User talk:Risker/Archive 6

Start of Archive 6

Happy New Year


Happy New Year
Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Dear Risker,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Thanks for your message Risker. I don't think much of my comments made any impact, maybe my blog or my interview with the Indian newspaper?

Happy New Year!
Not that I want to make a habit of sending slightly screwy illustrations of holiday greetings, but here's another. Also, here's wishing you as trouble-free and vexless a new year as an arbitrator is likely to get (and congrats on that if I didn't congratulate you already, and if I did, well, double congrats). Now some say Mrs. 2009 could've made a better match than with the recently deceased Mr. 2008, but the estate lawyer, after pocketing his cut, thinks the December-January match worked out just fine (despite Mr. 2008's economic reversals). I'll leave it to others to decipher the look on his face and hers, but I do notice the old guy doesn't appear to have had much sleep the night before and his beard is strangely messy ... but never mind. RIP, Mr. 2008. -- Noroton (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi, just letting you know (as you edited Requests for comment/Mattisse 3) that it has gawn gone live. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Gawn live"? Is that some kind of Aussie term? ;-) I noticed it had gone live, indeed. Despite the somewhat odd exchanges I've had with her in recent months (some of which have been noted in the RFC), I'm very hesitant to participate in RFCs. (And yes, I know that several of my faithful readers came to know me because of an outside view I posted in a certain RFC...) It is my sincere hope that Mattisse will take this to heart, and to understand that her behaviour sometimes causes as much harm as good. I know editors who won't go near FAC or FAR because she seems to take a disproportionate interest in any article they may comment upon; those editors know who they are, and I will leave it to them to detail their concerns. As to her comments directed to me, I prefer to simply correct her when she is in error, and to provide her with links to the information she has difficulty finding. We've agreed on some things and disagreed on others, and in that sense our "working relationship" is similar to that which I have with many other editors of all stripes and experience.  I think I'll just AGF that she will find it in herself to understand the concerns being identified.  Risker (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, the whole point of an RfC is it isn't supposed to be a lynch mob, and others are allowed to place outside points of view (which they have) with a different tone, and people can then comment there as well. I agree I hate these things too, but I felt it was necessary this time as previous requests have had no effect. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I truly thank you for this view, Risker. This RFC is very much like the allegations from two years ago, Requests for comment/Mattisse, which turned out to have been filed by a pack of sock puppets of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati. It is hard to see this current RFC as other than a lynch mob; why are such old allegations  presented in an attempt to improve my attitude now? That a lynch mob has bothered to try  to drag up every failing, even typos, does not seem to designed to promote good will in me but rather to drive me away.  Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mattisse. I do hope that you *are* taking the comments at the RFC to heart, because there are some genuine concerns being expressed, and some very good suggestions for dealing with difficult situations. I do not see any editors commenting there who could possibly be accused of being sockpuppets, and I'm not seeing concerns expressed that predate your last RFC; links to prior RFCs are standard, and you aren't being singled out because of them. You continue to make many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but if one editor decides not to nominate an article for FAC, or chooses not to defend a FAR nomination because he or she finds your behaviour chilling, then it's the encyclopedia that loses: not me, not you, not that editor - the encyclopedia. We're all volunteers here, none more or less important than the other, but each of us have our own areas of specialisation. You've got a better than average skills set, so if you're finding one area stressful, you have the ability to work on other tasks where your contributions will continue to make a difference. When one area becomes onerous, I do encourage you to find a breath of fresh air in one of your other areas of skill; it will be no less valuable to the encyclopedia, and I hope it will help you to find a more positive frame of mind to continue your participation. Risker (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Risker. I would do as you suggest and examine and improve my behavior if the RFC had been presented in good faith aimed at encouraging this. But the RFC is so revengeful and ugly, meant to demean and destroy me, not to promote my improvement.  They posted my every mistake, going back  for over a year; even typos from FAC articles are listed. A few succinct recent examples would have done the job, if their intent was not to destroy. Clearly two people are seeking to drive me away from FAC.  Reading the  postings by Outside view by Snowman and Outside view by Durova  give a different view of two indictments against me and present a more realistic picture. The same could be done for most of the other  "evidence", as has been indicated on the talk page by other editors.  I admit that I was not always tactful and could definitely improve, but this massive piling on, by a new arbcom member and the the FAC delegate I can only see as a lynch mob mentality.  The energy that went into collecting so many mostly petty diffs belies any desire for the RFC to accomplish positive change. I misjudged the hate directed at me by these two people. Now I know I have two extremely vengeful enemies on a level I had not imagined before. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 10:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Mattisse, this is the exact type of commentary that the RfC is trying to resolve. If you believe the diffs given are inaccurate or taken out of context, please say so (with supporting diffs) in the response section.  Your point of view needs to be included for a balanced weighing, but diatribes and further accusations against Sandy (who did not certify the dispute) are not all that useful. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did my best but I don't keep a little black book of diffs to whip out in times like these. The diffs I looked at that were supplied in the RFC often did not support the contention being made. In one SandyGeorgia blames me for frustrating an admin, then that very day she votes against him for the way he treated me! Make sense of that. I can't do it. If it is worth it to put in an RFC that I make typos that I sometimes don't realize and correct, then I am unfit. One of the accusations was a mistake I made a few weeks after my first edit. How can I defend against not understanding a tecnical process as a newbie? How can I defend against making typos?  This is over my head. I do not have the energy to go through all those diffs that have obviously been being compiled for over a year. I don't want to fill my head anymore with their ugly thinking. The intent is to drive me off and they will succeed. I am thankful though, to the many who Calisber contacted who either did not respond or responded with support. There are some good people here, I know that. But I am not up to this level of battle and hatred. Sorry,  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am asking to be banned. I cannot take being followed around by SandyGeorgia any more. She will report this post, as she did the one above it, in the RFC. The atmosphere is poison and there is no peace for me ever until I am gone and SandyGeorgia gets her way. Please just cut my throat. It will be a mercy killing. I know I am hated or I never would have been put through such an RFC. Please ban me. Please. I will never be free of her and her control. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, Mattisse. If you want to leave, turn off the computer. My talk page gets anywhere from 30 to 150 page views a day, and all kinds of people read what's here. It's a bit of a fishbowl, so if you feel too much scrutiny, this probably isn't the best place to be. Now - I'm not impressed with your allegations that anyone is out to get you or drive you away; last I looked, the RFC/U showed a range of opinions and suggestions (many quite supportive), and nobody was suggesting you leave, only that you modify your behaviour. I haven't read the RFC/U since Tony1 posted his comment (go and read it again - it's very positive, with some gentle criticism), and I don't intend to do so again. If you don't want people to post links to what you say, the solution is not to say those things in the first place. You're a good editor, Mattisse, and nobody's asking you to do anything other than drop some of the drama-mongering, specifically that without evidence. Casting aspersions about specific editors, here on my talk page, is not acceptable, and I've removed such comments before. Please don't do it again. Risker (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * She has sifted through my archives starting 20 days after my first edit. It is not your page alone. It is every edit I make. Turning off the computer will not work. I want to make it impossible for me ever to go through this again. I cannot risk another ugly lynching event like this. I wish to be banned. What Tony1 or anyone else says does not overcome the raw power SandyGeorgia has and the time she spends collecting diffs - my diffs for three years! I have relived 3 years of pain today. I am unwilling to do this ever again. There is even a list of typos I made. This is a clear witch hunt and since SandyGeorgia is powerful through controlling FAC, no one will really stand up to her. There is no reason for her to focus on me, yet she has because I did not do her bidding once. I did not give a favorable review of an FAC she asked me to do. I gave my honest opinion. Fatal mistake. She has told me in an email that this was a betrayal of her. This aspect will never change. Whether I contribute anything of value to Wikipedia is immaterial if one person can continue, unfettered to make my life miserable. And Calisber, bitter that Snowman and I had to rewrite his FAC is now on arbcom. Turning off my compu8ter is not the solution. Getting banned is. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg you to ban me. "Gawn live"? They consider it a joke. Please. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 07:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh heck. You struck the "Gawn live"? It was go typical of the RFC; it represented so well the thinking behind it. Lets tear a person apart "Gawn live"? So wonderfully flippant and careless of the impact on a real person. Why do you want to disguise the dynamics behind your actions? "inappropriate" or not. Lets have some honesty here. Is it all PR - how it "looks". Well, yes is the obvious answer. Hide motivation and tje flippant destruction of another human being under "we are only trying to help". (I notice, Casliber, that you did not bother to correct the distortions and inaccuracies of Sandy's diffs. (I'm not surprised. This is all a joke to you.) My warmest Cheers! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 08:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy question
How do I get account creator permissions? I'm setting up a project for my students, and need to create quite a few accounts. As our school IP is blocked (we have a few persistent vandals), the students can not create the accounts themselves. Thanks for all you do (and put up with). You're a WikiSaint, for certain. SDJ 12:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aww, you flatter me. You've got a valid reason for requesting account creator permission, and I don't see any issues in your logs. I'm not in a position to grant that permission from the computer I'm using right now, but will be able to do it later on this evening if one of the itinerant talk page watchers doesn't beat me to it (hint, hint).  Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks then, and could you point me where to go to get up to speed on best practices for useage of the AC tool? SDJ 15:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; Done – iride scent  21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing me toward a tutorial on how to go about using the AC permission/tool? SDJ 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't help there, I'm afraid... I never understood it. – iride scent  21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well shoot. Perhaps Risker or one of her other TPWers can help me with that. SDJ 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SDJ, I believe Request an account/Guide is what you are looking for. Good luck with it; if you need some help, your best bet would be to find another account creator, which you can find by going to Special:ListUsers and selecting "account creators" as the Group.  Risker (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Thanks, Iridescent!

A hockey fight is more fun--and more professional
So, are you sure being an Arb is as much fun as watching Les Hab's beat Toronto? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 07:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, you devalue the Community in action :-) Wikidrama has it's rules, subtle as they are :-)  Shot info (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found out things about various alternative medical treatments, new religious theories, and that scary thing known as MOS in the last few weeks than I had ever anticipated, but I am not sure I would be calling all that "fun". And I barely managed to catch the highlights from Thursday's game! Was devastated not to brag appropriately at the water cooler the next day. Ah well. Risker (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Canada has water cooler technology? I thought they just opened the windows.  Probably copied it from somewhere warm.  Utgard Loki (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The windows are frozen shut, it was -25 celsius here this morning. Plus of course the snow falls in when you do. Risker (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Stretch, yawn, rub eyes
Did I miss anything? - brenneman  12:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. Nothing much.  Risker (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The things that happen while one is sleeping... SDJ 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *sigh* It's all just SSDD, isn't it? At some stage I believe that we collectivly will realise that the system that arguably produces great content fails to manage that same content.  To echo the Mighty R's userpage, no  appears when one spouts off on policy.  So there's a drunkard's walk effect where the most noisy and clueless drift From Mainspace to Wikipedia space...  Regardless:
 * Heartfelt congratulations to you, Risker, on your selection by JW. I have great faith in you, don't let me down.
 * Mount Buffalo National Park. 'Nuff said.
 * brenneman 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with you about developing vs. maintaining great content. I seem to recall writing quite the screed about the challenges of maintaining a featured article during my Arbcom candidacy, and will stick a link here if I remember where I put it.
 * And as to that park, I got to the part where I saw "skiing" and thought aww, Brenneman's turned into a ski bunny! Then I remembered that the fact I have 75 cm of snow in my front garden, with snow banks shoulder high, probably is not an experience I am currently sharing with many of my antipodean colleagues. Still looks gorgeous though.  Keep in touch, and check out the discussion on flagged revisions, which is sort of scattered all over the place. Risker (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Found my screed, and since this is *my* userpage, I'm going to blatantly quote myself:

Your questions again misinterpret a great deal, and I am afraid that they show a misunderstanding of the special challenges that relate to featured content generally, and featured articles in particular, regardless of who has been credited as the primary author. It usually takes weeks, even months, of research to develop a featured article. The right reference sources have to be sought out: arranging loans from libraries, locating and accessing journals, often purchasing books or other materials. The outline of the article is developed, gaps filled in, weight assigned to various points of focus. Images, used to compliment the text, are selected and positioned in a visually attractive manner. The opinions of other editors, often "specialists", are sought, and they collaboratively improve the article further. Manual of style issues are addressed. A peer review may take place to identify gaps and other areas for improvement. Then the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. For a period that usually lasts several weeks, other editors review and assess the article, finding more areas for improvement, checking details, and collaborating in polishing it. Finally, after all actionable issues have been addressed, the article will be awarded its bronze star, and the primary editor(s) identified on WP:WBFAN.

Now, a lot of people think that's the end of things. Fact is, though, featured articles follow their primary editors. It isn't written down anywhere, but primary editors are expected to watch for subtle vandalism, to keep the article at featured quality, to check intervening edits periodically. This is particularly challenging for heavily viewed articles, and those on subjects that many editors believe they know something about; most additions will not be at the same high quality level as the rest of the article. Failure to maintain the excellence of the article reduces the likelihood of a slot for today's featured article, and significantly increases the likelihood of someone bringing the article to featured article review. As you're well aware, Mattisse, unless the primary editor and researcher of an article is involved in the FAR, the chance that an article will retain its featured status is slim.

Why is this important? Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of stub or short incomplete articles, an another few hundred thousand mediocre ones. Less than 5% of our content is assessed at "good" or "A-level". Only a few thousand articles meet Featured Article quality. They are our symbols of excellence. And excellence matters. It matters because 2300 people a day look at Buckingham Palace, and its high quality is the face of the project to those readers. Its quality motivates other editors. It's one of our earliest articles; it was brought to featured status and then subsequently successfully completed featured article review; it's been edited over 2000 times, and just the other day had a significant improvement with a new lead image identified and recommended by one editor, modified by another, and discussed amongst several others. The Buckingham Palace article is one of Wikipedia's success stories. But it's only one. Every day, another article or two reaches this pinnacle. And all the work, the skill, the collaboration that went into reaching this level of excellence is only the beginning. The hard part is keeping it that way, and I think we should all do what we can to do help. I see you yourself have pitched in from time to time, reverting inappropriate edits. That is exactly the spirit behind Wikipedia: each of us bringing our own skill sets to collaboratively maintain and improve our articles. That isn't ownership, it's stewardship, and it's something we can all do. Risker (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You know if you quote yourself too much you'll go blind, right? But I digress.
 * I've tried to read the (lenghtly, repetative) discussions on flagged revisions, and your screed* dovetails beautifully with the ad hoc solution that I'd come to: "Flagged Versions." While I've never aspired to the heights of an FA, mostly concentrating on making the woeful into the acceptable, the problem is the same: After working for months to make something comply even partially with our core content policies you turn your back for a week and it reverts to dross.
 * Just throwing out sparks here: What if when something made Feature Article status, we linked to that version? (Dog only knows if that's been proposed somewhere in the rat's nest of pages related to this issue.)
 * brenneman 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * * If that cogent, literate, measured response constitutes a "screed" than I'm NewYorkBrad.
 * brenneman 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * * If that cogent, literate, measured response constitutes a "screed" than I'm NewYorkBrad.
 * * If that cogent, literate, measured response constitutes a "screed" than I'm NewYorkBrad.
 * * If that cogent, literate, measured response constitutes a "screed" than I'm NewYorkBrad.

Stefano_Cusumano translation (it --> en) completed
Hello, I've completed the translation and update of the page above. Can you please validate that it is to your satisfaction and move the translation request to completed on all pages? Thank you. Regards, --Campelli (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! I've responded on your talk page.  Risker (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore
Hi Risker. How are you. Just wanted to know if you have the time for a quick copy edit of this article which is in FAR. Two reviewers have requested it. Regards, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dineshkannambadi, I am well thanks. I will only have limited internet access for the next several days, unfortunately, so will not be able to help you out at this time; I am sorry that I cannot, as I have had a quick look at the article and found it interesting. Perhaps someone from the History project or the like might be able to help you out.  Risker (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the following thread at ANI, as I'm very worried
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
 * Addressed, I hope to your satisfaction. I'll miss your notes on my page. All the best to you. Risker (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for deleting my distakes. I have just made another one. Sorry. Dc76\talk 08:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All taken care of. Risker (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you are so quick. :) I did not get the chance to tell what was wrong: I misspelled "military". I wrote "milirary". Dc76\talk 08:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection on Historical pederastic relationships
Risker; The talk page says that you protected that article for "three days" ages ago, but I dinna see anything in the logs and it was still protected. I've unprotected it pending further debate, as always any administrative action by me is happily reversed at your discretion. - brenneman  23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird, no reason it should have continued to be protected after the period, since it had a set expiry time. The only thing I can figure is that the page move to the new title messed something up somewhere.  I have no concerns about it being unprotected; if I'd known it was still protected, I would have done so myself.  Thanks.  Risker (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh goody, more fun to come....gawd, all the fun pages I have seen since looking at since this arbcom stuff, oh no, hang on that was before....(d'oh!) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, this one is a particular joy. You see, every man in history who might have loved another man is a pederastic couple, even if the other man didn't "love" him back and the two never met.  All forms of love are sodomitical, too.  It's a crazy thing, and it survived deletion because it's intolerant to delete it, even if there is no logic or verifiability or usefulness in keeping it.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sideshow Bob
Hi Risker, thanks a lot for copyediting the article. I just thought I'd let you know that per Manual of Style (writing about fiction), synopses (which is basically what the appearances section is) are supposed to be written in present tense. -- Scorpion 0422  03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, although that has to be right up there in the top ten stupid things in the MOS. I thought we were writing an encyclopedia, not TV Guide. Moni3 seems to be able to pull that off, in her summaries of books; maybe give her a ping.  Risker (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, though, the inherent uselessness of the MoS. A section on fiction would have in its scope, primarily, books.  The "literary present tense" is an academic convention throughout the West, and I would bet one red herring that you'd fall into it automatically without thinking, if you were writing about how "Atticus Finch instructs his daughter, Scout, in integrity without once uttering the word, for his actions demonstrate its meaning more fully to her, and to the reader, than any tract could."  When one speaks of television shows, one is not dealing with books.  A book is eternal (presumably... the characters are "always" acting), but a television show that appears on air once and in sequence would imply past tense.  However, we now, I suppose, treat TV the way we do film: as an object rather than an event.   I know I'm not helping.  I just came to say, "It's literary present."  Geogre (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Note
nominated Buckingham Palace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
This was time. Must be actually the most visited Wikipedia-Article in the world and the the chance for Vandalism was for so much time and edits there. Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Britanny lang
I got your message earlier, but I am not sure what you mean. The page was deleted as A7. Are you talking about a different page? (I should be on IRC for the next hour and 45 minutes, if you want to reply there.) J.delanoy gabs adds  15:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The original article is essentially a slightly rearranged copy of her LPGA biography (the link and ref is at the bottom of the page); the original request for speedy was G12. Unless I misunderstand the rules completely, that's reason for deletion all by itself. Copyvio is one of the reasons for requesting oversight, although I'd like to see someone more experienced take a look at this situation. I'm not convinced an A7 deletion would stand, when she made the LPGA tour on her first try and came in 2nd in the US Women's Open when still an amateur, but the end result in this case (i.e., deletion) is certainly correct. Risker (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking that last night. I'm not sure why I clicked on A7 rather than G12 :S Anyways, what should I tell oversight-l? Or more appropriately, why do you want me to email them? I highly doubt that an oversighter would see it if the article was restored. Should I restore and re-delete it with the correct deletion reason?
 * Incidentally, I have never requested oversight solely because of a copyright violation. I was not even aware that that was a valid reason, since the only plausible problem that I can think of would be an admin using Special:Undelete to retrieve the copyrighted material. I don't think that is a major problem, since the material would likely still be available from wherever it was originally copied from. J.delanoy gabs adds  15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I haven't seen any requests to oversight copyright material, but then again I haven't done it that long either. I think your suggestion of briefly restoring to delete again using G12 sounds good; it will give the heads-up to any future admins not to undelete the material from the first go-round.  Of course, those bios can still be used as reference sources, I'd guess, but people would need more than just them.  Good thinking.  Risker (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Amateur Dramatic Society's latest production
Hello, Risker, and welcome to Arbcom! I hope you like the place and decide to stay…

I did reply to you on the trainwreck page, but since I wouldn't hold it against you in the least if you declined to read through the whole thing will crosspost; AFAIK the only Arb who's actually commented on how the candidates were vetted was Roger Davies, with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FCheckUser_and_Oversight_elections%2FFebruary_2009&diff=268415092&oldid=268413884 ArbCom should pre-vet only for technical nous and skeletons in the cupboard that the community may not know about. (This is pretty much what has happened.)] – I don't see any way to interpret that other than "the only things we looked at were technical competence and possibly checked for undisclosed socks, but we've made no value judgement as to trustworthiness with the tools as opposed to ability. – iride scent  19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? You mean you didn't stop by to encourage me to run now and save my sanity? ;-)
 * Okay, I reread the responses in that section, where both Carcharoth and I do indeed give more details about the vetting process, but neither of us directly discuss trustworthiness. I will say this categorically:  if there was a known trust issue with any nominee identified by any of the arbitrators, that nomination did not survive the vetting process. I will also say this categorically (since heaven only knows who's watching my page): there were plenty of other reasons that nomination didn't make it as far as an actual candidacy in the election.  In some cases, we simply ran out of time to thoroughly vet some nominees, and several nominees will remain in consideration for the future; remember, we've only been at this for about 6 weeks, and replacing some recently retired/semi-retired highly active checkusers and oversighters is a very high priority. We're looking at necessity, not just an opportunity to change processes.
 * I know some have it in their minds that the community should vote first and then Arbcom do the vetting. Not happening, sorry; if Arbcom turned down any of the winners, we all know the silliness that would transpire. Each of us as arbitrators hold a different level of responsibility and liability for our decisions, and there is the clear risk of being held responsible for them by outside parties, particularly in the areas of privacy. A lot of the work done on oversight particularly, but checkuser as well, relates to people completely outside of Wikipedia. The community's opportunity to voice an opinion here must be considered in the context of the need to take special care of those who have nothing to do with Wikipedia but are involuntarily affected by actions that occur on the pages of our project. Risker (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion, as stated there (but buried in the reams of shouting) is that approval voting won't work as the election will draw such a small sample – it's a system that needs a large turnout to generate trends. With the small numbers that participate in Wikipedia processes, the "popularity contest" element of who can bring the most friends to the party has a genuine risk of becoming the deciding factor. (It's been said already but bears repeating; if the last 12 months of Wikipedia elections had been held using this method, Wikipedia would be dominated by the "G Triumvirate" of Giano, Gracenotes and Giggy. Opposition is a fact of life – two candidates in particular I can easily see getting 100+ for both "oppose" and "support" – but an approval voting system won't measure that. One of the reasons the RFA system has remained in place is that despite all the flak it draws, it generally doesn't allow unsuitable candidates through no matter how gushing the endorsements from Senior Wikipedians. No matter how good the intentions, this current process looks like a Juche-style "here are the chosen few, rubber stamp them" slate. I trust the community enough to keep out anyone problematic – lest we forget, it was Jimbo who got Kelly onto Arbcom and the community who got her off – but it appears (whether or not it's true) that Arbcom doesn't. – iride scent  22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification on an issued Topical Ban
Dear Petty Overlord;

I am unable to locate the appropiate paperwork to request that a topic ban be reviewed, so I'm just going to do a steaming brain dump here, hmm-ok?


 * Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy - Deeceevoice is banned [..] until 5 May 2009. [...] Tom Harrison
 * User_talk:Tom_harrison - "Still, good thing there's an appeal procedure. Have I mentioned the appeal procedure? 'Cause there is one. You can appeal to arbcom. Tom Harrison"

I'm loathe to actually create a request for arbitration, although that's what Tom linked. And (not entirely tangentally) I'm terribly uncomfortable with "any admin" being able to throw down the gauntlet and force arbcom involvement. Has the committee (or you) any impetus to further clarify where we stand? Currently you (the commitee) has said that warnings aren't action. However, you (personally, as a commitee member) also said that people can't be "unwarned."

Can I say I told you so? ^_^

brenneman 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

NB - I'm also going to open an ANI thread. Now at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents


 * Well now. First off, it's pretty unlikely I am going to comment definitively on a situation that has the potential to show up in the Arbcom pile; it's not fair to anyone. I've read what you posted to ANI as well as what you've put here. First off, you're misapplying the SV clarification. The key sentence in this case is "The restriction on arbitration enforcement activity is clarified to apply only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users." Since the action you are concerned about is a specific administrative action (a topic ban) on a specific user, the restrictions on overturning an admin action do apply. However, the initial motion says, in part, "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except...following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so." So yes, a community consensus can reverse or overturn such an administrative action.  So can Arbcom.
 * Something else to keep in mind is that the article involved is the subject of an Arbcom article probation, something of which Deeceevoice is aware, as s/he was a party in the case where this was decided.
 * I'm not sure what issue you have about whether or not warnings can be undone; it's a moot point, and I would be surprised if the editor involved cares as much about undoing a warning that may or may not have been given, when the editor has been placed on a topic ban relating to the matter to which the warnings are supposed to relate. Risker (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Och aye, where to begin. Thanks for responding, of course.  I'm terribly sorry if I gave indication that I wanted a definitive comment.  I was unclear on where "take it to arbcom" left me, and all I really wanted guidance on which page to take it to.  (Was this an enforcement issues, on which case, pseudoscience looked wrong, etc.)  And I was reading it exactly as you've stated, this this was a specific action but that it thus could be undone by consensus.  But I was also not wanting to get it wrong.  Finally, my issue (can we say "underlying concern" instead? ^_^) is that the difference between a warning and a topic ban is semantic: Both take the form of "do X again and you'll be blocked."  But you're normally pretty clued-up, and you reckon it's not a concern.  I'm going to go back and re-read the cases, in case what's happened is that what you all (the committee) is totally clear to you since you're close to the issue.  Sometime it's easy to forget that everyone doesn't know everything that you know, you know?
 * Thanks again,
 * brenneman 11:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

re: RfArb comment
Hi. Don't you think that if there is a reasonable possibility that one admin is friends with one of the users who is warned, then it means that one warning is not genuine while another is (at least in perceptions). The concern from me is that the "warning" was just a way of protecting a friend, and that longer term this could become a habit if it is not checked. And if this warning of a long-term opponent is anything to go by, it poses a threat to the integrity of the Polish-Lithuanian editorial environment. The caution from the last arbcom hearing is notable because this isn't a new concern. It goes all the way back to the time when Piotrus routinely unblocked Molobo. I am being accused of pursuing a vendetta by some with little experience, which means nothing, but if you can tell me what is unreasonable about my concerns I'd be grateful. Regards Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deacon, how about asking this on the RFAR page please? It's best to keep this discussion centralised in one place. Please read my comment closely. Risker (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you can take it for granted your comment was read closely. This is posted here because it is directed at you. I don't really see the point of posting anything else on the arb thread, as it is clearly going nowhere. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but it would be helpful if you did. :) It's not like such issues are not gonna come up again. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay...bottom line, the friend/not friend stuff isn't nearly as relevant, in my view, as the use of administrative tools on an article in which he is the primary editor. Since any editor can warn other editors, it's not an abuse of admin tools to make a warning; however, your concern seems to be focused on use of the admin tools. Risker (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, admin status, but yeah, also the use of tools and threat to use them; and because of that I'm concerned about the integrity of the editing environment in that area (and frankly, because I don't trust Piotrus' integrity, the editing safety of many editors). The number of page edits is a good heuristic pointer, but if one vested admin is able to use his powers to protect his allies in hot article areas it upsets a whole bunch of stuff, from collective sense of justice to article balance. I think creatively banning Piotrus from intervening as an admin in the topic area would have solved so much of the problem and make many users less insecure, but was not to be. Anyway, I don't wish to drag you into a debate as your "reward" for being good enough to respond to my comment. I just wish this sort of thing would stop. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitration Committee sanctions lower the threshold at which our normal project-wide policies may be enforced, they don't supersede them; in other words, it's a lot easier for editors to be perceived to violate arbcom sanctions than project-wide standards. I'm not going to overrule the admins who made the decision at WP:AE with respect to this case; their decision is within the range of reasonable responses. I do, however, see that Piotrus' actions are cutting very close to the edge of one of our important behavioural policies, Administrators, and the same behaviour would be equally troubling regardless of which article was involved. The battle-like mentality on all sides of this discussion, whether or not justified, isn't going to get the issues solved.  Risker (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For the record, and I know you can only speak for yourself ... if similar events were to reoccur, what should I do? I.e., the same thing happens again next week. I'm seeking to protect the integrity of the editing environment in that area not punish Piotrus for its own sake. I'm happy to take personal attacks from Coren and Sam, but am not happy to waste my time or make things worse. And you probably don't want your time wasted either. I mean, we're not talking he of some POV crazy making more than 2 reverts or calling another a "moron". AE can't really block admins for individual instances of non-major abuse, and the Piotrus 2 has no provision for restrictions. AE can't motion, so really an Arb amendment is the thing to seek, right?Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxicity
I've brought up the current activity at ANI. -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hoary. I've commented there and have also commented again on Dwiakigle's talk page. This sort of rote, uncommunicative behaviour is every bit as disruptive as genuine vandalism; the complete unwillingness to discuss is what causes the problem. In some cases, an infobox might be appropriate, but this is something to talk about, when asked to do so. This is taking the "B" in BRD way too far, especially as there appears no intention to "D".  Risker (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Illeana Douglas
Wow! Thanks a lot for that revert. Care to say why you're reverting properly sourced, obviously notable information out of an article? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... allright, fair enough. But you probably should have or still should leave a note in the article itself, so any editor trying to add this information knows that there is some sort of situation. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a challenge, you know. E.g.
 * Risker: the world is consistently failing to pay me according to my value.
 * Risker, Afghanistan is getting to be a real mess. Can you sort that out for us?
 * You know, international capitalism continues to foster inhumanity and immorality. What is the proper balance of collective ethical values (encoded as law and regulation) and anarchic and amoral gambling (as marketplaces)?
 * I have now ensured that my message will last forever! Geogre (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! The first two are easy:


 * I have determined that you are correct and you are not being paid in accordance with your value. Having looked at the overall situation, my accounts indicate that you currently owe the world $3,436.47 (US dollars). Given the fact it will cost more to collect that amount than to ignore it, however, I think we can call it even. ;-)
 * Afghanistan is indeed getting to be a real mess. We've got the Canadian Armed Forces working on it, though.
 * This is the tough one. Some guy came up with an idea about 2000 years ago that might work here. I think it goes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Works for me, how about you?

Risker (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Build the web
Well, you asked for what guideline supported my statements, and it used to be Build the web, which predates even the distinction between "policy" and "guideline". Unfortunately, a new edit war has erupted over its existence. -- 08:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kendrick7; I see that the 'merging' of this page is now the subject of debate. Risker (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My question at WT:Arbitration Committee
Hi, because that page has gotten cluttered, you may have missed my question there. I'll copy it for your convenience below:


 * To Risker: Meanwhile, even as we speak, Tennis Expert and Locke Cole keep adding text and diffs and text and diffs to the Evidence page, making it fatter and fatter and fatter. Your clerk Ryan Postlethwaite did make one removal, of text provided by Lightmouse. He has not excised any of the miles and miles of text put in by Tennis Expert, Locke Cole or their confederates to date. But he has edit-warred with Greg L and blocked Greg L. Why has your clerk not enforced the instruction clearly set out at the top of that page, namely to limit submissions to 1000 words and 100 diffs? Why have you arbitrators not reminded the clerk of his obligation?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Goodmorningworld, for some reason the yellow bar didn't light up for me and I missed your question entirely! My sincere apologies.  Much to my surprise, my talk page has largely fallen silent in recent weeks so without the bar I don't pop in here very often.
 * I think the most honest answer to your question is that, after the discombobulation of that night, I personally saw no point in continuing to try to bring order to the pages in question; the response to the attempt to do so was evidence on its own of the nature and extent of the problematic behaviour. I've read the evidence and the workshop proposals, and I expect to see a proposed decision within the next 72 hours, on which I will vote. Perhaps if I and other arbitrators had been aggressive right from the beginning, we wouldn't have a novel-sized RFAR in front of us, but we are where we are and the clock doesn't go backward. Risker (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mother Jones
Thank you for your fast action. David in DC (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, David in DC. Risker (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

revision deletion
I love it! being able to see when a revision was selectively deleted! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons that oversight is used so sparingly is that it damages the database and is nearly impossible to correct if an error is made. It's explicitly not transparent. When reverting deletions, it's clear that something has been done, not just to the few oversighters, but to every user who checks out the history. To me, that's a lot more transparent. Glad you're finding this to be a net positive.  Risker (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not an admin, and never going to be an admin, but in order to helpfully participate in various fora here being able to know that admin actions have been taken (I almost never need to know what they are) is helpful. The allegations of abuse of oversight and selective deletion and restoration are much easier to deal with if it is known when and if stuff has happened.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, when you do a rev-delete, do you have an option to not necessarily hide it from admins? If so, what happens if you don't check the box? (I'm assuming it's a box) Does the edit show up under Special:Undelete? J.delanoy gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.Delanoy. Here's what I see. When I look at a page history, beside each edit appears an option " (show/hide) " (it looks just like that, except it is a blue link). By clicking on that option, I'm taken to a page titled "Delete/Undelete revisions". I have four options, the first three of which can be selected individually or in combination:
 * Hide revision text [hides the entire text of the edit, just like deletion does]
 * Hide edit comments [hides the edit comment only, leaves the text (if any) in place]
 * Hide editor's username/IP [hides the username/IP only, leaves text and edit summary in place]
 * Apply these restrictions to administrators and lock this interface [applied at the same time as any or all of the three above, roughly the equivalent of Oversight]

After that comes a place for me to enter the log comment, and the "Apply" button. The first three of these actions will show up in the deletion log of that particular page, and in my personal log, although you might want to look at my own log and the deletion log of this page to see if you can see them or if only those with oversight permission can see them. (I am assuming that any editor can see the deletions in my log, and any admin can see the full page deletion log.) The only one that I am not sure is the same is the one where I apply restrictions to administrators and lock the interface; as there was an issue that was only recently cleared up, oversighters have continued to use the "old" oversight process for most edits that would qualify under that existing policy, instead of using the newer process. As to username issues, if there is a nasty username I am more inclined to ask a bureaucrat to rename the account rather than use this process at this stage, because it is an existing practice that has met with community acceptance already. Hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The following is what the regular editor sees in the history (from risker's talk page)

"(cur) (prev) 05:54, 19 February 2009 65.73.2.135 (Talk) (comment removed) [deleted]"

for a revision that has been deleted, with the comment deleted, but the username left in. I can't tell if it was an 'oversight' style (restricted from admins) or regular admin type. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

a revision deletion request....
These contributions seem like good candidates for redaction. Found them trolling around various discussions of the revision deletion discussions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite correct, Rocksanddirt. If you click on "logs" on the toolbox for this page, you should be able to see what revision hiding I did. One of the things to watch for is not just the edit itself, but the reversion, which may contain parts of the attacking commentary. As a general practice, it's probably better to email such findings to Oversight-L, rather than leaving them on one person's talk page; they're likely to be addressed more quickly, and it's good damage control. Thanks for pointing these out. Risker (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the IP
That IP was spamming A***talk.com, and at the time, was open on port 8080. I tested it again, and AFAIK, it is no longer open, so I unblocked. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent work, J.delanoy. The extended block was appropriate at the time, and your review of the extended block was also appropriate.  We do have to be careful with these long blocks, as they can have some significant collateral damage, but certainly there are situations where they are quite appropriate. Thanks for taking the time to look into it.  Risker (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcomes
Hi R, we discussed elsewhere welcome templates. Are you aware of this? I've only looked at a bit of it but it looks pretty awesome. One of those commercial-but-free works and still needs some polishing but it looks like a pretty good intro. Of course, it's missing the "Welcome to ANI" chapter and "So now you're going to ArbCom". :) Franamax (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

mail
You have mail- well you did at the weekend.:) Just checking you received it? <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did indeed, and apologise for the delay in responding. It will likely take me another day or two, I regret to say. Nonetheless, your sentiments are entirely appreciated. Thanks for the reminder. Risker (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind how long it takes.:) I wasn't expecting any particular reply, except maybe to say you've received it, so your thoughts would be a bonus.:) I know you've not online that much at the mo.  Glad you didn't mind my mail.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How are you doing? Any news?:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 18:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Query...
Hopefully I've not been the cause of this. If I have, please find a 2X4 and clue me in! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh geez Ealdgyth! Never, not even once, have I seen you be even the slightest bit snarky; you've always been forthright and helpful, and I've not once seen you personalize your critique. Please, rest easy that you are not in the group that causes me concern; I have a feeling most people would be able to list them given a few minutes of thought.  Risker (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One is always the last to see ones own faults (grins) Better to be safe than sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio at Glide SDI
You removed the G12 tag I put on Glide SDI, and I'm not sure you're right. I've put up a demonstration of the issues at the article's talk page, and I'd like to get your opinion on it. Thanks in advance, Dori (Talk • Contribs) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dori, I have responded on the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not assume bad faith
Regarding the Restoration comedy FAR, please do not assume bad faith on my part without sufficient evidence. Why do you assume bad faith toward me, without cause? There is no reason for you to think that my comment was made with other than the intent to help another innocent editor. On the other hand, this comment by Giano is clearly a personal attack against me, and I am asking you to warn the editor who made it accordingly and not take sides against me. Thank you. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, this comment edited at 1600 UTC on March 17, 2009. Mattisse, I would really appreciate it if you would stop editing your comments on this page. If you want to add further information, please do so in a separate edit. We have had this discussion before, and you are well aware that it is considered poor form. As to bad faith, making a comment about other editors that does not even address the purpose of the FAR is simply not on, and is not acceptable practice.  Risker (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about editing the comment on your page. I did not realize is was wrong to do so. I should not have made the comment on the FAR page. I just wanted to save that editor the confusion and grief I went through, but I should have left well enough alone. I struck through the comment on the page. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is now a discussion here about the the above editor here. Quite frankly, I have tired of her behaviour. Yet again the pattern repeats itself, appolagies, the next is "Poor little Mattisseeee no one loves me, where can I turn, where can I go" It can only be a matter of time before someone tells her. Giano (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, I'm trying to slowly go through and rework every Battle in Afghanistan - most of them were written callously by a single user, typically one with a very strong POV (and NPOV is perhaps my forte, where AGF is not). Although I must say the article is much better before they deleted the image of the war-dead as "harmful to the families to have pictures of war-dead", it just reeks of sanitization since the image is as important and relevant as File:Bodies of Rwandan refugees DF-ST-02-03035.jpg, File:My Lai massacre.jpg, File:Deadvietcong2.jpg and File:Execution of Poles by German Einsatzkomanndo Oktober1939.jpg. The loss of that image still ranks as one of the greatest crimes against WMF in my opinion. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR template
nominated Risker for a featured article review here on the following grounds:poor templating skills. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it works, REverting it for the time being.  YellowMonkey   ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Articles are typically reviewed" -- passive voice. Suggested: "Reviews typically last two weeks."
 * "substantial concerns are not addressed...will be moved" -- passive and catty and begging the question. "If the review shows substantial, unaddressed problems, the article will go on to the Featured Article Removal Candidates (FARC) list."
 * "where editors may declare..." -- ick! Suggested: "At FARC, reviewers and editors will seek consensus to keep or remove the article from Featured Article status."
 * "The instructions for the review..." -- Imperious. Suggested: "If you would like to participate, please look over the guidelines at Featured article review."
 * The lack of agency: The #1 problem is that the sombitch who thinks there is a problem with the article never owns up.  The present change is far better than the old form, but a closing sentence indicating that a person is interested in hearing from the other editors why this may be incorrect or peremptory would be nice.  Suggested:  "If, after reviewing the guidelines, you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to contact me."
 * That's me, anyway. I hate the creepy "it has been determined by the Law that thou art a sinner" feeling of those nasty passives.  I think they were intended to be creepy, too.  Utgard Loki (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You said on WT:FAR that Geogre had made comments on the template. Are you saying Utgard Loki is Geogre?  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The last person who ranted on my page about the passive voice was Geogre, who regularly rants about it; to be honest, I didn't really look at the signature and just assumed... Risker (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I figured he was, and dropped Geogre a suitably cryptic note in that connection about two years ago. Given the response I decided that (a) I was probably mistaken and (b) I really didn't care that much. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eye yam watt aye iamb, butt i kneed know won two no pass if voyce weekends udderance. (I am only myself and can be no other, unlike others, who never themselves are.  I know a hawk from a handsaw.)  Could we consider my considerable changes, please?  Do they not improve?  Do they not eliminate vast wastes of spirit and shame?  Do they not make what is crooked straight?  Do they not remove evil from the world?  Do they not salve the worn teats of human kindness so that once more they may cream and tasty butter produce? "Greatness consists in bringing all Manner of Mischief on Mankind, and Goodness in removing it from them," as was said recently.  I need no astrogre, cosmogre, or geogre to see bad and want it good.  Utgard Loki (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Bishonen was the first to make a complaint about the passives in the notification template. As for me, I'll say that the passive has been deprecated.  How's that?  Sounds more true than saying, "Most style sheets and virtually all grammarians regard passive voice constructions as less effective than active voice," doesn't it?  That's the problem.  Passive voice constructions sound official, and yet it's a trick.  Trickery ought not be used anywhere we want civility.  It is, in fact, a greater building of community, a greater civility, to speak honestly for one's self and to not imply that there are official voices that "have found" this and that.  Passive voice is a violation of WP:CIV, in my opinion, and it's really nasty.  The changes above are the least of it.  I, personally, would rather see WP:FAR listed at MfD.  I honestly do not see any use for it.  Geogre (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Buck Palace
There is one bit from the lead which wasn't in the body of the text, which I have now done - anything on that in the book(s)? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, there are two more - here is the next slice.

I am having a bit of a dilemma with this last bit from the lead:


 * Many smaller reception rooms are furnished in the Chinese regency style with furniture and fittings brought from the Royal Pavilion at Brighton and from Carlton House following the death of King George IV.

which is (I believe) covered in the beginning of para 3 in the interior section, although it doesn't mention George IV specifically (groan).....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Darn, I remember reading this stuff last night, but don't have the page numbers. With luck, I should be able to get back to the library this weekend. Stick anything else in here that you can think of before the end of the day Friday, if possible, and I'll do my best. As to the stuff from Brighton, since it is clear it was being done by George V and his wife, obviously George IV was dead, I would think. Heaven forbid we have to start discussing lines of succession, as they got pretty complicated around then. Risker (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, George this and George that and something or other....(there might be some references further afield) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's George I, George II, George III, George IV, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth. Quite a bit of distance between George IV and V (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hedley, page 14! Altough I'm sure it's in all the books and on the website, It's common knowledge that the best fittings and furniture at the Pavillion found their way to Buckingham palace.Giano (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with the formalist mania. I predicted it.  I watched my predictions come true.  Now, we're off the deep end and into the Marianis Trench.  Once the sweaty-palmed, thin-lipped, weak bladder "but! I need a footnote!" crowd got to the point where, "Who says that Earth is the third planet from the sun? If it's really common knowledge, then you can find a footnote for it" got taken seriously, it was over.  In the name of "reliability," a group of persons who have neither expertise nor, apparently, the years for education, have stepped forward to be "experts on what is an FA."  The only way that is even possible is by an exclusive consideration of form rather than content, and form includes 'footnotes, nothing else' (even though that is the worst possible citational system) and 'footnotes for every declarative and valuative.'  Look, there is a vast, vast difference between the 1911 Britanica that still litters this project and its sniffing snobbery and evident chauvinism and saying that, to take one example from my past, "A Tale of a Tub is probably Swift's most complex satire."  The standards still sit there saying that statements "likely to be challenged" need a citation, and yet the experts on those standards keep saying that "likely to be challenged" is "anything that could be challenged by someone with irritable bowel syndrome and OCD and bipolar disorder."  Sigh.  (Sorry, Risker, but, since I'm hardly at WP anymore, I figure I should make my words count.)  Geogre (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (the real one)
 * Aw, Geogre, you know you are always welcome on this page, it brings the level of discourse up significantly. You should see some of the comments I get that the RC patrollers are kind en
 * I suspect this is all realy a big hoax. For instance, there is no proof that the Queen actually lives there, certainly no footnote to prove it, or even a photograph of her in her slippers watching TV or going to bed. She may well live in a three bedroome semi-detatched in Surbiton for all the page proves to us. If the Queen does not live there, the palace is not notable so should be deleted and replaced with an article (at a certain address on) Acacia Avenue, Surbiton. In fact, is she really the Queen? Are there images of her being born? Has her mother (the only person who can know for sure) written a cited (and scholarly - don't forget scholarly) book saying "yep, the silver haired dame, covered in dog hairs, with the headscarf and tiara is my daughter? I think these things need to be explained. Giano (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just made a slight modification to your comment, as oddly there does seem to be a semi-detached at that address. Even Miss Liz deserves privacy. (Okay it was Grove and not Avenue, but otherwise...) Risker (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAAA! Oh, man... I'm in class now, and when I read that, I laughed out loud. Embarrassing... J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The distinction between Grove and Avenue (and Park and Road and Lane and Gardens and whatnot) is a very crucial one in England. I am very disappointed in Giano that he didn't get this detail right. This shows that we just can't trust him. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a footnote proving that it's a palace? I mean, I've seen bigger houses in Houston, and John McCain has at least as many houses, so who's to say that this is a "palace."  I think that's highly POV.  We need references that show that it's a "palace."  And this business about its architecture being significant!  I think it's just bias to say that that is important, when a new Australian housing subdivision can't get an article in Wikipedia.  And that's not even to get into the names of the workers who did the building of the thing.  Obviously, the article fails "completeness" if it doesn't talk about William Smith and his boys, who lived in a mud hut nearby and did work hauling stone for a bit.  In fact, it's shocking that this got to be an FA at all, but it only goes to show that, back in the old days (before we started controlling things), people let anything on the main page.  Thank the stars above that we're here, now, to make it all better and remove those disgraces.  Why... just think of all the horrible consequences of people not removing FA status!  Geogre (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oversight help
Are you online right now? I have a huge oversight issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of essay
I noticed you deleted the essay User Pages Make Great Bookmarks and I'm curious about your reasoning behind that. I am the creator of the page and was not notified, but the notes claim a "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)" -- why (and would you mind restoring it)?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See User_pages_make_great_bookmarks--Tznkai (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ahhh... thanks (no redirect) left me confused when I saw a redline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oversight applied to my talkpage
Thanks for that. Tonywalton Talk 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Please check your email. Best, Risker (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm keeping an eye on that IP. Tonywalton Talk 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kay/InternetReader2
Sorry about that - I didn't see anything on the talkpage about it, so thought it hadn't been looked into yet. Should have checked the userpage, I do remember that often the block/sock message doesn't show on the talkpage. Thanks again, <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Risker is just very sharp, and ever-vigilant. :-). Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You flatter me too much, Non Curat Lex. No worries, Avruch. In fact, I blocked the first group of socks about two weeks ago without even tagging the userpages in hopes that the message would get through without having to be obvious; I'm sensitive to the fact that the original account is a person's RL name and have tried not to bring it into the situation. The "noindex" bots are very good but not quite perfect. It's obvious, however, that the hint was not taken and indeed the situation seems to be getting worse, so this time there's no reason to try to protect the person from herself.  Glad I left Pro se on my watchlist though. :-)  Risker (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD for Jimbo
According to WP:MFD, user pages of established users are not usually eligible for deletion, and Jimbo is the founder of WP. I don't really care whether it is April 1 or not. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether it's April 1 either. What I do care about is your reverting a legitimate MFD template. There is an MFD. It should be noted on the page being MFD'd. The fact that you don't think it is appropriate is completely immaterial. You don't get to personally decide what should and should not be MFD'd, quite the opposite. If you disagreed with the deletion, the appropriate response would be to participate in the discussion. If this is the way you are carrying out recent changes patrol, I think someone had best go back and review your other actions. Risker (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self
Merge Edward Nottingham. Risker (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

hey Risk
How are things? <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 00:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What are things, as well as how? Utgard Loki (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant on a more tangible level of human experience.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 12:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I never thought my talk page would remind me of the opening act of Godspell. :-)  Risker (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ding!
I sent you an email. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there> Received and responded.  Thanks!  Risker (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
your protection change popped up on my watchlist. good luck. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck, I'm just flattered that I've made it to your watchlist. :-) Risker (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Trust me, I'm an admin"
That's from our Famous Last Words Department.

Unaccustomed as I am to browsing other than as an admin, I temporarily forgot that a non-admin who lands on a deleted page, e.g. by clicking this, sees more than a note of just the latest deletion. In that state of ignorance, I thought that the fix to this would be very simple. Well, I was wrong. Sorryyyyy.

Personally I don't think that the slur (if that's what it is) is oversightworthy, but I also don't think that the history merits protection from oversighting. If I were the autocrat of WP, I'd just zap the history without hesitation. But I'm not, and rules are rules, and you're surely more familiar with them than I am. (Plus you've got all those super gee-whiz buttons to play with.) What's the best way to proceed? -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just move the page to an obscure place and delete the redirect? Or wouldn't that solve the problem? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the redirect would have a history.... Arguably, it would be an improvement; however, somebody might well object to mess involved. The cleanest way to do this would I think be to OS-delete the last three or so edits, and then to redelete the article in an innocuous fashion. (Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure that it was speediable, but I'm glad that nobody is contesting that.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating discussion, gentlemen, and one close to my heart; thanks for bringing it to this page. On doing a bit of research, it appears that (when not logged in), the Wikipedia page that shows the edit/log summaries for the deleted edits is the #2 Google hit for the subject of the article. It's not very pleasant to have that #2 hit saying that you are self-promoting; it's easily perceived as a slur upon one's reputation and, if it appeared in an article's text rather than the edit summary, most administrators would delete that particular edit at the request of its subject. Of course, as it currently stands, admins aren't able to "delete" the content of edit/log summaries, but those of us with oversight permissions can "hide" it. As there is a request that the information be removed being made by someone who we can reasonably assume is the likely subject, I will "hide" that edit summary. Your "trust me, I'm an admin" isn't problematic in my mind, though, Hoary.
 * A somewhat larger issue is that the edit/log summary is derived directly from the text of the nomination for CSD. This is intended to be a MediaWiki "feature" but has caused issues in the past (e.g., first sentences of attack articles automatically winding up in edit summaries, inappropriate comments in nominations being imprinted on logs). This is probably worthy of further review outside of this specific case, and I will try to formulate some thoughts on the subject. If one or the other of you beats me to it (which would be pretty easy given my time constraints), please link me to the discussion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Hoary.  Risker (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

automatically archiving Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard?
I think that setting up automatic archiving of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard would be a good idea, and possibly Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard as well, but I don't know where the proper place to make the suggestion would be. The most logical place seems to be on the talk page itself, but that page has (so far) been used solely for discussing the contents of the noticeboard. So I'm not sure what to do. I desperately want to create Wikipedia talk talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, but I doubt that my suggestion would get much of a response if I did that :P J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, there's been some sort of discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, but the clerks will probably remember better than I would. Probably the best place to raise the question is on that page itself. Personally, I'm inclined to having a rather extended period before archiving (a couple of weeks at least) for most posts, although I concede that some announcements are less ...umm... memorable than others. Risker (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard--Tznkai (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tznkai! Risker (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thurbert Baker vandalism
You may already know this, but the same POV, undue-weight (and copyvio) edits that have been repeatedly done by multiple IPs on the Baker article have also been done on Sonny Perdue and Michael F. Adams. I just reverted it on those articles. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've SP'd Perdue and fully protected Adams for the time being, requesting that discussion happen on the Adams page to determine proper weight of any additions. If problems continue after the full protection on the Adams article expires, please let me or another admin know so it can be reprotected.  Lar has a special subpage for BLPs that require additional eyes and possible protection, if you haven't seen it.  Risker (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your note
It's a question of trolling, Risker, not sockpuppetry. This is someone who used to do it, and has arrived again. I've been ignoring her as she made her way through several articles I edit, but I resisted at AR, because I'd like to get it to FA. Then Lar, who is attacking me on and offwiki, arrived to give me a "warning." What readers think does matter, yes, but it would be good if this could be a decent place for contributors too. Anyway, others have joined in the discussion at AR, so the content issue will resolve itself, and now that more eyes are on the editing patterns, I hope and believe the whole thing will stop. I will send more details when I get a chance. Best, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Request re terms nationalism/nationalistic
Hi Risker - could we talk a moment? Could you try and discourage the use of the words nationalism/nationalistic at the ArbCom? By committee members, at least. I know it's not the most pejorative term on the block, but it's certainly not productive. I doubt whether it's used by UN negotiators. Novickas (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I get a blue helmet if I undertake this mission? ;-) Joking aside, I do understand your concerns, but would be interested in hearing alternative terms, because most of the ones that are coming to my mind on short notice are more pejorative than "nationalistic".     Risker (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks likely to give a person hat hair. Well, this author describes patriotic as more neutral . But I could try and cough up some more, maybe from UN sources...Novickas (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like the words are used in a fair number of UN documents. . And I suppose editors will say they are just calling a spade a spade. Altho we can't be in on the highest levels of diplomacy, do you not agree that they probably describe it as something like "disputed terminology" rather than "competing nationalistic claims" when they discuss it? Novickas (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking over some past Arbcom findings, I didn't see the words being by committee members, with the exception of the Macedonia case. So I suppose I should engage C. about this. In general, it looks like the dispute is described as touching on national sensitivities and national identities - verbage from the International Crisis Group at . Maybe there's no need to attach adjectives to the disputants. Best wishes to all of you in this case. Novickas (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in late on the debate here. May I still offer my 2c? In my experience, "nationalist" is very well applicable in Wikipedia contexts in many occasions, though it is sometimes over-used. A Wikipedia editor can be classified as a nationalist editor by their editing profile, on pretty objective criteria. If you have a permanent editing focus on aggressively enforcing article content related to your own ethnic/national group in such a way as to make it conform to typical nationalist narratives, then you are a nationalist editor. Typical nationalist narratives are those that serve to construct collective identity through emphasising collective myths of origin, patterns of struggle with neighbouring groups, narratives of collective victimisation, emphatic affirmation of continuity of ethnic identity, or of historical cultural achievements perceived of as marking your group special. These editing patterns are pretty easy to recognise, and everybody active in relevant fields of the project knows that there are a large number of editors who concentrate almost entirely on such types of editing. Being a "nationalist editor" in this sense is quite unrelated to being located in a real-world political spectrum at some position typically characterised as "nationalist". I consider calling an editor nationalist in this sense a legitimate instance of calling a spade a spade.
 * On the other hand, you don't need to be a "nationalist editor" in this sense to sometimes become part of "national issues" conflict/problem in Wikipedia. There are patterns of POV editing motivated by national political positions that aren't necessarily nationalist. I think "national advocacy editing" is an appropriate term to refer to some forms of behaviour in this domain, where calling editors "nationalist" might not be.
 * Just my thoughts. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack McClellan
I noticed that last month you deleted the article on this guy. I found out because I was reading an article about him from CNET Network news here and thought it would make a good reference to add. But when I went to add it, it was deleted. I am really confused about this, how much time did you give people to improve it? Do you have a copy of the former contents? I would be willing to host it on my userspace until it is adequately developed to be considered for inclusion in an article. I figured it would be better to contact you about this first, as opposed to simply recreating it. This way, I can understand what happened and not go through similar problems. Previous to you, a redirect or something was deleted so I am guessing it was developed after that.

The thing is, this guy does seem notable. Reporters interviewed police, he was on talk shows, and a UCLA teacher was commenting. If there were problems with the article, couldn't they have been sorted out without deleting it? If you thought he lacked importance, perhaps you could make a list of seminotable people and put him as one section on it, but to outright delete it just seems a bit wasteful. Due to this, an entire editing history on the article would be lost. I will go read the vote for deletion and stuff to learn more I guess. Tyciol (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to your key question, much of the content in the article was completely unsourced, several of the sources used did not meet WP:RS, and many of the references used did not support the statements they were being used to reference. There is nothing special about this man, as is true of the overwhelming majority of people subject to court injunctions. Being mentioned in news items, primarily as an example to illustrate the subject of the article, doesn't establish notability.  In other words, this article was not meeting any standards for inclusion and was essentially violating our BLP policy as it stood. Given all of the above, I am not prepared to userfy the content as it existed at the time of deletion.
 * I would have considered emailing you a copy of the article as it existed at the time of deletion, had you been an editor involved in its development; however, I don't see any contributions by you in its article history, so I can't really entertain that option. I don't want to close the door on this discussion, though, so if you have other suggestions, I would be happy to respond. Others watching this page who have an interest in the subject might also chime in, and I'd welcome further comment all around.  Risker (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

George M. Zinkhan
You speedied this under another name yesterday, in my opinion without good reason; it has, in my opinion, properly, been recreated and is at Articles for deletion/George M. Zinkhan. Only fair to let you know, as you may want to comment. DGG (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG. The version I speedied (which was George Zinkhan, not George M. Zinkhan) is very different from the one that the page now redirects to; for one thing, there wasn't a single reference. I did comment on WP:BLPN that there was the possibility of another article being appropriate, just not that one. Thanks for letting me know of the DRV, I will indeed comment.  Risker (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I believe G-Dett is a she. See her userpage. HTH. IronDuke 04:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, you are absolutely right. I had just copy/pasted from the one above and failed to change the pronoun when I changed the name. I shall fix it immediately.  Thanks.  Risker (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Arb activity
Given your comment on the proposed decision about not voting "at this point," should you still be listed as inactive in Rfar/West Bank-Judea and Samaria? I mention it only because it would affect the majority. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, Newyorkbrad; I need to go through all the open cases and figure out if I need to remain inactive in any of them. The situation that has affected my availability is still not resolved, unfortunately, but most of the cases have progressed slowly enough that I think I can participate in almost all of them. Risker (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
regarding your comment on Cool Hand Luke's talk page, regarding my situation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oka, it happened again. Another user reverted, but my point is that there is a root problem someone needs to attend to, otherwise you guys will have to keep using oversight, or an article and worse, its talk page, will have to be blocked to all new users for an indefinite amount of time, something which I do not think is really good for the project. I have no agenda here except a wish that the article and its talk page could be open and stable. Since I seem to be a major provocation, I won't edit either. FYI. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that was very odd, and I am sorry that I missed a couple of those edits; I think I have cleaned up everything now. I've reblocked the IP for a longer period, so you should be okay to return to the article.  Risker (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest you missed it - I thought he just came back after you cleaned up. I appreciate your blocking the IP I am assuming then that it was not for a public site. I have seen some really determined sock-puppeteer trolls, but this one really seems extreme. Thank you for your help. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The J&S case
Hi Risker,

I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pagesfrom the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, MeteorMaker. I've been taking my time on some of the proposals specifically to read these discussions further before voting. There is much to think about here. Risker (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For all the little things you help me with...

 * Wow, thanks, JD. This means a lot to me, and I am glad I am able to help out from time to time with those little things.  :-)  Risker (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc redux
Can you please keep an eye on this situation? We seem to be having ownership problems on the usual set of articles - he's wholesale reverting to ancient text, in many cases unsourced and with no apparent discussion on the articles' talk pages. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong
The proposed decision is up in the above case. It is located here. The proposed decision will be presented to the Arbitration Committee for voting on May 11.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note
Just for the record. I do appreciate that nice discrimination you showed in the vote on my record. I admit that my edit summary against User talk:Jordandov, in writing 'reverted good faith vandalism,' was not what is expected of wiki editors. It was tongue-in-cheek mischievousness on my part, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was a fair summary of the editor, who registered, made just a few edits on three pages concerning one very small area, two contiguous settlements in the Southern Hebron Hills where he probably lives or has connections. Those settlements have a very bad repute in Israel also as consistently violent. Jordandov elided well-sourced information, and then disappeared. This happens very frequently in the I/P area, one of his edits was defamatory, and with the others at Susya, it seemed logical to conclude he is a native settler in that area, and wiped out sources he disliked. I do think that vandalistic. I do think he thought doing this was in the best political interests of his settlement. But, as you would remind me, even if done comically, my summary justification need not have been as ironic and sardonic as it was. Regards, (no need to reply, you guys are overloaded with work. I just like to tidy corners).Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, my problem was as much with the content of the edit as it was with the edit summary, but your comments above confirm my concerns. Our readers do not care one whit who adds information to articles; they care only that the information is correct (to paraphrase myself). Jordanov changed the POV of that section and, instead of neutrally reviewing the changes, you reverted back to an equally POV version of the page. I know that you do not see it that way. Your edit summary is not ironic or sardonic, it's symbolic of the extent of the problem in the topic area; it's this casual use of pejorative terms about each other, and assumptions about the people behind the usernames, that is so destructive. Risker (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps then the ban is correct, for your analysis means I have never understood POV, vs.NPOV. I only have experience in what is expected of academic writing, and am not an expert on wiki rules.


 * I won't argue at length on this, since what is done is done. I'd like just to point out that every sentence excised by Jordandov in that passage had been composed by paraphrasing directly from the work of 5 academics. Three of them are Israelis, two with professorships, who have long fieldwork experience of that area. If this wasn't clear, he should have, as I understand it, have put a citation needed tag there. I have 40 pages of notes on Susya compiled over the years, and would have been happy to provide further RS if there was any doubt, or quote verse and chapter from the books and articles already cited to show why this text of mine merely reflected what specialist sources say.


 * Jordandov decided that only a bare minimum of that RS information was acceptable.  It is not a POV to state that they were evacuated, and the land expropriated. The UN has said this, scholars have documented it, Christian Peace Teams have photographic archives of it, the Israeli courts have acknowledged it. Data registered in courts, area histories, and archives, if intepreted, become POV. But the data, on who did what to whom, at such and such a date, as registered in books by ethnologists, UN bodies etc., cannot just be challenged as POV, unless of course every fact is a POV.


 * It is a POV to elide these duly sourced facts to create the fiction, in his text, that the people just moved to the vicinity of an Israeli village built of the very land they once owned and were driven off from when that village was established. Deeply, profoundly political, and untrue. Anyway, I'm not someone who wears grudges. Best wishes for yourself and the project. Regards Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your warning - and a question
See my comment on my talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. Risker (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did it go?
It appears that someone is taking the "p" in their edit summaries... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to pretend it was an ancient French word meaning "to make a sound", but I couldn't type that with a straight face. I am just afraid my q's might go AWOL as well. Risker (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "...I couldn't type that with a straight face." Unless "Straight Face" is one of those fonts that are available with certain printers and I am therefore speaking out of order, I think I have an answer to your problems in dropping letters from the messages you are attempting to convey; Try. using. your. fingers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * reminds me of the joke of the kid who needs to go to the toilet an' the teacher makes him say hte alphabet first an' he says 'abcdefghijklmnoqrstuvwxyz' an' the teacher says 'where is the 'p' ?' an' the kid says 'running down my leg' :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always preferred "the p is silent, as in swimming" :) Franamax (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for being a voice of reason and sanity, specifically with regard to this and this, but also as a general observation. MastCell Talk 08:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
regarding the suggestion Tiptoety gave me, do you have any suggestions on what I should do? I will watch your userpage. Ikip (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

please note
my latest addition to. i would greatly appreciate a specific response to what i said about collect violating 1rr and collect continuing his problematic behavior since the RfC. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * why havent you responded? --Brendan19 (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Brendan19. I have had extremely limited time on-wiki this week, and what time I had here was almost exclusively devoted to voting on current cases. I will do my best to review this in the next 24 hours.  Risker (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * no need to apologize, glad youre going to review it. i just want to make sure people think this thing through.  thanks--Brendan19 (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, so the case disappeared from the request page. now what?--Brendan19 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin action in Scientology related article
Heya. I decided to watch Scientology in Germany while it was being constructed some months ago and assist only in an administrative capacity instead of content. I had to warn an editor,, a couple times  for reverting and mass tagging without explaining why he was tagging. I left a strongly worded warning on his talk page following that:

He reappeared yesterday, mass tagging again: , giving the edit summary "Still a POV text, see reasons given and discussion." I notified him a few minutes later on his talk page that he needed to give his reasons clearly on the talk page instead of in edit summaries, and told him if none were supplied I would remove the tags in 24 hours, which I did. and removed mass tagging from an anonymous IP immediately before that.

This morning he performed these edits, re-tagging the article and leaving a message on the talk page that seems to be neither detailed or analytical and accused me of working with :       please see edit summary here 

Ah, well. I just blocked him for removing cited information this morning. 

This is my first admin block in a Scientology-related article. If I should post this somewhere else, please point me in the right direction. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my, sounds like fun. I believe that it needs to be recorded into the log of blocks and bans for the most recent Scientology arbitration case; a checkuser might also want to review this editor's actions. I'll ask one of the clerks to assist you with the former, and a checkuser to look at this section and determine if there's cause to do the latter.  Thanks for the heads-up.  Risker (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Sandstein overturned the block (there appears to be maybe 15 minutes left, so this is not a big deal) and accused me of being too involved on my talk page. Consequently, I am no longer going to be involved in this article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, please see ; edit summary: "rv: Do not delete cited text." Among the "sources" cited by this editor in this edit are these:
 * http://boycottcity.org/view/index.php?itemId=325
 * http://www.scientomogy.com/mi3/missionimpossible3.com.php
 * http://www.scientomogy.com/boycotttomcruise.com.php
 * http://www.scientomogy.com/boycott_valkyrie/
 * http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/boycott-tom-cruise-s-war-of-the-worlds-all-other-cruise-movies.html
 * http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/tomcruiseboycott


 * I am concerned that these sources make offensive comments about a living person (quote: "Boycott this self serving arrogant bastard"). The article is currently locked, with these sources in place.
 * Does this ("IMHO Jayen466 is a scientology fan or member") and this ("This is a warning") qualify as a WP:PA? I would be grateful if you could give this your attention, when you have a moment. Thank you.  JN 466  09:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

U can haz chezzwhatevers
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:brown; background-color:gold; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">  max y  poda   tik-tik-tik!  haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk puj with friendly messuj to all.

Kitteh and tikataliik have great much alike  max y  poda   tik-tik-tik!  00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written
In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:


 * A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:
 * "We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
 * 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
 * 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
 * 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
 * 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
 * "As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."


 * B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:
 * "This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you realise this, Tenmei, but I am inactive on this case and will not be voting or commenting on it. I will tell you that I find your frequent links to Wiktionary and Wikipedia for commonly used words and phrases to be very distracting and unhelpful in getting your message across. I'd urge you to discontinue this practice.  Best, Risker (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking case
Thank you for your comments questioning the necessity of the proposed restrictions on me and some other editors. My understanding is that sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Many of us have years of conflict-free editing behind us, and our only lapses were in getting drawn into a dispute with one particularly difficult editor. It's very troubling that all this good work, all the years of quietly improving Wikipedia, counts for nothing; that we're all to be branded 'edit warriors' put on probation, forbidden to do things which we have almost never done, as though Wikipedia would be in severe danger if we were let off the leash. This doesn't feel like justice to me. It feels as though Arbcom is simply lashing out indiscriminately at any editor whose behaviour was less than perfect in this dispute. We're not hirelings or galley slaves or juvenile delinquents - we're volunteers, donating our time and expertise to this project; it wouldn't hurt to hear Arbcom acknowledging our contribution instead of demonising us. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence -- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noted the RFC. I've also deliberately broken the link as it was adversely affecting the usability of this page, although I know that was not intentional. I am essentially inactive until early next week. Risker (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC2
Hello, I have noticed you are one of the arbitrators on this case that have yet to vote on the de-sysoping of Future Perfect at Sunrise. I feel very strongly about this issue and have left a note that might be of interest to you on the talkpage of the proposed discussion page. Best regards. --Athenean (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Athenean. I am not active on this particular case, and will not be voting on this or any other proposal. Risker (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, Risker, for your help and intervention here; it is much appreciated. Aramgar will probably not be editing again, so I don't foresee any future problems. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am glad to have been of some assistance. I do hope that, after some time to step back from this particularly intense situation, Aramgar will reconsider. Without looking at the details of the case (I am inactive on it as RL commitments got in the way of being able to properly assess it), I am aware that Aramgar has brought considerable knowledge to the encyclopedia in the past. This current Arbcom panel has unfortunately had several significant cases focusing on longstanding issues that have never been satisfactorily resolved (even with prior Arbcom cases), and sometimes those issues are intertwined with events and behaviours remote to the focus of the main case, particularly as it relates to user/admin conduct. Something to keep in mind. Best to both of you. Risker (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see him return as well... my knowledge of the areas in question is not as extensive as his, though I do what I can. I respect your work a lot and am glad to have you on ArbCom. I have a strong respect for your judgement, and have done for some time. Best, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing your comment was unintentional
Removing your comment was unintentional. Must have been some kind of uncaught edit conflict. Sorry about that. I've reverted. Paul August &#9742; 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

J&S application
Hi Risker,

I respectfully direct your attention to this. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership to the Association of Assistants to Established Editors
By nature or nurture, not all of us are cut out to be Established Editors. That's why I'd like to invite you to serve as an assistant to an Established Editor (to be determined later, by the Established Editor, using a line-up of all assistants; some assistants may not be chosen). If you accept, please create a sub-page under this explaining why you are fit to be an assistant. Once again, congratulations. Outriggr (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And exactly what would one assist with? To be honest, there's some question as to whether or not I am "fit", let alone "fit to be an assistant".  Probably not a good fit for me, but thank you for the invitation.  Risker (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please excuse Outriggr. In his haste to feel included and to create an association which everyone might be a part of, he clearly forgot that no Arbitrator could ever be a mere "assistant". He mumbled something about "content", but what I say unto you now is that all editors are valuable and "established" the moment they edit in good faith. Outriggr will be in his room for just over a week, and I have ensured that the Association will be wound down in such a way as to avoid any need for arbitration or hurt feelings. Sincerely, Godriggr (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note to self
Frank Dux

More abusive account names
They're back -- please check my block log and do what you think is appropriate. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh. Sorry, I missed this message last night. I'll ask someone to look into it ASAP.  Thanks. Risker (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now there are more -- please check again.  NawlinWiki (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Wow, I must have done something really good. I have got a guardian angel with a machine gun watching over me. :-) Thanks for taking care of the annoyed user page vandal.  No idea what the critter wanted.  Perhaps it was just hungry for bytes.  Asgard Loki was hungry for bytes, so I set him on a race against fire.  Fire won.  Utgard Loki (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure, Utgard Loki. Those vandals are sometimes hard to predict. Risker (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Audit_Subcommittee
I left a message on the talk page - any idea when we might see elections, and in what form? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Joopercoopers, nice to see you in these parts. I think Thatcher's response on the page is about as thorough as we're going to be able to get for now; unless I've missed something, the Arbitration Committee has not come to any conclusions about timing or process yet. Risker (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you too Risker. I'm afraid I've been rather absent dealing with RL stuff for quite a while. I'm deeply saddened to see Bish has left, to my mind, she was the 'Sixth Pillar'. I'm glad though to see the Audit Subcommittee take its baby steps, this is very welcome. I'd like to add a suggestion to the deliberations; If I understand it correctly, there's currently there's a 3-3 split between ArbCom and lay-members on the committee - what's the rationale for this? Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a majority of elected members? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Of interest? Power.corrupts (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose to roll back the too bold change - comments? Power.corrupts (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost AfD
Articles for deletion/DreamHost (2nd nomination) just closed as keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)