User talk:Risker/Archive16

American political infoboxes & succession boxes

Howdy Risker. Would you have a talk with User:Therequiembellishere, concerning his/her persistant edits on American political infoboxes & successions? He doesn't seem to want to wait until the new Senators, Representatives, Governors, Lieutenant Governors take their respective offices, before making updates. I've contacted him many times about this, but he's basically ignored me by continuing his updates & not responding to 'anyone' on his talkpage. He/she does this every Nov-Jan cycle. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes

Risker, you are mistaken about the average time it takes to approve a change in the German Wikipedia: the average waiting time is 14 h 51 min, with a median of 1 h 32 min. [1] The 8 d 9 h refers to pages with unreviewed changes only and measures how old the oldest unreviewed change is on such pages, on average; there are currently about 8,000 pages in the German Wikipedia with unreviewed changes: [2] That is well below 0.5% (the German Wikipedia contains 1.7 million articles in total).

Also note that there is a key difference between the pending changes implementations on the Russian and German Wikipedias: in the Russian Wikipedia, changes are shown to all readers immediately by default. Approving them only means that they become part of an "approved" article version. In the German Wikipedia, the default is that non-logged-in readers are not shown the changes at all until they are approved: the changes are only visible to logged-in readers viewing the draft version of the article.

This explains why approving changes takes so much longer in the Russian Wikipedia: since it doesn't change the default appearance of the article, it's seen as a lesser priority by editors. Best, Andreas JN466 09:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

IdeaLab proposal

There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pongs

The Wikipedia notification system is nice; one can see random references to one's self even if one hardly logs in.

Just wanted to say I agree with your reasoning here. The distinction between arbitrators, CUs, etc. and other Wikipedians (who may be pseudonyms only for the purpose of keeping a private IP), is precisely why I revealed the connection in my ArbCom candidate statement. Random private Wikipedians shouldn't need to care about pseudonyms elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 23:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK

I wonder if you have any insight. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nate_Moore_(actor)&oldid=642189564 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pariah_(1998_film)&oldid=642188518 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert_Blue&oldid=642356573

And now we are 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pariah_(1998_film) And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Desert_Blue

I'm confused by this behavior. Can you please advise me on whether this is WP:COATRACK as a way to subvert the Consensus of the Three AFDs? It's confusing to me how this isn't a Blatant attempt to ignire the consensus simply to make a WP:POINT...I attempted to revert as it seemed to violate the BLP issues previously discussed, and it seems like he's trying to insert the material just for spite, but i was warned for 3rr. I thought that BLP exception would apply but not everyone sees it that way... I just don't see how if both parties were found to be not notable and if even the event was not notable, and if the consensus was that it was all poorly sourced and had BLP concerns, why this discussion is now being held a 4th and 5th time. At some point doesnt someone hafta drop the stick? Any advice is appreciated07:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)🐍

Hello Shark310. Apologies for taking a while to get back to you; real life kind of took over this week, and I've barely had more than a few minutes here and there to review complex things like this. I'm going to assume the best of faith on Scalhotrod's part, because I do not believe he created the redirects maliciously or to "win" an argument; I think he simply wasn't aware of how Google develops its search results in relation to Wikipedia. Google has bots that "crawl" our article pages pretty much constantly to capture changes and drop deleted pages, but with millions of pages to crawl (including user pages and those in the "project" space), it can take anywhere from a few hours to a week or more. I've left a message for him to discuss this, proposing that I delete the redirects as a "housekeeping" measure. If he does not find that reasonable, I'll probably take it to Redirects for discussion.

While I'm here, I should mention that your signature doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements because it does not link to either your user page or your user talk page. It's also pretty much impossible to tell who you are simply by the "snake" squiggle. I'd like to encourage you to change your signature voluntarily now, before someone gets hardnosed about it. If you are really attached to the snake symbol, you can build a link in your preferences that shows the squiggle but links to your user talk page. I hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only

Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only (cisgender or transgender, lesbian or straight).

It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Lightbreather. Since I very much disagree with the concept of using any kind of classification or modifiers to categorize types of women by orientation or gender identity in order to participate in anything on Wikipedia, and I choose not to use the categories identifying me as a woman, nor do I choose to use the preference to identify as a woman, I'm not eligible to participate. Of course, I have no objection at all to others participating. I guess that pretty much puts me in the "oppose" camp for the IdeaLab suggestion as well. Risker (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I understand that some oppose the notion, but, considering the gender gap on Wikipedia, I want every woman (or person who identifies as a woman) who would like such a space to have such a space as an option.

I'm going to take your page off my watchlist now, so if you want me for anything else, please ping me or come to my talk page. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Same IP?

• 1? --Tito☸Dutta 22:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's just say Jackmcbarn's revert of the edit is entirely appropriate. :-) Risker (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

4Chan BLP Discussion

Hello. I noticed you closed a section I had created on the 4Chan talk page due to "BLP reasons." Now I understand that there is some sensitivity regarding this topic, and I know for a fact that I can be incredibly dense at times, but I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on the specific BLP reasons so I might not repeat this error in the future. From what I found in my research, the fact that allegations were made against Ms. Quinn has been covered in more than 15 articles from highly reliable sources -- top tier news organizations like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, and the BBC. The fact that allegations were made is not gossip or a fringe theory, and basic details of the allegations were included in nearly every article I reviewed. My research was about as far from "unsourced or poorly sourced" as a talk page comment can possibly get. I believe there is an important discussion to be had regarding the proper use of the sources in that article space. I'm not interested in the veracity of the allegations, only in striking a more dispassionate, disinterested tone. I'm concerned that the sources are not being properly reflected in the article space at present, and I would like to have the ability to discuss them without being immediately shut down for unspecified "BLP reasons." ColorOfSuffering (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ColorOfSuffering. Thanks for your post. To start off with, you were posting BLP-related material on the talk page of an article that is only peripherally related to the BLP subjects. Gamergate isn't really very important in relation to 4chan, believe it or not; it's just one more episode of dozens over the years, many of which have received publicity but many of which have long since been forgotten. None of the links you posted were really about 4chan, they were all about Gamergate, and 4chan was mentioned in some of them but was not the crux of the linked material. Your assessments of the links continuously repeated long-since-disproven allegations with your own comments such as X denies the allegation. This is not the same thing as calling it "false." Please note that the article about which you posted that analysis does not even mention 4chan. In fact, it is completely unclear why you posted that section to that particular article; 4chan is only one of dozens of websites affected by Gamergate. Just about all of those links had already been analysed in depth on the more immediate articles (i.e., the BLPs of the subjects and the Gamergate controversy article), so as interesting as your personal research may have been, it was a poor choice to link it to the article you chose. I'm going to assume good faith here and presume that it never occurred to you that after all these months nobody else had bothered to do this leg work.

I'm going to copy over this entire section to your talk page as well, and we can continue the discussion there if you would like. As the relevant arbitration case is just closing as I write, it's unclear to me exactly how to go about formally advising you that this topic is the subject of Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions in any number of ways (including the special BLP provisions, which is the basis for my having closed the section on the 4chan talk page). However, please consider yourself advised. Risker (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:GS/GG for instructions. Those notices and sanctions automatically will "upgrade" when the case closes. Jehochman ^Talk 06:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

I thought it was sexist immediately. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. It is an absolutely classic example of how to insult someone civilly. Kind of like one of my Southern belle friends saying "bless your little heart!" Risker (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Calling out bias

	Calling out bias
	For calling out systemic sexism and instances of personal bias. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Protonk thing

I think it might have been better to wait and see what HJM had to say; he may have a better idea of history etc. I would say uninvolved admins were leaning towards that resolution but there was no need for immediate action?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

Leaning? Actually there was nobody saying "good block" there, and a rather remarkable number of administrators (and even editors who believed there was a BLP violation) clearly saying "too harsh". When dealing with such a short block (and with the administrator likely not available for many more hours given the time difference), it's not an unreasonable outcome. I think HJM actually gave a pretty good explanation of his thinking in his post to the GG talk page, and it was certainly the consensus that he wasn't completely off the mark in his evaluation of the relevant edit; the only issue was the sanction. Risker (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas

Do I understand it correctly that you say at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas that there are several sockfarms active on pageants?

Broadly spoken, a sockfarm around

1. Mrdhimas
2. Sora2537
3. Papialberto15

And some meatpuppets and genuine interested editors to make it difficult? The Banner talk 12:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding The Banner. You are correct in your understanding. None of the socks listed on those two SPIs was related to Mrdhimas. Most of them, however, are from a geographic region of the world where these kinds of competitions are extremely popular and culturally significant, so it's important to keep in mind that (socking or no socking) this subject area is a lot more notable than one might think from a "Western"/North American perspective. (Much as I begrudge having to admit that....) Risker (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

To my opinion pageants are the same as cattle shows, with people testing the meat. I am aware that they are far more important is Asia and South-America, as it is a relative easy way to escape poverty. And yes, I am aware of the fact that we have editors around here that are genuinely interested in pageants. My suspicion is very much fuelled by Mrdhimas after I found a website stating that he was a professional pageant-owner&organiser. But I will throw in a bit more caution and work in future SPIs. The Banner talk 09:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Despatche SPI CheckUser decline

I notice you recently added a "A CheckUser has declined a request for CheckUser" notice to the top of the report, but I am confused because I don't think I was requesting a CheckUser review. Is that just standard procedure for all IP-related SPIs? -Thibbs (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, mostly, my comments were to get this particular SPI moving; it had been sitting there unattended for quite a while, and it seems that unless CUs take a look, there aren't many admins or others looking to do the non-CU-related SPI work. The tag does say that it should move on to a behavioural review, and hopefully someone else will take that on, or help you out with it. But either way, diffs are going to be needed. Risker (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for trying to bump it up. I'll add more diffs when I get a moment. -Thibbs (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again, but in your view has the SPI improved to a workable point following my recent edits? I'm not asking for a re-evaluation of the CheckUser decision, but if you're not too busy I'd appreciate your advice on whether or not it needs further behavioural evidence. Thanks either way. -Thibbs (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM Clarification Request & WT:BLP Discussion

Based on this edit [3], you may be interested in an ArbCom Clarification Request and/or the discussion at WT:BLP. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Risker, you may be interested that I've closed and archived this arbitration clarification request to the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Aergas

Diffs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aergas

I put some diffs inside the paragraph. Do you want me to organize them differently or add more, etc.? Alon12 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Maxcrc‎ speedies

I'm curious. Why do you not believe the various User:Maxcrc‎ pages don't meet CSD U5? He's using them as reference web sources for his own external webpage [4]. I see no attempt by the user to incorporate this material into Wikipedia articles. That seems like webhosting to me. Not sure why you think these should have to go through MFD. Meters (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And I have to say that I don't appreciate your having called my actions "really awful" [5]. If you think I made mistake please explain it. If I agree I will learn from it and thank you for it. Meters (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

People put all kinds of weird stuff in their userspace that appears to be useless to other people. That they've used the same information elsewhere is irrelevant. And I believe your actions were pretty mean, what with there being an ongoing MfD on a similar page that was started on the same day, and done almost immediately after the user was blocked. Your comments on the MfD for the first page come across as being very proud of having tried to eradicate the user's contributions. There is no need to rush here; if the first page gets deleted at MFD then there might be grounds for deletion of the other pages, but none of them qualified for the CSD criteria you are trying to apply. And I say that as someone who has been referred to as a rabid deletionist on more than one occasion. Your CSDs did nothing at all to improve the encyclopedia, and between you and FreeRangeFrog, you've driven away a useful contributor. Risker (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Partly because of your comment here and partly because it had been bothering me, I started this discussion. I don't know that I agree with you regarding the usefulness of this contributor, but in the end it's not for me to decide, and I would greatly appreciate some oversight by other admins on this incident. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Do you have any thoughts on this one? He was spamming - I think - but pretty vanilla and clumsy. Do you think we can/should do anything about his exposed IP address? (I'm going offline now.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

YGM

You've got mail. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Muntz Lyall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism of Civitatis International Page

Hi, thanks for accepting my suggestion to protect the page from vandalism, as you can see since my request a few hours ago there have been dozens of deletions of information and vandalism on this page by users who I suspect are sockpuppts. At the time of your protection the page had been significantly vandalized again after my request, could you please restore the page to its status at the time of request of protection?, where it looked quite informative and full of useful referenced information? The organisation concerned works with ambassadors and governments and is clearly of note but is being attacked on its wikipage, its got some pretty notable people involved too: the status of the page at the time of the request was at 00:38, 15 March 2015‎ Orbitalwatcher (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,168 bytes) (+11,458)‎ . . (Undid vandalism by known vandal user: redpenofdoom) users theredpenofdoom, mcmatter,maproom, Andy dingley, jospeh2302 I suspect these users are acting in concert to vandalise and from the history have been doing so a few months ago on the page, if not actually to be a one person sock. The vandalising users claim there are no valid sources, but they are infact clearly malicioulsy deleting the sources on the page citing Government sources referencing the organisation and replacing with personal attacks. Given the circumstances and the sustained nature of vicious attacks on the page by the same users, who seem to have taken ownership of the page (that has exsisted for some years in its mre detailed unvandalised form, but has been wrecked over the last few months by these users perhaps this page should be repaired and fully protected? What do you think? Thanks Orbitalwatcher 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding Orbitalwatcher comment added by Orbitalwatcher (talk • contribs)

You're definitely talking to the wrong person here; the article is semi-protected because of the influx of sockpuppets. Like you. Risker (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, and its offensive to call me one, i merely brought a clear case of vandalism of a page to your attention. Can I assume you are one of the team of vandals who are complicit in wrecking the page then? So much for wikipedia five pillars and your credibility as an admin. comment added by Orbitalwatcher (talk

No, you cannot make that assumption. I knew nothing of either organization until I reviewed information that is not accessible to 99.999% of users of this site, and identified that you have been using many accounts to press your own point of view. That is not permitted on Wikipedia. I expect that someone will be along shortly to review my findings and decide how to address your behaviour; I am leaving that to others. Risker (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

ip geolocation

Don't worry, I'm very aware of the problems. But it was a good idea to make the point. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Risker,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)