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
Ohconfucius again and another
[6] Yet another editor has questioned Ohconfucius' script use. He has edited since without replying. Discussion with him seems to get nowhere. Please review his editing in light of the date delinking arbitration, WP:DATERET, and the last few RFCs. I believe censures and blocks of Ohconfucius would fall under the AC.
I am also aware the AC has been discussing Jack, though the AC did not formally approach me for my input. I am troubled by that. Will I be informed of any result by email from an AC representative, if the result is not posted in public? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The script OhConfucius created (& is using) is designed not to allow changing accessdates to YYYY-MM-DD and to permit only 1) changing them all to DMY, or 2) changing them all to MDY, or 3) leave them alone. OhConfucius has stated on his talk page that he dislikes YYYY-MM-DD format & that he considers any instance of lack of alignment "fair game" to remove YYYY-MM-DD (that statement since removed from his talk page). OhConfucius has been aligning the format (NEVER to YYYY-MM-DD) any time he notices they are not aligned - with no regard for WP:DATERET - resulting in the gradual removal, and potentially the eventual eradication, of YYYY-MM-DD from wikipedia. He has been notified several times that this is in violation of WP:DATERET -- and for some time pretty much ceased his behaviour & has said he does not do that anymore. Recently, we have seeen repeated cases where he is removing YYYY-MM-DD again, with no regard for WP:DATERET -- several times in cases where all the accessdates were already aligned as YYYY-MM-DD, and often where there were only a few (recent ones) not in that format. Other users have also been using his script to eliminate YYYY-MM-DD. Proposals to remove YYYY-MM-DD from accessdates have repeatedly failed, but OhC continues to ignore that. I submit that OhC's script must either 1>include the possibility of changing accessdates to YYYY-MM-DD, or 2> be stricken from WP space, or 3> be modified so that only he can use it and thus he alone will be directly responsible for its usage--JimWae (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your time is limited. I think Ohconfucius' editing violates WP:FAITACCOMPLI, and I think it needs to stop. I would like a recommendation from you on how to proceed. Is this something WP:AE should handle? An AC motiion? or should we initiate a WP:RFC/U first? I would also appreciate some information about the other proceeding I mentioned. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suspicious of the status of this complaint, given that Gimmetoo is leaping in and changing WP:MOSNUM at the rate of knots. Tony(talk)15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I don't know, folks. I kind of expected that experienced editors all knew where arbitration enforcement was, and that it did not involve my talk page. I am sorry that I wasn't responsive to you earlier, Gimmetoo. However, given the fact that there's a pretty good chance if this matter gets enforced, that it will wind up at an appeal to Arbcom, I'm not really in a position to take hands-on action in these kinds of situations. Generally speaking, arbitrators don't directly enforce Arbcom decisions. Risker (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've just been defending an arbitrator using CU to check for possible violations of arbcom remedies. Has AC been scanning for possible socking by serial sockmasters? Would you or another CU do so? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mostly I've been saying that the use of checkuser tools was appropriate to confirm the fairly obvious suspicion that automated tools were used. That the investigation was done by an arbitrator is sort of secondary; I don't think the subject of the checkuser could have waved a red flag at the Committee any more obviously than he did. Which serial sockmaster are you talking about? Several arbcom members participate at SPI, although I do so only rarely. Risker (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Gimmetoo, you've got a point there. I've long said that Arbcom has no business enforcing its own decisions, and I am not particularly happy that some of my colleagues decided that Arbcom should be enforcing the Rich Farmbrough decision. I feel the same way about trying to enforce anything related to Jack. Besides, at this point, it is so distant from the initial case, and so unrelated to it, that I think anything dealing with Jack probably needs a new case. I have to admit I'm pretty darn tired of all his serial socks. Risker (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure you know that AC has left this case bollocksed. He's under a restriction to edit from one account, which he has violated repeatedly for a year. That would usually mean a ban, but AC prevents that. Why? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saedon, I did get your email and (interestingly) another one similar to it. I've also received other emails that disagree with the perspective you've put forward. I'm keeping an eye out, but I'm not seeing any lines being crossed here behaviourally, which was the hallmark for which I blocked previously, so though there are similarities, it's not an exact match at this point. I'm continuing to watch, though. Thanks for the heads up. Risker (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No cabal
It is important that we are open about the nature of governance on Wikipedia. If someone holds multiple roles it should be clearly stated. I was not aware that the ArbCom appointed their own watchdogs, mainly from their own number. Of course like many organisations the pool of appropriate volunteers for these types of role is often small, so we should not be over-excited to to see the same names cropping up again and again. But if we conceal this, whether from slight embarrassment, or simply because we hadn't thought to make it public we invite criticism, and rightly so. RichFarmbrough, 21:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, for heaven's sake. This is not concealed in any way, shape or form. That you've not paid attention to it in the past does not mean it is concealed. We don't appoint "our own watchdogs", we appoint the Audit Subcommittee, which investigates concerns about the use of checkuser and oversight permissions. There's nothing to be embarrassed about here; only frustration that several years after the fact you're showing up and complaining that nobody told you something that had been as well publicised as we could make it.
The Arbitration Committee has a fiduciary duty to the WMF to grant access to checkuser and oversight permissions only to those who meet WMF and community standards. As well, the Committee has a duty to the community to do its best to ensure that these roles are filled by individuals who are capable, available and are able to communicate their actions appropriately: in the case of checkusers, without violation of the privacy policy, and in the case of oversighters, to confirm what action has been taken (if any) to the requesting party. If the community-based CUs and OSs fall behind, it is usually arbitrators who will step in and fill in the gaps, so that the community continues to receive responses to their requests. For the record, as recently as 4 years ago, oversight requests often took days if not weeks to respond to, and SPIs were frequently weeks behind. Now we're more likely to get complaints because an oversight request has taken more than an hour to be addressed, or an SPI took more than a day. It's darn tough to meet these expectations given the staffing we currently have, which is why we are about to seek out more community members willing to share the workload. Risker (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where I come from, "fiduciary duty" means a duty assigned in trust and confidence. The WMF Board trusts Arbcom to put forward only candidates who meet WMF requirements, will follow the m:Privacy policy and will serve the community effectively. "Fiduciary" does not specifically refer to financial responsibility, although in many cases there is a financial element. There is no such element in this situation. Risker (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, access to the permissions are granted only through the processes approved by the WMF Board of Trustees, who have the over-arching responsibility for access to private information. The community has no responsibility in that regard. Risker (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF is there because the community needs it, to serve the projects. A fact they forgot a few times last year, and were salutarily reminded of. RichFarmbrough, 23:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
"as well publicised as we could make it." Well, I have made Avraham's multiple roles better publicised in a few seconds than you could make it after "several years", yet you object. There seems to be a feeling that by asking these questions I am attacking members of the committee. Nothing could be further from the truth, I am, I think, quite entitled to ask these questions, and to express my dismay at some of the answers. Most of the items that I am taking issue with were not decided by the current arbitrators, so there is no need to feel threatened by the questions. RichFarmbrough, 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
All of his permissions on all projects are posted on his user page. They are not particularly relevant to his appointment to the AUSC, except that they reflect someone who understands the use of these permissions. The nomination and appointment processes for checkusers, oversighters and AUSC members has been consistently published on multiple pages for several years; while nobody is obligated to pay attention to them, your insinuation that the Committee has kept everyone in the dark about this process is, bluntly put, nonsense. Indeed, one of the bigger challenges has been persuading those who specialize in determining what notices go on watchlists that these nomination cycles are important enough to justify watchlist notices. Can I count on you to support a watchlist notice for the next round of applications, which will occur in the very near future? Risker (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not insinuating any such thing, and I am mystified that you could draw such a conclusion. If you were not aware there is a public misconception that actually only some 900 people are allowed to edit Wikipedia. There is also a wide belief among many peripherally involved with Wikipedia that power is "all a stitch up", that Admins "circle wagons" - there is "no point arguing with an admin" etc. etc. People have gone to great lengths to create the structures the govern Wikipedia, and to ensure that as much as possible is done in the full light of day. The majority of Wikipedia scandals I am aware of, consequently result from attempts to keep things hidden. (One can only speculate how many successful attempts there have been.) For that reason I would think additional clarity is to be welcomed. People interested in the AUSC are entitled to know without having to research it that a majority of AUSC have other functionary roles. The names on their own are meaningless to a random reader.
As to watchlist notices I was not aware there was such a thing, but I did see the site wide message on a number of arbitrator elections, and I believe I voted for Elen and Hersfold. A case of casting ones bread on the waters I feel. I would think that it would depend what other watchlist notices they are competing against.
The current watchlist notice is interesting, (an event I would go to if I were well enough) but I would support functionary nominations over that. RichFarmbrough, 23:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It's not needed, and through your own admission it only exists to punish the person who uploaded the images in the first place. Risker (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My edits post ArbCom are completely different than pre. Firstly I make many less edits, secondly I edit largely in talk space, and thirdly the articles I edit are almost exclusively turtles. Your, as ever, mystified. RichFarmbrough, 18:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It concerns me that you cannot see the similiarities in at least a portion of your content edits. They're blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever looked at your edits before. It took me less than 3 minutes to figure out that you were somehow or other using a form of AWB. Risker (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can see the similarities. I didn't realise that I was supposed to be denying my identity and disguising me edits as if they were those of someone who cares or knows nothing about anything deeper than a typo. Easily done of course. I have dumped out my .js, and the Wiki will as a result run less efficiently, newbies will be more confused, extra edits will be made, pages will be more inconsistent. But it's all good I guess. RichFarmbrough, 21:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
You've got mail
Thanks for your email. I've replied. I'm not expecting an instant response from you but I'm posting here in case the email ended up in your junk folder. Pine✉21:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pine - email received, but I probably won't be able to reply until sometime tomorrow. Thanks for your comments. Risker (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pine; I appreciate the opportunity to be a bit more transparent, now that we aren't talking about a specific suppression request. I replied to your first message via email, but not your one of June 1; I wanted to see if there was some additional feedback from functionaries before responding. There was a bit of discussion about improving the WP:RFO page, and I have asked for an oversighter volunteer or two to take on the responsibility of making that page more streamlined and useful. In a few hours, we will be announcing a recruitment campaign for new Checkusers and Oversighters. (You might want to consider applying: candidates who have a genuine interest in this area are always welcome. Candidates do not need to be administrators, the suppression permission contains all the tools needed to carry out the task.) In the interim, I have also reinforced to the functionary team the importance and value of everyone on the team making an effort to participate more regularly/consistently in responding to suppression requests, especially those that come in via email.
As to the suggestion of redirecting people to the Stewards IRC channel for suppression, Stewards will not generally carry out suppressions on projects with appointed oversighters unless it is so time-sensitive it cannot wait for that project's oversighters to address; there's a long and complicated history behind that policy, but it's not really our place to challenge how stewards use their tools, as they have to respect the needs of hundreds of projects, not just ours. On the other hand, there are often Enwp admins idling in the channel who can revdelete the edit in question whilst awaiting suppression. I've been reviewing suppression requests for almost four years now, and I don't think I've seen more than 3 or 4 genuinely time-sensitive requests a year; the key to reducing harm is to ensure that the information is not in a visible version of an article so it won't wind up on Google, so reverting or revision deletion is almost always the best first step. I do understand your frustration at having to wait a much longer time than usual for the edit you identified to be suppressed, and agree that the turnaround on that particular request was suboptimal. Risker (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will be watching to see what changes are made to the OS pages. Regarding the the CU/OS applications, if there is a sitenotice, may I suggest that the sitenotice also announce the discussion about BASC and ask for BASC volunteers in case the proposed reform is approved? Pine✉00:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the BASC discussion is still ongoing, and it will probably be a couple of weeks before it concludes; by that time, the nominations for CU/OS should be closed. But I do want to try for a watchlist notice. Risker (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of those names used by both sexes (like Lesley and Ashley), although most of the Guylaines I know are women. It's pronounced Gee-LIN. Risker (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it is the same one; my guess would be that she was in British Columbia for education, but the East Coast is "home". Nice to see a woman scientist doing well. :-) Risker (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article Feedback Tool, Version 5
Hey all :)
Just a quick update on what we've been working on:
The centralised feedback page is now live! Feel free to use it and all other feedback pages; there's no prohibition on playing around, dealing with the comments or letting others know about it, although the full release comes much later. Let me know if you find any bugs; we know it's a bit odd in Monobook, but that should be fixed in our deployment this week.
On Thursday, 7th June we'll be holding an office hours session at 20:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. We'll be discussing all the latest developments, as well as what's coming up next; hope to see you all there!
Those of you who hand-coded feedback; I believe I contacted you all about t-shirts. If I didn't, drop me a line and I'll get it sorted out :).
What, again? Hi Okeyes, it amazes me how you always find the worst possible day or time for me to attend office hours. :-) I'll try to poke around on the page over the next few days if I have a chance, although I have a rather major project about to launch. Risker (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Solving the Pandora's box
Thanks very much. Your comments were correct, and you did an excellent job. It is an honor for me to meet you (even in this virtual world). Please always keep up your clerkship, we need you. Just to you know, ahead is a list of more blasted articles apparently within that same case; I already forwarded it to our friend Timotheus, but may be it can be useful to you too.
(^) –means written in other interwiki
(^^^) –means written in several interwikis
“tagged”, refers to merge
^^^Cosmology (metaphysics) / tagged but without talk; summary is apparently spurious (I strong advise to check all summaries made by that user) / interwikis
His above list is not fully accurate and hes lied about a few, but I have redirected back many of the articles, most of the above were redirects, less than 10 were merges. Please see my comments on [[8]] GreenUniverse (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've got 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Well, the Admirals (who, I will point out, are largely a bunch of Canadian guys living in the US) did play a heck of a series, and they earned that trophy with talent and hard work. You'll note their star player, Mike Angelidis, is not just Canadian, but a local boy. (Well, local to me anyway.) And since when is Norfolk considered "Yankee"? Risker (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd brig up the team roster, hehe! Yes, that last game was in your local city. As for Norfolk, it's Yankee to you, but not to us. ROFL.PumpkinSkytalk09:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hey all :). First-off, thanks to everyone for all their help so far; we're coming up to a much wider deployment :). Starting at the end of this month, and scaling up until 3 July, AFT5 will begin appearing on 10 percent of articles. For this release we plan on sending out a CentralNotice that every editor will see - and for this, we need your help :). We've got plans, we know how long it's going to run for, where it's going to run...but not what it says. If you've got ideas for banners, give this page a read and submit your suggestion! Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been received. I cannot guarantee a quick response, as it will require responses from several of my colleagues. Risker (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always enjoy seeing the successful results of collaborative editing. Good work, PS - and everyone else who was a part of bringing that article through to featured status. Risker (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to "see" you next week. In the meantime, I'm sending you a virtual ice cold lemonade. Enjoy your weekend. Pine✉21:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huggle
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.
"Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the living people about whom we write. There is a deadline for them: it is the moment that Google puts our article about them in their top-5 results. That is something that was never contemplated at the time that Wikipedia was created. We must be responsive to changes in circumstances; this is about as big a change as can be. This is part of Wikipedia maturing and becoming a responsible citizen of the information world; when we were small and unnoticed, we had almost no impact on the life of an article subject. Now, what is published in our pages can (and sometimes does) cause long-lasting harm. Why do you think Google now crawls our articles incessantly to ensure it reflects the most current version of a page? We are no longer a little upstart in a distant corner of the Internet: we are now a top-10 website whose words, whether they should be or not, are taken as relatively accurate if not entirely authoritative. Not a day goes by that someone being interviewed on radio or television isn't confronted with a question that starts "I looked up your Wikipedia entry and it says..." The failure of individuals to recognise this collective responsibility to get things right about real people does more to harm the reputation and credibility of this project than any other error that is made.
—Risker (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)"
Hi Risker,
I agree with you at 100 %. People should be much more sensitive to this. Anyway given WMF hosts all the wikipedia websites and set at the birth of the project all the rules of the working mechanisms of wikipedia, this "collective responsibility" is theirs in fact. I add that the WMF has human ressources to handle this thanks to the funds it receive mainly to the success of wikipedia. They cannot take the money on one hand and reject the responsibilities from the other. Not easy stuff. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New noticeboard proposal
Our current system highlights the negative editor information (messages on user and user talk pages, noticeboards, etc) over and above any positive editor information (contribution histories, key articles, etc.). It's time that we as a community model the behaviour we expect from our editors. With indexing of noticeboards, our behaviour management process includes promotion of pejorative information about individual editors; we know these pages are highly ranked but we allow them to be widely available, despite the fact that individual editors are frequently blocked/banned for identical behaviour.
Options for resolution have been discussed. This is not an issue for a single arbitrator to address, so it is time to close this discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Risker, I've brought this to your attention earlier and am bringing it your attention again - see here on my user page. I don't see a solution to it, but I find it intolerable. My sense is that this is not a situation that Arbcom is set up to handle, but thought you should know anyway. Although I have good friends who have tried to keep me interested in editing, I have absolutely no desire to be here anymore, which given the demographic I represent, is unfortunate. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I'd just like to add, that had I known at the outset the history of this account, I for one would have backed way off immediately in December. Why the socking was allowed is beyond me. It's caused quite a lot of damage. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) I am a bit sad that two people whom I both respect have so much difficulty to understand each other, whereas I think with some good faith it should be possible to get to facts and improve an article. Other people thank Br'er Rabbit for help (visit his talk, for examples), I certainly do, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough I was coming here about the same user. Br'er Rabbit's current user page only hints at the previous incarnations and any editing restrictions he might be under (and frankly I'm having a hard time figuring out if he is under any restriction other than a single account restriction). I just want to know if this opaqueness is in line with ArbCom's intent. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me lift the scales from your eyes, because you already know the extent of restriction on the account. As Jack Merridew, he was indeff'd early in 2008, but took the standard offer and ArbCom allowed him back in December 2008 under mentorship and some restrictions. In December 2009 he was commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban, and the restrictions were narrowed down to editing from a single account which was continued. Over a year later, his request to return to editing under the same restrictions as any other editor was refused by ArbCom. He is now editing under the restriction to one nominated account (presently Br'er Rabbit). If you want diffs and pages, I can supply them for you, but I'm pretty sure Risker or anybody else involved can confirm that my description of his editing restrictions is precisely accurate. I do not believe there is any compulsion for any editor to display their badges of shame on their user pages. It must be particularly galling for them to have folks come along implying that they are being opaque about other restrictions when they are under no other restrictions. Clear enough for you now? --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Play nice, RexxS; please don't belittle other editors on my talk page. If you're going to be snarky, then please don't answer questions directed to me.
As to the central question, the editor in question is not "freed" from the community's expectation that prior accounts be acknowledged simply because he was permitted to return. His return was explicitly *not* a clean start; in fact, at a few junctures, he has gone through and labeled his socks, which to me indicates that he's well aware that his use of various accounts requires him to make the community aware of their connection. I am growing increasingly concerned that we are seeing the same types of behaviour directed toward other editors (Gimmetoo, Truthkeeper88, and some others) that we saw directed toward White Cat that led to the original ban. However, at this point we're probably looking at needing a new case rather than trying to re-open a case from 2006, one that nobody on today's Arbitration Committee adjudicated. I do not predict what the outcome of such a new case would be. Risker (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's exactly the kind of difference in perspective that needs to go to arbitration. The community isn't going to solve this one. Risker (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Of note, I just had an edit conflict on my own page, where half my edit got accepted...something weird is going on again...[reply]
The community often has some pretty weird ideas, and just as often has some pretty brilliant ones. I've never taken a case to Arbcom myself, but I've accepted plenty where the people who show up at admin noticeboards saw things one way and the evidence wound up supporting a different conclusion. The ball is in the court of those who are expressing concerns; they have to decide whether or not to bring a case. Risker (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Br'er, two things. 1. You're signature is too long by a factor of 2.5; 2. You aren't helping your situation here. I would give my "Wikipedia doesn't do due process" speech, but I've sure I've already given it to you and you don't want to hear it again. MBisanztalk03:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Risker, I'll do my best to play nice, but I'm too long in the tooth to get into a swinging match with one arm tied behind my back. Allow me to address you directly and honestly then. The other side needs to play nice as well. Do you actually think that Hobit came here to ask a question about ArbCom? In fact the question was loaded by the wording "this opaqueness" which presupposes that (i) Jack has other restrictions, and (ii) he isn't telling us about them. I am gradually getting more and more sick and tired of some editors smearing Jack by innuendo on the assumption that if you fling enough mud, some will stick.
Nevertheless, if you think Jack should keep a list of his previous accounts somewhere on his user pages, why not suggest it to him? I'm sure he'd be amenable, because he's always been willing to acknowledge his past. It's a way of moving on. But please don't ask him to display the wording of his sole restriction; we stopped tying bells on lepers a long time ago. --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both RexxS and Risker for their responses. I would prefer Jack keep a note about old accounts on his user page, but if that's not an ArbCom requirement (and I didn't see it as one either, which surprised me, thus the question), I'm not going to ask him to do so. I fully agree that requiring him to list off sanctions would be unneeded and inappropriate. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a nice and imaginative note of old accounts that the user page shows a different one every day (Alarbus now) ;) More thanks for his contributions were added today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses because I began this thread. Thanks Risker for the clarification in regards to a proposed remedy, and no I won't take it to arbitration. As for my remark re the multiple accounts, my feeling is this: when a 3 week old account accuses an editor of "regressive" edits to Wikipedia's most important articles, and chooses to edit war over template colors and the difference between curly brackets vs. angle brackets, the perception is much different to learn the three week old account in fact belongs to an editor who is a guru of wiki mark-up. Furthermore, when an entirely different account, yet belonging to the same mark-up expert, chooses one of 50 FACs to comment about deficiencies in regards to mark-up without commenting on any of the other in the queue, then, in my view, the intent is clear. To RexxS, no I was not suggesting anything at all along the lines of giving a leper a bell, but I do believe the accounts should be linked. Clearly when we discussed this in the winter you were well-aware of who Alarbus was, which left me at a disadvantage in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I did *not* know who Alarbus was until the same time that just about everyone else did. If I'd known it was him the first time I encountered him, there would have been a much different response. Risker (talk) 13:49, 1 July 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}