A lot of the issues that make women less likely to commit to Wikipedia are the same as those that affect new users generally (excess programming gobbledygook in the editing windows, bot-like messages, the feeling that one has walked into a longstanding conversation when posting on a talk page, no intuitive way to find help) - so I suspect that anything that makes editing more attractive to women will also be helpful to all new users. Risker (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Blerg, there I go confusing our mailing lists. :( Anyway, you're totally right about it being an issue intimately tied in with general new editor outreach. I think Kat Walsh (mindspillage) was suggesting the same thing. Steven Walling at work 03:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Meetup at Linux Cafe Hello Risker, nice meeting you here. I have been wondering if adding names who actually attended that meeting would be an invasion of privacy. Obviously there are a few people who signed up but did not attend. What's your idea ? Thanks. I just went ahead adding a few names. -- Ktsquare (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Probably not an issue if they've already put their names on the list, including the lists added from the external site. I'd be hesitant to add the names of people who attended but did not include their name on the list; it's been my experience that some people choose not to include that information. And it was nice to meet you too, a very pleasant evening. Risker (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC) YGM 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Digital Leather Risker, I didn't realise the situation re the article. Am comfortable with the unsalting and undeletion of the article. Have said as much at AN. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Well, it seems that actions have already been taken. It does not surprise me at all that people keep trying to create this article - the guy is on his way up, he's gotten a mainstream record deal now, has mentions in mainstream media, and so on. In 2006, there was valid reason to delete article attempts as spam and lacking notability. When his performances in NYC are now being noted by the New Yorker, we're no longer talking the Myspace band situation. We can't keep speedy deleting this article and whacking anyone who writes about him; this editor did exactly what you have recommended, and the article was reviewed by other editors and admins before it was moved into mainspace by an administrator who felt that it met the requirements. If you feel there is reason to delete the article, please take it to AfD. I am still not seeing the rationale at all in this editor being blocked; the article she developed bore little resemblance to the last version. On a more humorous note, I'm starting to wonder if I've slipped through the looking glass - for all my reputation as a rabid deletionist, this is the third article in a row I've publicly come forward to say should be kept. Risker (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Don't let it worry you, I'm an inclusionist and I actually [voted "delete" at AfD this morning! Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Well, the other day User:Damiens.rf and I together voted to keep a non-free image, so yes, somehow the world must have turned upside down while we all weren't looking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Primary sources I'm moving this here to let the ANI discussion conitnue - hope you're ok with that. The problem with some of the articles that this cadre of editors is connected with is some of them lack secondary sources completely - as in the case of Russ Nelson. The only secondary source has the guy as a racist - which is exactly why I didn't whittle down the article to that. Sure, the most reliable source for the list of directors at Toyota are primary sources from Toyota, but if that's all you have about someone then you really don't have much on the subject - unless you have a gang of folks trying to fabricate an article or groups of articles. Regarding self-sources, if someone claims on their blog something on the order of "I've been programming in Java since 1985" on their web site, then it's clear they are just positioning as that is impossible. At the end of the day, blog posts about the authors are really lousy sources. I probably should have used much less sarcasm on ANI in making that point. The bigger point here is there are a group of tech and open-source cogniscenti who are writing articles about each other with lousy sources. I believe this might be done to puff up each other's web presence but I have no evidence - just a group of lousy articles and indignant folks who aren't used to being challenged. Sure, I didn't use my charm through all aspects of the discussion, but if you look at the evolution on the talk pages, the charm was dialed down after I tried to politely explain the issues. None of these guys are newcomers except for perhaps the most problematic of this group, Tech.contrarian (talk · contribs). And you're right - I have come across tons of people trying to do all those things in my essay and I believe represents a fundamental flaw in biographies. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Toddst1,take a look at the histories of these articles. Most of them are 4 or 5 years old and were *not* started by the subjects themselves, and what we had there was hardly quality in most cases. It is the same with many of our biographies; they're so poor, and we as a community are so terribly unresponsive to perfectly reasonable corrections, improvements and concerns that many of the subjects of our articles have started to "fix" them themselves. I don't think we have a leg to stand on in alleging conflict of interest and implying intentional evil intent on "civilians" who just don't want their top google hit to be trash, full of tags that seem to proclaim to the world that the biography is nothing but a work of fiction and self-aggrandisement. That, in itself, becomes a form of BLP violation. I have no knowledge about the notability of anyone involved in software (it took me almost two minutes to remember that the Apple guy is Steve Jobs and the Microsoft guy is Bill Gates), and certain fields do not document their "stars" the way that popular media or sports or the nobility do. We have to find a way to locate information about these people, using nontraditional sources if necessary, or stick only to the most notable people. I understand your frustration, I really do; I'd venture to say, however, that perhaps some changes in tactics might be called for here. Some alternatives: focus on BLPs where you have sufficient knowledge of the subject to be a reasonable judge of notability try to avoid tags (especially the big banner-type ones) - if the article needs that much work, better to stub it and make notes on the talk page try communicating with one or more significant article content contributors discuss sourcing at the BLP or RS noticeboards, giving the *specific* example if the subject doesn't seem notable, try a BLP-prod or even an AFD if you're going to work in the area of BLPs of software programmers, develop some "editing buddies" with access to some of the more esoteric sources that would be considered reliable but might not be easily accessible Just a few suggestions here. My gut instinct is that some of these people are actually quite notable, but for those without extensive knowledge of the field, we can't pick out the really important people. In some cases, the key facts about an individual might be able to be worked into another article (e.g., discussion of the developer of software in the article about said software), but that always runs the risk of getting BLP information messed up in a difficult-to-detect way because the article isn't marked as a BLP. Risker (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Henri Coanda defamation Your reply to my arbitration request was that "community has been provided with some lower-level opportunities for resolution here, which I'd encourage be tried first". Could you please tell me those other opportunities as the ArbCom was suggested to me by the admin User:Amatulic. Thanks you, for any reply!--Lsorin (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Long post is long. Hi Risker, hope you're well. I just wanted to drop by and see if can talk about Pending Changes with me? I'm here because Rob (Lanphier) and the other tech folks working on this felt they needed someone who could devote some time to talking it through with the community, or as they put it, "we've enlisted Steven Walling from the Community Department to work on our behalf to make sure there is better alignment between the Foundation and volunteer wikimedians". The Foundation tech staff are feeling in limbo. Right now the status is that they're waiting some clear direction from the community about where to take the feature. (See the February engineering update.) The common ground here is that they agree we cannot continue a perpetual trial. It totally erodes community trust in the developers at the Foundation, and it's a waste of their time and donor funds to keep working on a feature the community doesn't really want to use. I thought I'd ping you specifically because: There's a new RfC up and running. So the community is clearly very ready to restart discussion about this. You had a really good idea during the last straw poll. You said, "The community should select a specific group of editors to assess the consensus; it should not be anyone associated with the WMF or the Board of Directors [sic], who have a vested interest." Rob and I agree that this should definitely happen if we're going to have another RfC or poll. If the WMF is going to end the trial cycle firmly and either keep and improve Pending Changes, or turn off it for the foreseeable future, then we need a rigorous and (most of all) trustworthy conversation. Not a poll Jimmy designs alone, or one that is unclear and hard for staff to take action based on. So what I'm asking is: can you help form this group of editors to determine the final consensus? Having Jimmy or the Foundation just hand pick a group is a bad idea, but someone should make a shortlist of thoughtful and diligent people to ask. If you have changed your mind and think a kind of consensus jury is a terrible idea, I'd of course like to hear that too. In the meantime, I'm going to point a few people at this explanation and idea to see if they'd like to help form such a group too. Thanks, and happy Friday! Obviously we can talk about this more over the weekend. Steven Walling at work 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Just as a reminder, the last major bug fixes on the feature were made in November. Since then we've been consumed by the fundraiser, 10th anniversary, the MediaWiki 1.17 release, and other work. That's been the general lay of the land about our work on the code directly. Hmmm. Interesting.  Chzz  ►  12:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Ralph Nader When you fully protected the Ralph Nader page you inadvertently protected content from being restored that an IP user has been repeatedly removing against consensus on the talk page. The content is from the 'Criticism' section. Mystylplx (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Discuss it on the talk page of the article. Seems the IP editor felt it was more appropriate in a different article. There was a lot of strange additions and removals from the article, so the best place to straighten things out is the talk page. Risker (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Tried that. See the 'criticism' section of the talk page. The consensus was against him but he just keeps removing the content. The only additions and removals I saw was regarding the criticism section and the stuff about Naders Arabic name. The Arabic name thing is new. The constant removing of content from the criticism section has been going on for months. Mystylplx (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC) KeepLocal image template Hi Risker, I'm writing to everyone who commented (for or against) on the last deletion debate regarding the Keeplocal image template. This has been proposed for deletion again, and your input would be welcome. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Template:KeepLocal. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks, SlimVirgin. I've commented, as I am sure others will too, on both sides of the discussion. Classic example of trying to avoid a proper policy discussion by deleting the template that enables users to invoke that policy provision. I suppose I'd now best watchlist the relevant policy page.... Risker (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comment, Risker. I think being forced to have to look out for images on the Commons would be one hurdle too many for a few people. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Taking a little break For the next few weeks, I'll be stepping away from most of the mainstream Arbitration Committee matters. There are a few small tasks that I will participate in, but otherwise I will be inactive. Even arbitrators get to have the occasional holiday. This is also an opportune time for me to say thank you to those who make this job worthwhile: my colleagues on the Committee, the clerks who deal with much of the grunt work, the administrators and editors who identify and often address issues that come to Arbcom/Oversight/CheckUser/AUSC attention, the editors who work to present content that we can all take pride in, the developers who make so many useful tools, the WMF staff who do genuinely care about this community and its growth and development, and those from all walks of wiki-life who find a moment for a friendly or supportive word. You're the reason I continue to log in. Risker (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC) User:Kittybrewster/Bryony please comment on talk page. is she married? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC) pass-out teh baked goodies Gold Hat has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! User:Babelfisch The above-named user has expressed issues with editing after having EnWP IPBE removed. Would you mind reviewing the case for IPBE for this user please? Thanks! Kylu (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I think the problem has been solved, but I still wonder why MuZemike revoked the IP block exemption in the first place. It took Wikipedia more than a year to accept the fact that users from China have to use proxies to edit and the IP block exemption had been working since May 2008, until MuZemike yesterday decided to have me blocked again. What’s the verdict of the review, for the record? --Babelfisch (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Hi Babelfisch, I am on holiday right now (the first real break I have taken in 2+ years that didn't involve a family crisis). Nonetheless, I have taken a look at what has happened here. IPBE is not intended, generally speaking, to be a permanent permission for users, with the possible exception of those who are editing from very specific known situations. You are in one of those situations; however, this was not apparent to the checkuser reviewing IPBE blocks, because the IP you have been using for some time has not been blocked, and because there was no indication in the action summary that granted you IPBE that you were editing in that type of situation. Your IPBE has been reinstated (two minutes after Kylu's post above), with an action summary that will make it clear to future reviewers why you do have this permission. I am sorry that you may have been inconvenienced temporarily. Risker (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry to bother you. I understand now that it was an oversight. Thanks for your concern and I hope you enjoy your holiday. --Babelfisch (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Online Ambassador Program Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I'm very flattered that you think I'd be good at this, Neutralhomer. However, I'm pretty tied up in other areas of the project at present and I don't think I have the time to devote to this experience right now. Risker (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Inactive at Arbcom I just noticed that you were in the inactive column on the Arbcom page. You're still editing outside of Arbcom, but it still got me a bit worried. I hope you're alright and all. If not, get better. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) No worries, Sven. I was traveling and knew I would not have reliable, secure internet access for much of that period - plus even arbitrators get to have a little bit of a holiday from time to time. I've just returned to full activity as of yesterday, although I will not be participating in the two cases that are now being voted on. Risker (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha Just a note that this case has been re-opened. I've added my findings, but would appreciate any review/input you may have. Cheers! TNXMan 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Email Hi Risker. Hope you're well and enjoyed your recent travels. Just a note, but I've had "email this user" enabled for years, and as far as I can remember have never disabled it. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks Pedro, I am indeed well, and very much enjoyed the recent travels. I'll confess some denseness here, as I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to when you mention the "email this user" matter. My email is also enabled. Risker (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Email 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Elockid (Talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC) AE sanction handling evidence Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Coren's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I'm posting a request on Coren's page and CC:ing you, per NuclearWarfare's advice. --Ludwigs2 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I cannot see the merit of these editorialising personal remarks of Ludwigs2, which are a reopening of WP:ARBR&I as well as a personal attack on me unsupported by diffs. Little of Ludwigs2's evidence was taken into account in the ArbCom case and his statements here do not agree with the ArbCom findings. During the current case Ludwigs2 has made unsupported attacks on several other users involved in the case. Here is the latest example [6][7]. In addition prior to posting this, he made this posting on Ncmvocalist's page.[8] His intent seems to be to attack me and that has nothing to do with the current case. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_.7BBasket_of_Puppies.7D. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Basket of Puppies 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC) New evidence submitted Hi, this is just to let you know that I have submitted two sections of evidence after the deadline because this evidence is based on edits that were themselves made after the deadline: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop#Hans Adler Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop#Dreadstar's unblock enables continued disruption by Ludwigs2 Regards,  Sandstein  06:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Interesting - does this now mean that I get to submit further evidence refuting sandstein's rather wild accusation? It seems a bit odd suggesting that I'm being disruptive for something that never would have happened had he not blocked me in the first place. let me know if that's the way you want this to play out, and I'll do that tomorrow. P.s., sorry for the duplicate on Coren's page. --Ludwigs2 07:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Sockpuppetry case Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oh my. Risker (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 3RR case Hello Risker. Do you want to go ahead and close this report? WP:AN3#User:Phatboi96 reported by User:S43 (Result: ). The apparent closure was by User:Jasper Deng, a non-admin. (I have reverted his close). Per your comment there, I assume you would close this as 'Stale', which seems logical. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Erm...ummm... I am embarrassed to have to admit this, but I have never closed a 3RR report. It looks like it involves templates, which tend to give me some sort of allergic reaction. :-) There are some other weird things about the whole situation - it's a malformed request, made by an editor who has also made very very few contributions. There's definitely something going on at that article, but I can't quite make out what it is - whether it's just unsourced info, or if there is something else behind it. My suspicion is that, at minimum, a discussion with the "warned" editor about proper sourcing would be appropriate. If you could close it, I would be most appreciative. Risker (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC) OK, but I was thinking of blocking Phatboi96 indefinitely as a vandal-only account. Phatboi96 is repeatedly adding a claim that the musician Al Cisneros is a drug dealer. ('Dank' and 'nugs' are two forms of canabis, according to the Urban Dictionary). EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC) And who said Wikipedia wasn't educational? ;-) Thank you for looking more closely at this situation; this sounds like the right outcome here. Risker (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Having reviewed his edits, I fully concur with you, and have indefinitely blocked him. Risker (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Note The user called Mindbunny has made his IP address known via editing, if not downright owning up to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC) fun, fun, fun Looks like you guys are still having a ball over at AC. :). Hey, how you doing Risker? Hope all is well. — Ched :  ?  05:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Mail 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.