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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js in case I need it Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates just because I'm still curious 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:W-screen}} {{subst:User:Alison/c}} Wikipedia:SPI/CLERK Note to self: Research Laura Muntz Lyall (or persuade one of the Riggrs to do so), consider writing an article about the Forster Family Dollhouse in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Some day. Emergency desysops The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Other note to self re "emergency" desysops: Spencer195, Marskell, Cool3 - Level 1 Hemanshu - committee motion, mischaracterized as "emergency desysop" on noticeboard, desysop occurred minutes before the motion passed. Sade - to check "involuntary per arbcom", Feb 09 RickK/Zoe - July 08. Long dormant admin accounts, shared compromised password. Eye of the Mind - Dec 07. Main page deletion. Shreshth91 - done at request of single arbitrator, Aug 07. Vancouverguy - Jun 07. Long dorman admin account, apparent compromise. Yanksox - Mar 07 - Jimbo desysop, confirmed by Arbcom in full case (DB deletion wheel war) Robdurbar - Apr 07 - mass blocking, self unblocking, deletion. Wonderfool. Husnock - Dec 06. Admitted shared password, desysop confirmed by Arbcom in full case. Messages below please Land reform in Zambia Could you restore Land reform in Zambia? I want to contest deletion.--TM 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC) PRODs Risker- I apologize for the handling of the two PRODs. I thought that I had put reasons when I did it, but in fact I had put them in the edit summary instead. I must say that it was a bit frustrating to see the PRODs removed over a technicality when the reasons were recorded (though not in the template certainly). That felt a bit like unnecessary beuracracy. Going through an AfD seemed a bit silly to me since the articles had been tagged for over the required 7 days and the creators were notified when it was done (they could have removed the notices). But in the future I will make sure that I follow all of the steps. Rikster2 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Your advice Just read your advice at User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates and it is quite daunting. I don't know how someone could be an arbitrator, have a job and a family. And it takes an awfully thick skin, it seems. No urgent questions, I just appreciate your article. Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down. Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Can non-admins really become arbs? Hi. In your FAQ for ArbCom candidates, you say that "Checkuser and Oversight permissions are not dependent on administrator permissions; thus, this is not a direct bar for non-administrators to become arbitrators." But in light of the Foundation's March 2013 statement insisting that access to deleted revisions requires passing an RfA or RfA-identical process, I'm not sure I see any way that a non-admin could qualify to be an arb. This doesn't appear to be a problem right now (we did have one non-arb throw his hat in the ring this time, but he withdrew very soon thereafter), but it certainly could be a future problem, so perhaps your FAQ needs to be tweaked accordingly. Your thoughts on this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Well, first of all, that's an old page (2009, I think!) which I forgot even existed until tonight when someone else pointed out it's being referenced in one of the election guides, so it needs some tidying in the first place. I believe that the WMF would consider a secret ballot election to the Arbitration Committee to be close enough to RFA; after all, even without handing over the OS or CU bits, any arbitrator has the right to access to certain information involved in a committee decision. I'll see if I can get Philippe or someone similar to comment on this, but it might not be until Monday. Risker (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC) I would agree passing ArbCom election qualify as "RfA-identical process". However, even if that weren't the case, we currently have a user that had previously passed RfA, but resigned voluntarily their admin bit while retaining CU/OS. There's nothing either technical or foundation policy wise that would stop an ex-admin like that from serving on ArbCom. -- KTC (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC) I think if a non-Admin actually places high in an ARBCOM election, they should be given the tools. I think it's unlikely that they could garner the votes but being an Admin shouldn't be a requirement to serve as an Arbitrator. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Well, I tend to agree with you. On the other hand, I also believe that the WMF really needs to ensure they properly control the access to these tools. I've pinged Philippe, who has in turn sent the question on to Legal, just to clarify this issue. Risker (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC) The funny thing is I think a few other wikis do have non-admin CU/OS who were ArbCom-appointed... not sure how that happened. --Rschen7754 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Non-admins and CU/OS qualifications Hi Risker, please see the below statement, in response to the question you left on my talk page. "The Wikimedia Foundation has been asked to clarify and/or expand on a previous decision of the legal team, specifically that the Foundation would not allow users to have Checkuser or Oversight rights added to the user account of a user who had not passed a request for adminship or an equally rigorous community selection process. Our legal and community advocacy team has been asked whether running for (and winning) a seat on the Arbitration Committee would meet the "rigorous community selection process" test, and therefore qualify an elected ArbCom member for Checkuser/Oversight rights. We believe that being elected to ArbCom is an involved process that strongly demonstrates community trust, and that there is a reasonable expectation that Arbitration Committee members on the English Wikipedia's Arbcom will hold those tools, except in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, we will not object to the assignment of checkuser/oversight tools to any user who runs for, wins, and is seated on the Arbitration Committee. Respectfully, Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy" I hope this resolves the question to your satisfaction. I am posting a courtesy copy to the election's page, and to the Arbcom via mailing list. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)