User talk:Risker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Navy binoculars.jpg 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
User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js in case I need it

Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links


[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
{{subst:W-screen}} {{subst:User:Alison/c}} Wikipedia:SPI/CLERK and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators

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.

[Listeria Bot

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.

Please post below[edit]


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Shaded0's talk page.
Message added 16:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shaded0 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

James Blunt[edit]

Hi Risker. I started a discussion at talk for James Blunt. I have researched what did happen at Pristina and Blunt's claims do not make any sense.Charles (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


I just eliminated my reverts of her edits. My job so I did it. Hmains (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


What, if anything, should I do about this edit that appeared on my talk page:

*And for good measure, I'll just complain on behalf of the reasonable community about the totally disingenuous and vindictive vote at the RfA. Such behaviour will soon be earning such editors topic bans from RfA - do you want to be one of the first? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

    • Oh my, Hmains. I really did go to bed right after our last exchange so didn't see this until this morning. I think that just moving on, as you seem to have done, is just fine. It doesn't seem to be a comment intending to open a discussion, but rather one individual's (strongly worded) perspective. I see that you were pretty busy after our exchange, and I thank you for working to remedy the issues we talked about. I think there's a question directed toward you in the discussion following your RFA vote, and I will leave you to address it directly. Hope you feel better, I have a feeling I'm coming down with that nasty bug as well. Risker (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks, will do and I am glad I asked you. Everyone around here seems to be getting/being sick and I must be far away from wherever you are. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I'll add that I certainly don't see any reason you (Hmains) should worry about your vote at my RfA. It's your opinion and your right to express it. I certainly respect it and thank you for expressing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth thanks for your thoughtful words. I know you will be a fine administrator already! Hmains (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC). 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.

AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the situation has cleared itself for now, but you can of course still look around if you wish. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 04:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, AntiCompositeNumber, I've responded to your email. Risker (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC). 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.

Mz7 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Mz7, I will look at it this evening. Risker (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the help. Mz7 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

can you please check the refs for this draft BLP article[edit]

It contains a subsection which is related to an AfD you commented on, specifically this portion.[7] You are incorrect about the depth of the Tyson ref methinks, although thanks to fonts, at first I did not think there was any depth there myself -- the discussion of the parody-work posted on the site covers about three pages. And although the formatting/layout/fonts used don't make it exactly clear that is what is going on, after looking at it long enough, methinks Tyson actually wrote an intro-paragraph, about ten sentences by Tyson on the meaning of particular faux-headlines (interleaved with the TPC-authored headlines themselves), and then a concluding sentence. Which is not a *chapter* on TPC, but is a reasonably detailed analysis of that one parody-piece by TPC, I would say.

I'm not actually doing a rewrite of the AfD'd website, but shifting to writing about the creator thereof. The advantage is that there are other refs, some recently discovered and some just better-organized-and-formatted; if you can please tell me on a percentage-scale from zero to 100% whether you think the broader BLP-topic has achieved WP:42, that would be much appreciated. (Where 'zero' means none of the refs presented are RS, and 100% means passes WP:N with flying colors, with 50% meaning 'probably has coinflip shot at surviving AfD' roughly.) And if you have time to help compose neutral body-prose, that also would be great of course  :-) But mostly I would just like a second opinion on whether Atbashian passed WP:GNG with the current refs, there are a few others being evaluated for the draft on the talkpage thereof. Besides the PlutoFiles by Tyson in 2010, the other best refs for GNG are Gries in 2015, FoxNews in 2004, and NewRepublic in 2004 (some of it stuck behind a paywall), plus additionally several bluelinked conservative pundits have provided further depth/details. (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI[edit]

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comments[edit]

I saw your comments on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy where you write that 250 indefinite blocks are made daily and almost none are reversed.

I have made a suggestion that all indefinite blocks be cancelled after one year if the user requests it. If they have bad behaviour, it would be easy to reblock them again for a year. A year is a long time. Lakeshook (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

THT file[edit]

Thanks for quick response! That was pretty stupid... Requested oversight to scrub it. Blythwood (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed[edit]

Hi Risker,

I've just stumbled across University and college crowdfunding platforms, and I have no idea what to do with it. It seems to be on the borderline of notability as a topic, but I think it's badly named. It's really badly written, and I can't even imagine how to use the article title in an introductory sentence. What would you recommend? --Slashme (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Slashme. Having given the article a quick scan, I think the core issue is that it's more an essay than an article. It's also not at all about any kind of crowdfunding platform, it's about how some organizations now include some form of crowdfunding as part of their fundraising strategy. I'm pretty hardline about notability, and I wouldn't consider this a notable topic, at least not without a parent article focused on fundraising strategies of universities and colleges - which we don't seem to have. Indeed, fundraising isn't even a topic within the articles of many universities and colleges. (I think it would be a valid inclusion into those articles, or even potentially a daughter article in some cases.) On the other hand, I have no idea what would happen if it went to AFD. Risker (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please support the Sustainability Initiative![edit]

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!

Hi, Risker! Please allow me to follow up on a project that was discussed at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin a couple of weeks ago:

I am writing you to ask for your support for the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 250 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has recently passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Now, we are working with the Wikimedia Foundation staff to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.

In order to demonstrate that this is an issue that the community really cares about, I would like to ask you to sign the project page as well. Thank you! --Gnom (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about Restoring Deleted Page[edit]

Hi Risker, I originally contacted sphilbrick and was pointed in your direction. I am the administrator of Mirus Academy (a private school in Katy, TX). The wiki for our school was deleted over a year ago, but I only just now discovered it. This is the message I see: This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 13:33, 1 September 2015 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Mirus Academy (U.S) (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody)

I read the Orangemoody information and see that it applies to the wiki I created for our school. When the wiki was not approved initially, I was contacted by an editor who agreed to make the needed corrections for me in exchange for $100. We completed the transaction, I saw the page online for a couple of days, and didn't think more about it until I just went to do some updating and found that it had been deleted.

Is it possible to restore the page? If not, should I just start from scratch and make a new one? Thanks for your advice! -- Slhogan94 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Slhogan94. It is unfortunate that you were caught in this situation. I cannot un-delete the article that appeared in the main pages of the encyclopedia, because it is a copyright violation. I note, however, that you yourself created a draft article on the subject (Draft:Mirus Academy), which was deleted shortly after your contact posted the article in mainspace. I can undelete that draft at your specific request. I must point out, however, that you have a pretty clear conflict of interest here, in that you are writing about your employer. I strongly urge you to follow the conflict of interest guidelines I have linked to, so that the article won't get deleted again. Under our current notability guidelines and policies, schools such as Mirus Academy would normally be considered notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Let me know if you would like me to undelete the draft and I'll do so when next I log in. In fact, if another administrator sees such a request before I get to it, they should feel free to proceed. Risker (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much![edit]

Thanks for the block exemption. I really need it. This is the article for Free Basics. If you need clarifications on anything, please ask :) --JethRoad the FactBoy 16:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, can you do anything about another global block on all wikis: Your account or IP address has been blocked. 2A03:2880:3010:BFF6:0:0:0:0/64, you have been blocked by Tegel until 16:57, 26 April 2018, because: Open proxy. --JethRoad the FactBoy 16:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment[edit]

Hey there! Im currently rebuilding the WikiProject Investment.

I already am pretty much finished with updating the project page.Take a look at it. Ping me if you want to help! Thanks. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A1 Houston Office Oil Traders on Monday.jpg

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

"denying speedy - three minutes is way too fast to tag this page"[edit]

...but it had been over 3 hours at the time you removed it. — Smjg (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Smjg. In answer to your implied question - yes, the decision about the article came some time after it was tagged for deletion. It was a contested CSD. Contested CSDs are usually the very last ones admins will deal with, because CSD is the kind of thing a lot of admins do when they are looking for a relatively simple task; working out a contested CSD is often more complex than they're looking for. (I count myself amongst admins who tend to review all the rest before going to the contested CSDs.) Three minutes is just about always too short a time to tag a page for CSD unless it's a blatant ad, copyvio or BLP violation; I'm fine with immediately tagging those last three categories right away. But let's try to look at this from the perspective of a new user. They start an article on the Encyclopedia Anyone Can EditTM. They've barely got their first sentence written when someone tags it for deletion. The deletion tag tells them they can contest it on the article talk page (thank goodness for the hyperlink)...and they do. But it doesn't tell the user whether or not they're allowed to keep editing; for a lot of people, that big sign at the top means "stop what you're doing right now". The same person who tagged the article leaves a difficult-to-understand message on the user talk page (forget your wiki-experience and try to figure out what you're supposed to do from that template) that says the article has no content and mumbles something about A3 (again...forget your experience and try to see how "Mario Nesich, martial artist" is equal to "no content"). Now, I understand entirely why a reviewer would use Twinkle to add that template, but I'm going to lay odds that hardly anyone has read the messages it leaves. There's a link to an article wizard...but why and how does someone use an article wizard when they have already started the article? There's a link to Wikipedia:Your first article, which is a pretty long page that isn't too badly out of date...but again, the article is already created, and it isn't as helpful on what to do with an existing but extremely incomplete article.
This is just brainstorming on my part, and I've probably done all of these things at various times. Perhaps instead of tagging the article, it may have been helpful to reach out and offer to move the article to draft space, and encourage continued development? Give them another 15 minutes? Offer other assistance? (Yeah, I know there's no point in giving them another 15 minutes, someone else will probably tag it before the initial reviewer finishes writing the talk page message.) I don't have all the answers, but I do know that such rapid tagging of brand new pages by brand new editors is extremely likely to scare those new editors away...and we very much need new editors, particularly ones who are starting articles on red-linked subjects (Mario Nesich is a well-known award-winning muay thai practitioner, and it kind of worries me that I knew that without googling him). I know there are plenty of new articles created that are sheer dreck - when I'm deleting, it's almost always the CSD queue - and I also know that a lot of the stuff that looks relatively well written but has any commercial application is about 50% likely to be paid editing (happy to delete those too!). But on those occasions when we're getting a new article that isn't about a current event or a football/soccer star, it will do us well to try to support new editors who are trying to create them. We want to try to keep the ones with potential. After all, long ago some other editors decided we had potential, and helped us get better. And here we still are, after all these years. It’s a pleasure to find a visitor on my talk page who’s been here even longer than me. Risker (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey[edit]


Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


In the past you have written stuff like this, writing All this "we have done everything we can" nonsense is just that, nonsense. Where's the RFC on increasing notability standards for organizations? Where is the RFC on automatic deletion of advertorial or promotional articles, especially those created by SPAs and obviously undisclosed COI editors?

I opened a discussion to raise NCORP standards and pinged you there. It would be useful to have your voice there. I've been waiting for you and others to weigh in before moving forward.

There have also been several discussions about speedy deletion of paid articles at WT:SPEEDY and you have not participated there.

It is too late at the speedy discussions but it would be great if you could weigh in at NCORP. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline[edit]

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Gord Downie[edit]

Hello. I have moved your NYT reference as to where Gord died from the infobox and put it in the section of the article. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  05:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Ummm....why? Since it is an area of dispute (it's the infobox that keeps getting changed), that is where the reference should be. Please put it back where it is needed, Aloha27. Infoboxes can have references. Risker (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe the reference would be best served in the article itself after the place of death as I have placed it. I shall keep an eye on the infobox to keep up with any disputes and will advise the editor(s) to take it to the talk page. The reference has been properly cite formatted. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  05:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Well then, use the reference twice. It needs to be in the infobox, the place of death has been changed at least four times. Cases like this are precisely why we allow references in infoboxes.

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Risker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)