User talk:Risker/Archive 11

Archive 11 - 1 January 2012 to 25 May 2012

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours
Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.

First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.

All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).

Things we'll be discussing include:
 * The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
 * An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
 * An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oversight issue, I think
Hi Risker, I notice you've been posting so I'm hoping you can see this quickly. I'd like to draw your attention to this section: User talk:John. Gregory Goble has been posting personal information (address, phone number, email address) on several pages, and has now posted a long list of email addresses of American academics. I thought this could use the attention of a oversighter. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, I was still online so saw your message, EdChem, and I've addressed the situation. If you find similar issues, you can also go to User:Oversight and click "email this user", which sends an email to the Oversight OTRS queue and ensures that the first available oversighter will be in a position to address the problem edits. Thanks very much for letting me know; I suspect that some sort of administrative action will be required with that user. Risker (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding quickly, Risker. FYI... User talk:Gregory Goble.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see. Don't hesitate to request arbitration enforcement if you or the other editors of the article find that the existing general sanctions need to be activated. Best, Risker (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the AE suggestion, GG has already posted that he did nothing wrong so AE may become necessary. I've had a look at the pages on discretionary sanctions and AE procedures and they reminded me of the requirement for a warning / notification about the relevant case.  I am unsure, however, whether this notification can be given be a non-admin like me.  If the notice has to come from an administrator, is it appropriate to approach one active on the page to make the suggestion, or just an admin I happen to know, or should I go to a general noticeboard?  I did post to ANI about cold fusion recently but nothing much resulted, likely 'cos I was not posting about any single action but rather as what I fear is a growing mess.  Any advice appreciated.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me for taking care of this issue for me while I was off-line. --John (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility
Hey Risker; I don't want to harp on about this (my faith in arbitration being anything but a kangaroo court is trashed right now) but I think your actions yesterday are an example of the huge civility issue that exists here - once we get away from the curse words misdirection. I stuck my contribution down, which OK apparently is not in the right place (though where exactly I can post an opinion/analysis where it can be reviewed as evidence is beyond me :)). No one came to me to explain the issues with the evidence and suggest a better placement. It was just moved to the talk page (an echo chamber where it will go unnoticed, I suspect) - where people then began to reply without my knowledge. I only happened to notice by accident today, nearly 24 hours later. The lack of notification at any stage is, in my opinion, the exact level of incivility that Arbcom should be looking at (honestly; I'd prefer it if people used curse words at me!). I'm not blaming or attacking you for it - I am certain it was good faith oversight or something that just got forgotten. But just food for thought :) --Errant (chat!) 10:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As an asided; to help me understand the problem. What is the difference between my evidence and ScWizard's that makes mine opinion and his factual evidence (as I read it he simply links to NPA and then expresses a personal view of what extent that applies and how Malleus is normally treated). --Errant (chat!) 10:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An answer here would be, you know, civil. Especially as a number of other non-evidential opinions have been entered into the case without action. It feels like I am being censored and I have growing suspicions with the lack of any response. --Errant (chat!) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies, ErrantX. I did read your comments the other day but was unable to respond online at the time, although I did give your comments some thought. I neglected to return and put them in writing to you, and for that I am sorry. Your statement on the evidence page was just that, a statement. There's nothing to back it up. Your first subheading is about problems with de-escalation, but you give no examples. I'm the first to admit that "civility is not simple", but links to attempts at analysing whether or not an edit is uncivil would give credence to your words. The same is true of the remainder of your statement; it's your opinion, but there's nothing backing it up. It can't be turned into any findings of fact, or even any principles. In fairness, I'm finding that the kind of evidence that would be helpful is not there, whereas there's lots of evidence that isn't particularly useful. As a result, I'm going to ask all participants to do some collaborative work to collect some actual evidence of problems relating to civility and enforcement of the civility policy. The case was taken because such a large number of editors insisted that this is a big problem, but based on what has been provided on the evidence page, there's no basis on which to believe this is true. We all know that "gut instinct" is a poor substitute for facts.  Again, apologies for my very tardy response.  I hope you will participate in the collaborative gathering of evidence.  Risker (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding; and I really like the way you are thinking about this. FWIW I wouldn't call what I wrote "gut" feeling exactly, just what I commonly think when seeing a lot of AN/I threads - which is "this could have been sorted out on a talk page if someone had taken the initiative and been firm". You're right it needs evidencing, but I am unsure of the best way to do it - I could post some AN/I threads but that wouldn't mean an awful lot (because it is a bit speculative as to what might have happened had a common sense approach been taken). I'll think on it a bit more and go back to the drawing board now I know what you are after. When is the deadline for evidence? --Errant (chat!) 22:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Staff training
My dear, how do you do it? If only my own staff were so well trained. Catherine Rollbacker de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ebikeguy (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Confidentiality, etc.
Hi Risker. We discussed some of this issue back in November, but it has returned. How would you suggest I proceed, as the editor seems insistent on adding the confidential letter, etc., and related text?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence table
Is this how you want it formatted? Lara 05:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, Lara. Thank you. Risker (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please direct your attention to your request for evidence, and help me in my close reading of past disputes? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And could you please explain why you've bundled me together with TCO in excluding evidence related to either of us? Malleus Fatuorum 06:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Risker, I've read the sentence "Please verify that there is nothing on the talk page of the user before including," a few times, but can't understand what it means... Could you please clarify?  Thanks, --Elonka 07:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I clarified for her, it refers to some discussion of that behavior. Prodego  talk  07:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - things to do
Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:
 * We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
 * A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Behave, please
I apologize that I don't have the sufficient resources (time and otherwise) to create a fancy chart, but please leave what evidence I have presented intact. The people have a right to know! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not evidence, MZM. It is being removed again. If you revert again, you will be blocked. Risker (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Will the block come with or without a chart? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker, I hope you're not vying for the barnstar of decapitation... (or is that decupitation?) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You and your two colleagues are playing a very important role in an historic reassertion of the rights of all people everywhere to be able to freely access the storehouse of information and human knowledge. For generations to come, these moments will be remembered and commemorated.  Thank you for your service.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)}


 * Thank you both; however, this was a team effort, so I'm not going to take all the credit. Most of it should go to the 1800+ Wikipedians who participated in the discussion. Risker (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility Enforcement Arbitration case, Evidence and Workshopping period closed
Dear Drafting Arbitrator, per Risker's extension of time on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement there's a reasonable expectation now that the Evidence and Workshop pages will cease being edited. One of the parties to the case has [expressed concern] about these pages still being edited. thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you voted for the case to be taken on, you and your fellow Arbs might like to read this post . I'm wondering what is being waited for. Giacomo Returned 16:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, the clerks have now closed the pages (with the exception for GWH which is discussed on the evidence talk page). Giano, I am aware of the concerns of which you speak, and I agree it's time to try to get this thing wrapped up. I'll be reading tomorrow night (I made downloads of the pages so that I could), and we're planning to start the really heavy lifting over the weekend. It may take a bit. Risker (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your intervention with evidence and workshop's closure. Good luck with reading and consideration. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I suggested that an invitation be extended to GTBacchus to add his perspective as a departing editor. As you are likely aware, the final straw for him was a thread that displays characteristics of civil-at-the-surface harrassment, and his response included "bad" words, the exact situation that makes the civility policy such a dangerous weapon given the tendency to not sanction civil provocation and POV-pushing. I am noting this here as my post on the workshop talk page was reverted, and I believe that the departure being post-deadline means the opportunity to seek a departing editor's prespective was not open earlier. If he could contribute in the next day or so (assuming he is interested) offering him the chance need not interfere with your intention to work on the case over the weekend. Just a suggestion. EdChem (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I request permission to add this User_talk:GTBacchus to the case. Nobody Ent 16:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added a link to GTBacchus' comments on the evidence page, as I believe it may be relevant. However, the pages should be considered closed by all parties. Risker (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nobody Ent 00:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you from me too. And my apologies for my part in those post-close comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Per favore
Could you please undelete this picture that I uploaded, it is used inan article and is a book cover used for perfectly legitimate reasons. This obsession with copyright is becoming a little over accute. It's not a great read, so I expect the author will be glad of the plug anyway. Giacomo Returned 08:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool
Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies (re ArbCom pages)
Hi Risker,

Just responding to your comment "Removing the "restored with permission" material: That wasn't permission, that appears to be more like resignation that you were going to ignore him on the part of the case clerk, Pesky. Do not reinsert the material again."

I'm sorry if that caused a problem; I genuinely read Salvio's comment as meaning that I could put those back; I certainly wouldn't have restored anything without permission, and I also made it clear that if they were removed I would not revert that removal. I'm probably feeling over-sensitive, but I was a little hurt that you considered the points I made to be "not helpful", and also that you felt you had to instruct me not to reinsert the material, after I had explicitly told Salvio that I wouldn't do so if they were removed.

This case must be nightmarish for everyone who is actually obliged to be involved with it, parties, Arbs and clerks alike. I apologise if anything I did made that worse for anyone. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 07:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand 3 needs your votes
You are listed as an active Arbitrator in the Betacommand 3 case, but you have yet to vote on any remedies. I understand that you may be busy with other concurrent cases, but at this point a wide spectrum of remedies have been put up for consideration. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility enforcement evidence
Evidence pages are closed, but here's a classic example of uneven enforcement of what wouldn't be tolerated from Malleus, complete with a long-term editor turning in her bits, and two sexist attacks defended and ignored by an admin, who is a MilHist buddy with the offending editor. I know it's late to add this to the case, but thought you might take it into consideration. Timeline of diffs on that page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already defended my actions there and over email with Bishonen. I've apologized to Bish via email as well. I don't make special accommodations for Milhist people, I did not take the WWofW comment as sexist, and I'd appreciate if you wouldn't claim to know what I was thinking. Anyway, I'm going to go 'hibernate' for a little bit too. This strong of interactions is why I tend to just write articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Ed, but I don't understand how one could read the "Wicked Witch of the West" and the corruption of a username to include the word "bitch" as anything other than sexist personal attacks. They are gender-oriented. They're personal attacks, without question, both of them. Is it any wonder that we have a hard time attracting and retaining female editors? I just shake my head. Risker (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But, but, but, he's an admin, and they're in the vaunted MILHIST (which never, ever does anything wrong), so I predict that you will block no one, and strip no bits. You will not post a public motion to admonish, nor will this impact anything other than your talk page. Prove me wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think anything of that nature is necessary, much less almost a month after the fact-- it's only intended as an illustration of the undue attention paid to Malleus, even when he's less offensive than regulars everywhere on the Wikipedia. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the snap judgement, Hipocrite. Anyway, Risker, I didn't take 'Wicked Witch of the West' as sexist and fail to see how it you both think it is. Yes, the WWotW is a woman, and so is Bish. That doesn't automatically make it sexist. I also took him at face value of trying to make a metaphor, and responded by trying to show why it could have been expected (and I wasn't supporting cabalism, as Sandy has said elsewhere...) On the other hand, 'bitch' obviously is. I changed his wording to avoid piling on even more drama on what was already a heated discussion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm ... seeing your sincere confusion, Ed, I'll attempt an explanation. Although I've not been a fan of these "gender bias" claims lately on Wikipedia, seeing Brad's "Wicked Witch of the West" and "Bitch" pointed at Bishonen, along with  et al referring to me as Nurse Ratched (terms which would never be applied to a male, with, naturally, admin Wehwalt turning another blind eye), has given me a new perspective.   These terms attempt to diminish a woman's femininity, just as one could attack a male's masculinity by any number of well known epithets that refer to their male parts or mannerisms.  It's gender bias, pure and simple.  That it was an attack, surely you recognize, even if you don't see the gender bias? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see how it could be taken as an attack, but I've seen much worse and much more direct statements too. I mean, even as our article over at Ratched notes, "She has also become a popular metaphor for the corrupting influence of power and authority in bureaucracies such as the mental institution in which the novel is set." These characters are used as metaphors for people in real life, so it's at least somewhat understandable to see them on here. Maybe I just have thick skin, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, let's try another approach at understanding. What do you think would ensue if I referred to Wehwalt as Gordon Gekko?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ... or even if I described him as a sycophant, or a wikilawyer? on the bitch thing though, I'm sure I have in the past called Lara a bitch, just as she's called me a dick. And I know that you've called me a dork. It's just water off a duck's back though, or at least it ought to be. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to have been water off of Bish's back. (And I call everyone a "dork", because I Have the T-shirt.  Sothere.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, which is a shame. But what went wrong there goes deeper than just a bit of name calling. Balloonman, for instance, has called me an arse more times than I can remember, but "does this face look bovvered?" The disputes that grind away at you are those like wife selling, or your Chavez stuff, which may end up in a bit of name calling, but that's rarely the real problem, although it's usually the only one addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sandy, I'd view that as an odd choice for name calling. ;-) But more realistically, I can see where you're coming from (now) but agree a bit with Malleus here – it's not horrible, especially if you're trying to illustrate a point. Comparing someone to Hitler or anyone semi-similar is an obvious exception to this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oh, well your friend Brad resorted to the Hitler attacks on me as well :)   (Trying my *darndest* to figure out where *I* followed *him*, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.)  Anyway, as long as FAR can get back on track, he can call me all the names he wants.  And admins will continue to ignore it. They're too busy picking on Malleus to care about the rest. Female editors like Bish and me are tough enough to keep taking it, right?  Or not, in Bish's case. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you did follow him to my talk page, at least. That's an interesting reference, though I think he meant her husband. Even if it is an attack, though, you can learn from it... what he's trying to say (I think) is that you are posting the same inaccurate items all over. And even if he didn't mean that, I'm going to continue anyway. ;-) For example of inaccuracies against me, the assertion that Brad and I are "Milhist buddies" is just wrong – he's not a member of the project, and we've only run into each other on a few ship articles. Or how I "defended" Brad, when I just said that we needed to wait for a reply from him and that no sane admin would block over "drones". Yet even after I replied to these, you kept posting on the subject with the same word choices. Assumptions on your part are fine, but when the assumptions are refuted, it's very frustrating to see them reoccurring in other places. All of that is meant in the best of spirits. :-) And Risker, I'm sorry that we're clogging your talk page! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @The ed17: I followed him to your talk page?  What a strange assertion-- based on what?  You and I were already engaged in quite a few discussions, and you've been on my watchlist for longer than I can remember.  Ed, I can see something is still troubling you, and you think I'm misrepresenting something, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what.  You say you aren't MilHist buddies, but it was your post that first asserted that notion, I link the diff so that it's clear what I'm basing my posts on, you're both ship editors and cross paths there, you referenced that (not me), and you're the single highest contributing editor to his talk page.  I believe the diffs back that you defended him.  I'm not pulling statements out of thin air.  Although I'm really unsure why any of this still matters-- that he got away with gender-based personal attack, and that Bish is gone, is quite clear. It's only intended as a comparison of what goes on routinely thoughout the Wikipedia, but only Malleus is blocked for similar.  It's really not about either you or Brad.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want consider the ANI case as another sampling point. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. Risker (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

office hours
Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :)

My Talk Page
User:Neutralhomer has replaced the sock puppet banner he put on my talk page after you removed it. I really need this to stop. If arbcom's word isn't good enough... then I don't know what is. This editor has crossed a line, and he's compromising my ability to be an effective contributor here by attaching this type of uselessness to my account. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The same user also removed a message of mine from the talk page of the administrator who dealt with the other account. I'm not sure I want to take this to ANI, but I am considering it.  This feels like harassment. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you alleging claims of "admin abuse" against that admin, exactly? On what basis? Is this some kind of joke? See you at AN/I: and this should be interesting. Doc   talk  09:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A significant prerequisite for that is for the user to actually be an Admin. Please stay out of proceedings that do not concern you. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Request denied. That's part of being on a public website, ya know. As far as adminship: I'd wager you don't have it. I don't want or need it: but I know I'd be good at it. Probably a lot better than you. So, you want to conduct half of your business off-wiki, and pick and choose who you feel is worthy of talking to you on-wiki. Good luck with that. Doc   talk  10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I'm really not sure what to say. I think the above speaks for itself. Your assistance is, obviously, greatly needed. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes: there should be some explaining alright. How many "secret accounts" are we allotted without proper disclosure? Ones we can resurrect at will? And is it true that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others? This is worthy of passing on to the curious commoners, if this is the case. Doc   talk  10:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Risker, this is the post that is in question. It was taken from User:MuZemike's talk page.  In it, User:Fortheloveofbacon claims that Mike "inappropriately blocked an account of mine" and asks Mike to direct him to "any sort of discussion relating to your block of User:RelevantUsername".  Bacon says the RelevantUsername account is his, that makes him a sockpuppet.  Since the RelevantUsername account was blocked for "abusing multiple accounts", that means we are looking at a long-term sockpuppet (a few names spring to mind there, probably in yours too).


 * As we all know, MuZemike is a competent admin who thinks things through before issuing any block. I have never seen him issue a block that for an account that shouldn't have been issued.  If he says RelevantUsername was "abusing multiple accounts", I have to believe he had a reason for blocking that account and will tell us (or you via private communication).  But since it is 5:40am on the east coast (as of this writing) and he lives in the Central Time Zone (4:40am there) I believe, there is little we can do until he wakes up and has some coffee.  Not to mention real life stuff.  So, I recommend all of us (myself included) break for the night (or is it morning?) and either go to bed or get our day started until Mike wakes up. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 10:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For reference, the ArbCom case that Bacon is referencing above is not a case at all. ArbCom was called in reference to this SPI about a connection between Bacon and CoM (we all remember him).  They cleared Bacon of being CoM, but not any other sock.  So ArbCom only clear him of that charge, not any others.  We need to wait for Mike.
 * @Bacon: Don't threaten anyone with ANI unless you have clear proof of "harrassment" and "compromising [one's] ability", plus are willing to start naming past accounts. ANI admins tend to shootin' when they start hearin' quackin' or will hand out sanctions quickly. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request an interaction ban between myself and both Doc and Neutralhomer. I do not forsee this ever ending. WP:Stick Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are talking to a user (ie: Risker) who is asleep. She hasn't edited since 1:57am EST.  She isn't here.  Plus, I am pretty sure she would deny it, since we are doing our "jobs" around here. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 12:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm awake now, and a declared alternate account is *not* a sockpuppet. Stop tagging it Neutralhomer. Risker (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that wouldn't be a problem if MuZemike hadn't blocked the other account for "abusing multiple accounts". That's where I run into a problem.  Also, normally people who have a "declared alternative account" actually put it somewhere, like say, on their userpage (like you have and others).  This user is hiding it.  Not cool.  That's another problem I have. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 14:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

For the love of bacon, can someone explain why an account with zero edits like User:RelevantUsername is of such great concern? Am I missing something? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You would have to ask User:MuZemike that, but he is apparently on a Wikibreak at the moment. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would we have to as Mike that? What are you getting at with all of this? It's a declared alt account. Please, drop the stick and start trying to make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for people trying to edit. Do you have an issue with Fortheloveofbacon's edits? If so, please state that. Otherwise I don't see a need for your behavior to continue. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Mike blocked that account, that account is still blocked, Mike blocked it for a reason. The User:RelevantUsername account was created at 01:21 on January 21, 2012 while Fortheloveofbacon was still under the accusation of sockpuppetry at the SPI (which was started at 16:06 on January 20, 2012) that Risker won't let me talk about.  January 21, 2012 is the exact same day that Fortheloveofbacon was indef blocked at 17:42 by Elen of the Roads and unblocked at 20:16 by Hersfold.  If you are being accused of sockpuppetry, the last thing you would do is make a "declared alternative account".  Now, call it whatever you want, but I call it high suspicious and I call it a sleeper account lying in wait, which is called sockpuppetry.  The fact that I have to tell you all this (did anyone even bother looking?) and post it here shows someone isn't doing their job very well.  I also weld a very big 2x4 and I don't own a horse. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 08:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not tell me anything I did not already know. Other than the nonsense in the last few sentences. Are you suggesting a blocked account (which the user admitted was theirs) is a "sleeper"? I think you have a wildly different definition of what a sleeper account is, if so. Fortheloveofbacon was exonerated from all suspicion of socking by arbs/CUs. Again, do you have any problems with his edits? Killiondude (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the timing of the creation of the "declared alternative account" is extremely suspect. To me, it looks like the "declared alternative account" was created in case he was blocked.  He was, then unblocked, so while he does the honorable thing and declares it, the timing is suspect.  I sense bad faith behind it's creation.  As for sleeper accounts, if you check my block log (and a couple SPIs) you will find I have had a couple sleepers in my time (which have all been declared and blocked).  As for his edits, from the extremely small amount of article edits, I see one poor use of the term "vandalism" and the systematic deletion of the Arthur Rubin article.  But the bulk of his edits are all talk page or Wikipedia space edits, so I can't judge his work on just 21 article edits (where it really matters).  His talk page style needs some work, especially his snarky little attitude.  That, he could lose really fast as it will get him in trouble here.  But I am more worried on this "declared alternative account" than his talk page style and complete lack of article edits. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 09:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know who you are. All I know is that you've appeared out of nowhere, after I've already gone over all of this with the admins/arbcom, and started digging the same stuff back up. The biggest problem is that since you don't have the ability to actually do anything, you're just throwing up banners and filling up talk pages. The more time I spend here, the less time I get to spend in article space being productive. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have been so productive. The bulk of your edits were to you talk page and other talk pages.  Sorry, talking does not equal productivity. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 08:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do have the impression you are moving the goal posts here. If you have concerns with Fortheloveofbacon's editing in general, then start a RfC/U. Perhaps Doc9871 or Arthur Rubin are willing to certify that as well. Tagging his page with an inappropriate sockmaster tag as a proxy for unproductive is not what WP:DR recommends. And I can't help but notice in this context that you, Neutralhomer, have been blocked for both harassment and sockpuppeting in the past. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Um...Arthur Rubin is not a Wikipedia account holder to my knowledge. According to his Wikipedia page, it says he is "an American mathematician" and "aerospace engineer".  If you look above, I admitted the sockpuppetry, but this isn't harrassment.  I see an editor creating a "declared alternative account" while under suspicion of sockpuppetry (that I am not allowed to link to).  That sets off red flags for me, maybe not for you, but it does for me.  Plus, having not one, but two admins trying to make me stop talking about this, tends to make me talk more. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 12:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neat! OK, another notable person with a Wikipedia article who also is a Wikipedian.  Still doesn't answer really any of the other points that I made. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 12:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "two admins trying to make me stop talking about this, tends to make me talk more". Yes it's a cover up! Of the proverbial rabbit hole. "Off with their heads". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh so many quotes from Alice in Wonderland and between "Off with their heads" from the Queen of Hearts and "I'm Late" from the White Rabbit, those are the only two that people remember. Sad.  Anywho, you have only been here since September 2011, when you are here longer, you will learn that coverups and sweeping things under the rug or just plain ignoring it until it goes away is classic Wikipedia behavior around here.


 * But since I am not getting the answers I want, plus this conversation is boring me greatly, and I have to be up in 22 minutes (even though I never went to sleep), I am going to wait until MuZemike comes back. He is the end-all be-all when it comes to the blocked "declared alternative account".  He has a lot more pull around here than I do.  Until then, we can call this particular conversation closed, but not the entire discussion (that's to be continued).  You have yourself a good morning, I am going to go sit in traffic with the cranky commuters. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 13:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone just needs to pick a fight. He's already on restricted communication with 5 separate users... Wouldn't it be great to bump that up to 6? Seriously, how much more decorum could I possibly show here? Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Might want to get your facts straight, I am only on interaction bans with three people, but the one is considered null and void by the person themself, as we are now on friendly, speaking terms. So, do get your facts straight.  Two admins (Risker and now Hersfold) have ignored your interaction ban request, Doc9871 pretty much opened the door to you going to ANI to request it above, and I laughed at you when actually had the gall to ask if I would "voluntarily adhere to the terms" of an interaction ban.  Sorry dude, you might want to read WP:ADMINSHOP, cause we have rules against that kind of behavior.  You might also want to read WP:ROPE. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 17:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI for User:Fortheloveofbacon
Since you were contacted by the user and may be involved in some fashion, I am letting you know an active SPI. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 12:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A particular skill-set is needed
Hello Risker. You are well known to be rather keen at conjoining technical CU data and behavioral analysis to reach the closest thing to a consensusproof conclusion possible. That skill-set is in dire need at WP:AN where an impromptu SPI has flourished regarding BarkingMoon. I regard Keegan highly yet some in the discussion are openly challenging his assessment to the point of near disruption. In short, regardless of the position you take, I feel it would go far to set the matter in perspective, which is exactly what the discussion needs currently. Thank you for considering these things. Best - My76Strat (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile your decision to offer no response to this question? My76Strat (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to bait Risker into issuing another unpopular block or something? Let Baseball Bugs deal with AN[I] clerking. He is soon going to be officially invested in that capacity anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the choices, it would have to be "something". My76Strat (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I will not be taking part there. I have already spoken on the general subject and, simply put, either people believe me or they don't. My making further statements isn't going to change that. There's already been more than enough innuendo and intrusion into the personal lives of those involved, and I'm not going to lend this behaviour further credibility by participating. Risker (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you did invite the community to decide if the behavioral evidence is compelling or not. You can't just punt back to the community and then frown upon them for basically doing what you said they should do. On the other hand, I agree that the discussion as to whether his wife even existed was surreal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that response. I won't press further because I generally agree there has been an intrusion. I haven't seen where you addressed this topic elsewhere, but your credibility is strenuously intact to my regards. Best - My76Strat (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Same to you :)
Here:  Tomorrow will be a better day: always is! Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SandyGeorgia. I think sometimes it's hard for everyone to get on the same page; while the Rlevse situation is very engrossing to a goodly chunk of the community, it's only one of several "big ticket" items for Arbcom, where we have five open cases (two in voting and two in drafting), the vetting of candidates for the AUSC, and the never-ending river of block/ban appeals, as well as the daily complaints about various admins and editors. Realistically, the Rlevse/PumpkinSky situation is almost entirely within the scope of the community to manage, and it came completely out of the blue to everyone on the Committee. I can understand the concerns about the behaviour at the FAC request for comment, which I scanned last night; however, I'll tell you that something like that, where there seems to be a lot of contention, is pretty much exactly why arbitrators *don't* wander the project looking at contentious behaviour. If any of us had commented there, even in an unrelated manner, we'd have to recuse from any matter that came out of it.  For the record, I did have a question which I am certainly not going to post over there:  What's the plan if Raul gets "hit by a bus"? - meaning any unplanned and unexpected extended absence. FAC and TFA are highly visible, important parts of the project and organizationally we need to make sure that they're not dependent on only one or two people. I don't know what the best way of handling this would be, but it's wild enough on those rare occasions when he's missed a day or two.  But given the tone of the RFC, I have little doubt that even a relatively calm, organizationally focused question like that would have exacerbated the already-tense situation.  Risker (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know ... in hindsight, that all makes sense to me, but it's frustrating as all heck when work is being diminished and FAC is being undermined by people who have old axes to grind, and we're getting contradictory messages from CUs. In the "Raul gets hit by a bus" scenario, I used to think there was enough depth among delegates to handle it seamlessly.  Honestly-- because of the damage that has been done there since November-- now I worry.  The delegates would have handled it seamlessly before; now we need to see if FAC can be rebuilt and if the numbers and comraderie will return to levels before a certain other arb case of 2009 (or was it 10?).  The disruption has been monumentally destructive-- which is part of what led to my frustration that I felt like double standards were in play and community feedback was being stifled, and I'm being told to shut up all over the place.  FAC was a functioning place.  I think we just have to see what emerges in the coming weeks, and if the disruption subsides.  I just reread a very long, old thread on Cas's page, and it makes me so angry that I wasted so much time there with PumpkinSky's deceptive posts there, trying to reason with him-- it's hilarious reading in the light of a new day, to realize how much time he wasted.  Well, onward and upward.  I'm sorry again-- I do understand the difficulties, as well as anyone.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Need Clarification
Since I have my own Sanctions page, I need a clarification on this statement and the edit summary. Are you telling me (under WP:SANCTIONS) to stay away from User:Fortheloveofbacon and not to discuss the "declared alternative account" anywhere on Wikipedia with any user, including other admins? -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since he has asked I not posted on his talk page (and if I am under SANCTIONS I can't anyway), but you might want to speak to Fortheloveofbacon about this edit. Even though it is hidden, it is still a personal attack under NPA. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 01:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's best to let this one slide in my opinion, Homie. I don't think the diff is a personal attack because it's not directed at anyone in particular. There are plenty of fish to fry out there, but this particular one is best let go. Just looking out for you, and YMMV. Cheers :> Doc   talk  05:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom
God knows I am in no position to tell other people what to do, particularly on as difficult and highly discussed topic as the current Civility ArbCom case. But there have been a few comments on the proposed decision talk page questioning the apparent delay. We all know that unexpected things can and do arise, and sometimes we can't do what we intended on the original schedule. But, maybe, a note on the talk page, perhaps indicating the amount of material to be gone through being greater than normal (I think it may well be) and that action in coming to a decision is still actively ongoing, even if no proposals are being made yet, might help quiet those who are questioning the delay. I myself know how monstrousy long some of the evidentiary printouts can get, and am more than grateful that qualified people like yourself are willing to take on the task of arbitrating here, and have no real reservations myself. I remember how Roger was kind of amazed by the amount of evidence in the Scientology case, for instance. So, for my own part, if I haven't said so before, thanks for taking on the task of Arbitrator. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, John; it really means a lot. You're quite correct about the importance of communication here, and I will go over to the talk page and give an update.  Risker (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "I think we can get a PD posted over the weekend, and have updated the page to reflect that. Courcelles 21:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)" So, I think it can wait until the weekend is over. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're relatively close; however, so is the TimidGuy case. Just so that we don't overwhelm everyone, the two cases will be posted some days apart. Whichever is ready first will go up first. We're not aiming for perfection but given the masses of evidence and the enormous workshop, we need to select the best focuses to assist both the Committee in making a useful and well-informed decision, and the community in understanding its rationale. Risker (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I vandalized your userpage…
…I hope you don't mind :) -- Avi (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aww geez, now everyone will know... ;-) Risker (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

ani - block review

 * - ani - bugs review -   You really can  00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FAIL. Your block is unpopular. Vox populi. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of my administrator and arbitrator decisions are unpopular with at least a segment of the community; this is just another day at the office. Now I remember why so few administrators are willing to participate at ANI. Risker (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe it's time to look at the format. I hate to go there, but sometimes I need to comment on something, and never enjoy the experience. Whilst it remains a "free for all", the ambience is unlikely to change without change being imposed. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Begoon that it's a "free for all". Unless the incident is a clear and obvious violation by a non-established editor, ANI is pretty much useless.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Established/non-established" is probably not the right paradigm or criteria. "Editor aligned/unaligned with the dominant ANI ethos" is probably more appropriate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then, perhaps this is Step 1 in changing the ambience there. The continued baiting that happened there (on the part of both parties) was unacceptable. Risker (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC) And wow, I'm not used to edit conflicting twice in a row on my own talk page...
 * That would be nice. Something positive out of a mess. Novel idea. I posted some primitive ideas in NYB's ANI thread. Not much, but you have to start somewhere. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The amusing part there is that some oppose the block because they say you didn't warn him. And others oppose the block because your warning was obviously just "respect my autoritah". Catch 22. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ASCII, I hope you're not weaseling me ("some") in here. I oppose the length of the block, and I am still not happy there was a block in the first place. Yes, after it was pointed out I did see the warning, halfway toward the right margin of a lengthy thread that I had lost interest in already; I didn't see one on Bugs's talk page, where I would have expected it. (Risker, that's an explanation of why I didn't see it, not a critique of your actions.) If the block was indeed in response to Bugs's comment toward Marek (a post I asked Marek on my talk page to retract, which he did), well, that comment by Marek really wasn't acceptable, and Bugs's response very measured. Moreover, Marek retracted, wisely, and that could have been the end of it. I think. I hope, vainly (or at least hoped). Drmies (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is actually tricky, since we don't do punitive, warnings are a little weird. I was hoping MSK would come back successfully, but I really doubted it.  Now she is indeffed once more, the only reason to maintain BBB's block is if he needs coolign down time. Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Where on Earth did you get the idea from that "we don't do punitive blocks"? A very substantial proportion of all blocks are punitive. If not, how do you explain the phenomenon of 10-second blocks? Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the same thing. Even in pure theory not everyone agrees . Further reading. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you're quite incorrect there, Rich. I think this is pretty standard Baseball Bugs behaviour, and it's been tolerated if not encouraged on AN/I. That he happened to come across someone who won't accept it is his bad fortune. But it is absolutely not acceptable behaviour to keep pushing the buttons. Yes, I get that VM's statement was not appropriate. And did Bugs's response improve the situation any? Was it going to resolve any problem? No, they weren't. Baseball Bugs needs to understand that this sort of antic, including all the snarky and sarcastic and baiting posts on MSK's page, are not okay. I would consider an unblock if he was page-banned from AN/I or AN for six months instead. Otherwise, we're just going to have a repeat performance; this block is preventative in that there's no indication Baseball Bugs will stop this kind of behaviour otherwise. And Malleus, I don't do 10-second blocks. I think just about everyone has figured that out by now. Risker (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that you do, but others do. Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should note that on Commons he was blocked much quicker for trying to pull a similar stunts on COM:AN/U . Of course, that's his evidence that Commons is corrupt or something like that . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And some are quite frank why they like ANI the way it is . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but honestly I prefer that honesty to the multitude of wikilegalism that would be likely to sink any attempt to reform ANI for the better. At least saying "Don't take my drama board away because I like it", is truthful. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the situation, and why people in that situation block (I supported the block, but requested reduction to time served). My comment is that the warn/block combination is not compatible with our stated principles.  It is a sufficiently common occurrence that either we should modify the principle or we should modify the practice or both.  I don't have a solution.  Rich Farmbrough, 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC).

I was wondering ...
I have no idea if you remember me (IRC? Brownies?)... anyway - I noticed that several of you (AC, more experienced admins, former big guns, etc.) have been getting involved a very productive way lately. (hope it's a new trend) .. Anyway - would you have time to take an email? Nothing about any cases, or other editors; but rather seeking some personal advice from someone I have the utmost trust in. Hope you are well, and if you're too busy - I completely understand. — Ched : ?  23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ched. Don't be silly. Of course I remember you!  Feel free to email me, it might take me a bit to respond, but I will watch for it.  Risker (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * awwww . With the number of people that come and go here, it's never always a certainty - but you just wrapped a warm fuzzy blanket around my heart. :) ... I'll try to get the email out by the weekend, and will be in no big rush for a reply.  With respect to some of the other items currently being discussed, you may be interested in this post.  The two thread immediately prior to that are somewhat related, but only in that they are a bit of a tangent to the larger issues.  Cheers. — Ched :  ?  14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Signpost mention
Hi, just a courtesy note to inform you that I am mentioning you by username in the Discussion report including in the next issue of The Signpost. You can see the draft text here. Please leave any feedback on the talk page there. --Surturz (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Risker, we've had a few disagreements over the years, some bigger than others and I'd be surprised if we didn't have others down the road. I want to thank you for rising above those conflicts and doing the good work you do around here. Much of what we do here is thankless, and you do a lot. Thank you for your dedication. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

PD question
Hello Risker! I am one of the editors involved in the weekly Arbitration Reports that are posted on the Signpost (along with Steven Zhang) and I was curious to know if any proposed decisions are slated to be posted in the next two days. On the Civility enforcement case talk page you indicated that some PDs were soon to be posted, whichever one was ready first. I just want to ensure everything is covered in the Report, and if a decision is anticipated, I need to adjust my work time accordingly.

Any update would be great! Thanks & best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Am working on this now, with the intention of posting within 24 hours. Risker (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I knew I would take flak for looking through the history of that article but it was the right thing to do
I'm sorry if you're angry at me, I've replied on my talk page - I knew I'd get shouted at by some for helping you but I did it anyway because someone had to - I didn't think you would actually be shouting at me too -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  16:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am really really surprised you would criticise me for that, honestly, if you want to talk I'd love to, I thought you'd be happy? Some of that stuff is really old and it looks like no one bothered to look, it was right in front of you. Even the revision history has links in it -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody shouted at you; please do not mischaracterize my communication. You're tagging accounts and IPs as socks without any basis other than that they edited a particular article. That is inappropriate. I have, on your talk page, asked you to revert yourself and remove the tags. Risker (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000066; background-color:#DDEEFF; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

 Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikimania on Paid Editing
Hi Risker,

I'm fishing for potential panelists with a specific, strong and intelligent point-of-view for a Wikimania panel here on paid editing. Philippe Beaudette said you were going and might be interested. Though he didn't indicate if you fell in the pro or anti category.

King4057 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi King4057. Provided it doesn't conflict with other panels/presentations I'm being tapped for, I'd be happy to participate. I must warn you though, my thoughts on "paid editing" are much more nuanced than just pro/anti. They would touch on how (in)effective/(un)responsive the project is in addressing legitimate complaints of article subjects; whether or not there is a difference between people paid by some sort of WMF partner or affiliate (chapters, GLAMs, or other organizations working through chapters/projects) and paid editing where the exchange of funds is not linked in any way to WMF or its partners, affiliates or projects. Then there's the question of editors writing within their professional field. And we haven't even touched on people who don't get paid in dollars and cents but are editing in a manner that advocates for a particular point of view.
 * So...if you're still interested, let me know. Risker (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I need to refine the title of the session. This is generally about corporations, lobbying groups and subjects of a biography - areas with a history of misbehavior, an overwhelming COI and significant controversy. GLAM has their own track and other non-profits aren't generally problematic. The CREWE group is PR people serving their clients, who aren't affiliated with WMF, but insist Wikipedia doesn't allow them to make factual corrections and so forth. Generally to edit the articles of their clients.


 * So I'm reading that (a) I need a better title (ideas?) and (b) This would put you in the anti-camp, once I refine the title to reflect the scope? I am a paid editor of this nature, but one that has taken the time to understand the rules, get involved and vowed to not touch articles directly, but collaborate with neutral editors. King4057 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the topic can be discussed without comparing all forms of paid editing. Frankly, I see plenty of bad editing practices in the GLAM/chapter/etc. group, too; it's different from some of the paid stuff, but it's no less problematic. I've yet to see any evidence that people who are paid to edit are any worse than editors who edit with a nationalistic perspective or by turning an article on a legitimate subject into a coatrack, or those who edit non-neutrally or using questionable reference sources to support fringe topics. So I guess my position would be "why are we pretending that money makes the difference in the quality and neutrality of editing?" position. Perhaps because I have spent so much of the past few years working in areas where poor editorial behaviour is rampant, I come in with a different perspective. Risker (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We may be at an impasse. It is a valid and oft-cited argument that there's plenty of clearly bias editors (admins even) that don't receive the same sanctions as editors with a financial COI. In a perfect world, balance would be found between the two bias parties by a neutral decision-maker. Since negative bias is more welcome on Wikipedia, it creates a negative slant on how Wikipedia covers companies, who are victim to the usual distrusting anti-business mob and inflated media stories. I would welcome your argument to the panel, but wouldn't want to change the entire scope of the panel. Especially since (a) GLAM has an entire track already and (b) the CREWE panelist wouldn't even know what GLAM is. However, comparisons to other forms of paid editing are relevant to the current subject. King4057 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Risker (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what Risker says in her second post above. NPOV is a great policy, but there is a tendency to make extrapolations from it that are unhelpful, or even undermine it: "Wikipedia is neutral", "Wikipedia editors should be neutral/unbiased". Nonsense I say: if we banned biased editors, there would be no one left—excepting Jimbo and myself, obviously :)
 * All editors are biased, but what matters is that articles should be written from the neutral point of view (which is itself a bias/point of view/prejudice). That involves representing all other significant viewpoints fairly and with due weight. To do this, it is actually helpful to have editors interested and biased enough to be sufficiently well informed about those viewpoints (and hence also reliable sources for them) so that they are represented fairly. Rather than proscribing a class of editors, what is needed is education and dialog on how they can ensure their viewpoints are fairly represented without presenting them as the view of Wikipedia or giving them undue weight.
 * "POV" is often used as a dirty or derogatory word onwiki, but representing points of view is a large part of what we do. Geometry guy 21:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a fascinating panel. But if the title of the panel is "Paid Editors on Wikipedia: An Asset or a Burden?", then I would expect that it should cover the entire spectrum, good and bad.  --Elonka 21:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish there was a "like" button for Geometry Guy's comment - Wikipedia is neutral but individual editors are not. This is very different from the subject of the panel right now, but we could do a COI panel instead. Panelists could be (a) CREWE on corporate editing (b) these guys who are interested in working with WMF to work with research institutions (c) Risker to discuss general passion-based bias (d) Myself as moderator. This is not the subject of the current panel I presented, but who am I to swim upstream and push the panel to focus on where I am most interested personally, when so many are interested in a broader topic. King4057 (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What about something like this? Edits welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King4057 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, although this will be a hot topic. Suggest 35 minutes of presentation and 25 minutes of questions/discussion for a total of an hour. This one won't be contained in 25 minutes. Risker (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done and Done (here). Now that I think about it, my personal COI gave me a POV for a very narrow topic where I'm most interested - but this broader topic is probably interesting to more people. King4057 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Crazy Idea
You mentioned potentially making a distinction between paid editors from a Wikimedia affiliate. I have a call with this guy this Wednesday, who seems to have a no-brainer proposition for Wikimedia to collaborate with publicly funded research institutions that have a charter to provide unbias information to the public. He's also, one of the suggested panelists for the Wikimania session.

So if we have an affiliate program for culture, a proposition for science, and one for working with students, why don't we have one for "business"? The main issue being that there are few organizations with a charter to provide unbias information on business topics, but something worth brainstorming. King4057 (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The currently dominant thinking seems to be that a conflict of interest is not particularly problematic in and of itself, and that edits should be judged on their own merits with respect to our content policies. I understand the superficial appeal (and practicality) of that line of thinking. But it seems to me that Wikipedia is at the point where journal publishers were 20 years ago. Back then, it was considered unnecessary to mention that the authors of a scholarly article were employed by the company making the drug under study, or by the tobacco industry. After all, the science in the article should stand or fall on its own merits, right? Unfortunately, it's become obvious that conflicts of interest have relevance separate from an evaluation of the underlying content, and that in fact one cannot evaluate content fully and accurately without some understanding of the authors' conflicts of interest. That's why every reputable journal and textbook on Earth demands a conflict-of-interest disclosure from its authors. Think about it. It would be extremely concerning, if not outright malpractice, if Britannica failed to disclose that its article on the purported health benefits of transcendental meditation featured heavy contributions from employees of Maharishi University. Or that its biography of Newt Gingrich featured extensive editorial input from the Gingrich campaign's PR team. I can't help feeling like we're stuck in the past, and ignoring part of our basic pact of honesty with the reader, when we fall back on superficially appealing but outdated ideas about conflicts of interest. And thank you for letting me use your page as a soapbox. :) MastCell Talk 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another reason to dread any retirement from MastCell and to celebrate another contribution from MastCell. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * - I have to agree with this honest position - a clear disclaimer needs to be on many of our articles - this article has been the subject of many disputes and partisan contributions. Neutrality is difficult to achieve in the real world and wikipedia is no different. Readers should start from this understanding, rather than assuming neutrality.    You really can  19:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Part of the difficulty is that Wikipedia isn't inheritly built for transparent authorship, as traditional media and Google Knol are. There have been discussions on a flag like Youreallycan suggested and there are many similar flags already in use. There is a large delta between ideals and what's realistic, but a Wikimedia Affiliate committed to ethical best practices could bring us closer to ideal. King4057 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MastCell, I agree with you in more ways than might meet the eye. The catch, of course, is that we don't generally *know* who our authors are, and that would also be considered "malpractice" by those scholarly works. I suppose my issue is that I really don't see how to effectively sort out the conflicts of interest between the independent scientific investigator whose studies were paid for by a grant from a neutral party, the unpaid anti-drug activist, the "PR flack" whose contribution is to update the infobox with the current CEO's name, the "ordinary editor" who keeps inserting scientific info sourced to the Washington Post... Our current COI rules would technically prevent the scientific investigator from directly contributing (he stands to gain financially or reputationally), does nothing to keep the activists out, encourages attempts to ruin the reputation of the "PR flack" who makes neutral edits, and the "ordinary editor" will probably be considered someone's sock. It's a mess, I know.  Risker (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or to quote (from memory) the saying of an admin who is currently the subject of a meta-wiki RfC: "open editing isn't for the faint of heart". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Much as I admire (like KW) MastCell's contributions in general, I find myself in considerable disagreement here, not least because I've seen comparison made between Wikipedia and scientific/academic journals before, and I do not think it is a good comparison, for several reasons.
 * Journals must publish and be damned: they issue one version of an article and (modulo errata, complaints or letters to the editor) that is the end of the story, so a level of care is needed akin to featuring an article on the main page here. In contrast a Wikipedia article is an ongoing piece of work, and the entire history of its development is publicly available, including all of the contributors and the edits they made.
 * While journals may ask contributors to alter their article (in response to referee comments or otherwise) and may copyedit it, when they accept an article, they do so in a form authored and approved by the contributors. Consequently it is appropriate for a journal to issue a disclaimer that the authors of an article had financial support from the tobacco industry, say. Wikipedia is not like that: if our article on tobacco was mostly edited by a PR firm for the tobacco industry, then sticking a tag on it saying "this article may be biased because many of the editors were paid by tobacco firms" is not the answer. Indeed it would be an embarrassment. Instead we should fix the article, for instance by seeking editors with expertise on other points of view to ensure that those viewpoints are also fairly represented.
 * Related to point 2, there is a clear distinction between the authors of a journal article and the readers of it. There is no such distinction on Wikipedia: a reader who sees bias in an article can edit it, or comment on the talk page. Many changes to articles arise in this way.
 * Where I am more inclined to agree with MastCell (and Risker) is in providing the reader with information so that they can make up their own mind about an article (and hence also comment/contribute to it in an informed way should they wish to do so). The edit history only tells us the contributors to articles in an anonymous way, and so it is important that we ask editors with a clear conflict of interest to declare it, backing this request up by sanctions when anonymous editing is abused. Geometry guy 22:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker, I agree that anonymous editing means that we can't always identify relevant conflicts of interest, and when we do identify them our approach is highly inconsistent. But the current thinking seems to be: since we can't address all conflicts of interest, we're not going to bother addressing any. Which is sort of unsatisfying. Geometry guy, thanks for the kind words; the respect is mutual. I don't completely agree with your first point, though. Journals identify conflicts of interest not because of their publishing mechanism, but because doing so is central to their mission and their reputation for objectivity. Even if journals adopted a more open-ended or interactive publishing model (as many open-access journals have), they'd still insist on clear declarations of COI as an ethical matter. I agree with your conclusion. I'm not suggesting we interrogate anyone, nor that we abandon open, pseudonymous editing (the day we do that, I'm gone for good). But I do think we should take conflicts of interest more seriously where they are declared, and also where they are undeclared but become evident. That seems like a necessary step for Wikipedia to become a serious, respectable reference work (which is apparently no longer a shared goal, in any case). MastCell Talk 22:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are quite right that my first point was neither particularly well expressed nor decisive, merely part of my overall view that comparisons with journals miss key distinctions. Reasoning aside, however, I'm not surprised we draw similar conclusions, as they are underpinned by basic principles: openness, transparency, clarity, informing readers (letting them decide rather than telling them want to think) and so on... Geometry guy 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the American Meat Association could add a lot of value to the article on poultry, but then so could PETA, if both organizations are open, transparent and respect the community. Research shows that the negative slant on company articles is increasing. Probably because certain forms of bias are more unfettered than others. Some notable Fortune 100 companies have derelict articles despite their significant role in World War II, American commerce, modern air-travel, almost every major space mission and so on. I would like to see us do a better job with an organized approach to encouraging paid editors for business topics that follow the rules. If we can convert covert contributors into open, honest and hard-working assets that present all sides, Wikipedia would be better for it. Appreciate the open, honest discussion. King4057 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This bias isn't surprising at all. It's an expected outcome of the "free culture" ethos that drives most editors here. TANSTAAFL. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with MF but...
Hi Risker!

You state that you agree with Malleus about some problems with RfA, but you support a topic ban.

Since I have been on WP, for 2 years, RfA has been essentially constant. If you further agree that the institution of RfA has been constant, and volunteer that there are problems with RfA, shouldn't you allow a constantly negative evaluation of RfA as a position?

Rhetorically, Malleus could probably advocate for changes more effectively by voicing positive evaluations of other aspects of RfA from time to time, I would agree, but that is a different matter.

There are others using the broken-record technique of advocacy, repeating "RfA is broken", etc. Should not those persons be topic-banned also, for consistency?

Of course, I would rather you oppose the topic-ban proposal.

You can move this to the talk page of the decision, if you feel it be appropriate.

Thanks, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Risker,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I think it's really kind of rude to just start spewing your latest conspiracy theories over on someone else's talk page in the middle of a different conversation. As far as I can see, there's no message there directed to me.  Risker (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

YGM
In relation to what we talked about the other day, you wished to be notified if activity started up, it's just a bit different. -- DQ on the road   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Nobody Ent 00:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Song
This is great. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. I've found myself humming this song at work lately. I'm sure a psychologist could explain why... Risker (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Email
Hi Risker, I sent you an email a few days ago, but have not received a reply. I was just wondering if you received it? I'm not sure if you simply chose not to reply, or if you didn't get it at all. --Elonka 15:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Followed up by email.

Heyla! cancon
There's a request to the Canadian Wikimedia Chapter to find someone who is, and I quote: - female - active - Canadian Terribly sexist and all that, but there you have it. Documentarians wanting to, uhm, document. Wikipedians. Willing to talk to strangers? - Amgine (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh. I've also received two emails about this. I'll follow up through that route.  Risker (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've quoted you
I know we don't see eye to eye on some other things, but I just wanted to let you know I've quoted you in the COI RfC. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Stefanomione discussion
I am curious why you're picking this fight over Stefanomione. You're seeing a dozen admins identifying a problem which has been expressed to the editor many times, and seem to be insisting on a dodgy point of protocol rather than attempting to do anything about the problem. Can you explain why this is, or must we continue to spar on ANI? (Note to those fellow admins: I'm interested in Risker's explanation, not in repeating the conflict over here.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, it comes down to this. I've read his talk page; I've also read a whole pile of the CfD entries. I see people talking over Stefanomione, not with him; there are no person-to-person discussions happening here at all. I see nobody posting on his page saying "Tell me about Category:Media by medium - what was in your mind there? Tell me how you think this will help." I see no place on his page where he was invited to a central discussion about what to do with that category, either; was one ever held? That's just one example, although I suspect it's the one that's weighing on most people's minds since it took some significant work to get back on track. I don't see any guidance on how he could help to get things back on track, either. When there's a CCI, the involved editor is usually invited to participate and correct issues, for example.  Stefanomione was encouraged a while back to participate more in CfD discussions, and he's been much more active there in the reviews of his own categories and those of other editors. I don't see where the concerns have been expressed to him many times; I've seen concerns expressed in an abstract and indirect (and in some cases almost pejorative) way in CfD: "more thin-slicing by Stefanomione" is not expressing a concern to Stefanomione, it's a comment to the general readership. We all know that the categorization system has lots of issues, and lots of room for improvement and expansion. One of the reasons for the proliferation of those templates at the bottom of articles is that people couldn't get categories through the system, even when they were logical ones, and now our ever-increasing number of mobile users are paying ridiculous data charges to read an article that ends with 120 blue links in templates.  We have an eager editor who likes to categorize things, who is mostly right when he is doing it. There are leaders amongst you: take the bull by the horns and actively engage him in working in areas that genuinely DO need improved categorization.  Encourage him when he does well, and redirect him when he's running into trouble - early on. By going to his talk page, asking him to pause and rationalize a new category or subcategory, or explain his thinking. That orange bar is usually very effective; it brought me here to answer your question. He's been here since 2005. If he'd done just a bit more editing in the first year, he'd have easily made adminship in 2006 if he'd tried. Try mentoring him rather than being punitive; you'll both gain from the experience, and the project will be better off for it.  Risker (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that's what I wanted to hear, thanks. Now, I'll try to express the position of the admins on CfD and see if you think it makes sense. CfD is as much about the "D" as the "C," in that it is all about discussion. Stefanomione's response, when he responds, is always the following: a reply, a claim that what he is doing is not so bad and easily cleaned up, and then continued rabbit holing as if the discussion had never happened. You can see in those discussions that he is always aware they're going on, and reads them when they do. So imagine you have an editor who seems to be constantly aware that he has been asked to stop what he is doing by dozens of people, and does it anyhow, for at least a year. Do you disagree that some form of punitive action is needed in that case?--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I disagree. I disagree fervently. You are not talking to him. You cannot simply decide that CfD is outside of the rules of the project, that it is somehow exempt from Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. CfD is not a world unto itself. Can you show me that you have made a single post on his talk page that has asked him why he created a category you don't like? I see Elen of the Roads making a post telling him he's doing something wrong, but still not asking him why he has done what he has done, or explaining what's wrong with what he's done. In fact, I don't see those points coming up in the CfDs themselves. None of you has done a single thing to try to resolve your concerns, as far as I can see. You're looking to punish someone because you don't want to have to step away from your safe place at CfD, to have to have an actual conversation with a person rather than talk to the group about your opinion of someone else's work. There's a complete lack of respect being shown for Stefanomione, a demand that he bend to your expectations without explaining what those expectations are, that is not compatible with project-wide standards of behaviour. Your complaint about him is that he's not communicating. I am holding up the mirror to you and your colleagues and pointing out that you aren't, either - and as "admins on CfD", you have the greater responsibility for doing so.  Risker (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. I think you're completely wrong about all of that, but I'm glad I heard it nonetheless. Thanks for explaining yourself.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get in contact with you
Hey Risker, sent you an email a while back, never heard back from on whether you got it or not (more likely you did), but would just like to know if it's been taken care of. Also trying to get in contact with you for Wikimania related stuff, is it best to do emails for now? -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  13:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI
wm2012:Submissions/2011 Italian Wikipedia blackout, have a nice day! --Vituzzu (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?
Hi Risker, over 3 months ago you asked not to inflame interactions between himself and editors on Vincent van Gogh (which at the time I was working on). However, these types of interactions have continued (I haven't gathered diffs, but will if it's necessary and seems I'm assuming bad faith). Having never encountered such a situation, I'd like to know if it's appropriate to request that he stop as I've done here on my talk page. I'm happy to follow your advice in terms of resolving what, to me, has become a very uncomfortable situation. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Without looking at this in depth (as you'll note, I'm largely inactive on the project right now for RL reasons), it does seem to me that if there are continuing issues that have been going on for months, it may be appropriate to request an interaction ban. Risker (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, I appreciate the input. I'll try to work something out informally on my talk and see how it goes. If not successful, I'll consider requesting an interaction ban. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency
On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.

AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.

As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.

AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.

In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:


 * 1) Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
 * 2) If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
 * 3) If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.

The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool updates
Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.

Hand-coding

As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!

Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.

New designs and office hours

Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).

We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).

I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Steven  Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 01:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Need a Checkuser
Ney Risker, need some help. Got an editor (TruthBeTold161) claiming that another editor (Truthbtold112) uploaded a picture that he holds the copyright to. It is kinda obvious that the editor is the same person (look at the usernames) and is trying to game the system (think DUCK). TruthBeTold161 also edited from 107.4.79.58, which geolocates to Naples, Florida (via Comcast Cable Internet). Can you run a checkuser on the two accounts and the IP and see if they are the same person? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The two editors are unrelated. My suspicion is that these are all people who knew either the subject or the victims. I'll comment further at Kubigula's page at the link.  Risker (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. :) I just left a reply.  Please respond when you can.  Take Care...<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Images have been nominated for deletion. I mentioned your recommendation for deletion in my nomination.  Thanks again for your help.  Take Care...<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. When you recently edited Randy Starkman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sudanese Armed Forces
Thanks for your note Risker. It's always a question of judjment, of course, and this may have been a marginal example. I'm quite happy to get other people's opinions in these sort of cases, including for them to act if necessary. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 01:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

IrinaOfKamaz block
Hi Risker,

I've blocked 216.166.10.161 as a self-declared sock of User:IrinaOfKamaz. Because of the actions of the IP user, I've also modified the terms of IrinaOfKamaz's block: they are now blocked from email or editing their talk page because of the edits the IP made. I've also revdelled the IPs edits from User talk:Soviet King because of the disruptive borderline outing nature of it all. All done as an emergency provision, if you consider this problematic, feel free to revert the revdel and trout me. The oversight team have been notified also. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, your actions, and those of Danger are entirely appropriate. Risker (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I've put in a rangeblock and revdelled some more material. (Sorry to give you running commentary, but drama and block evasion and rangeblocks and so on isn't my usual scene.) —Tom Morris (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, Tom. I'll probably take a close look at the range block later on; there are some peculiarities in the ranges used by this editor. Risker (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

New messages
<b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 23:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please consider my comments on the Education Program
Hi,

I commented on the Education noticeboard‎ and one of the "Online Ambassadors" reverted my comments. I believe my comments should be heard and that Online Ambassadors should not censor comments from the community members. I posted on the Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors here Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors before I realized that comments on the page had been moved to another page. Please consider my experience that the problem is that apparently there is no one is in charge, and than it isn't clear where to post questions to get answers. Can you clarify who is in charge? Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it might be fair comment to suggest that the "nobody in charge" argument wasn't really an on-topic response to my post on the EN, but I see that your comment was indeed restored. I'm seeing several issues all wrapped up into one big squirming ball of worms in this area:


 * Legitimate concerns about the level of support being provided to students by ambassadors, including what the reasonable expectations should be. Pretty clearly, the ambassadors themselves are uncertain. A good chunk of the community is expecting ambassadors to do hands-on training and active vetting of material, but *not* the DYK/GA/other review kind of vetting. That's certainly NOT what the ambassadors are taught, or what expectations have been imposed by the WEP. I see ambassadors questioning themselves about giving direct feedback to students about specific edits, for heaven's sake.
 * DYK - this is a continuation of fallout when some DYKs weren't vetted closely enough to comply with the enforcement of what a good number of community members believe to be close paraphrasing, and has resulted in a major upheaval at DYK. The students are basically walking into the firing field here, and I think if anything the ambassadors should be warning professors away from suggesting students take articles there. Ironically, because many longterm DYK editors abandoned the area during the recent upheaval, increased pressure has been put on editors who propose a DYK to review at least one other candidate - but the students are now being pilloried for doing just that, and accused of conflict of interest. It's pretty clear that the underlying issue here is that there is a group of editors who believes that stub-grade articles don't belong on the main page; I don't entirely disagree with that belief, but it's dishonest to complain about the quality of DYK articles when the entire philosophy behind that program is to put up "new articles in need of improvement" rather than "stuff that's just a step away from GAN". I'd rather see an honest discussion about changing the premise behind DYK than see the way that so many good-faith editors (and not just students) have been vilified on that page in recent months.
 * Refusal to see students as new editors with potential, but instead as nasty mark-grubbing wannabes who are only touching Wikipedia because they need the marks. If only.  The students have to fight to get into the classes, in a lot of cases; certainly I've heard of several cases where a class was filled up within an hour of registration opening. There isn't a course where marks are specifically handed out for getting DYK or GA.  I find this attitude particularly concerning from editors who have in the past actively participated in education programs where the *stated* objective was to reach FA, and marks *were* assigned to level of accomplishment.
 * Too many students concentrated in small topic areas at the same time. This speaks largely to the availability of experienced and willing Wikipedians to help students in their progress. It's horribly clear that ambassadors can only really support a small number of students in order for a win-win situation (students produce good articles/additions, project area isn't overwhelmed with having to do massive improvement), so finding editors to help out in specific topic areas is essential.  Getting students to write in their sandboxes is essential.  But at the end of the day, having 40 students writing within a small topic area all at the same time is going to be a problem, no matter what.
 * The WEP is a victim of its own success. Early trials were mostly successful - smaller classes, engaged professors, careful matching of ambassadors to classes. There weren't too many new editors working in small topic areas, so their efforts were fairly easily absorbed. Problems were responded to quickly and effectively; there was clear ownership of issues. There was a balance that reflected the available resources with the desire to be open and to provide a mutually valuable educational experience. And the beginning project was welcomed by the community because it provided resources to help professors who were otherwise just showing up and trying to teach programs in the middle of an active encyclopedia. I can't say the same is true today; there are too many students for the available resources, too little support for them, a community that has increasingly become more intolerant of newbies.  I am genuinely concerned that trying to transition this program back to the community will result in a community decision not to support educational projects at all.

So....some more thoughts from my perch. Risker (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool office hours
Hey ; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an Office Hours session at 18:00 UTC (don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail
<b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 22:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account activation codes have been emailed.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

I need help
I need help to control my editing (and Bmusician is not helping).Reply at my talk page.-- Deathlaser : Chat  16:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania session on COI/bias
Hi Risker. A while back we discussed your possible participation in a panel on COI and bias at Wikimania. The panel got over 20 signatures, but I wasn't sure if I had updated you that the panel wasn't accepted. I guess I probably won't go, but maybe next year if there is some COI-related content and if CREWE has dialed down by then. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess you're not the only one that wants me to go to Wikimania, so I just signed up. I'm going to go quietly and just meetup with a few folks. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, given that you're in a position to be able to come to Wikimania, and that (like all conferences) much goes on outside of the session rooms, I do think that having a panel turned down probably wasn't a good enough reason to write off the whole thing. Let's face it - dozens of very experienced and knowledgeable Wikimedians had their proposals turned down too; there are only so many hours and so many sessions available. I'm sure our paths will cross there. Risker (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool. I was going to attend if there were any COI sessions - didn't have to be mine. But there are also several logistical problems that have emerged and I'm adverse to being involved in CREWE's form of rhetoric. In any case, I'm going to make it happen, soak up some Wiki culture and get some feedback on how a paid editor in my position may be a better asset to Wikipedia. User:DGG just gave me some really good advice on how I might improve my writing style, collaborate with editors and better protect myself from the appearance of impropriety. I have a good start, but still lots to learn. Maybe at some point our industry will further evolve and it might be appropriate to have training sessions at Wikimania for humble COI participants who want to learn. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nude Canadian PMs
What's next in the Great Frozen North? ;-) Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In Yank-land it's another year of dirty Presidential election year politics. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there PumpkinSky - yeah, that painting has been quite the topic of conversation lately. Word has it that it's a remarkable likeness given that the subject didn't, in fact, sit for the portrait.  The chest hair apparently was bang on.  I do note some sexist allegory in the painting, though: the aide handing him the coffee is female.  It is, of course, a Tim Horton double-double.  As to your presidential election, well...  Risker (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sexist? She's the only female in the painting. Hmm. Maybe she just wanted a closer look at the goods ;-) Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh my .. that poor puppy doesn't appear to have a collar and dog license. No wonder there's such an uproar. — Ched :  ?  00:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also heard the painting is in error in that he's supposedly a cat person, not a dog person. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I can believe. Risker (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well ... it's not a very BIG dog. Does size matter? — Ched :  ?  01:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ROFL LMFAO!!! Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank You, dear Risker


Thank you, dear Risker! I know I shouldn't be editing much on talk pages since I've so recently been unblocked, but I thought this was very necessary. If it weren't for your generosity and kindness, I would still be blocked right now! I admire how you patiently replied to all my letters even though I know how busy you are. You are truly one of the greatest editors. :) I won't disappoint you! Please accept my bouquet of gratitude. ♥ ingly,  Bella   tête-à-tête   09:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey there Bella - glad to see you aboard. I was a bit worried that you'd been too discouraged to continue when it took me a while to get everything coordinated.  Happy editing.  Risker (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

email
I sent one. :) — Ched : ?  07:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

oh my ...
OK .. maybe it will come back to bite me on the butt .. but after some discussion, I've given OR access to his talk page. He has the source material for Nicolo Giraud, and hopefully we can stick to article content only. Thank you very much for all your support and help on this - and I hope I'm doing the right thing. I've posted on the talk .. and as you've said .. step by step .. one edit at a time. Please don't hate me .. I just want to save an FA. — Ched : ?  11:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ched, that is not just an ordinary "block" - that is a formal Arbcom ban from all areas of Wikipedia. No single admin has the right to override it. Please reconsider your steps here. You've not discussed your partial unbanning with the party that has imposed the ban, if nothing else.  Risker (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very sorry .. I've reverted myself — Ched : ?  13:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User page
Am I the only one who sees a video at the bottom of your user page..? Mato (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, although I can't see it myself. I've been told it's probably embedded in some template on my userpage, and some others are trying to hunt it down. Thanks for the heads up.  I confess some curiosity about what video it is... Risker (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw recently that there were some bits of malware out there that applied things to not only Google Chrome pages, but others (browsers) as well. If you're seeing adds or vid. on a wiki page - you may want to run a scanner such as malwarebytes to check for malicious software. — Ched :  ?  01:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc actually figured it out, the video was added into a template that was in turn transcluded in the Arbcom tasks template on my userpage. The video is now on the bad image list.  It is at times like this that I have a hard time not just semi-protecting every template on the project...  Risker (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd gone through all those templates! Must have missed that one somehow...at least it's sorted now. Mato (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail
Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Riley (and everyone else who helped out) - noted, and action taken as appropriate by various functionaries and Engineering staff. Risker (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)