User talk:Risker/Archive 18

User:Oversight
Hi Risker, please see Wikipedia talk:Oversight. — xaosflux  Talk 18:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Birth dates
Hi Risker, I know you answered this on the OS talk page a while back, but it's been brought up to some extent on WT:BLP in regards to primary sourcing. What is our procedure on birth dates for non-minors that are not sourced or are only sourced to primary sources? I don't think I've ever gotten a consistent answer between oversighters on this question, so your thoughts would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I took a bit of a look and I'm not quite sure what the context is in that thread. Is the discussion about a particular editor looking to have self-posted DOB removed, or is it about an article subject wanting to have a DOB removed? A lot of our article subjects probably shouldn't have DOB posted (e.g., academics, minor actors, and so on) simply because of the significant potential for misuse of that information. And adding DOBs of children/spouses of article subjects is really not good; minors in particular have a right to privacy. Let me know.  Risker (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly sure the context of that thread myself either: the editor who raised it seems brought it up in the question of using primary sourcing to verify the date of birth, which in my view, is a no go.I mainly reached out because I didn't know whether such information would be subject to revdel or suppression, and how to communicate that on the thread: I've been given what appears to be contradictory answers from oversighters on the suppression of DOBs for adults: this conversation seems to suggest that any DOB that isn't reliably sourced should be suppressed, regardless of age, while other oversighters will decline to suppress the completely unsourced DOB of 10 year-old actors. Basically, the question of how we handle DOBs and what sourcing is necessary does come up a fair amount, and right now the answer seems to be that the policy on sourcing changes depending on the oversighter you talk to. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Panther in the Dollhouse listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect &. Since you had some involvement with the 'Panther in the Dollhouse' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

 * Hi there, sorry for the delay in responding as I wasn't around very much due to some family matters. I've sent you an email, and I think you did a good job with that situation.  Risker (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Murky Page Move Log
Hey Risker! I'm writing to ask about a deletion you made yesterday of the page "Move Music Festival." I'm relatively new here, and still making clumsy contributions - I had accidentally published the page to article space right off the bat instead of draft space, so it was tagged (rightly so) for speedy deletion as an empty article. I quickly moved it to draft space, and the speedy deletion tag was removed by another user. Then you deleted the original article space page under R2: cross-namespace redirect. I've since fleshed out the article in draft space and then transferred it back to article space, but under Google search results for "Move Music Festival Wiki," it returns the following text instead of a link preview:

"Move Music Festival. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search. This redirect may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a redirect from the main/article space to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. See CSD R2."

Is there any way to alter that now that the article is pointing back out of draft space into article space? Some sort of page history edit? I wanted to ask because I've got no clue. Thanks, Happilycleverafter (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like this got straightened out without my personal attention (whether because it was just a glitch or a talk page watcher intervened).  I will note in passing, however, that I don't think the subject is very notable; you have included only one or two independent sources, and very few of the performers are notable enough for their own articles.  This looks pretty local. I won't personally tag it for review, but don't be surprised if it winds up in some form of deletion discussion because of its questionable notability.  Risker (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmation Protection of JT LeRoy article
Hi Risker, On the JT LeRoy Talk page, you signed last year's notification of the article being placed under Extended-Confirmation Protection, but in July of 2017 the lede was rewritten without authorization, and the rewrite is inaccurate. I'd like permission to fix it; please see my addition to "Lede" on the JT LeRoy Talk page. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Portofcallhttp (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alyssa Carson
This is not intended in any way as canvassing, but as the person who spearheaded the Orangemoody research, you may wish to add a comment. It was a particularly nasty issue. My other personal thought is that it is high time the 3 month data access for CU (the default period issued with MediaWiki software), be significantly extended. This would require a policy change to CU which I'm not sure could be carried locally by en.WP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello ! First, let me thank you for giving me reason to review one of the more positive episodes in my wiki-life: not that anyone had any fun dealing with that socking case, but as its lead, I felt it was possibly my most useful contribution to the project. I certainly learned a lot from it. One of the things I learned is how incredibly labour-intensive those kinds of investigations wind up being. Given the contributions of several checkusers, as well as the functionary discussions that occurred prior to the actual publication of the report to the commmunity, the interfaces with the WMF, the arrangements for the blocking bot, etc., there was an investment of more than an hour per blocked sock. I'm not sure I'd do it the same way again, although I am glad that we established a precedent for deleting "paid" articles without prejudice to appropriate re-creation that seems to be generally followed today.


 * I'm not going to comment on that particular AfD because what I see when I read this article is a very high-achieving and extremely focused high school student whose wonderfully supportive family is in a financial position to put her in good stead to reach her future goals. So far, however, she's really not accomplished anything noteworthy, in my opinion. (Example: There are no admission criteria for any of the Space Camps she attended, nor for participation in the NASA "explore space" passport program. But traveling to all the NASA centres over the course of less than a year is a pretty expensive endeavour, as is attendance at international camps.) I'm going to be honest and say that I would not have undeleted the article at the request of the subject's family member, even to put it into draft status; I'm hardly the strongest advocate of our COI guidelines, but even I think the COI is blatant in this situation. Having said that, the AfD by someone so new is....suspicious, shall we say. (It's not likely to be related to Manc1234 directly, although with Orangemoody we've always believed it was more than one person in more than one geographic area.)


 * To your larger question, about whether having a more expansive period for CU data access...well, that cuts both ways. Three months is usually long enough for about 95% of CU cases; many of the cases I've seen with "stale" contributions haven't edited in more than 6 months. The WMF privacy policy is board-approved, and takes into consideration such things as international standards (e.g., the EU privacy laws), the high value the broad community places on privacy, the usefulness of the data retained, and the risks that outside players such as law enforcement or courts may seek such data. I think three months is about right. CUs do have a private wiki that allows us to retain a little more data in cases involving repeat bad actors, and we have a few other tricks of the trade.  One of the things I've noticed is the ever-increasing use of VPNs by users of all stripes (I confess to using one for all my mobile devices), as well as the massive increase in the use of (normally extremely dynamic) cellphone/mobile IPs. That often means having to sort out "good" editors from bad.  More people are also becoming familiar with certain browser technology and flexibility is also changing - more than one commonly used browser allows users to "customize" the user agent.  (I remember one sockmaster who used to change his UA to rude messages for the checkusers, but most changes are to make the UA really generic.)


 * I hope this is helpful. Thank you again for popping in. I'm going to keep an eye on that AfD...  Risker (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much  for  responding  at  length. If  there is any  COI  it  is me and . We based a new version on the original article by Manc1234 which he created with the sole purpose of extortion. In  the beginning, the parents were naturally overjoyed to see a Wikipedia article about their daughter, and you  can imagine thier distress at  seeing  it  defaced with  disgusting  claims shortly  afterwards.  The next  step  in  Manc's ploy  was to  'offer' to  remove the vandalism for  a fee. The parent's were now extremely distressed. At  Wikipedia, we claim (or the WMF claims) to  uphold common decency and to  protect  the rights and reputations of its article subjects and editors. The article was more or less notable (it  does have some good claims to  notability  and is well  referenced) and as a gesture and in  a case where in  our  opinion  IAR is what  it's for, we recreated the article without  according  any  credit  to the miscreant, and reposted it  to mainspace. There are literally  thousands of other BLP that  are not  in the slightest bit  worthy of a Wikipedia article, the problem is the sheer number and controlling  and deleting  them all.


 * An increasing number of users are becoming very curious about the nominator of the AfD.


 * Best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are published
Hello! A few months ago the Wikimedia Foundation invited you to take a survey about your experiences on Wikipedia. You signed up to receive the results. The report is now published on Meta-Wiki! We asked contributors 170 questions across many different topics like diversity, harassment, paid editing, Wikimedia events and many others.

Read the report or watch the presentation, which is available only in English. Add your thoughts and comments to the report talk page. Feel free to share the report on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or on your favorite social media. Thanks!

-- EGalvez (WMF) 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Etymologiae
I've replied on the talk page. I found your edit distinctly impolite, but more importantly mistaken on the facts, which I have now explained over there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Does reviewing an article take long?
Hello Good Day, I would love you to help me review this article Draft:DJ Kentalky and also give me tip's on how to create Wikipedia article's for Record label's. Thank You. I would like to write about Universal Music Nigeria--Timi422 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
, it's a challenge for me to express how meaningful this recognition is to me. Along with some other feedback I received at Wikimania, I've come to realize that even "little editors" can have a significant impact on not just their own project, but on the movement as a whole. It strikes me that early 2016 was the period in which I had the most long-ranging (and possibly diverse!) effect; this checklist was written in February, and there was a certain little presentation about Pando that I made to staff in January that people still mention to this day. It motivates me to continue working within the movement in the various responsibilities I've taken on. Thanks so much. Risker (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Nice job on the timeline at the FB case, it's very helpful, and must have been a ton of work! --Elonka 05:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for noticing, ! It was a bit time-consuming, and I had hoped we'd have had the okay to unsuppress by now so it would not have been needed, but it's a lot easier to make tables with VisualEditor than it is using wikitext. I don't think any of us oversighters are willing to put our bits on the line for this case, but I just couldn't see the community or the parties being able to make informed workshop proposals without this information. None of the data I published is actually suppressed; it's just one of those artifacts of having to suppress 156 revisions in order to remove one particular statement. Risker (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Great thanks for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869745341 !

For the past 2 hours ,reading it on a mobile (and writing this very message on a small screen) I have been scratching my head what had been happening back then. I even went to full admin logs of the key parties, as the official summaries on Arb were lacking, or not readily accessible to voters, at least as of now. Your table is very good (=objective) in visualising the ever escalating revert war. I wish there was such an automatic (an AI generated summary maybe?) tool at a casual non-admin WP reader, moi y compris, disposal. Zezen (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Text only WikiLove
Hi again. There is no WikiLove template button on mobile WP edit UI, so just these words of appreciation for the tineline table discussed above. Bow and wishez from an EU wikipedian! Zezen (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom case evidence timeline
Thanks for your extensive timeline. However, when I was considering whether there possibly was misuse of the rollback feature, I noticed that you only referenced "reverts" without specifying whether they were ordinary undos, rollbacks or Twinkle reverts. It could be more accurate. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh for pity's sake. The purpose of the timeline was to provide some content context, since it was the *content* of the edits that was not visible due to the unrelated suppressions. Anyone could have looked at the history of the page to see what you're looking for, since the edit summaries were not suppressed. Risker (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well. I just thought it would have been convenient to have an all-inclusive timeline instead of three people posting about the timeline of the events on the evidence page. Thanks anyway. --Pudeo (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Instead of medals, I give you this goat for your stepping up in the difficult times! (Hahahaha)

&mdash; regards, Revi 03:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC) 
 * Well, thank you very much, Revi! I have never been given a goat before, this is very (uhmmm) special.  Never a dull moment around here, is there?  Risker (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"I am really not sure this is the precedent you want to set with this case"
Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I have a feeling "misconduct is whatever we say it is regardless of any evidence of actual misconduct" is the precedent they hope to set; you know as well as I do that right back to 2004 there's been a faction who see the committee not so much as a dispute-resolution body, but as a tool for implementing a purge of those its members consider insufficiently True Believers. There's a certain degree of irony in the fact that the committee is trying, with an apparently straight face, to redefine "adding a reliable source to an unreferenced contentious statement regarding a living person" as something undesirable. &#8209; Iridescent 21:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, there have always been a few of those on every version of Arbcom; heaven only knows what we'll get when they count the votes, as I have a feeling there will be even more of that faction this time next month. I generally stay as far away from arbcom things as I can get away with - but it bothered me a lot that we were caught on that whole suppression thing, and nobody but arbs could see what had actually happened. Looks like things are wrapping up now, though, so I will take that stuff off my watchlist again and resume my ignoring-Arbcom-stuff usual posture.  Risker (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have been vaguely following this, and it is mildly surprising the way things are going, but maybe it shouldn't be that surprising. I also noticed this edit (not really related, but seems pertinent in some 'times change' sort of way), which rang very true. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC) PS. Was Fred really still on the functionaries list? I am still so grateful I didn't stay subscribed to that list! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm feeling increasingly uncomfortable about some of this. On the other hand, after almost two weeks of working on the investigation of compromised accounts, I'm also finding myself feeling increasingly hardline on the issue of administrators maintaining basic security of their privileged accounts. I'm trying to find the sweet spot here as I prepare something that can go out to all administrators, but it's hard to keep that "the community is pissed off" tone out of my writing voice.  (That's actually why I haven't moved it forward yet.)  Oh, and Fred had unsubscribed from the functionaries mailing list way back in 2015.  Both you and Iri technically have the right to ask for reinstatement as former arbitrators....but neither of you probably want to bother. Most of the time, it's pretty dull.  Risker (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've swung 180° in the past year or so, from a believer in "no big deal" and the democratisation of the project, to a hardline "remove all tools from people who aren't active and have periodic reconfirmations for those who are". The number of problems being caused by legacy admins re-emerging and trying to enforce the standards of a decade ago, by current admins (and other functionaries) who see themselves as untouchable super-users with a mission to purify the wiki, by admins (and at least one arb) who openly abuse the toolset to further their personal hobby-horses or vendettas, and by legacy admins who have no incentive to keep their accounts secure, is getting too high for us to continue pretending it's just a case of a couple of bad apples. &#8209; Iridescent 09:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Iridescent. I'm not a big fan of reconfirmations, although I may yet come around. Gonna be honest, I have always thought that admins like me, who have spent a lot of years in the difficult areas of the project, are particularly susceptible to gaming by one or more of the various factions, so perhaps there's some self-interest in my hesitation; willingness to deal with "drama" has always had negative connotations, as showed up even in my RFA oh so many years ago. I could foresee that admins who work at arbitration enforcement or have a talent for cutting the gordian knots on ANI would be targeted. When I compare enwiki to some of the other wikipedias where I know multiple users, and where they have reconfirmation processes, even their RFA processes seem to operate much more on good faith and much less on the "popularity contest" process; their core culture is really, really different from ours.  And I also know full well that there are a couple of projects where a strong faction has really skewed the admin corps to the point that it would be politically suicidal for anyone to oppose a "properly aligned" candidate at RFA or reconfirmation - compared to some projects, we're a lot more tolerant of that kind of dissent.  Maybe the best way to summarize it is by using Tolstoy's famous line.  I see Xeno has just mentioned me in a similar vein...  Risker (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There would be ways to run an automatic reconfirmation process that wouldn't involve either crapflooding RFA, or a parade of everyone who's ever taken a grudge lining up to take shots. Off the top of my head:
 * "Five years after your RFA, or on the next anniversary of the RFA for those who have been admins longer than five years (to spread out the backlog), the reconfirmation process will open;
 * For those who have fewer than 500 admin actions or fewer than 2000 edits in the past year (numbers up for discussion, but high enough that trying to game them would mean such a level of activity as to be a de facto return to activity), a new Request for Reconfirmation will be opened with a straightforward 50% pass/fail mark (so, no automatic desysoppings and people who are largely inactive but seen as valuable should pass without difficulty, but it acts as a mechanism for weeding out people who are seen as genuinely out of touch);
 * For those admins for whom [the arbitrary numbers] are high enough not to trigger an automatic reconfirmation process, the WP:Speak now or forever hold your peace process is triggered. Over a period of 10 days (or whatever; we don't want it so short that people who only edit a couple of days a week don't see it but don't want swords of Damocles) editors are invited to provide evidence of administrative actions you have taken in the past year that explicitly violate Wikipedia policy or which any reasonable observer would conclude violated a clear consensus.
 * If at least five such examples are provided, a new Request for Reconfirmation will be opened with a straightforward 50% pass/fail mark; if this number of examples is not provided or you achieve 50%+1 support in the Request for Reconfirmation, you will be considered as reconfirmed for the next five years.
 * This is basically the WP:FAR model, of a phase 1 where editors are expected to provide evidence that an article is potentially problematic and only if they can show the goods does it move on to the phase 2 of community discussion to decide whether the issues raised are actually worth addressing and if so what should be done about them. It would be a lot harder for disgruntled people with whom someone has been in dispute to game, as the requirement to provide diffs before the Request for Reconfirmation opened would mean we only ever reached that stage if someone could actually demonstrate legitimate grounds for concern; there would be no automatic desysoppings as everyone would at minimum have the chance to persuade people to support them at the 50-50 vote stage; it would strongly incentivise admins to remain engaged with the community; it would (hopefully) negate the "oppose, adminship is for life so I insist on insanely high standards just in case" tendency at RFA; the solid stream over the next 12 months as the backlog of people who passed RFA pre-2013 are reconfirmed—most of whom would presumably sail through—would hopefully illustrate to potential admin candidates that provided you have no glaring skeletons in the closet, community votes are nothing to be afraid of, and the "RFA is a hellish ordeal" meme would finally be laid to rest. Yes, the Request for Reconfirmation stage could theoretically be gamed by accumulated enemies turning up, but frankly if over half the people commenting vote 'no confidence' they've either managed to find and demonstrate evidence of misuse of the tools or it's clear that the subject is largely inactive, that person probably  lost the trust of the community. &#8209; Iridescent 20:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I presume that there will be sanctions for complainers that don't pony up the requisite evidence or misrepresent it? And that there will be no ill effects from a "here's everything someone somewhere thought was wrong with you" list which is what editors are invited to provide evidence of administrative actions you have taken in the past year that explicitly violate Wikipedia policy or which any reasonable observer would conclude violated a clear consensus and the others will invariably lead to in light of experience with ANI, RfC/U, ARB/Evidence pages turning into exactly that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, sometimes I think there are people who believe that putting up with a lot of complaints of varying merit is part of an admin's obligations. I don't think that this idea has ever gained enough consensus to construct a process out of it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence, provide evidence of administrative actions you have taken in the past year that explicitly violate Wikipedia policy or which any reasonable observer would conclude violated a clear consensus, not just "you did something I didn't like"; to trigger reconfirmation someone would need to demonstrate - not just allege - multiple incidences of the admin in question recently disregarding consensus. It would probably need tweaking to leave out things which technically violate policy but which no sane person would consider problematic (this edit technically violated WP:CITEVAR but anyone who tried to raise a complaint based on it would be laughed out). You can't seriously dispute that (1) we have some admins who are lacking in competence or who use the tools to further their personal grudges or pet causes, (2) unless they do something so egregious it ends up at arbcom, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, and (3) the combination of 1 & 2 is causing problems both with self-appointed cops causing disruption, and with people opposing qualified candidates at RFA because they're not familiar enough with them to be certain they're up to the job and there's no way to remove them if they're not. &#8209; Iridescent 21:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, . I seem to recall this was granted following my first election to the Arbitration Committee. It's hard to believe it's been that long, or for that matter that both of us have stuck it out that long! Risker (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I barely knew what Wikipedia was back then, but carry some legacy. I didn't know what arbcom was until 3 years into my career here when the one who called you awesome said he was an arb once, and I wasn't impressed because I had no idea ;) - I survived my encounter with arbitration, happy it was over three years ago. I should have known the ultimate guide, - long live his memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

 * Thanks for this, . The best of the season to you and yours, too.  Risker (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Thanks so much for this very meaningful greeting,. I am always happy to see your name floating around here. And I'm still shooting relatively straightly, just in different parts of the wiki-world. It's people like you who keep me here. Risker (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Thanks very much,. I'm hoping that we all make it through Christmas without any nasty viruses. And I'm certain that 2019 is going to have to be better than 2018 was; I cannot tell you how happy I am that this year is almost over. Risker (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Risker, You're welcome, TMI I know but I've currently had an ear infection as well as a cold for the past week or 2 so I'm certainly hoping next year will be virus/cold-free!, If you have some sort of virus then I hope you get better soon :), Have a lovely Crimbo & New Year :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 15:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Merry Christmas to a great contributor to the project! My very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart be filled with happiness during this special time. (Every day is a new day...) --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for this really lovely greeting, - and apologies for the delay in responding! I hope your 2019 is starting off well.  Risker (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I fully understand! 2019 is starting great. On the early morning of the first, together with some other nutcases, we started the year with a nice trekking to a local peak. I am full of energy and looking forward to great things for this year. I also wish a great start of the year for you! --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

 * - that looks so delicious, what a great way to start off the new year, by totally ignoring any dieting resolutions - not that either of us need such a thing. I admit given the weird mix of weather we've been having here, I'm a tiny bit envious of your antipodean sunshine. Hope you and yours have a great 2019, and perhaps our paths will cross in person over the course of the year.  Risker (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)