User talk:Risker/Archive 7

Protection of California State Route 186
Hold on a minute, you've protected it, even after I made non-issue edit to the article? The last edit was to expand the article to where the issue is not. I don't know why, but we stopped that stupid edit war about 12 hours ago.Mitch/HC32 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I have reverted your unilateral edits. Please discuss before doing further actions. Cerejota (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of simulated RFA section on the Civility Poll
  ''I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.''  — From Inherit the Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee I find your removal of this entire section totally innappropriate. If you cannot find any more support for this unilateral action other than your own view of what civility is and agreement from Giano and Merridew of all people, then I strongly suggest you reverse your action. MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't find it inappropriate at all, I'm sure Tinkerbell and Wendy would agree too. Giano (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * MickMacNee, I find the tone and personal attacks in your comment rude and uncivil. It is especially ironic since you are on the Civility poll page preaching to others about civility . On the other hand, I think your comment is an excellent example of how to be uncivil without ever using one of the "forbidden seven". - Josette (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The removed section certainly stands out as a particularly baited question compared to the rest of the debate. What was the point of that section? Chillum  01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it was about a pot calling a purported kettle black. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @Josette: Still looking for that special barnstar; you've earned it. re irony : in his own case, he may be right about too much leniency. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @MacNee: If you don't like Giano's or my views over there, you should note that Tznkai and Cas supported this, too, and it seems like none of the biguns have rallied to your tribe over there. Jack Merridew 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone: Glad to see that a majority of posters agree with my interpretation of that thread; there is so much more to civility than refraining from cursing. MickMacNee, my edit had been reversed hours before and then subsequently reinstated by another editor. Haven't looked to see the state of play at this point yet, but I am sure it is a lively discussion. It really is very nice to see such a diverse group finding common ground on an important issue. Risker (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There certainly is more to civility than George Carlin's Seven Words. I don't see it as about specific words at all as I can have a perfectly civil and friendly discussion while using them. It is about the toxic personalities that are not dealt with appropriately. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

@Risker: (w/ec) Since I'll be lighting up your message notice with this, I'll offer a bit of suggested reading: I got the actual book after reading the review; it's very interesting and not really the small bit about Durova. You're quoted ;) Recommended for all biguns. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * "You're quoted"? you're kidding! Holy cow.  Must reserve this at the library...  Risker (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * yup. I'll review it again and let you know. I don't have the book with me at the moment. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for emailing me the snippet; it helps explain certain things. I'll consider ordering the book, it's not all that easy to come by up here. Risker (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I please get a serious response here Risker? Or are we pretending that the section was yanked a few minutes after I had posted it, with nobody else commenting on it, and the others not having seen it? Let's not get into your temporal difficulties here Merridew. MickMacNee (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll focus on our other threads; you might find the above book interesting ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * MacNee: (<- ironic effect, not how I would normally address someone) His userid is Jack Merridew. Not Merridew. Address him by his userid, or if you are on a friendly first name basis (which I suspect you are not), by a more familiar term, please. If you want respect, you need to give respect... More generally, I think your tone here leaves a lot to be desired, and is in serious need of increased collegiality-ization. The irony of a pro-civility crusader agitating for strict enforcement of an effectively unenforcable policy, to the point of being uncivil about it, is not lost on me (either). It would be even more ironic if your over the top behaviour earned you a block. Oh, and Risker gave you a serious response, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * MickMacNee, I have responded up above. I do not think it is a bad thing that people aren't reading that section, because whether you realise it or not, it was an exercise in humiliating the editors who were involved in a specific, and now much over-discussed, incident. Instead of looking at a general principle, it was targeted to use that one example and turn it into an internal meme. I did then, and do now, believe it was uncivil. You haven't, however, paid attention. Since I removed that section, it was reinstated, and then subsequently removed by others. The comments on both this page, and on the talk page of the civility poll, favour my interpretation more than yours. I am fine with leaving a link to it. I still hold that not recognizing the degree of incivility involved in the titling and premise of the thread is a sign that we have civility issues that are not, and cannot, be addressed by a policy that acts as a checklist for what to avoid. Risker (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't responded to me, you have merely repeated yourself. I don't need to read the same reply twice, I am not dumb as well as malicious. Perhaps if I attempted to insert a historical link to the page, you would maybe see how what came after your unilateral action is ultimately irrelevant. You preferred to yank an entire section rather than request a refactoring or otherwise take issue with it, a section that multiple people had already accepted as a legitimate discussion exercise, posted with the best of intentions, and not as you seem to think, as a purposely attacking meme, posted with the worst of motives, or a product of some sort of collective incompetence. The few people who belatedly agree with the various inherent issues with that, do not outweigh the view of the actual original participants, in any sense at all. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, that is what I did. I hear your complaint, and I disagree with you. I do not think my actions were inappropriate. I am sorry that you cannot see how harmful it was to have such an uncivil thread in a discussion about civility. It is unfortunate that it took so long for this to be pointed out. The fact that people blithely commented there is a symptom of how pervasive such incivility has become, that people don't even recognize it. When I removed the offending section, I left a link so that others could read it if they wished; I see there are links available now on the talk page. The posts are still available. I will not be discussing this further with you, as I believe there is nothing I can say that will satisfy your complaint, short of recanting against my own principles. That is not going to happen. Risker (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Malicious, are you? ;) Please let go of the idea that people offering a view, especially a dissenting one, and participating in the melee, er, discussion, legitimises whatever the impetus was; I already commented to that effect to you elsewhere and I'm sure many of the others have similar views (to mine;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay folks, enough on this topic please, from all sides. MickMacNee is entitled to hold a different view, and I don't want there to be a pile-on here. I thank those who agreed with my action for letting me know, but I don't object to MickMacNee having raised his objections with me here either. Risker (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oversight-l
Hi. I just forwarded a note from OTRS to oversight-l but apparently it is moderated? Since you're a list admin would you mind adding a few OTRS addresses to the non-member filters list? info-en@, info-en-o, and info-en-q all @wikimedia.org. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All taken care of, Rjd0060. Thanks for the message, everything should get through now, regardless of length.  Risker (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi,please check your emailAlsoam (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Alsoam - Well, I have checked me email, but with over 100 messages a day coming in from individuals and various mailing lists, I'm not entirely sure what I should be looking for here, and your username doesn't show up in any of them. My "Email this user" feature is enabled; if there is something that you need to send to me, you might want to try that, putting your username in the title line, so I will be able to respond. Risker (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the last policy idea I'll ever offer
I just got tired of watching the fire drill. I kept thinking, "Sheesh, there are ways, if only someone asks" and "Why does no one consider this logically" and "Why can no one think in terms other than power?" User_talk:Geogre

It will do no good, as I am a known criminal and all. Geogre (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Aw Geogre, at least you're an intelligent criminal. None of that grubby break-and-enter or kidnapping or arson for you. I've not ignored what you've written, I've just been trying to absorb it all. The one question I have for you would be, just how much do you really think will get done in a month? Many of the issues that come up can take 3-6 months to develop a workable plan.  On the other hand, I think you have a better idea of what an advisory council ought to be doing than is reflected in many of the other commentaries I've read.  I'm glad you're still thinking about these sorts of things. Risker (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope ...
...that this shows that I have perhaps better understood the position on BLP from our last discussion regarding "octomom" on WP:ANI. Forgive me for the rude language in the post I have linked to. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've got it, Bwilkins. THanks for letting me know, you put a smile on my face. Risker (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjd0060
To confirm. Risker (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
A request for arbitration has been filed. You may wish to make a statement. Durova 282 02:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am Geogre - you knew that, right? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, Privatemusings, I can usually take your sense of humour with a grain of salt. This is not one of those times. Maybe for you the concept of being called before your peers is just a barrel of laughs, but for most Wikipedians it is a very unpleasant situation and not to be made light of. In this case, I think you may owe Geogre an apology. I know I do. Risker (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * well as ever, risk, the heart smiles while the mind boggles.... I dunno if a grain, pinch, or barrel of salt is enough to season this situation - it's my view that whomever geogre is being poked by, they're far from his peers. Whether or not geogre feels the situation is unpleasant I dunno - but it's certainly ridiculous... and a shame. I raised an eyebrow at some of the posts at the arbitration page (I think probably he ones Jhoch refers to below?) and trust that it's not getting you down or stressing you out at all..... I most certainly apologise if my siliness has contributed to that, though at this point I trust geogre would not in fact feel he's owed an apology from either of us.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of all Wikipedia's great dramas that grow from some minor act or transgression, and then are driven to extremes by the malicious and the downright nasty, for revenge, point-scorring and self-glorification, this will prove to be the greatest. I have a very bad feeling about this, it will the subject of subect of anger and perpetuating retribution for years to come. Those who allowed it go forward are as thoughtless and damaging to the project as those who maliciously sought it. Who will be the winner here? I know the answer to that, so do we all, and its not the project. Giano (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise
it was great to meet you. That one is my favorite too. You're very photogenic.--ragesoss (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sympathy
I am very sorry that you have recently been the target of personal attacks. Hopefully the committee will state in no uncertain terms that editors may not accuse others of wrongdoing without colorable evidence. Simple happenstance has been alloyed with assumptions of bad faith to smear your character. Hang in there! Jehochman Talk 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Dux
Thanks, I was unaware that a WP:BLP restriction had been placed. On the same vein, however, it seems unusual to categorically remove any well-sourced controversy that meets the standards of WP:RS simply b/c blocked sock-puppets have been complaining. (I'm sure that wasn't the intent of WP:BLP.) What would you consider to be an equitable solution? Djma12 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I invite OLEnglish and Risker to actually explain their whole-scale deletions to this article. WP:BLP is not simply catch-phrase, I think you need to justify HOW the article actually violates this when there is a long-standing section that has numerous reliable sources per WP:RS. Deleting a sourced "Controversy" section was never the intent of WP:BLP, especially when the only objections to the section came from sock-puppet attacks.

Please actually respond to WHY you feel this article violates WP:BLP, otherwise I am reverting the article in two days Djma12 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks for my tardiness, I have been largely off-wiki for a few days. I will respond tomorrow at the talk page of the article. Thanks for letting me know that there are concerns. Risker (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy
I asked for you to deal with the problem, and it was archived without it being dealt with, despite promises it would be. Shall I resend you the e-mails where the arbcom promised to deal with the situation? You've taken a gross attack on me, which I asked for the Arbcom to look at and make sure it was withdrawn, and, after agreeing I had a point, did nothing and let it stand and be permanently archived.

Seriously, what am I supposed to do? Bain's statement is a blatant distortion of the facts. Arbcom say they're going to deal with it, but let it stand and achive it instead. I believe it was you yourself promised me you'd deal with it. When it isn't deleted, and I simply mark it, you yell at me.

I was trying to keep out of this, and let the arbcom deal with it, without goading you. Instead, you screwed me over. Again. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * SH, I'm recused on anything to do with homeopathy, and I don't think I've made any substantive comments about this matter at all. I supported the motion earlier this year, in the (apparently futile) hope that you would be able to move on. It's becoming increasingly clear that you believe the flaws in the process have absolved you of any responsibility in the ultimate decision on that case. Sorry, but no. I followed the case from its inception, before and after the oversights, without commenting on it. The final decision in that case, despite all the procedural problems, was correct. Risker (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sentiment is going to look really great when it comes time for reelection, don't you think? Oh, I thought it was wrong, but because the user was complaining, I voted just to shut him up. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 02:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps "I wanted him to be able to heal, and did everything I could to do so." Don't worry, I don't foresee a re-election bid in my future. Risker (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I myself remain perplexed at the people putting themselves forward for the position. Mackensen (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 02:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Check your email
Now would be a good time. :-) Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read and responded! Thanks very much. :-)  Risker (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

TYVM
Thanks for deleting that attack from my talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Always happy to be of service. :-) Risker (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong arbitration
Risker, please don't mind, but I thought you were recused on the Ryulong case. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  03:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You will recall that the reason for my initial recusal was that I provided personally held evidence relating to Ryulong, not to you, and I have recused from any motions that could affect remedies or sanctions on either of you. This amendment request is essentially paper shuffling, and makes no change in the remedies against any party, and I supported so that this request for amendment would be more likely to be resolved in a timely way. If you feel strongly that I need to recuse from voting on an amendment that essentially says "file this particular paragraph at this point, rather than that point", I will do so. Risker (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do. You'd be better off just making a statement as a regular user. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only point of my making a statement is as an arbitrator. As an editor, I don't really see why this wasn't addressed as a question to the clerk who did the archiving, asking if might be better in a different place, or if a commment on the applicable remedy (saying it was superseded) would have been sufficient. I shall recuse at your request. Risker (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Axxman8
Re: your message, please see this topic, where the ban was reduced to an indef block.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Classic case of indirect ban because no admin will unblock him (which, having dealt with him myself, I think is entirely understandable), but perhaps not a true community ban.  Thanks, Daedalus.  Risker (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

next time
Next time, please kindly give a little more than 10 hours notice about an election ending. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, F203! I have responded on your talk page. Risker (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I made that barnstar myself by copying another similar barnstar.

WP has no one board. The policies are a bit scattered. I am discussing with others a way to organize things.

As of now, AN and ANI seems to be the WP board. VP seems to have much less traffic. ANI seems to be for socks and to complain about people and AN seems to be for less urgent matters and for posts by more level headed people. AN is actually a good spot to be the WP board. I check there a few times a week. User F203 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

@Risker: Rollback -> 'Riggr?


Friendly Neighbourhood Risker, Rollback feature says I can ask an administrator to grant me rollback status. Pretty please? Outriggr (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask you if you promised to behave...but thought better of it. There was actually a 2-for-1 special at the User Rights page today, so you are now not only a "rollbacker" but also an "autoreviewer" - the latter meaning that any new pages you create will not need to be confirmed by New Page Patrollers. So, umm...party at your place? ;-)  Risker (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! When I saw your edit summary, I assumed the Admin bit was the bonus. (Maybe you aren't technically a Bureaucrat, but I think an Arb motion would suffice—a method reserved only for decent-editors who are too n  e  u  rotic to manage Oppose votes? And Outriggr. )
 * No, the party is on your talk page this time! Outriggr (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2-for-1 special :O Does that mean I get checkuser and oversight? *bambi eyes* J.delanoy gabs adds  01:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe! Nice try, J.delanoy!  Try one of the open-faced sandwiches, they're delightful... Risker (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Awww :( what can I say? I tried... ;-) J.delanoy gabs adds  02:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that Rollback is handy! First time: One click... although I find all the extra Rollback links obtrusive. I think this demonstrates that I have not destroyed the encyclopedia, and that the WP Review discussion thread on Risker granting me rollback was very unnecessary. Cheers, Outriggr (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, another Wikipedia Review thread? And people don't believe me when I say posting here could be dangerous....  Risker (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know I'm joking I hope. Outriggr (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know I never take you seriously, I hope. ;-) Risker (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good. In real life people only take me seriously! :) Outriggr (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth (book)
Hi, I see you put an editing block on the abovementioned article. I have taken a break from editing or commenting there, but I see the wikidrama continues on the talk page since the opposing editor has not acceded to requests to take a similar break. Several people on the talk page, including an admin (Nishkid64, see diff), are asking for an extension of a week to the block. IMO that's a minimum; the block should be for a month to discourage a tendentious, compulsive, daily editing pattern on the page. ► RATEL ◄ 01:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message; I have reviewed the talk page and have extended the page protection until August 15th. I expect to see significant progress in the interim; if not, then that tells me the problem isn't so much the contentiousness of the article as it is the editorial behaviour, and other solutions may be required. It should not be necessary to have this article protected for an extended period. Risker (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The page now shows a few odd categories at the end, like "Pages with indef protection". It may be worth further extending protection for a while... ► RATEL ◄ 23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the weird hidden categories have now disappeared; sometimes it takes a while for those to fade away. (Give them 12-24 hours, they're generally harmless.) As to reprotecting...I think it's important to give the article a chance to breathe a bit, and to encourage mature consensus building on the talk page without the artificial crutch of page protection. Let's see how things go. Risker (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon proposal at ANI
This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on the rules for blocking
Risker, I'm writing to you for clarification regarding the rules about blocking. My first block on 6th May 2008 was by an administrator who I was in a revert war with. I doubt if the block was legitimate. The situation escalated over the next few months and I ended up indefinitely blocked. This situation arose purely because I was trying to incorporate into the centrifugal force article a reference to the fact that the centrifugal force appears as a term in the planetary orbital equation. Over a year later, I was finally vindicated in that it was acknowledged by a number of editors that centrifugal force really was in that equation. Previously they had been arguing that I had been engaging in original research.

Does this episode, and the block record which came with it, somehow disadvantage me forevermore in respect of arguments on other pages? I have got the feeling that certain other editors think that they now have an advantage over me, in that if they pick a fight, I will end up indefinitely blocked and that they will walk away unscathed. Perhaps they think that they only have to mention my name at ANI and some administrator will do the honours instantly without any investigation whatsoever.

I'd like to know exactly where I stand on this matter. I have been trying to make some physics articles more accurate, and more interesting and in the process, based on my own years of research into the topics in question. But I have encountered enormous resistance along with endless spurious allegations such as that I am being uncivil, or disruptive, or that I am engaging in original research or crank science.

If you would prefer that I stop editing physics articles, by all means let me know. I am not saying that I will volunteer to relinquish my right to edit them, but I will bear your desires in mind. I should however point out that the system up until now has been demonstrating gross favouritism to editors whose knowledge of physics is highly questionable. As it stands right now, my future interest in editing physics articles will be concentrated on history of science sections. But even that can lead to conflict where other editors fear that the historical viewpoints in question might offer a plausible alternative to the current orthodoxy.

As regards blocking, I did read that blocks are not intended to be punitive but rather preventative. The admin who topic banned me today claimed that he had the right to block me permanently. What disruption would that have prevented? I would like to have that matter clarified. David Tombe (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * David, please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you, but I have been pondering the most appropriate response. One of your options for appealing your page ban is an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, on which I sit, and I would not wish to say anything that either (a) adversely affects your opportunities for appeal or (b) would require me to recuse should this matter come before the Arbitration Committee.  What I will say is that page and topic bans are an acceptable form of sanction at Wikipedia, with the objective of preserving the integrity of the content of the encyclopedia; on a cursory review, I am not certain whether or not one would be appropriate to the circumstances. I do note, however, that when I was reading your comments, I could hear my high school physics teacher's voice in my head; that, I suspect, may have much to do with the way that some editors are perceiving your writing. I note the didactic quality on talk pages, as though you are speaking to a group of recalcitrant students rather than peers, and that can grate on even the best of us. Many topic experts find editing Wikipedia very frustrating, and it has been a subject of debate for a long time. Risker (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Risker, Thanks very much for your reply. I would say that there is a strong element of truth in your analysis. All my trouble seems to have stemmed from trying to insert one single equation into the centrifugal force article. The equation in question is finally in the article, both in the main section and in the history section, but the linkage has not been adequately established yet. I've more or less given up, but a discussion is ongoing at the moment in relation to who is the originator of that equation. I'll follow that discussion through to its conclusion but I'll not be bothering much more with the main page unless there is a clear consensus. Likewise with the speed of light. I'm more or less finished there. It was a short and sweet venture where I learned what Brews was trying to push. I learned that he was correct and my interest then quickly shifted to what the knock-on effect of the new definition would be for electric permittivity. I have given Brews some advice to help cut the situation short with minimum loss of face, and I now intend to concentrate of fixing up some non-scientific articles. I'm not overly concerned about the page ban in its own right. I was more upset at what I perceived to be the one sidedness of it, and the fact that I then got registered on some ARBCRANK index when I knew that I was only stating what is in the sources that Brews provided. I'll not bother appealing the ban, at least for the time being. But I will eventually want to appeal it when things calm down. My main reason for writing to you was to draw attention to my fear that my block record can be used against me, and that everytime I find myself in a protracted physics debate, I'm going to find myself on some ANI thread with the angry villagers out throwing cabbages. It's most annoying to have a protracted debate at WT:PHYS and then find that a copy of the debate is being held up to a non-physics audience as evidence of disruptive behaviour. And it's even more annoying to find that within minutes, an administrator has obliged the accuser without any apparent serious investigation into the matter beyond looking at my block record. Perhaps block records ought to be hidden from view from all but the arbitration committee. I know that in real life criminal cases, the jury cannot be allowed to know the previous convictions, however the judge is allowed to know them when passing sentence. I know I can't undo that block record, but I do feel that I was steered into it under severe provocation while attempting to push the equation in question into the centrifugal force page. I do know now that it is impossible to push something in against a consensus, and I have always held back from the brink, ever since Antandrus unblocked me. But I have had the feeling that certain opposition editors know that they only have to take me to a 3RR situation and I may be blocked permanently, or put on one of those ANI threads, whereas they will be sure to get off free. That was my main reason for writing. Thanks for your attention. I see no need for any further action at this moment in time. David Tombe (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

note to self
Terry Bryant,Tony Patterson

Indents
Sorry, my bad. Incidentally, I think your edit summary could serve as a comprehensive summary of why the case has been such a trainwreck. In 10 words, no less. :) MastCell Talk 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, MastCell. :-)
 * As to the edit summary, you may have a point! I suspect part of the problem is that there is much more to Abd's communications than is obvious on a skimming and selecting of certain points to respond to; long and wordy communication is a well-known technique for attempting to establish norms without direct consensus, just as Abd was attempting to redefine "cabal". There are other examples in his writings, and I have seen it used many times both off- and on-wiki. On the other hand, I think my previous edit summary was probably more substantive - at least in the gastronomic sense. Risker (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this was an ill-conceived reference to Mark Sanford. You guys work hard for a generally unappreciative audience, so I would be the last person to question the commitment of anyone on the Committee. I should learn to keep my mouth shut. :) MastCell Talk 17:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe! I didn't even know about Mark Sanford!  I really did assume you were being a bit cheeky in a humourous way.  There must be something about Argentina...last night I was working on Ricardo Asch, another Argentinian with an interesting history.  Risker (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know how Americans are. We assume that everyone knows and cares as much about our politicians and their personal foibles (so much more interesting than public policy debates!) as much as we do. It was quite the scandal here, for about a week or so. The unscheduled trip to Argentina was employed as a metaphor for, well, all sorts of things. Hence my amusement on the case page. :) MastCell Talk 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Light Article
Risker, the situation at the speed of light really does now need administrator intervention. Somebody else has gone to AN/I in an attempt to get Brews ohare off the page. And Tim Shuba has now removed an important paragraph from the history section. I wrote that paragraph explaining how Maxwell derived the speed of light from experimental results of Weber and Kohlrausch regarding the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio. That is a very important aspect of the topic. Alot of the current controversy is over how things have changed since 1983. It seems that the experiment in question has been phased out of the textbooks since the new definition of the metre. But that is no excuse to remove references to it in an historical section. The pageban on me clearly altered the balance against Brews ohare and Abtract in the dispute. It was a completely biased and ill-considered knee-jerk reaction to a spurious complaint. It has given Tim Shuba a carte blanche to re-write history and eliminate aspects that he doesn't want to be reminded of.

I was prepared to leave the matter alone, but after Tim Shuba entered and removed that section, that I took quite a bit of time preparing, then it became obvious that these guys are going to steam roll their own point of view over the article unless there is administrator intervention. Their point of view is basically to state the most modern approach and to delete all explanations, or mentions of the old way. David Tombe (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on the Arbcom notice board
I realize that as an arbitrator you are entitled to police the arbitration pages. However, I think this comment was hasty. Asking those objecting to being compared to Nazis to stop complaining about it is probably not the swiftest thing. The Nazi accusations must be removed one way or another - it's untenable that anybody on Wikipedia would use their talk page to call their perceived Wikipedia adversaries Nazis. There must surely be policies on this, but beyond Wikipedia policy that is a basic matter of decency, for people not to call each other Nazis. All of the trouble here is coming from a single editor who is acting out, with no supporters or defenders other than themselves, and it would be helpful to actually do something about it rather than waste everyone's time trying to warn all sides. Arbcom is the last stop for resolving behavioral matters and, like it or not, the parties to an Arbcom case have room to comment and make their case there as it involves them. Some comments are clearly more germane and actionable than others. Objections to the Nazi label are relevant. Nevertheless I have removed my comment from that forum. If not me, plenty of others share my disquiet. Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Wikidemon: I have copied your comment to WT:AC/N and responded there. While I do see your point, that is not the appropriate place to raise it.  Risker (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I considered that carefully, and believed that a message here on your talk page was the most direct, least dramatic way to raise this. I am fully ready to file a request for enforcement over being called a Nazi.  However, as I just mentioned on AC/N just before seeing this (I was trying to avoid that forum, per your request), I do not think that making a procedural mountain out of a misbehavior molehills is the most effective or efficient way of dealing with trouble.  Any administrator can look at an editor's talk page where he is calling other people Nazis, and tell him to cut it out.  This is not the stuff of Arbcom.  The fact that this occurs in the context of an Arbcom ruling where he is prohibited from doing so is neither here nor there.  It's simple disruption and could be dealt with as such.  Only, per Arbcom's ruling, I'm not supposed to interact with this editor, and out of an abundance of caution I won't even complain outside of Arbcom when he calls me a Nazi.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While you are correct that any admin can take action, contrary to popular belief the Arbcom noticeboard is not regularly watchlisted by a lot of admins, and especially isn't a very watched page on a summer Saturday night (as it is in most of the world where admins are still awake). WP:AE receives considerably more attention. Except in truly urgent situations (e.g., serious privacy violations), arbitrators don't enforce the Committee's decisions because it gives the appearance of acting as both judge and enforcing police officer. In this case, it may well be that I am the only admin awake who happens to be observing activity on that page. I do respect your intention of trying to keep the drama down. Risker (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. I'll try to slow this all down.  I do think that many admins are slow to enforce arbcom decisions or even get into arbcom territory for fear of not doing it right.  But anyway, you too should probably log out, enjoy a nice gin fizz or iceberg lettuce salad or whatever, and we'll see where this is in the morning! - Wikidemon (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rules on Topic Bans
Risker, I have a query regarding the rules on topic bans. It was suggested by some editors at the recent AN/I thread that Jehochman acted outside the rules of the system when he declared the page ban on me. Apparently if the rules had been properly adhered to, I would first have had to have been given a warning. This warning in itself would have been interesting considering that I hadn't edited on the main article page in question for seven days and had played no part in the recent edit war.

Although the edit war is still raging, and although I haven't been involved on the talk page since the time of the page ban, Jehochman has just upgraded the page ban to a full topic ban of which the interpretation is somewhat grey. For example, does it extend to Faraday's law and Ampère's circuital law which collectively touch on the speed of light? Once again, Jehochman's actions appear to have been done in an arbitrary and totally biased manner without any justification whatsoever and outside of the rules. My question is, 'do I have to abide by this topic ban?'. If it has been unconstitutionally imposed, then either it is void, or else there is no point in the rules existing. I'd be most grateful if you could clarify this point. And once again, I'd be grateful if you could take note of the fact that I was only involved for a short time in what has been a prolonged dispute that is still ongoing, and yet nobody else has so far had sanctions brought against them.

May I suggest that Jehochman be requested to commence the proceedings from the beginning, giving concrete evidence of what I am supposed to have done wrong, followed by a warning to cease this conduct. If I am given a fair warning to cease any misconduct that it can be shown that I am guilty of, then I will obey the warning. David Tombe (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Risker, Is there a procedure for topic bans, or can an administrator "hereby implement" an indefinite topic ban? I have been topic banned in relation to an ongoing dispute that I was only involved in for a short period of time. That dispute is still raging on many pages and nobody else has been sanctioned. No procedure was carried out in the implementation of the ban against me. No adequate reason was supplied. Can I please have some advice on the legitimacy of this action? There either is a procedure or there isn't. David Tombe (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi David, thank you for your comments here. Topic bans are an interesting point; for some articles or topic areas, we have existing general sanctions that any administrator can apply, and the range of sanctions will often include topic bans. For other areas, we don't really have set rules.
 * I see that there is a proposal to bring this entire matter to the Arbitration Committee, which is where I had a feeling it would wind up. Due to some real life deadlines that I have to meet, I will probably not be participating in the case; my current arbitrator status is "inactive" except for two cases on which I am currently voting. I do, however, encourage you to prepare a brief statement for the Committee outlining key issues from your perspective - there is a 500 word limit for these initial statements, and further evidence can be added when the case is accepted. Hope this is helpful.  Risker (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Risker, Thanks for your reply. The topic ban has now been lifted anyway, and I have made a suggestion on the arbitration noticeboard that user:Sbyrnes321 be allowed to write a compromise article. I have edited with Steve before and I think that he would be perfect for this particular task if he is willing to undertake it. This is not an ordinary situation. Something radical needs to be done here to break the deadlock, and I think that this new experiment needs to be tried out. The nature of that 1983 definition was a recipe for endless dispute, and so something impartial needs to be done to get all the disputing parties off the hook without loss of face, and also to give them a break. David Tombe (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

CP site
Thanks I'll see what I can do.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No the URL is not on Wikipedia as far as I know. I did report it anonymously to www.asacp.org and I'm waiting for their response by email. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for you, SuaveArt. It is not an easy step to take, reporting something like that, but I believe it has the potential to be very helpful. Don't worry if you don't get a response, if they are getting swamped with email or have a high request-to-volunteer ratio they may prioritize getting the information to the right authorities over letting you know what happened. Best, Risker (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser question
Is it fairly certain that Max Antean is a sock of Pioneercourthouse? If so, it would explain a number of things. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say it is about 95% certain. Does that help? Risker (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. That will enable me to post "the rest of the story" at the WP:ANI thread on Axmann8. I am also now about 95% certain that those various Axmann8 impostors from last spring were also from PCH. Max Antean, in case you didn't notice, is an anagram of "ax mann ate". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And now one more question: Axmann8 himself turned up today after a 4 or 5 month absence. It might just be a coincidence. But is there any possibility that Axmann8 is also Pioneercourthouse? I'm inclined to think not, but there's no figuring the behavior of trolls. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very unlikely from what I can see, but I have not run a current checkuser as he's not fully misbehaving at the moment. He would have, however, had to move awfully far to fall into the same range. Risker (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless PCH is doing something tricky. But their behavior is different too, so we'll leave this be for now. Thank you for all your help on this. At least we have one mystery solved. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

12Emu
Just letting you know since you blocked him, new user last night right after your block of Quince Quincy, seems to be an obvious sock. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dayewalker. I'm going to keep my eye on that one, but it seems to have gone quiescent. Risker (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with BLPs!
Thank you, Lar. This was a worthy experiment to see what needs to be done in the BLP area. I am not convinced that all of our problems are solved; when I was cleaning out my watchlist the other day, I realised that almost 2/3 of the articles I am watching are BLPs where there have been problems - and I have a good sized watchlist even after the culling! Glad I could be of assistance in this trial. Risker (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I've been swanning about wiki ever since. Ta for the new powers, and take no notice of Ottava. Ceoil (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Autoreviewer status? You must have missed Ceoil's last article creation, which went "Ceoil, Eschoir, (1972—?) is an dope Wikipedia editer with over than 30 k-large contribs, currently seaking Otto Reviewah privs"? Outriggr (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Our mutual friend (?) ["(?)"?--O.] Outriggr will probably be heartbroken to read this... (Ceoil's page). Very predictive—I hadn't seen that when I wrote above. (Your mother wears army boots has never been created? Surely it has a history worth discussing, and has been used in a lot of movies.) Outriggr (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, stunning that such title has never actually been used! And the question mark was related to my uncertainty about your relationship with Ceoil rather than me.  You are, of course, a friend to me and always welcome here.  Mind you, I do sometimes have some rather odd visitors when one looks at the page history...  Risker (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. Everything was sarcastic save the middle sentence. ;) In articles, we might be better off with "(?)" then . Your visitors don't scare me. I'm never vandalized, never have been, never will be. No sir. It hasn't happened yet, despite my extensive efforts to build consensus at contentious topics like Canada as 51st state and List of Wikipedia Arbitration Committee critics (OMG, they deleted it again—censors!). Outriggr (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just moved. It was so long the servers were groaning. Risker (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. I came to correct myself and further derail your talk page. I thought Peppermint Patty in Peanuts referred to people as "Sir". According to our article, Patty's friend calls her sir--so it might have appeared that I was comparing you to Peppermint Patty--and myself to Marcie--which was not the case, and for which there is no basis in fact. Outriggr (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker, if Outriggr is hasseling you, I have ways and means. I'm a problem solver by nature; you needn't worry about the details ;). For the record, I'm very fond of Outriggr, but business is business. Anyway, here is a nice tune by that nice Brian Ferry from that nice concert, as a thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ummm ....
 — Ched :  ? 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh for pity's sake. ;-) Risker (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, fascinating. I see that the ideal you attempt to live up to in your cartoon is "they care only that the information is correct". And yet you've said your editing and administrator actions in the past few days have been very borderline, which is beneath you . Two of us have asked you to substantiate this apparently unfounded allegation, and indeed I wondered if this was going to be another "slang-and-run". It appears from your banner above that it is. Don't you think it is time to update your cartoon, with something along the lines of "our readers may care, but I really don't care if what I say is correct or not"? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gimme a break. I've been divesting myself of onwiki activities for the past week, and have been listed as "inactive" on the Arbitration Committee list and clerk noticeboard for any new cases. I'm really not that hard to find, you know. Talk page has been here all along, and the email this user button works. I'm sorry I didn't immediately respond to your comment on the talk page, but I took it off my watchlist before you made your comment.
 * Sorry guv. You can't just make inflammatory comments and then run away saying "gimme a break". And you are rather glossing over the fact that SBHB asked you to justify your comment too - and you edited the page after he said that, so you were still looking then William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You were edit warring on Heaven and Earth (book) to the point that the page had to be protected, after which you used your administrator permissions to tag the page. In case you had forgotten, administrators are held to something of a higher standard of behaviour, and the Arbitration Committee has desysopped administrators with a history of edit-warring. And using your administrator permissions to make even an innocuous edit on a page that has been protected in part because of your own actions is unacceptable. Keep in mind that a similar innocuous edit is what triggered the case you are answering to right now.
 * What I said is indeed correct - your editorial and administrator behaviour was beneath you. I rather doubt this sort of nonsense would be considered acceptable in academic circles, either; at least they wouldn't be in the academic circles I am associated with. Risker (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That really is pathetic. Adding a protected tag to a protected page is just good form. You'll notice that no-one has seen any reason to change it. Calling that a questionable admin action is utterly bizarre. You've completely lost the plot. If you are so delicate about admin actions, why are you not in the least sensitive to Cla edit warring on the same article, followed immeadiately by Viridiae protecting it to Cla's version - when V is a clear partisan in this case, on Cla's side? It appears that only certain admin "abuse" is of interest to you. The edit warring stuff is dubious too; but its the admin actions that are of interest there so I won't muddy the waters William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither Cla68 (a non-admin) nor Viridae (the protecting admin, who no doubt protected in the wrong version) are under the close scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee with respect to allegations of inappropriate administrator action. Look at what you have just written, WMC; you have excused your own action of tagging the protected article in practically the same (if considerably fewer) words as Abd defended his edit to Cold fusion that led to the case under which your conduct came under scrutiny. In that case, you felt his behaviour was unacceptable and provocative; even by the lens of your own standards, your action there was inappropriate at best.
 * I think this discussion has gone as far as it can. I rather doubt you will change your perception of your own behaviour, or mine for that matter. That's okay; I don't insist that everyone share my point of view. Risker (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is nothing but rhetoric, worthy of Abd (though insufficiently wordy, I'll grant you). But I agree; you're not going to agree; this is better discussed on the arbcomm page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Risker, are you arguing that adding the usual tag to a protected page is a controversial act? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, SBHB. I am stating that an administrator whose own edit-warring is directly involved in the need for protecting an article is acting provocatively and controversially by using his administrator access and editing the article for any reason when it is in a protected state. WMC had other options, for example, asking the protecting admin to correct his error, posting at WP:AN, posting on the talk page of the article. There was no need for him personally to have added that tag. He was clearly involved in a content dispute on the page and, as such, should not have used any administrator tools in any manner with respect to that article. Risker (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are arguing that adding the usual tag to a protected page is a controversial act. Wow. Just... wow. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC).
 * SBHB, it would not be controversial for User:Prodego to have added it. Or User:Chillum. Or the vast majority of the 1600 or so people with administrative permissions. But for a handful of administrators whose primary involvement in the article is as an editor, yes it is a controversial act. Risker (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (adding) You and WMC may not be aware of this, but I have acted in my capacity as an administrator with respect to this article prior to this event, and am well aware of the issues with that article. There have been BLP concerns about it from early on, and I have previously protected it because of edit warring. It was on my watchlist until September 10th, at which point I culled several hundred pages from my watchlist due to my impending wikibreak. To see an administrator first violate at least the spirit if not the letter of the BLP policy by repeatedly adding a section into an article while it was currently under discussion, to the point that his edit warring led to page protection, would have caused me serious concerns at the best of times. This was not the best of times for WMC, by any stretch of the imagination. There was no emergency here, he was not correcting vandalism or a BLP violation, and he was directly involved in the conflict that led to the page protection in the first place, so WMC would have been at the bottom of my list of administrators who should have been adding that tag.
 * And now, I am off-wiki for (I hope) a brief period while I address some real-world matters. Risker (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Emails and clerking
I've responded to emails. I've fully clerked and closed two cases. More information is in the emails. Let me know if you have any further questions. <font face="times new roman"> hmwith  ☮ 08:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators
Hello Risker: How do you think I should move forward in creating the article User:Varks Spira/Wikipedia administrator outside of the draft mode? Do you have any critiques about its composition so far? Varks Spira (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be getting somewhere, although I am not convinced you've demonstrated notability yet. Every website has administrators, and we don't have an article on them; if mentioned at all, it is as part of the article about the website. I'd expect a lot more sources to be available if the subject is independently notable. Most of the reference sources are primarily about Wikipedia itself, not its administrators. Give yourself more time, there might well be more information out there you just haven't had a chance to find. I am hesitant to put it into article space yet; when one works hard on an article, it's not very rewarding to see it put up for deletion or merge as soon as it exists, and I have a feeling that might happen in its current state. You're obviously working on it though, so I am happy to let you keep developing it; what is there now is certainly a lot closer than what you started out with, so you're heading in the right direction. Risker (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say that I have not yet demonstrated notability? Wikipedia administrators govern one of the top ten websites on the 'Net. Their decisions to delete articles or restore articles are significant, even though they are guided by the discussions held beforehand. They are capable of protecting articles so that only a select few can edit the articles, and they are capable of banning editors. Varks Spira (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. Google admins remove websites from the most popular search engine in the world, and thus probably have a much more significant effect on information flow than all of the Wikipedia admins put together. No article. Facebook admins can remove anyone from their system, as can Myspace admins; not even a peep about them. Oddly, no designated article about Youtube admins either. In fact I can't see an article about administrators of any of the top websites. So there has to be something more than simply that they administer a top 10 website. I'll tell you honestly that most administrators of small websites have a greater impact on that particular site than any single administrator has here on Wikipedia. Based on your last response, it strikes me that you're trying to write an article about the point where one notable subject and one semi-notable subject meets (Wikipedia and website administrator, the latter of which is just a subsection in a larger article); however, you haven't been able to find enough third party reliable source information to support your thesis. Maybe there is more information out there to support it, and maybe there will be over time but those sources haven't been written yet. At this point, I think it would be possible to merge some of this material into a new section in the Wikipedia article, but I just can't see this article standing alone yet. Risker (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I counter that already a few Wikipedia administrators have their own individual articles. Witness Simon Pulsifer as a lead example. How many of those other top ten websites have administrators that have their own articles at Wikipedia or have been newsworthy? I think there is some notability in the fact that other Wikipedia administrators have been discussed by the media. I'll be adding a little bit about Simon Pulsifer to the draft article. Varks Spira (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that I am going to require editors from the versions of Wikipedia in different languages to help me out. The article is mostly biased toward English Wikipedia because I'm only reading English news articles. Though this must be a problem in all articles, right? I have a tid about Spanish Wikipedia administrators. Can you tell me if there are differences in administrator culture and privilege amongst the different Wikipedias? Are English Wikipedia administrators better known and do they have better access to the Wikimedia Foundation board? Varks Spira (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I don't know a great deal about administrators from other projects, and have never really given the matter much thought. I'm not even sure if there is a list of all administrators in the WMF projects.¶ As to WP admins who have their own articles, I would ask you if they are notable because they are Wikipedia administrators, or if they are notable for another reason. Simon Pulsifer, for example, is notable for his editorial contributions, not his adminstrator contributions. Other administrators (and editors) have articles about them, but they are coincidental to their work here on Wikipedia, generally speaking. ¶ Have you found any articles that specifically focus on the role of a Wikipedia administrator, or are administrators mentioned "in passing" while discussing a larger topic? Risker (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Several of the articles I'm using as sources are centered on the role of a Wikipedia administrator. Essjay was scandalous because he was an administrator. CAMERA was intent on having ten Wikipedia administrators so that they could have greater influence on Israel-related articles. Over and over again, Wikipedia administrators step into a controversy with a Wikipedia article and become authority figures. You're right about Simon Pulsifer, not especially known for being an administrator. I've got more research to do, and I'm starting to think about categorizing, or sectionalizing, the different ways in which Wikipedia administrators are noted. However, I would like to be working on a normal article rather than by myself in the draft mode. At what point can I get out of draft mode and how? Thanks for all the help. Varks Spira (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmmno, Essjay was scandalous because he cited his false credentials in dispute resolution; in fact, I think (although am not certain) that he was doing that even before becoming an administrator. DS (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an all around bad dude, but it was significant that this behavior was exhibited by an administrator. Administrators aren't always honest and in this circumstance it got wide coverage. Simon Pulsifer sounds like an all around good guy, and it is significant that he's an administrator. These high profile administrators should be discussed in this draft article, I think. Who are some other noted administrators that I haven't yet discussed? Varks Spira (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

<--(unindent) Well, since neither you nor I worked with him or encountered him, I think it's unfair to characterize Essjay as a "bad dude". One of the challenges I've seen on the site is that if someone makes an error in judgment early in their editing career, it can dog them for the rest of their editing life, without any way to set the record straight. I wish Essjay no ill will; as I recall, several editors undertook to review Essjay's relevant content edits and found that any concerns about the content had long since been resolved by the time he left. As to other "high profile" administrators, I think the reason you aren't finding a lot is that we as individuals aren't noteworthy, nor are our adminstrator activities. Also, please be careful of blanket statements like "administrators aren't always honest", which is a statement I find unacceptable on this page. The overwhelming majority of administrators just quietly edit away, using their tools periodically to improve the encyclopedia or help mop up a mess. Risker (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I didn't meant to pass judgment on anyone. Varks Spira (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may comment here: Varks Spira, I think you are overestimating the significance of the administrator role. Really we're regular editors with access to a dozen extra buttons that don't do a heck of a lot, and while some are fairly powerful, we're not special individuals. Regards, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to do that. I'm writing an article about Wikipedia administrators just to tell others about what it is that they do. I'm still not completely informed about how to do things around here, and to be honest I have kind of been overloaded with all the policies that administrators and editors have pointed me towards. Varks Spira (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Your revert
You and the Arbcom are fully aware why and vertainly don't need me to tell you. I suggest you re-instate and read that secret evidence again and again and again. Giano (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, would you or some other responsible Admin (is there such a thing anymore) please lift the sanctions imposed by Sandstein on Russavia, something which Sandstein is refusing still to do. Giano (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, following the user in questions' request to be added to the case, and given their solid rationale for being "involved", I added them: diff. Daniel (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to RfA
Since Franamax is active around ArbCom topics, you obviously know more than I do. Please feel free to nominate yourself, per my rationale listed at Franamax's talk page.  ceran  thor 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

on Carrie Fisher page...
Hey Risker,

I'm the Wiki-newbie who edited the Fisher page. I wasn't the one supposing James Blunt had PTSD, Carrie Fisher said it herself, about four lines down on this link:.

It may not be true, but Fisher at least was suggesting that it was. Should I write instead "Some have supposed--Carrie Fisher, namely--that Blunt has PTSD..."?

Also, I just did a quick google search and one of the first hits also suggested that this might be true:.

Do I just need more documentation?

...[time elapsed]...

Ah, I just checked your page and discovered you're like a James Blunt buff. I wasn't trying to step on any toes--I just figured that Fisher's observation was interesting, and in a cursory read, the wiki page on Blunt didn't say anything about Kosovo's mental/emotional effect on him--just that he was there and it inspired him to write a songs, philanthropy, etc. (Or did I miss it?)

Anyway, the Vanity Fair interview w/ Carrie Fisher wasn't even listed in the Blunt bibliography, but I thought adding it would be worthwhile in itself.

Is that not so?

(This was added by Jim37hike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim37hike (talk • contribs)


 * Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. Let's first look at the Carrie Fisher quote:

"Oh please! If it was moi, I would be like, “All right, James, put down the lyric book and show me some bedroom judo."

''Yeah, like on your knees. No, I have a little more class than that. I am a very discreet human when it comes to other people. I don’t tell.''

O.K., so something happened.

''Absolutely not, but I did become his therapist. He was a soldier. This boy has seen awful stuff. Every time James hears fireworks or anything like that, his heart beats faster, and he gets “fight or flight.” You know, he comes from a long line of soldiers dating back to the 10th century. He would tell me these horrible stories. He was a captain, a reconnaissance soldier. I became James’s therapist. So it would have been unethical to sleep with my patient." '' (note reference in section above)

Do you see the words post-traumatic stress disorder or anxiety in that comment? Does Fisher hold accreditation to make these diagnoses? No, and no. She is voicing her own opinion. What she says is hearsay, at best. The entire interview is rather tongue in cheek. As a side note, I think you are making far too much of Blunt's temporary residence at Fisher's home; in other interviews she has described her home as something of a "Grand Central Station" for a multitude of musicians and actors who have passed through her doors.

Now let's look at the second link:

"James Blunt's PTSD Song

''Recently James Blunt told 'Picking Up the Peaces' that his song 'Cry' was written about PTSD. Prior to embarking on a career in music, James was an officer in the Life Guards, a reconnaissance regiment of the British Army, and served under NATO in Kosovo during the conflict in 1999. Here's a snippet of his lyrics..." ''(copyright excerpt from the song "Cry" not included here, link to the website is second reference above)

He says the song is about PTSD, not about him having PTSD. The lyrics (which are available on his website) imply that he is writing about a friend, not himself.

This isn't anything to do with my interest in the work of James Blunt, this is good old fashioned encyclopedic standards, and I happened to notice it because I keep the BLP articles I edit on my watchlist. One cannot add a statement like "XXX also seems to have been afflicted with some form of anxiety disorder or PTSD due to his service in YYY" without impeccable sourcing that specifically uses those diagnoses in a credible way. That's the standard for any biography, in fact for any article. Hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread
The ANI thread You claim here that I edit warred. I believe you are mistaken, and would ask you to check the facts. While I reverted two pieces of vandalism by him once each, when he reverted back, I let the matter stand. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 14:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Shoemaker's Holiday. I hear what you are saying; the impression I get from reading the history and progression of edits is a borderline edit war (something that applies whether or not what one's edits are factually correct). Unfortunately, you and Thekohser are a bit like oil and vinegar; he has managed to find ways to push your buttons, and I can understand why it's difficult to resist, as he can be very annoying. What I'd like to see you work on is becoming a little more self-aware of situations and editors that trigger your defensive reactions, because I realise that these things can escalate quickly and become very trying for you. This will not be easy for you (nor is it for any of us), but I think it may help you to find some greater peace when editing. You do some very good work here, and it would be good for the encyclopedia if we as a group can find a way for you to continue to experience successes while mitigating difficult situations. I'm not saying you need to grow a thicker skin; I just think it will be more beneficial to *you* if you can recognise early on when you're being poked by pointy sticks, and figure out the best ways to disengage from these situations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * University starts tomorrow. I'll be deprioritising Wikipedia accordingly, and suspect that'll help get a little perspective. Have some health issues, and, when you don't have much else you are able to do, what you can do is easy to obsess over. Once University starts, I'll have assignments and classes and such. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 19:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your continuing education, SH! Yes, I suppose that will require some significant refocusing of your energy. I hope your health issues resolve so that you will be able to best enjoy the cameraderie and intellectual challenges you're about to face.  Risker (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text recovery
Dear Risker, A tiny request, if you're around. Could you restore the talk page text of User talk:FierceBot to my page? I'd like to keep it, maybe. FierceBot was a friend of mine, sniff. Of course, when I made the account I didn't realize it violated a username policy (I wonder if sentient machines will at some point have the same restriction levied against them: do not use a suffix which suggests you're human!) Thank you, Outriggr (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahahahah! Thank you for my daily smile!  Tell you what, how about I move this to Outriggr's userspace? It will create dissonance in the harmony of nature if I leave it as a blocked user's talk page, but we get all kinds of weird stuff in userspace, and I'll put a notation on it.  Risker (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I was going to suggest email even, to avoid creating more nonsense diffs on wikipedia. But "moving" preserves everything most properly, so that sounds like a level-headed approach from a level-headed admin which I would !support. Will you "move" without a redirect so a) the user continues to 'not exist', per policy(?), and b) it is not directly associated with me? (It occurred to me later that I could ask the admin who deleted it, and save you the trouble, but when I think "helpful admin"... well ya know.) Thanks again, Outriggr (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Helpful? Me? I seem to recall messing up the first thing I did for you...ah, those were the days... Well, if I move it, then it would be to your userspace, which would mean User:Outriggr/FierceBot. (Of course we could always play with Ceoil's head and move it to User:Ceoil/FierceBot but I am not sure that would quite do the trick.) Otherwise, of course I could email it to you. So...umm...your decision. Risker (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The first redlink please. It will only be red until you proceed, so this is a note to your future self that you did not do it incorrectly because the action you performed in doing it correctly would have made the link Outriggr called "red" into a blue link. Outriggr (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ohh look, it's blue! got it right this time, I think ;-)  Risker (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Riskr! Here, Enjoy Pitcher of Me as Pup with Snack (circle 1999)! <font face="Comic Sans MS">DOGRIGGR (deflea) 23:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Thekohser
Thekohser has asked for his userpage to be restored, which was granted by another user. Should banned users be able to have their userpage? Given this edit I am not sure this was done in good faith.  Triplestop  x3  19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for discussion..
I'd like to invite your comment on an essay/discussion I just posted about the whole Law/Undertow etcetera thing User:SirFozzie/Alternate. I'd appreciate any input you have. (BTW, your semi on this page expires soon, want it extended?) SirFozzie (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Next steps for sock clarification
Hi Risker. Since your name is on the motion about Law/the undertow I thought you were the best Arb member to contact. It's pretty obvious on the Arb noticeboard talk page that there is some...disagreement...on whether it is acceptable for an administrator to cover for a user they know created a sock to violate a block/ban (and, even more disturbingly, some community members are blaming the whistleblowers). I think it is imperative that the community have a clear directive on whether this behavior violates policy or not. I know that events have snowballed pretty fast and the fallout will take a while to sort through, but is ArbCom considering a motion/clarification/etc to shed light on this issue? Does someone need to file an actual request for arbitration against the administrators in question so that the committee can rule on it? Would this be better served as an RfC, and if so, a user RfC or a policy RfC? I'd appreciate any guidance you can give on what the next steps might be. Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Philcha has approached me on my talk page about an RfC. He's also contacted Tony1. Just FYI, Karan. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From the tone of that post, it appeared he was focusing more on where we should draw the line for the account running the sockpuppets. I'm more disturbed right now with where we draw the line for administrators who cover them up. Karanacs (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it looks like Jehochman has filed a request for arbitration. Karanacs (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(I'm still going to answer you, since I spent the last half hour writing this) Well, this would be a perfect topic for discussion at Advisory Council on Project Development, a group of editors from across the project with a broad range of experience and knowledge who could put together an improved policy that addresses many of the non-obvious problems that come with simplistic or reactionary solutions....oh wait. (Sorry for being sarcastic, but that was exactly what the ACPD was intended to do.) The issue is that there are many competing policies involved. The policy on alternate accounts (I detest the word "sockpuppet", it sounds like something involving 4-year-olds) outlines many acceptable uses for alternates, and the bot policy actually requires them, and there's been at least one arbitration case where an editor was instructed to create separate accounts for certain tasks. The Foundation's policy is that anyone can edit as long as they are being productive. The fact that everyone is a volunteer means that nobody can be required to do certain things. In earlier times, when having an edit count in the tens of thousands wasn't a status symbol, a large number of editors maintained separate accounts for vandal fighting or working on specific areas; it wasn't just allowed, it was the standard of behaviour. Many of those editors are still with us, quietly working away and causing nobody any trouble or concern. I can think of one person who openly states that he does most of his actual article work as an IP, and has a higher than average "edit stick" rate; should we desysop him? How can we bring back good editors who have been seriously harassed onsite or as a result of their editing certain subjects? (This isn't exaggerating, we have had people seriously harassed in real life.) This is a big-tent question and I am concerned we won't get the answers from an RfC, because RfCs tend not to not attract the people who know what the issues are but have no interest in getting in the middle of a political bunfight.

The Arbitration Committee interprets the policy as it exists, and the sock policy is one that is extremely contentious. We have people who believe that editors should only use their real names, those who believe they should only have one account ever (i.e., not even allowed to have a fully declared secondary account), those who don't care one way or the other, and those who believe that editors should actually be required to separate their contributions. None of those things are currently in the policy, yet in the WT:AC/N thread from which this is stemming, there are vague references suggesting that there are tons of people routinely creating policy-violating alternate accounts, and that the Arbitration Committee knows all about who they are and is failing to act. Fact is, I'm simply not going to get worked up when someone sends me an email saying "User xxx is a sock, it's obvious, and I know because he's disagreeing with me on article zzz, please ban him immediately!" (That's not at all unusual, and you can substitute the words "abusive admin" for "sock"). Should we invest much time in investigating these things? Remember, most arbs are receiving around 100 emails a day on various subjects, and we all have to prioritize. I ignore pretty well anything related to unblock requests, and focus more on the oversight/checkuser issues and current cases.

As to the specifics of this situation, the best I can suggest is that there is no mandatory reporting of anything on Wikipedia, and never has been. To be honest, I don't think it's a great idea to impose one either; it's a volunteer project, after all, and one supposedly focused on developing an encyclopedia rather than maintaining complex social relationships. Do we want to create situations where we force people to choose between being productive, respected members of the community and going against their personal principles? (I may be an arbitrator and spend my wiki-time trudging through what appear to be primarily social issues, but every resolution I have ever proposed has been aimed at improving the likelihood that good content will come of it.) Take some extended time to think about what you really want here, and try to look at the bigger picture and the places that any proposal could affect. One of our biggest problems is that people tend to go and rewrite the rules based on single events without understanding the broader impacts, rendering policy nearly impossible to interpret consistently or reasonably.

These are just a few thoughts from my chair. Hope you find them helpful. Risker (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Karnacs asked whether it is acceptable for an administrator to cover for a user they know created a sock to violate a block/ban. You responded with a broad, general discussion about alternative accounts, which is thought-provoking but doesn't address the original question. Reading between the lines of your next-to-last paragraph it appears your answer is "yes," but I'd still be interested to read a specific answer to that specific question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason for not answering the more specific comment is that it is right now at RFAR, SBHB. If it's accepted as a case, we will have that discussion as a community. If not, then we can have that discussion as a community. I do, however, telegraph one specific opinion there: that the question is at the intersection of many competing policies. We all know that Karanacs is cloaking her very specific question about a particular administrator in a general question. I don't think ruling by talk page is a very appropriate way to address such things. Risker (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely understand, Risker, and I appreciate you offering this much of a detailed opinion given the other circumstances. You have a lot of good points about the existing alternate account policy/actual alternate account usage, and I agree with many of them.  You have a tough job; please know that I really do appreciate all of the work that you do. Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Risker. I can appreciate your need not to respond directly if that's one of the issues that will be decided in the case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker, that WPians participate voluntarily doesn't seem to be relevant to the enforcement of many behavioural rules. I don't understand why this one is different ("Because I'm here as a volunteer, not paid, I can operate multiple accounts" (and I can breach WP:CIVIL, 3RR, etc)"?). All we need is a strict requirement to declare the link between multiple accounts unless one has gained the permission of a CU not to (allowable circumstances set out at WP:ALT ACCOUNT). Making it hard will automatically restrict the number of undeclared second accounts to those that are worthy. I also like CKatz's idea on my talk page of an account-naming method such as "Ckatz/ontheroad" (although a link would still be required). Please see my simple proposal here. Tony   (talk)  03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony1, you might want to check my userpage under the heading "alternate accounts" for my list of alternates, some of which might surprise you. Most are obvious, but two are strictly to protect my non-Wikipedia activities, and they are not formally disclosed. I will tell you honestly that just about every truly active administrator, whether editing under a pseudonym or their own name, has probably been actively hunted in some way or another; it is my personal recommendation that people editing in high profile areas who do not use their own names log out and create a non-linked account under their real name. Mine is, as is required by policy and by my own ethics, revealed to the Arbitration Committee (which is where information on alternate accounts should be sent, not to an active checkuser, as we record this information on the Arbitration Wiki - you might want to update your proposal). Do we need to have that information if it is intended as a "never to be used" account like mine are?
 * In fairness, I do not intellectually have a lot of difficulty with the idea of recorded but not publicly acknowledged socks, as you propose there. It is not now policy, however, that such is required, and I am not willing to enforce a non-policy. Speaking as a checkuser and administrator, I don't always block accounts that are probably socks, and sometimes I don't even warn them, as long as they are just doing good edits to content, and not acting against policy (two voices in "formal" discussions, disruption, baiting other editors, and so on). Most of you who have commented on this page spend a lot of your participation time in the "formal discussion area", where it *does* make a difference, and I take the use of multiple accounts in those areas much more seriously. The dual use of the Law/The undertow accounts was not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination, and the user involved agrees and accepts this. Now, if I may...I believe that everyone, no matter on which point in this discussion they fall, would benefit from reading this particular statement by Protonk. Whether he realises it or not, he has largely described one of the issues on this project that the Arbitration Committee has been working hard to address this year. Risker (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I might have sensed your collective concern about appearing too arbitrary or severe in posting that comment.  Obviously you guys understand that your decisions project forward as editor expectations.  The more variance and severity in your decisions the more editors will behave defensively in disputes (with things like law/undertow and EEML being only the most egregious examples).  That is not to say that the underlying problem isn't unsettling.  I've written and deleted a few elaborations on my previous sentence so I'll just leave it at that and avoid speaking too specifically about the dispute here. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also note that some technical details were obscured for the purposes of not letting the russians know what kind of protective features a S5W reactor has installed. :) Protonk (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Note re: ArbCom members
Hi Risker, I note at Arbcom under the "Structure" section, the list is noted as "accurate as of 25 August 2009" and you are shown as inactive. The list has since been very regrettably updated, so the accurate... statement at the least is not true. Also I'm not clear on whether your status has returned to active or not. Could you nudge a clerk to get that all in order? Thx & regards! Franamax (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, regrettably, I have been active in certain selected matters this week, although it was not my intention to be so; however, the list is mainly related to voting issues, and I am not at this time voting on acceptance of new cases, or in the Noloop or Speed of Light cases. This level of inactivity should end by the weekend, provided I get my RL projects complete by their scheduled deadline. Several of us temporarily activated to vote on a specific motion, but did not completely activate.
 * I will ask a clerk to please correct the date on the list. Thanks for your eagle eyes. And now that I think of it, I think you and I had another matter to discuss. :-)  Of course, I can understand if you might want to stay away from someone whose life contains so much drama...   Risker (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most everyone would agree that this has been a very regrettable week all-around. Do complete your RL projects, OTOH just think - if you don't do them and get fired, you'd have ever so much more time to devote to this project. ;) Yes, we have another matter to discuss (my potential RFA for anyone watching) and it's more a matter of me being RL busy a bit and needing to get some of my s--- together wiki-wise to give a coherent presentation. And what editing time I do have seems to get distracted by topics where I think I might actually be able to help out here today. It's definitely on my mind, and as a near-term goal no less. Just gotta go climb over that one more hill... ;) Franamax (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Poll
Risker, I think your removal of the poll was not a good idea, at least not once it had started. In reverting, you've inadvertently raised questions about the people who hadn't had a chance to respond. Would you consider restoring it? Any Arb not wanting to respond can simply ignore it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think removal of the poll was a fantastically great idea. It smacks of McCarthyistic, "What did you know and when did you know it?" I was shocked when CHL put it up, surprised when arbitrators actually started answering the question, relieved when Risker removed it, and mortified when CHL improperly used rollback to restore it, as if Risker's removal had been vandalism. This whole thing is turning into a dramatic circus, and it needs to end. This poll did nothing at all to resolve the situation. Unit  Anode  13:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Unitanode, I can't myself understand why asking this question is seen as illegitimate. If there are Arbs who knew that a banned user had returned and had gained adminship by lying to the community, that's pretty serious. If no one other than Casliber knew, then the matter is put to rest. It's particularly important to know who the involved parties are while there's an RfAr on the subject, for obvious reasons. It isn't right to taint people asking legitimate questions of elected members with McCarthyism. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see these questions as serving any legitimate purpose other than to attempt to make people guilty by association, which was what the "Are you now or have you ever been"-type questions were designed to do. I didn't think Cas should have resigned over it, and I don't want to see any more good arbitrators taken down by this seeming witch hunt. This fire needs to die, not consume everyone that was even nearby when it was started. All this poll (and other such attempts to "get to the bottom" of the issue) is doing is fanning the drama flames. Unit  Anode  13:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you cannot see that there is legitimate concern here. Perhaps if you find out a murder was committed, and various people lied, obtained false ids, got jobs for the murderer, etc, you think that once the murderer is in jail that finding out who in the police force and what judges aided and abetted him is just "fanning the flames" - and if you object to my overblown comparison, I remind you that you used the "MCCarthyism" which caused more lives ruined and more suicides than the 1929 stock market crash, and for no reason other than one small man's populism and sick religious fervor against a political view. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec) With all respect, McCarthy was asking about communism, a political party, protected under the Constitution, and one which during the 1930s gained some popularity and by the 1950s when he was conducting the HUAC hearings had become a bugaboo - tantamount to admission of satan worship in the popular mind - and was being used to condemn and ruin the lives of those who were merely friends of those who had attended a Communist party meeting once. In other words, persecution of those innocent of any wrong. This, OTOH, is not about any legally protected view. Its about what we now know is a cover up of administrators deceiving in order to promote to a position of trust one who created an account illegally while under ban. If you wish to use an historical allegory, this is more like the Watergate hearings, or Nuremberg. Wrongs have been committed, and a coverup committed; those in positions of trust have aided and abetted those committing those wrongs. It would reassure the community greatly to have this concern put to bed. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Historical side-note... "What did you know and when did you know it?" refers not to McCarthy or HUAC but to Watergate. "What did the President know and when did he know it?" was asked by former Republican Senator Howard Baker in regard to President Richard Nixon. Referring to it as McCarthyist is historically ignorant, at best. EdChem (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unitanode, here is the issue. We elect Arbs to enforce the rules, to be honest, and to have integrity. We recently discovered that one of them knew that an admin had explicitly and repeatedly lied during his RfA, had violated an ArbCom ban for harassment, and that his closest wikifriend, who knew all about this, had tried to gain access to oversight. The Arb who knew this did nothing to prevent it, and even deleted one of the user or talk pages in question so the trail was harder to follow. If that's not a resignation issue, then I don't know what is. Because there is now an RfAr about it before the Committee, we want to know whether any other Arb knew too, so that (at the very least) they are not part of the decision to accept or reject that case, and are not part of the process of deciding whether oversight was used correctly to delete an anon post that Law was The undertow. In arguing that this is not a legitimate question, you are saying it's all right for some editors to lie and cheat, evade bans, and fool the community, just because they want to. And it's all right for Arbs to enforce the rules against some, while completely ignoring them for others. And furthermore that we, as a community, have no right to know about this, ask about it, or know which Arbs do what. Now, why would you want to be part of a community in which that is happening so explicitly? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin: Please stop using the term "as a community" as if you are speaking for all of us. I don't wish to be involved in this but you do not represent me and I don't think you should speak as if you do. - Josette (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You all have fun chasing this down. I won't be a party to this, and I will lose all respect for any more arbitrators who resign because of it. (Cas, I can understand, because he was the first to be hounded about it.) Unit  Anode  13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not even remotely "fun" - it is awful and horrible, and I happen to agree with you taht Cas was a fabulous Arb and I am sick that the very qualities which made him such a good Arb compelled him to step down. Its all bad; there is no good in it. I'm really, really astonished you could be so snippy and hostile as to use the word "fun" to sarcastically belittle this sad situation. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you know that "have fun with it" (especially in the context in which I used it), is not a phrase intended to imply actual "fun." I think you also know, given the passion that I have shown here, that I don't mean it to "sarcastically belittle" the situation. It is a phrase designed to display my frustration and anger that there seems to be a move afoot to remove more good arbitrators (and Cas was one) because of it. That seems patently nonsensical to me, and I won't have any part of it. Hence, I was saying to those who would have some part of it, basically, "do what you will", which should have been obvious, but I guess it wasn't. Unit  Anode  14:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I answered the question, onwiki, yesterday, without anyone directly asking me. You can find the diff yourself and stick it in, if you want. Risker (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Humber Weir.JPG
File:Humber Weir.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Humber Weir.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed. I've removed the tag telling people to delete the local image. Every time something of mine is moved to commons, it gets messed up, so I have left the "local copy" tag in place. Thank you bot.  Risker (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker, your bot-tone is somewhat more polite than mine, but I still sense a dab, a jot, a smidgen, of "tone". (It could be just that you are talking to a bot. I'm not sure.) Please remember that bots like our fried friend FierceBot are the wave of the future; he and his brethren will be much more "in tune" with what we have to say to them, and equally less patient. ;) Outriggr (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point, Outriggr, although I will confess that my patience has been wearing very thin in recent days. At one point I was ready to make a motion to send a significant chunk of the Wikipedia editorship to bed without dinner, and not return to the wiki until their rooms were spotless.  Fortunately, I was able to quell that idea. And, um, I did say "thank you" to the bot...  Risker (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

MSN
Hi! I'm a Wikipedia user and I want to talk with users of this wiki. If you can, please add me: mateuzinhow_@hotmail.com. Thank you :) Tosão (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't use MSN, so I am afraid we won't be meeting there.  Risker (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bears and foxes
I nommed Jacques Plante at WP:TFA/R here, so take a look when you get a chance.  Maxim (talk)  01:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maxim, that is the best idea I have heard all day. In fact, all week. Possibly all month. Now that I think about it, all year. Thanks!  Risker (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

spam
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. WikiProject Administrator — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 04:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What an excellent idea, Ched! Do keep spamming, there's a list of administrators around here somewhere... I would dearly love to see administrators start to find common bonds, share experiences, establish standards, figure out who has particularly refined skills in different areas, and work like a team to maintain the encyclopedia. People keep forgetting that all the infrastructure and social contrivances in the world don't make a jot of difference in our product: the only purpose of administrative work is to make a better encyclopedia for our millions of readers. The overwhelming majority of our editors and administrators understand this and make it their primary purpose, and we all need to learn from them. I'm a tad busy at the moment, so won't sign up myself, but I strongly encourage others to give it serious consideration.  Thanks, Risker (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA
Nosey comment that doesn't belong on the Arbitration Request Page: It looks from Jennavicia's perspective like a case of IAR, what's the normal punishment for that? a slap on the wrist or a trout (in teh land of en.wiki). This is more serious as it involves core community processes, so the slap might be with a belt than a gentle hand. It sounds like Glass Cobra was just lazy in review and as long as the handle was clean had no problems. The other item is it looks like undertow was ignorned by the committee on a request for unbann. I know there are tons of those and they mostly are rightly rejected as the nutters requesting have not reformed, but is there some mechanism to help keep the reasonable ones from dropping through the cracks? I've been away from en.wikipeadia for some time, but still think the project has great value. Hope you have a great day! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rocksanddirt, nice to see you back. I trust you will understand if I don't respond to your comments about the specific case you mention. This year's committee learned a lot from the trials and tribulations of last year (and other prior years), and the issue of lack of response to users was one of the things we took on early in the year. All emails sent to the Committee from non-members are logged on the Arbitration Wiki as a tracking mechanism, and receive some form of response tailored to the nature of the content (e.g., unblock/unban request, submission of evidence, general queries). We also set up a block/ban appeal subcommittee which specifically addresses block/ban appeals received, makes a determination on them, makes announcements onwiki for successful appeals, and also keeps a log of all appeals and the manner in which they have been addressed. Different methods of handling the appeals have been used, depending on the specifics of the case. Arbitrators take 3 or 4 month rotations through the subcommittee. These are both major changes in how the Arbitration Committee does business, and I think they have been very helpful both to those submitting requests/messages to the Committee, and to the Committee itself. It's not perfect yet, and I foresee that we will want to revisit block/ban appeals to see if more of that workload can be delegated or at least shared with community members next year, but I don't anticipate a change until the new members of the Committee are seated after the next elections. (That might be a really good question for candidates!)  Hope you enjoy your renewed editing.  Risker (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! It was actually way more detailed than i anticipated....;)  hope it all goes well!  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Oh hullo. I have emailed the mailing list at. (You don't have a listed email at the page Arbitration Committee). The message awaits moderator approval. My apologies for forgetting the password on the other one. --OSPAWAPOSP II (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think we received it, but I will check again when I am at my other workstation. You can also email me by clicking "email this user" from this page. Risker (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi OSPAWPOSP, I have reviewed the archives, and I don't believe we did receive your email. I have responded here but will also leave a message on this page. I am going to be away for a bit, so please don't email me. Instead, go to User:Arbitration Committee and click on "email this user" on the left side of the page. You'll get an email screen, and when you click send, it will go directly to the Arbitration Committee email address. We don't want to miss hearing about your concern.  Risker (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Both out of sincere gratitude and my love of self-referential humor: thank you for you self-labeled "Pollyanna" post. I too agree that these sorts of events expose ways our system can (and will) be improved, and I'm glad that optimism is shared by someone who knows Wikipedia well. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, also, for trying to calm the storm. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for dropping by. It's reassuring to know that every once in a while somebody hears my voice in the wilderness. :-) Risker (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note
take a moment to recognise another editor who's made a difference today, or perhaps made a thought-provoking comment. You do some damn fine work around here. It's a pleasure and an honor to have met you. All my best. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 20:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * diff ;) — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 20:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ched, your kind words mean a lot to me, and I appreciate that you've picked up the torch and run with it. Good on you. :-)   Risker (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Any time for another article review?
I've just re-written space debris and I was wondering if I might get your eyes on it? It's long... Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you
Hello, Risker. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Bishonen 4, where you may want to participate. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I heard a rumor that some folks like hats ...




Cupcakes on one side of the page, beefcake on the other. What more could a girl ask for? Thanks to both of you! Risker (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cupcakes???
Sneaks in looking to get a snack Oh hi, Risker! Enjoying your break? :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave my cupcakes alone, SirFozzie. And, so far, it hasn't been much of a break. I step away for a minute and, well... Risker (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"There is nothing to resolve here."
Per RfC/U, I will attempt to resolve this -


 * 1. Could you please state when you knew of Geogre being Utgard Loki.
 * 2. Could you please state why you defended him during various edit wars.
 * 3. Could you please state why you joined up with both of them at various ArbCom pages, FAR pages, and other discussions and defended his argument during times that there was a sock puppet present.
 * 4. Could you please state why you claimed that you feel that he did nothing wrong when you did realize that the two were the same, when it was clear that there was a long combative history with the user in which many practices, including edit warring and incivility, happened with you in the discussion over the period of a year.
 * 5. Could you please explain why your response to Yellow Monkey was never a true admittance of the relationship and you failed to comment when both Geogre and Utgard Loki appeared on your talk page posing as separate people.
 * 6. Could you please explain why your statement regarding this directly contradicted many of the facts, especially when you claim that you never benefited when you were party to many discussions that did benefit from the extra consensus.
 * 7. Could you please resign from ArbCom for this severe breach of trust and not notifying the Arbitration committee of this during many incidents involving the matter.

Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's just a whole bucket of wrong, Ottava. I request you resign from Wikpedia for perpetuating endless drama and demanding unreasonable amounts of attention be directed at you. Of course I don't think you'll do it, and I would never seriously request or demand someone resign from anything, but this is another of your ridiculous campaigns that add absolutely no quality to how things will be fixed or run in the future.

Other editors may be woefully unable for their various reasons to add to content (and yes, they should be embarrassed), but you can add to content and you choose to do this instead. I recognize the primary complaint that admins abuse their power from various users, but I have recently come to recognize that the complainants themselves have responsibilities. If admins are unable to behave themselves, that gives no right to editors to meet that level of misbehavior and ratchet it up. Model what you would like to see, Ottava. If this is it, then holy Christ, what a nightmare of a culture you perpetuate. I want none of it. Should it spread all over Wikipedia, I foresee a day when someone on their high white horse demands my resignation from...whatever it is I do...for not telling you to STFU and get to work adding content already. When did you notice Ottava Rima was a bully who is so narrowly focused on his individual agenda that review processes (topic banning a user from FAC), site governance (above), and a general collaborative atmosphere were consistently compromised, Moni? Why didn't you say anything about it, Moni?

So to pre-empt that, here's my voice at least telling you to cut it out. Look at what these little societies do to us. We get so wrapped up in them and so focused on our individual places within them that we do not step outside and shift perspectives. Your sole power is in constructing content, Ottava, but you are convinced your place in the scheme of editors, admins, and arbs is so worth defending that you neglect your true purpose here to chase this. It's not. Your place is nothing. This society is nothing. It is fleeting and ephemeral. No matter how you force your self-importance on others, that will not change. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Moni, do you think her aiding in the actions of a sock puppet and making misleading comments at ArbCom about her relationship with Geogre are appropriate? If you say yes, then I will leave Wikipedia. She aided in a year long harassment campaign against me that used socks to fake consensus and cause abuse. Do you know how much disruption that caused? How many lost hours? How many pages were destroyed because of what she aided? And does Risker feel remorse? I would really like to know if she does. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to follow any of this stuff, but there is certainly (and incredibly) a ridiculous amount of drama going on here that may or may not be related to what you guys are saying above. I was actually told that there is a lot of trouble with the administrators on Wikipedia before I wrote an article about the Oath Keepers. I can't see the "big picture" so this may just be the sensationalist side of the governance of Wikipedia. Anyhow, I'm writing an article about Wikipedia administrators here (and working on giving it a worldview, encompassing all the language-versions of Wikipedia): User:Varks Spira/Wikipedia administrator. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Post script: If you (I'm addressing anyone) know of any editors who are fluent in another language could you please ask them to collect sources about Wikipedia administrators in other languages and then incorporate them into my article? That would be very helpful and impressive. I've seen it done in other articles, using sources in another language. Varks Spira (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OR, if I jumped up and down and demanded you leave Wikipedia for my self-righteous reasons I doubt you would.
 * It's a simple concept: model what you want to see. Firmly correct those who seek to harm content. You get attacked by childish idiots because you are speaking their language for God's sake, fairly beckoning them like Sirens to Odysseus. You lost your own hours engaging them.
 * If Risker, one of the few arbs with whom I have a modicum of familiarity, actually resigns, what will be your next goal? Will it make you happy? Will it allow you to concentrate on your next article or GA review? Or will it, as I suspect, become inconsequential and simply a long-forgotten memory on your way to achieving a vague moral ideal which you have not defined, but which primarily consists of the other editors not opposing you? --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "demanded you leave Wikipedia for my self-righteous reasons" - I didn't demand for her to leave. I asked her to resign for ArbCom for being involved in Arbitration that had sock puppets cause problems and disrupt consensus along with making misleading comments about not knowing of any possible abuse by Geogre even though there was clear evidence of her defending Geogre while he was making said abuse. Casliber resigned for far, far less. And yes, having those like Bishonen and Risker no longer in positions of authority will help me edit because I am constantly being harassed by people they are connected to, with edit warring, attacks on pages, etc. These people continue (along with Bishonen doing the same) because they feel that they are defended by these two individuals. Thus, they are facilitating more corruption while it has already been demonstrated that they facilitated it before. This is problematic and damaging to Wikipedia as a whole. Moni3 - these people falsified claims in order to provoke destructions of multiple articles and pushed for multiple ban attempts against me built on a bed of lies. That is incredibly destructive. They have also gamed WP:FAC and WP:FAR. That is something I do not appreciate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on just a cotton-picking minute here: What is this balderdash, Ottava? And why the heck are you spreading your nonsense on this page? The "bed of lies" is your own, not mine. The onus of proof of malfeasance is completely on you; I have already been involved in dispute resolution in respect of this matter, and my explanation has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee. The case doesn't get to be retried because you're still ticked off about something that's already been addressed. I have had personal communication with YellowMonkey, who has also accepted my explanation. Much of it involves private information of which the Arbitration Committee was aware at the time, and I have no intention of sharing it with you.

Ottava, Geogre didn't harass you, he challenged you, and he is one of the few people to have bothered to do it. Most of us just walk away, knowing it will mean days, even weeks of wasted time and energy. In fact, I walked away from anything relating to you eons ago. You have no beef with me, you have a beef with someone who hasn't edited in two months and is unlikely ever to return. Your arguments are fabricated, unsupported, and assume bad faith to the point that I am surprised that Wikipedia hasn't taken the same steps that Wikipedia Review took some time ago in respect of you.

It is clear that you have no desire to resolve anything with anyone, Ottava Rima, only to perpetuate drama and hostility. You were unblocked to work on content, and here you are perpetuating exactly the behaviour you were just blocked for. You have badly abused the good faith of several other editors in your behaviour in this and many other disputes. Your continued pursuit of matters that have already been addressed by dispute resolution are unacceptable and not in the best interests of the encyclopedia, which is the primary reason that we are here. Disagreeing with you is not harmful to the encyclopedia, Ottava. Your moral outrage is out of place. As you have made it clear that you see only one satisfactory resolution to a problem that you cannot even bother to demonstrate exists, I have absolutely no intention of discussing this matter further with you. The dispute resolution system has already been implemented, a decision has been made, and it's time for you to get over it. Hyperbole, lack of perspective, unfulfilled desire for revenge, and overblown self-importance on your part do not mean malfeasance on my part.

No further posts to this page, please, Ottava Rima, now that you have made it clear you have no desire to resolve any issues; I will be removing further posts and will have no problems with other editors also removing them. If you have a question relating to a specific arbitration matter, post it in the body of that matter; if it is something directed specifically to me about that matter, ask a clerk to advise me. I have eschewed interaction with you for a very long time and I intend to keep it that way. Risker (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The onus of proof of malfeasance is completely on you" - I have proven that your statement at ArbCom about your knowledge of Geogre was false. You claimed that you never witnessed anything that would suggest that the use of the other account was inappropriate. You were involved in multiple discussions in which there was outright incivility, edit warring, harassment, ban attempts, and other problems. There is no way to make the claim that you made at ArbCom. No desire to resolve the issue? That is a direct fabrication. I stated above my desire to resolve the issue. "you see only one satisfactory resolution" Does not mean that I refuse to accept other outcomes. The two are quite different and you know that.
 * And this - "Geogre didn't harass you" so deleting a page while constantly berating my ability to write on two different accounts, and then using the accounts in order to push for blocks and even a ban against me is not harassment? I am honestly disappointed that you would even attempt such an argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, a desire for revenge? This shows quite clearly where I went out of my way over a -year- to try and work with Geogre and was ignored or shrugged off. That proves that there was no desire for revenge and that the hostility was one sided. Your claiming that I had a desire for revenge only proves that you are unwilling to admit any problems that you had and any involvement you had. There were FACs that were disrupted because of your support for Geogre. There were FARs that were disrupted because of your support for Geogre. There were good content editors blocked and banned because of your support for Geogre. There were pages destroyed and deleted because of your support for Geogre. There has been far more damage to the content here than any article creation or any process support you have given. This is a serious problem and you wont even apologize for your part in it all. I was working with Sandy during a lot of the harassment. I was working with DGG through a lot of the harassment. I was working with Malleus through a lot of harassment. There are dozens of others I was working with who witnessed the constant attacks on me and the constant problems. Your comments above are an insult to all of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean exactly by "I am surprised that Wikipedia hasn't taken the same steps that Wikipedia Review took some time ago in respect of you."? Varks Spira (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Break
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="Away" style="background:#dee; border:1px solid #00c; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;"><b>A former arbitrator told me once that too much dispute resolution was soul-destroying. I'm going to be spending a short time clearing off my real-world desks and replenishing my soul, soothing my hopeful heart. I'd started to this a few weeks ago and got rudely interrupted, so I'm going to try this again. It may take me a while to respond to any messages left here, and the same for any emails. Risker (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are very nice lyrics, Risker. I keep The Paradoxical Commandments next to my computer, in plain sight, for days such as these.  Enjoy your well deserved break.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Do take the well deserved break
Hi Risker, you really don't know me but I got brought here following some difs, not important at this time. You have a thankless job being both an administrator and also an arbitrator. Definitely take the wikibreak and stay away from here. It is good to spend some time away, I myself just did this recently. I don't expect an answer so don't worry. Go enjoy! :) -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RS/N comment about Life University situation
Note section there. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a copyedit
I'm working up an article in my userspace. It's not quite finished yet (I'm planning, perhaps, 250-300 more words), but I'd appreciate if you'd take your prettifying brush to it at some point. Unit Anode  19:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gave it a quick going over, a few copy edits and one tag for clarification. Looks pretty good. I assume you will finish up with more details about the assassination and perhaps something about his legacy?  Nice work.  Risker (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton! I've actually been thinking about how to approach his "legacy", since it's shrouded in such mystery. There are some historians that view him as nothing more than an opportunistic piece of trash, basically, and others that view him as something of a crusading reformer. Additionally, there's not been a ton written on him, apart from his assassination, but I'm going to see what I can find. I'm hoping for a move to the mainspace within a few days. Unit  Anode  16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a quick question, with regards to referencing the work. I don't particularly care much for in-line, as it detracts from the actual prose. I was wondering if you thought it would be acceptable to remove the inlines, and simply have a "Sources" section or some such thing, where I list my source material for the article? Thanks! U  A  17:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is unacceptable in an article, could you let me know the proper way to write the refs in such a way that they're properly formatted? U  A  01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops, sorry, I've been somewhat distracted, and neglected to answer your prior question. Generally speaking, the practice of omitting inline references has been deprecated, and has been for several years. The citation templates I tend to use are at Citation templates, but you can also check out WP:CITE for some simpler formats.  Curious that two people would ask about citations the same night!  Risker (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess I'll check those links out, and see if I can get it figured out. Thanks, U  A  03:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Risker. Thank you for the note on my page. It is precisely the point I'm trying to make (if I can only edit as Outriggr, then my name somehow proceeds me, and the edits can't be much good if the only thing stopping their reversion is my name). I'm not suggesting that my edits under another account were a "test" along those lines (the reality is that I've locked myself out of my main account... and I don't have to tell anyone about wiki withdrawals, not wanting to remain attached to an identity on wikipedia [the most overlooked legitimate reason for "allowing" "socks"], wanting to help a friend with an article, etc.)

But I came to ask an administrative question: are you allowed to protect my talk page for a week, say, so that I can "get away" from it? I am referring to User talk:Outriggr, and I confirmed in my last edit using that account that the account I am posting under now is 'me'. If you are able to, I'd first like to put the page in a neutral archived state before you do so. Miniature drama queen signing off, Outrigger (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha. I keep putting up that bloody wikibreak notice, and then never actually manage to get away. Moni's words are very wise. Just take a break for a while, take the dogriggr out on his dates, catch the game and spend a few evenings at seedy bars checking out the new bands. (Not sure which is more important, the seediness of the bar or the quality of the band, but either way the result is the same. I love it when my ears are still ringing two hours later.) Archive your page, go ahead; don't think I can really lock it down, but I will keep an eye. We'll be waiting when you're ready to return. Believe me, I know how hard it is to walk away, even for a while. The email addy still works, feel free to use it.  :-)  Risker (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the new bands. That's good advice. I haven't done that in a while. I love it when you find some band you've never heard of before and just have a really enjoyable night. Jazz is always a sure hit, but every once in a while some rock band makes the night. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To the Arbcom
I have no idea where to place this, as I have never brought a case or made an official complaint (amazing that isn't it) - I normally solve my own problems, but in these days where no-one now knows what is right or wrong - and blocks are for any length of time depending on the whim of the moment completely independant of the crime. Would one of you please look at Mattisse and her mentors (I am told you have passed some resolution concerning her) I am sick of the trolling against me on her page by her and her so called mentors. I avoid her and them as often as possible, but that seems to be no impediment to their continual sniping. Perhaps, it's time for a change of gaoler. Please post this wherever it is supposed to go. Giano (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Her mentors have reverted my reply on her talk - so here is my mesage to them, where they cannot revert. . I wish to have no contact with Mattisse or them. There is little to choose between them. Giano (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
Risker: I would appreciate if you would change your close down of discussion to begin at the end of my initial comment, which is pertinent and certainly not a violation of topic ban. This paragraph is significant in stating the full impact of the ban. The multiple back and forth following this initial comment is what should be hidden and closed down. Brews ohare (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Your opinion, as well as that of just about everyone else who commented there, is well documented in the case itself (as well as several other places). It does not also need to be on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard talk page. I've shut that section down, in its entirety, because none of the participants were blameless, and that includes you. Risker (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no suggestions of blame or controversy in my explanation of the ban, which simply places together various remarks from the Arbitrators and the statement of the ban in one place. Brews ohare (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Properly formatting citations in Wikipedia articles
Hello Risker: Can you please provide me with information about properly formatting citations in Wikipedia articles. I'm hoping to improve the citations in the article I started about the Oath Keepers. I've seen many different methods used and so I ask which method you think is appropriate for the Oath Keepers article and where are the instruction pages located? Thank you, Varks Spira (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably your best bet is to go to Citation templates and use those templates; that is generally where I go and what I use. See also WP:CITE for the minimum amount of information that is sought for citations. Hope this is helpful.  Risker (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban is an infraction of topic ban itself
Could you kindly clarify for me the basis for intrusion by Risker and further intrusion by MBisanz into the discussion of the ban itself as a violation of my topic ban against "physics-based topics, broadly construed"? I absolutely fail to grasp how a discussion of the ban implications and propriety constitutes a "physics-based topic". Moreover, the posting of the decision on my Talk page explicitly invites such discussion and provides a link to the location to post it.

I also have asked Hersfold for clarification. Brews ohare (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not be responding to this tonight; perhaps tomorrow night. In the interim, Brews ohare, I suggest that you have an evening or two off and think about why it is you are so determined to continue arguing; after all, that is a major part of why you were topic banned and placed under general sanctions in the first place. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone, and you're not listening very effectively. Risker (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to listen when discussion I'm trying to listen to (namely, how to interpret a poorly phrased ban) has been blocked by a preemptive action to prevent imagined events that might occur. Brews ohare (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom Charts
Per our conversation, I got brave and tackled the arbcom charts - ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent and ArbitrationCommitteeChart. The only change was adding the election link and moving John Vandenberg from Alpha to Beta. It shows up OK to me, but please let me know if I screwed it up! Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thanks Ultraexactzz! Risker (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

John W. Stephens
It's not perfect yet, but I felt it was ready for the mainspace. Do you know of someone who might take a look at what categories Stephens might fit in? I'm not even certain where to start in these regards. Thanks for your previous help with C/E and the suggestions on citation templates. I learn something new every day! :) U  A  21:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You might want to try a wikiproject for the state or look at what categories a current senator from that state has; I'm pretty hopeless with categories myself, and depend upon the kindness of strangers to take care of that. Glad I was able to help. I agree, it's ready for mainspace. Risker (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already placed it in the NC wikiproject. I'll see if I can find some notable state senators to check. U  A  21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I visited Risker's talk page, I added categories to this. One may still be needed re military service if it's notable to his life. <font face="Comic Sans MS">DOGRIGGR (deflea) 08:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Franamax RfA
So, what time is good? I realize you're quite busy, but I really think this thing should happen already.  ceran  thor 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh leave me alone, there's so many other interesting things to do here. :) I'll tell you, next Sunday - whether I'm ready or not. That clears a personal gap upcoming at end of the week and leaves me free time to deal with an RFA. I was hoping to dither for an extra few days, but there ya go. :) Franamax (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. If you need a co-nom, ping me at my talk page. I'll be busy only with an FAC. Put some ice on your ears, Franamax. ;)  ceran  thor 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Works for me, folks. I've got a few significant events happening in RL this week, but should be ready to roll on Sunday. I assume you'd prefer not to do it before dawn, Franamax? Say noonish your time, so you're around for the first 200 or so questions? ;-)  Risker (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More like 20. :P  ceran  thor 22:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, there's going to be questions? Can't I just give you my account password and a link to I'm-right-you're-wrong? This whole thing smacks of effort. (I was trying to find the right Simpsons episode to link that to, but I see I'm already edit-conflicted here, so forget that). :) Franamax (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum
Perhaps what was most distressful about your suggestion, Risker, was that I had the option to not be open about the trip and how it came about. I chose openness so that people could judge if there was bias. How else did I deal with it? I essentially wrote a series of article that were thematic about what it was like to be on a press junket. The lead article was entitled "The Holy Land Has an Image Problem" and was about their efforts to re-brand and market the country. I was the only reporter who raised this in my reporting, and I was definitely the only reporter to even mention the Palestinians in my stories. It's a shame when such openness is called into question, without actually discussing anything that was written itself, nor comparing it to the other stories that were were birthed from that trip in the mainstream media. I was treated no differently than any other reporter on that trip, except that I happened to get a scoop with the President (a source of extreme envy with the other reporters) because David Saranga was heavily into new media. And also: I was the only one who asked. --<font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">>David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  23:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * David, the fact that this article is about you, someone whom almost everyone who has commented has met, read, or otherwise come in contact with while volunteering here, makes it impossible for people to look at this article dispassionately. If it wasn't an article about you, I am quite certain that it would be much more negative than it is now, and a lot of active gatekeeping is happening to keep it in its current state. The problem, David, is that that trip is really all that you're notable about, and so it should be the focus of the article. The CJR piece would not be enough to write a Wikipedia article about you; if it was, then anyone who's been interviewed by a magazine ever would have an article about them.
 * This isn't about your journalistic integrity, or anyone else's. It's about a Wikipedia article on a guy whose claim to fame is associated with a low-readership website, and how easily the limited amount of publicly available, reliably sourced information about that guy could be twisted six ways to Sunday to emphasise whatever the article writer wants to focus on. The existence of this article actually justifies an article on that particular press junket. Wanna bet it doesn't turn into another Israel/Palestine derby? Risker (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I offer no opinion on my notability; I only offered one on my integrity. And I of course don't hold your opinions against you at all.  They are well-reasoned, even if it is possible that they are not fully informed.  --<font color="navy" size="2"  face="comic sans ms">>David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  23:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, David. I do hope you can see that, regardless of your personal integrity on this matter, the way that trip is described in the sources is low fruit for anyone who wants to paint things differently. Certainly if there were reliable sources showing that well-known journalists writing for mainstream publications were in your shoes, this would receive significant play in their article. Incidentally, for the record, in the last six months, I've suppressed well over 300 edits that were direct attacks on either article subjects or editors, and I am not the busiest member of the Oversight team. I've already dealt with extreme vandalism related to you. I really don't want the volume to increase at all, either for you or any other subject or editor, but I'm afraid the opposite is going to happen here. Risker (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One last point: that Columbia Journalism Review article wasn't about just an interview with Shimon Peres, it was about all my interviews, over 40. It quotes from the ones with Edmund White and Ingrid Newkirk.  He gets quotes from Gay Talese and Augusten Burroughs.  He mentions Vivien Goldman and Antje Duvekot. Eric Bogosian, Nadine Strossen (the President of the ACLU), Al Sharpton...rock stars, authors, activists.  That was what the article was about.  Not just Shimon Peres.  That was what kicked the entire project up to be written about.  --<font color="navy" size="2"  face="comic sans ms">>David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. I am well aware that the CJR article was broader-ranging. However, that article on its own would not be sufficient to write a WP article about you. It is the other sources in combination with that article that might make you notable enough for an article, and almost without exception, those other sources focus on the Peres interview or trip to Israel. I've unlinked all those names, for the record; I don't want my page to be showing up in "what links here" when I have never read most of those articles. I trust you'll understand. Risker (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries about de-linking. I wasn't offering that as evidence of notability, but only that the article be characterized accurately.  It was about a larger project that I put a lot of time and effort into, including paying a transcriber because of the output (40 interviews in about four/five months).  --<font color="navy" size="2"  face="comic sans ms">>David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quandary
Hi Risker, I have a quandary I'm hoping you may be able to give me some advice relating to the situation surrounding Mattisse at the moment. this edit is probably innocuous enough on the face of it, but it struck me as odd, in that the user appeared to have had little association with any of the users involved. The contribution history suggests an alternative account of some kind, and the reactions to my probing have been pretty evasive. (unsurprisingly - presumably also the innocent get their backs up when accused of wrongdoing). The difficulty is that a single edit like that carries a range of implication depending on who it is.


 * 1) If it's Mattisse socking again, that's a serious matter.
 * 2) If it's one of the mentors, then stacking a reaction like that is potentially disruptive, - someone would have to review the incident and the other edits of the account, and make a judgement on the severity.
 * 3) If it is an unrelated and uninvolved user, it's probably not a big deal at all.

Should I file an SPI with just Mattisse named, or an SPI with Mattisse and all the mentors named too, or drop the matter as it's an isolated incident? --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely an alternate account, definitely being used inappropriately, definitely not Mattisse. If I were a betting man, or inclined to go to SPI, there are two of her mentors I'd put at the top of the list. Not sure it's worth building a federal case over the one "warning", though. MastCell Talk 03:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You fellows *do* know that pretty well the entire Checkuser team has this page watchlisted, right? I won't run anything myself, but I have drawn the comments to the attention of an experienced Checkuser, who will determine the level of review. If you have further information that could be helpful in determining whether this is an alternate account being used inappropriately, click "email this user" over there on the left.  Thanks.  Risker (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a pretty good idea who it is, and the "As instructed" is a good clue that ArbCom might, too. Not a mentor, not Mattisse.  The clue, as usual, is on an external site :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wisest to do a sock puppet check with as many people as possible named? If it's technically possible, the most logical approach would be to include every editor that has ever edited on her talk page, edited on her mentors' talk pages and edited on her friends' talk pages, then (possibly) include every editor that has edited on those editors' talk pages as well and every editor that has edited on the arbitration pages related to her. If you would like I can go through the relevant histories of those pages and compile a list of people. This isn't a suggestion made in jest, it's a serious one; any other approach is guaranteed to leave those with a dislike for her completely convinced that I am definitely an alternative account and definitely being used inappropriately - that is the nature of preconceived bias. Whatever you choose, once it's done can someone put the results on my page, preferably in a factual comment that reflects the results rather than a comment that makes further implied accusations of wrong doing without any basis in fact. As instructed (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See now, everybody here is talking in some weird code. Bottom line is this, Mattisse was caught red-handed using an alternate account abusively not that long ago. There is a rather phenomenal degree of tension going on at the RFA Clarification page, although I am not participating there at this time. Your editing pattern, As instructed, very strongly resembles that commonly seen in alternate accounts; however, I'm not going to bother speculating and, as indicated above, I'm not going to be running a checkuser. Just don't use both accounts in the same general discussion area, and I'd suggest you use the main account in formal discussions as a habit. In other words, if you're commenting in relation to Mattisse, make sure it's only with one account, please. There are enough conspiracy theories around here already.  Risker (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't talk in code. With one sentence you very literally say you are not going to bother speculating on whether I have an alternate account and then with the very next sentence you state that I shouldn't use what you refer to as "both accounts" of mine. The second flatly contradicts the first. As instructed (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. I'm not speculating, I'm pretty sure you're an alternate account. I'm not speculating on whose alternate account you are. Wikipedia Review editors read this page too, though; I'm sure they'll have a heyday with it, if they haven't already figured it out. Risker (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some guy turns up on my page and effectively accuses me of being a sock puppet. Two other editors on this page then accuse me of editing inappropriately with an alternate account and you state as fact that I'm using an alternate account whilst at the same time recommending against running a check on my account, and so your fact cannot now be disputed. Your evidence for this is that I have a broken string of edits; that I left a comment that was factually correct, supported by a diff, directly quoted another editor and was not inappropriate and that I refused to answer a question because it lied by pretending to be innocent but was really a surreptitious accusation. If I'm not mistaken, you're now also suggesting that I'm something to do with the Wikipedia Review. Surely you can you appreciate that this is a) a little unfair, b) a little paranoid and c) based on speculation? As instructed (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's time this is done. I'm not doing a checkuser. That doesn't prevent others from doing one. Even if someone did, checkuser is only one tool in identifying alternate accounts, because there are many examples of people using multiple accounts but maintaining separate IPs, even different ISPs, for each. We all know how to read WP:DUCK. Your edit history is such that I could point to it as a teaching example of a likely alternate account, and it has nothing to do with Joopercoopers's post. Unlike some, I take a rather liberal (and ironically, old-school) reading of the alternate accounts policy, so as long as two accounts aren't crossing over into each other's editing areas, I'm not likely to get too steamed about them. I repeat, I'm not going to go looking for the master account, but if you keep posting here, eventually I'll figure it out anyway.
 * Now, unless someone has some actual evidence that there is some abuse of alternate accounts happening here, and is prepared to name names, I thnk this has gone as far as it can. WP:SPI is thataway. Please take it there.  Risker (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC
 * So now not only am I a sock puppet or alternate account etc. I am now one that maintains various IP's and/or ISP's to use multiple accounts, and I now have a master account. This is silly. You're basically just coming up a new accusation each time an objection is raised to the previous one. It's cyclic reasoning that conveniently has no way of being proven wrong. You are mistaken but so what - if I'm not doing anything wrong I don't really care all that much. It is interesting to see this distinctly witch hunt-like process close up though. One guy chucks some mud, another chucks some more, a couple more and then you're done; you now have a proven case without a single bit of actual evidence. As instructed (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Risker - I was just after a sanity check, not having done an SPI request before. Sorry for bringing this crap to your page, please archive and bury the lighting. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, JC. I'll leave this on the page for a couple of days in case the SPI folk care to read it, so feel free to link to this section. Remember that you need to identify a suspected master account when you're over there. Risker (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
WT:Sock_puppetry. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Note
Hi Risker. Just wanted to remind you to fix the relevant tally when you make a vote on Arbitration/Requests/Case, as you missed it in a recent one. I think I've fixed it here, but if incorrect, please revert/modify accordingly. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

note to self
Requests_for_adminship/Franamax

Thoughts on Arbship
Hey, I've added a point to your thoughts. (Eeew. Sounds creepy in a 1984 kind of way when said that way!) :-)  Feel free to remove it if you wanted to keep this entirely your own, but if it was intended as a "this is what you should know before you jump in", I didn't expect you'd object. Very much on the nose, by the way.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw your addition, and I think it was a very good one. Thanks for pitching in, I hope it doesn't scare away too many good candidates! :-) Risker (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Tommy Nero Sullivan
Are you reviewing his unblock request? If so, perhaps it should be placed on hold pending comment from YellowMonkey, then. MuZemike 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Secure Poll
I do not remember participating in the election or an RFC related to that election. The notice you posted appears to have been in error, unless my memory has failed me. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So, my memory is going then. I must be getting old :-/ Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice question
Hi Risker, why did I receive this note on my talk page? I never voted in that election, so I don't understand why I got that note. Best. Acalamari 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you not participate in the RFC?  Majorly  talk  17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the note, and yes, I see why now. Sorry Risker. Acalamari 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rand Kannenberg
Hello, I am rewriting the article Rand Kannenberg, previously deleted by you. Mr. Kannenberg just sent me an email allowing use of his photograph, is reluctant to "go through this process again" after the last article was on Wikipedia for several years and then removed with ugly debates, but did say on the phone, "okay." Please give any and all feedback, suggestions, comments and the changes will be made to improve the quality of this article. Thank you.Phcwwbfr (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was previously deleted because of lack of notability. I do not see how he has become notable in the ensuing few months. I note that the "new" version of the article has now also been deleted as being essentially a recreation of the old one. Images do not make a person more notable, simply more easily identifiable.  Risker (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which articles?
Dear Risker, you wrote in your vote for my topic ban: "I note that articles that do not appear, on the surface, to be about national, cultural or ethnic disputes have also been the subject of various edit wars". Please tell me: which of my ~20 Featured Articles, ~20 Good Articles and ~300 DYKs have been subject to various edit wars? I picked those as they are all subject to community review for neutrality and stability. To ease my question, all of the the above articles are listed on my userpage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, you have edited far more articles than the ones for which you have received recognition; it is the ones that aren't peer reviewed that are more likely to be problematic. The reason I hesitate to give examples is that it will initiate a course of wiki-lawyering as to whether or not the examples I give would fit into the narrower topic ban being proposed by others. I am not saying *you* would wiki-lawyer it; however, this is, in part, a consistency issue, and the same topic ban would likely apply to all sanctioned editors, some of whom have given the impression that they will indeed attempt to manipulate such a sanction. I recognise the effort you have made to change your ways; the same cannot be said of several of your peers. Risker (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why you do you think I would attempt to manipulate such a sanction? I certainly would not. --Martin (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, and (speaking about myself) I certainly recognize that there are articles edited (and in few cases, created) by me that were later subject to some controversial editing. But as you note above, there is a considerable body of Wikipedia content that I have created that has proven to be uncontroversial and constructive. Majority of my content edits are like that (and I can prove that; for example by random sampling on a list of articles I've created). As such, what I am asking is - is such a topic ban the best and only solution? Isn't it possible to design a more tailored, surgical restriction (addressing community's issues on inappropriate canvassing, vote stacking and reverting) and let me continue uncontroversial content creation (and uncontroversial gnomish work such as described here)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping :) Ping again :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting
How long does it take to ask one simple question? .  Giano  08:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As you know, I have recused from this particular discussion on AUSC, although I will certainly encourage the other members to complete this review expeditiously. Having recused, though, I shall provide you and all 12 of my TPWs with my personal opinion on the matter. I stress that this is my own opinion, and I am writing this as Risker the editor rather than as an oversighter, arbitrator, administrator or AUSC member, and that it is based on publicly accessible information and not on any confidential information.

"Outing", whether intentional or accidental, real or perceived, is a serious problem; you know this, Giano, because people have tried to out you in the past, and I am sure your own wish was that it be addressed as quickly as humanly possible. The principle involved in addressing any kind of real or perceived outing is to act first to remove the material as quickly as possible, and then to review afterward, and "pull back" if the first response was more than what was required. This is the case, regardless of who is being "outed" - you, me, or another specific or random editor. First steps should normally include redacting the concerning edit and, if possible, deleting it, even before oversight is requested. Particularly now that we have the technical ability to "undo" erroneous removal of material, the principle of "remove first, then review" is reinforced, and it applies to all editors within the project, not just admins or arbitrators.

Stewards have the authority and responsibility to act on that same principle. Their role is complicated by the fact that they can be called upon to act on any project under the WMF umbrella, usually involving some time-sensitive situation, but they are dependent on the situational analysis from editors or administrators in the project where the problem is. They are not expected to make a thorough assessment of the situation, only to respond quickly to prevent further harm.

So - we have a situation where there was a perceived outing, on one of the most active pages in the entire project. A request for assistance went out through several mediums. When a local oversighter didn't immediately act, a steward did so within the scope of his authority. The perceived outing was removed, and the situation could then be reviewed to determine if the suppression was required. After that review, it was determined that no genuine outing took place. The edits were restored, and it was publicly stated that no outing took place.

In my opinion, (and I stress this is my own opinion, and does not come with the weight of any office I hold), _nobody_ did anything wrong here. You made a comment that was within the scope of the debate, people weren't wrong in _perceiving_ that your comment outed someone, the people reporting the perceived outing were acting exactly as we would hope them to (i.e., getting help through whatever means required as quickly as possible), the steward responded exactly as he was supposed to, and the subsequent review occurred and restored the edits while clearly identifying that there was no outing. Nobody abused their position, and nobody was treated with special deference when it came to the suppression itself; oversighters (and stewards) are expected to base their actions on the content of the problem edit, not the person who could be adversely affected by the edit, and that's why the suppression was done in the first place, and why it was reversed once more eyes had a chance to review it.

So there you have it. We have adopted a "remove first, review second" position in this project when it comes to involuntary disclosure of personal information (whether real or perceived, accidental or intentional), and I think that is a heck of a lot better than having a long discussion and analysis of whether or not a particular edit does or does not "out" someone. YMMV. Risker (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Utter Rubbish! There was nothing in that post to lead anyone to think anyone was being outed. The post did not even say "You are Randy from Boise" did it? Even a newby, let alone an Arbitrator of long standing would have known there was nothing "outing" in that. That Arbitrator having had no luck pursuading our own Oversighters (who must have been laughing themselves stupid), then incited an "influential Wikipedian" to shop for another oversighter on IRC for reasons yet to be disclosed. He eventually found one, a German kid youth with no understanding of the situation. The Arb (according to Coren) then immediatly notified the Arbcom - why? Whatever the reason, the Arbcom did nothing until I personally got hold of one on G-Mail much later. Perhaps the Arb is indeed Randy from Boise?, I'm begiining to wonder myself, he certainly acts like him mentaly. Did they Arbs notify me? Did they say to their colleague "get real - wise up?" No, they said nothing. At least one could have easily and quickly commented here  and solved the mystery and calmed the anger, but you all did nothing and let me be slandered as a person who outs. A situation that if I had not noticed would still be the case. What a shower.    Giano   16:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, (a) do not misrepresent my note to you in order to advance your position and (b) desist immediately from repeatedly calling DerHexer "a German kid". You are being rude and condescending towards another volunteer and that is never acceptable.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have struck "kid." Here is your post on my page where you say "...said arb notified the committee immediately about what happened it it took minutes before some of us realized the whole thing was a mistake." so what too so many hours Coren? Please explain how I am misrepresenting you above.  Giano  18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, as far as I can tell, the only part of this that is "about you" is the fact that many administrators (including oversighters) are hesitant to deal with anything that has your fingerprints on it; while sometimes that works to your advantage, in this case it didn't. You continue to deride the steward involved in this situation; why would he ever come back to this project to help another editor who's been outed, if he is going to be treated like this for doing exactly what he was supposed to do? You seem to believe that those of us who hold oversight permissions are available 24/7 to immediately address every single request that comes into the mailing list or arrives through any other channel, and to fully and immediately recognise the implications of an edit and act impeccably in accordance with the shifting sands of policy.  Well, oddly enough, both the steward and the oversighters did act within policy. The chances that every Wikimedian is going to know about a meme from an obscure article written in 2006 is about the same as that of every Wikipedian knowing the difference between Georgian and Palladian architecture. Just because a segment of the community will identify it in an instant, doesn't mean that it is common knowledge or that "anyone" would easily recognise it. Risker (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have some aversion to answering simple questions. There is no hint of outing in this post . Our own oversighters when contacted agreed. Which is why the Arb got his "powerful friend" to go to IRC. I think it's about time we named this "powerful friend" - even the false accusers of the Inquisition were not allowed to be anonymous. So who was he?  Giano   18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, as I noted in my first response, I am not going to provide you with any information I received on private, WMF-approved mailing lists; I take confidentiality very seriously. Let's look at some facts, though. As a courtesy to each other, arbitrators will often let the rest of the committee know if they are somehow involved in a (potentially) controversial situation. There's no doubt this was a controversial situation, if it wasn't we wouldn't still be talking about it days later, so it was quite appropriate for Rlevse to email arbcom-L to make others aware. Whether or not anyone was reading their emails at the precise time Rlevse sent his message is a different story; I can't speak for anyone else, but I was busy IRL. We have been told that a message was sent to Oversight-L, but again we don't have anyone specifically assigned to be on standby around the clock to address messages immediately, a fact that is well-known to stewards. It is my understanding that DerHexer was contacted via IRC, which is another acceptable means of trying to reach an oversighter or (in the absence of an oversighter) a steward. I won't speak to how "influential" the person was who passed the message on to DerHexer; any editor or administrator could make such a request, so the level of "influence" isn't really germane. You and I exchanged messages during the time before the suppression was reversed, and you were aware that I was not able to access Wikipedia at the time; in fact, it was another arbitrator who reversed the suppressions shortly after he came online from half a world away. Few sitting arbitrators involve themselves in oversight activities (most have access for addressing other matters), so there aren't a lot of us who have the high degree of comfort needed to review and act on a request to reverse suppression. And no, I won't repeat to you what I told Rlevse in private about this situation; however, once things get posted here on my talk page, I figure the discussion has moved into the public forum and I will be as forthright with anyone else on this matter as I have been with you. Any impression that you had outed someone has been fully retracted, as far as I can see. Risker (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Coren has said (diff above) "said arb notified the committee immediately about what happened it it took minutes before some of us realized the whole thing was a mistake." Minutes! Yet, not one Arb acted to rectify the situation untill I found JVanDerBerg (to whom I am very grateful). If I had not jumped up and down nothing would have happened at all. There is diff somewhere from over the last few days saying our oversighters were perfectly aware. Contrary to your opinion, the level of "influence" of the editor who contacted DerHexer is very germane, and well you know it. DerHexer trusted him, misguidedly as it has transpired. I don't think I have asked you to repeat any conversation with Rlevse, I have asked you to name who contacted derHexer. I am already quite aware of Rlevse's actions. This situation was a total abuse of power and influence for reasons untoward, please do stop pretending it had anything to do with Randy from Boise. If it did I would have been contacted and probably banned immmediatly or within at least hours - I was not. It was hoped I would not notice.  Giano   23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look at the oversight statistics, Giano. John Vandenberg and I are the two arbitrators who do oversight; Wizardman has been doing a few more recently, but during limited time periods, and the remainder rarely, if ever, use the tool. Several of them make it very clear that they will only use the oversight/checkuser tools for arbitration-related matters, if then. Anyone - even you, Giano - can identify an edit that they believe is "outing" and report it to oversighters and/or stewards. That's always been the case, and it always will be. Members of the oversight team regularly post to their own mailing list asking for review of actions, and on occasion after discussion, a suppression will be reversed; it's rarely done in minutes. I would have done it myself sooner if I had had access to the wiki; as it was, I only had email and an insecure internet access. This situation has been a mass of misunderstandings and overreactions. I hope you see the irony that the people most willing to reverse the oversighting are members of the very committee you are calling corrupt and abusive - and *you* are appealing for personal attention derived from your own perceived privileged access to arbitrators. Sorry Giano, but the standard is the same for you as it is for other editors, arbitrators, administrators, anyone else. If you were in the same position, and someone hadn't stood on their head to suppress something you identified as outing, you'd be on my page yelling that we weren't doing our job for that, too, even if it was subsequently determined that the edit was misconstrued. You didn't out anyone. Nobody seriously believes you did. Please settle down, the AUSC report will get done in a couple of days, probably, and I'll lay odds it will say essentially what I said up above. Risker (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you take a look at your mate Coren's post on my page - do even one you know what the other is is really up to - it seems not - and don't doubt for one second it will agree with you and Coren.  Giano   09:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And one final thing, if Coren is about to ban me it can be my final message. In five years I have never outed anybody. I have never threatened to out anybody. In five years I have been consistently know to turn on anybody who out another. That inlcudes those who famously tried to out one previous mmember of the Arbcom and one serving member. That fact is well known to all members of the Arbcom. Now you people dare to threaten me with bans for being angry for my edits being sighted and labeled "outing". God you lot are unreal.  Giano   10:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, you've been told by more than one person (including myself) that you weren't trying to out anyone, that this was all a misunderstanding, and it was corrected, your name is cleared. It really is.  No one thinks that you were actively trying to out anyone.  It doesn't matter who said boo to whom, because the whole point is moot because perception was not reality.  This conversation is not constructive because it's questioning truths that never were, and it's causing you more outrage and stress than you should be feeling because your perception is not what happened, and this has been rectified and then outlined to you.  I understand you can't take back the accusation and that it hurts you, but what's done is done and it's over.  Happy editing to you (and Risker).  Keegan (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Giano 'outed' anybody. I'm certain the Wiki-community shares my views. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But some skeleton-dude in Boise is still trying to figure out what the hell went wrong. :) Franamax (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: For the record, the party who asked me to recuse on this matter has now rescinded his request. Therefore, I am now active on this particular case. Risker (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hi Risker, could you check your email if you get a chance? Regards, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Checked and responded. :-) Risker (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Laura DiDio
In case you are interested. Proxy User (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please get back to me
Hi Risker, please get back to me about the issue we discussed on IRC. You have my email. --BigaZon (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello? --BigaZon (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Sorry to create a new section, but I am still curious to see you reply to questions above. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree
That this solution was to cumbersome. How about other solutions that are discussed on Proposed Talk and have community support (see here}? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Donuts and tickets
Tickets and donuts from Timmy's sound enticing. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 11:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Wetman/Archive
You are editing an archive, which is somewhat frowned upon because it messes up the case history. Would you like me to reopen the case for you? Tiptoety talk 19:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, thanks. The case is closed; my comments serve to reinforce that. The people who needed to see that comment have done so. Risker (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. It would probably be a good idea to not add comments to archives in the future, because then it encourages others to do so as well (as happened here) and we often get threaded discussions starting all over again. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I agree; however, reopening the case to say that the case has been thoroughly investigated and is now closed is somewhat counterintuitive. Please let me know if Cirt blocks any of those accounts, though. There is no basis on which to do so, and it has been reviewed by multiple checkusers and arbitrators. Risker (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

RD2
FYI - on ANI it looks like you just removed the edit summary - but not the diff's.  7  02:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  7  02:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for oversight
Hi there Risker. Can you please oversight this revision:. Thanks, <b style="color:#000">Ra</b><b style="color:#696969">z</b><b style="color:#808080">or</b><b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 21:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Leslie Roak
Just had a small follow up. If you could check it out, that would be great. Cheers, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent massive use of RevDelete (oversight)
I don't know if you were the one to do it (God I hope not) or you were just the poor person to have their name as the top revision, but you'll want to read Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee, I imagine. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarity and transparency, I feel it's appropriate to note here that it's now quite clear that you were the one to do the disputed suppressions. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WT:NPA
I don't think I've ever dropped by and said hi, so ... hi. I enjoyed your talk on Arbcom at the NYC Wikiconference in July, btw. Agreed that policy pages are a social construct, so if people came together and reached some agreements and the page has been stable in that form, then keeping the page in roughly that form may help to keep the coalition together, and save us all some time having to re-argue and then re-learn. OTOH, the boundaries between WP:Civility, WP:NPA and WP:Harassment are fuzzy, and it's not my role (or your goal, I'm sure) to say "Okay, here's what we're going to do". The rub is there's not much response when people start a policy conversation with "let's talk about X" ... suggesting a demotion or promotion or moving material around seems to be the only way to get the conversation started, thus my suggestion to demote. But I'll be happy with any final result, as long as people know what goes where. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

nocommons tags
Hey Risker, thanks for pointing out files you uploaded with nocommons tags. I'm actually planning on going back through the list I used to tag all of those to pick out the ones with nocommons tags and notify those users. I do have a question for you, however. So long as the image has accepted licensing on commons, it shouldn't be spontaneously deleted there. Thanks for the note. <b style="color:#22AA00;">Zsinj</b><sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Shouldn't" and "Won't be" are two different things, unfortunately. I know several people who have had images deleted on Commons, including images that were in use in articles. If a question is raised about the appropriateness of the license once the image is on Commons, the original uploader is rarely if ever notified of the problem. As well, Commons doesn't keep every image uploaded to it; if they are thinning out categories that are overpopulated, they just delete and don't notify the uploader either. Finally, someone else can upload a completely different image on top of the file at Commons, and the original enwiki uploader won't know about that either. I've seen all three happen to editors who've gone to a lot of work to upload images to this project, some of them rare or from personal collections, and it is very disheartening. Thanks for reviewing the images you tagged, and for keeping an eye out in the future. Risker (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Socionics PD
I think you accidentally forgot to vote on principle 8 "Decorum"? Currently, it is the only proposal not passing. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is quite deliberate on my part, and something my colleagues are aware of. I don't support the wording of that particular principle, although I do agree with its general thrust. As we have not come up with wording that I feel comfortable with supporting, I simply don't vote on it one way or another, without lowering the degree of support it would require to pass by abstaining. I'm pretty sure someone else will come along and support it, and will point it out to my colleagues. Risker (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. It's good to know when people, even arbs, object to a particular wording or substance of a principle and to have an on-wiki record for it so it can be reconsidered in future drafting. One of the more successful arb. cases did just that and tried to account for the diverse opinions that were previously registered on a matter. PDs lately have had a separate comment section that could work here also, while workshop comments are also been looked at when reviewing previous wordings. Would you mind, whether it's here or in one of those locations, registering why you didn't support the particular wording there, even if you don't (want to) vote on it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WMF report on ownership and editor retention
''Whilst some may feel that an editor's continued ties to an article they have made significant investment in is "ownership", recent reports out of the Wikimedia Foundation indicate that one of the significant issues in editor retention is the lack of recognition and reward. ''

Source, please? If there is a report either by or to the WMF about editor retention and the amount of maintenance in FAs, I'd like to read it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will try to dig it up when I get to my other computer; as I recall, it is something I read on the Strategy Wiki, and may have also been mentioned on the Foundation-L mailing list. I read too much for my own good sometimes. It will take a bit.

Meanwhile, perhaps some artistic person (no Moni, I'm not pointing at you, despite your amazing talents) could come up with a graphic for former featured articles that *isn't* a broken bronze star, or one crossed out with a red "X". Very belittling, those are. Same applies to GAs. No graphic is better than an insulting one. Risker (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The bottom point of a star that has taken flight (with angel wings?) to escape the mortal bonds and responsibilities of an FA... --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or a star with a single tear rolling down its cheek, ashamed of its momentary fall from grace, but also congizant of the possibility of redemption. MastCell Talk 19:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no - Jimbo crying stars of fallen FAs. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Point of a star sticking out under a pile of fetid feces? I was going more for the positive aspects of a de-listed FA. But whatever works in consensus, I guess. --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Realistically, folks, I don't play over in the FC vineyards very much anymore, but there is some validity in both perspectives here. Altruistically, there is the joint communal desire and responsibility to continuously improve on all of our collaborative works; hence the review of FAs, whether through a formal FAR or other means, to ensure that they meet the progressively higher standards. Practically, there is an unspoken expectation that the significant contributors to an FA ought to make sure those improvements are done, to keep an eye out for problematic addition or removal of information, to respond to recommendations for improvement and to FARs on "their" articles; in fact, the FAR instructions specifically require that significant contributors are notified. So, the FA culture encourages continued responsibility for article quality, while the wiki culture actively discourages "ownership". Editors who take the continued responsibility seriously are always at risk of being targeted for WP:OWN issues, whereas the wiki culture requires good faith that editors who find weakness in featured content are only doing so for altruistic reasons, without a thought to any personal agenda. It is difficult to make a case that someone is acting in bad faith when at least some of the comments made about the subject article are valid; there isn't an article on the encyclopedia that is "perfect" and cannot be improved in some way. The contradictions in the system make it ripe for gaming in both directions.

There should be a simpler way of dealing with these issues. Perhaps articles should only be considered FA for a year, with their star saying "2006" or whatever, and the understanding that featured quality is temporary and time-limited. That would make far more sense than what's happening now, where that little bronze star is in the corner of articles that have been unwatched and badly messed with, but articles whose deficiencies are mainly stylistic (as opposed to substantive) can have their FA star redmarked despite their comparatively superior quality. And there needs to be some serious rethinking of the balance between continuous article/file stewardship that has long been associated with featured content, and the tendency on all sides to focus excessively on (or claim to be unaware of) the signature lines attached to comments and article histories, rather than the recommended improvements. Nobody's winning here, writers, commenters, or readers. Risker (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh agree, agree, agree! If I don't look after "my" FA's/GA's, nobody else will and those banned IPs will be back. It's not ownership. It's burdensome. On the other hand, opportunities for baiting are legion and the best of editors are only human. Someone once said AGF is not a suicide pact. For the logo, how about a dunce's cap on the top point so that FA writers can be castigated coming and going? Fainites barley scribs 13:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what all you've said here Risker is applicable to me. The older FAs need to be improved and I don't understand the ambivalence or apparent antagonism to doing that. I try to update the ones I've written. Some need more updates than others, and some I don't or can't get to for months. I'm fairly certain that for a couple articles, if I don't keep them maintained they would dissolve in a matter of weeks. Others might stay the way they are for months maybe up to a year. The awesome temporary nature of this site is daunting. Realistically, there is no way I can watch over these articles forever. But with FA qualifications getting better, a casual reader would not have the knowledge to be able to keep it either. To keep an article's integrity, someone who had read all the sources would have to take it over. That's an incredible amount of work to do. It takes me months to read everything involved in an article, and I don't know anyone who would be able to take over anything I've written. So I'm stuck between being exhausted with maintaining an article and not being able to leave it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi folks; this talk page was pointed out to me. The discussions that are ongoing here are fascinating.  We have a task force dealing with article content quality and another dealing with community health at the strategy wiki.  I wonder if you'd be interested in sharing your thoughts on either of those task force pages?  I'm hearing viewpoints here that aren't reflected there yet, and it's so valuable to have your practical experience there.  Thanks!  - <span style="font-family:Papyrus, sans-serif; color:#775ca8;">Philippe  15:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it helps when an editor has collaborated with others. I know that I watchlisted several hundred articles that I have been involved with. The best practice is to involve others and not see an article as one's own creation and only up to one editor to maintain. This is a collaborative project, and if others are not involved, it fails. A "me and my article against the world" outlook defeats the project, in my view.  This is my opinion only and based on my experience only. I apologize in advance if it offends anyone or is taken as a personal attack by anyone. It is not meant as such and is, as I say based on my personal observations and experience only.  Warmest regards,  — mattisse  (Talk) 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world, Mattisse, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Collaborations can be a lot of fun, and can produce a much better article than one written solely by one editor. In the areas where I've worked in collaboration with other editors, the weight of responsibility for maintaining article quality seems a lot lower, and I'm sure the perception of ownership is also a lot less (or, it's possible that we scare off other editors by our numbers, but I hope not). In many areas, unfortunately, there aren't a lot of other editors interested in that type of collaboration.  I haven't found any who want to work on the types of Texas history articles I edit, which often leaves me in the situation Moni describes - as the only editor who has read most of the sources and can easily identify some of the more subtle vandalism or good-faith but wrong edits.  If we could figure out how to attract more of the editors who are strongly committed to high-quality and with the time and interest to read volumes on some topics, WP would be a better place. Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Philippe - one place to take this up might be the various projects. A busy vibrant project can probably do a reasonable job keeping an eye on it's FA and GA content. It's more difficult with the less cohesive or lively ones though. Moni's right though in that although any number of helpful editors can keep an eye out for obvious vandalism or unhelpful additions, it is more difficult to find replacements for the primary editors if they cease to up-date or keep an eye on the articles.Fainites barley scribs  20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee
Hi. I have asked a followup question at the now quite delayed Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee If there isn't an explanation forthcoming within the next 48 hours regarding the mandate of the subcommittee, I will ask that it be folded back up as failed. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The team is meeting shortly to finalise unresolved matters, and final discussions should be ready by the end of the weekend. Risker (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the topic ban
Could you take a look at Featured article review/Soviet invasion of Poland/archive1 and Featured article review/Stanisław Koniecpolski/archive1? The latter came up recently and it may take me a while to address the issues raised; the former came up when I didn't have access to my works on him, which I will have for a while during XMAS (and then not again for half a year). As you can see in case of Koniecpolski, if I don't fix those issues, it is unlikely anybody else will anytime soon; it appears to be a similar case with the SioP case. I am still puzzled how the project will benefit by me not being able to help with those issues... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

 * :) --Scott Mac (Doc) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you both have valid points, but this was becoming a circular argument that was bordering on getting too personal all around. Moving the comments seemed like the simplest way to break the cycle. I'm not commenting either way on the deletion or retention of the article, and only commented to correct a point of policy that is peripheral to the deletion discussion itself. Risker (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My thanks was for your common sense in ending a pointless discussion, not for your opinion either way.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Novel wikiproject template update
Could you do the administrater required edit mentioned here Template talk:NovelsWikiProjectSADADS (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ermm...not unless you want the wiki to explode. I've asked a more technically inclined admin to pop by and help things along. I'm pretty well guaranteed to mess that up. :-)  Risker (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap mapping party
Since you have expressed interest in coming to the DC meetup on January 9, and (I think) are coming from out of town, I wanted to let you know that the OpenStreetMap group in DC is organizing a mapping party event the next day on January 10. We will be mapping the National Mall and East/West Potomac Park areas (e.g. Jefferson Memorial). I'm not sure if you already have booked arrangements to come to DC? If not or your schedule is flexible and are interested, then I hope you can join us on Sunday too. --Aude (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request
Hi. I consider this edit offensive, abusive and disruptive. I realize chances are it is from an internet cafe, library or other public and shared address but if this can be linked to an individual, I'd like to know - whether it calls for any immediate response or simply to keep a record of a pattern of abuse. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Slrubenstein. I quite agree with you about that edit, which is completely and totally unacceptable. Without doing a full checkuser, however, I can tell that this edit is from someone using a dynamic and very large ISP from Ireland (likely the Dublin area). Without having a WP username to try to link to, I've not checkusered the IP address, because it's very unlikely I'd be able to link to another user definitively (there are likely dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedians using that IP range). Please let me know if you have a specific account(s) in mind, or if you are targeted with such hate speech again.  I'm going to delete that now.  Risker (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While you are doing these things, maybe you could take a look at the December 10 article edits here . Perhaps a thicker skin should be developed, but they are so offensive, and not just about me.--Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. I do not have any other IPs in mind, but this person presumes to know me so I infer has edited before. Well, I realized it was a long shot, I appreciate your attention, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As to the edits Slp1 lists - I do not think this is a matter of one of us having a thin or thick skin, I think it is about sending a message to people who would abuse wiki technology, it is Wikipedia that is being abused, also. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Weekend
The weekend now being unambiguously, globaly, certainly over, I'm going to have to insist that the Audit Subcommittee release a statement in a specified timeframe. If the comittee cannot release a statement within the next 24 hours, I'm going to mark the comittee as historical and sugest a return to the "loud shouting and backchannel influence peddling" method of audit. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can strongly request, but not insist. You can mark the page, but you'll certainly be reverted. You can shout and threaten, but it may not be your most constructive way forward.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What methology do you think would work to get them to either shit or get off the pot? Please review the history of my interactions with the comittee. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case involving you.
I have opened a case to attempt to get some clarity on the mandate of the Audit Subcomittee. The case can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Case. You are a named party only in your capacity as a member of the Committee. Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Luitgard's Sandbox Article On Prejean
Hello Risker,


 * Hoping I could get a clarification on my talk page of why you deleted and suppressed a sandbox article in a seemingly precipitous fashion. I responded to your notice and have not seen anything further from you.  Regards, Luitgard (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(other edits with links removed)

Tell you what Luitgard. When she is charged and convicted of something, then it is worthy of including in her article. Right now, what you're showing me is links to people saying that maybe she could possibly have violated a law, and that's all opinion and conjecture. We don't do biographical articles based on that sort of stuff here, particularly not on google-able user space pages. Risker (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Risker. Quoting text from other sites seems unlikely to get Wikipedia into trouble for libel, but this is your page, so remove it if you wish.  Why this page or my sandbox page would stand out from the other 230,000 that have the same phrase pairings is beyond me. As for Prejean being charged and convicted on the matter that we cannot seem to mention on your page, that's very unlikely, as the weight of evidence is that she lied about the time when the nude and/or erotic materials of her were made.  But the fact that she claimed she made and sent a nude masturbation video across state lines when she was 17 years old tells us something about her judgement and credibility.  As such, mention of the self-incriminating nature of her likely false claims merit mention in a biographical article.  Such mention is still in her Wikipedia article, it was placed there by consensus and has stayed there for over a month, and has been read by tens of thousands with no seeming ill effect. I'll add yet another reference to it in a day or so.  What you deleted was an abandoned sandbox article that is further characterized on my talk page for those who are interested. As long as you don't try and delete and suppress large portions of the section on her sex tape in the Prejean article, I really won't miss the what you've already deleted. But I do think the manner in which you did it reflects badly on you. Regards Luitgard (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Whiskeydog ACE2009 vote.
Yesterday I tagged User:Whiskeydog's vote in the ACE2009/Voter log as suspicious, as Whiskeydog exercised his right to vanish back in October 2008. JayHenry has stated that Whiskeydog is User:Dogriggr past account. The Dogriggr account is ineligible to vote (having too few mainspace edits), explaining why he used his old account. JayHenry also stated you should be able to confirm this. Can you confirm, and leave a note on the log? Thanks,  Rami  R  15:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dogriggr is Outriggr, who is most eligible to vote. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief, I'm supposed to remember userpages I deleted in September 2008? Okay, on researched verifcation, yes they are the same user. Outriggr seems to have Wikipedia addiction issues (much to the benefit of the encyclopedia); he scrambled his password in an effort to escape not that long ago, but the siren song of parachuting from the Eiffel Tower seems to have drawn him back using his very obvious, but not terribly prolific, alternate account. I shall post on the log page.  Risker (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I bullied him into it (jumping off the Eiffel Tower, not voting). Yomangani talk 19:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How'dya get him to come to Paris? I am so neglected ...  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I promised him a lovely new suit, the trip of a lifetime, and the immortalization of his facial hair. I can offer you a similar deal, but a Friendly Muttonchops is the minimum entry requirement for a namecheck in the article (can you manage that, Sandy?). Yomangani talk 19:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll need at least another 10 or 15 years to work up some facial hair, but I could manage a Christmas card! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, Risker, I only ever voted for you because I thought you swore that you had a photographic memory for every encounter you've ever had on Wiki or off. --JayHenry (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever you people are, you seem to know a lot about my account history. In any case, thanks for clarifying it with the election scout. You will note that the log does not contain a vote by: Dogriggr, Outriggr, Godriggr, Gravediggr, Ear Mite, Isolation booth, JayHenry's Attorney ... or Ceoil. <Outriggr escapes another close one...> <font face="Comic Sans MS">DOGRIGGR (deflea) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ear Mite? Even I didn't know about that one. --JayHenry (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is good ol' Coile Slaitne anyways? He's usually a dutiful WikiCitizen. --JayHenry (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind that he now has me worried: when he shows up, I'm going to throw all kinds of horrible country western cheating heart, two-timing boyfriend songs at his talk page. Be prepared to plug your ears! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

<font face="comic sans ms">SomeOne Really Ot to Fix Username Policy! Or Check Philosophical Premises behind Anonymous Unregistered Elecshuns!

I Do Promise Thee, Dog Typing Now is Eligible to Vote, & Did Only Vote Once as Cousin Whiskeydog. "OP" is Correct: Only that Account, Which I Once Used, was Eligible, and Dogriggr had a Hankering to Exerseyes His Rights. Now SShhh, We're trying to be Addicted Quietly Pleez! <font face="Comic Sans MS">DOGRIGGR (deflea) 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, for once I have an interesting talk page where the cool kids come to hang out! Nice to have you all here, I've confirmed Whiskeydog is a legitimate voter. JayHenry, you have to remember that my user talk page history is periodically a playground for trolls (i.e., whenever the semi-protection wears off), and thus its edit history is used as a training ground for new oversighters. It just took a while to find the right link! Risker (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it's a playground for trolls. That's why I thought you'd know Whiskeydog right away. --JayHenry (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for releasing the report. It is difficult for any comittee to write a document. I apologize for being such a bother through the process, and merely hope that no one holds it against anyone. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:GatesDominatrix-SpankBill ACE2009 vote
Allow me to pre-empt the question. That's totally me. Full disclosure and all. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You only *wish* it was you. Would that be Spanky for short? Risker (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Silly rabbit, Dom—" oh wait, oh my, oh no no no. --JayHenry (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of file tagged to have copy remain on this project
Hi Risker. I deleted the files using twinkle so I missed the tag. I have restored File:Risker moon.jpg; sorry for the inconvenience. Regards,  F ASTILY  (<font color="#008000">T ALK ) 21:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Doghouse
I've put R in the doghouse permanently. — <b style="color:#956e37;">Dog The Teddy Bear</b> • Bully!  • 01:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * R should check his email. Risker (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:fff; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Willking1979 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Willking1979 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A random note (having seen you playing Santa)
Drive-by noise ... feel free to disregard ... When I saw your name, I free-associated to a British TV series from long ago (I recently watched on DVD): "Chancer" which starred a very young Clive Owen. For now, that's how I picture you. lol Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Not even close. But I am flattered! Merry Christmas!  Risker (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even better! :-) Wonderful 2010 etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS your first name &mdash; how appropriate. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

*chuckle*
Thanks. Hope yours was as better than mine. :D - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 05:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help & stop ignoring me
I left you 2 messages on your talk page and they are now gone. Please email me or leave me a message on my talk page about the issue we discussed. It's been over a month now. I've sent you several emails and they've gone ignored. Thanks in advance. --BigaZon (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Diplomacy barnstar

 * !  Giano   15:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays
Thanks for the holiday cheer. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Paul August &#9742; 15:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As you were an Arbcom member in EEML case
Per your comment here , could you look at this:, I felt I need to correct the information that I am not indefinitely blocked as suggested(my account was hacked and thus indef blocked, but it happened after I lost control over it) but till 31st of May(which obviously makes a lot of difference). Since then I informed Clerk for that case to reset my block til 31st of May, but the comments start to look like attempt to involve me into discussion in area where it is claim I shouldn't(however since it is a talk page for ARBCOM I believe I have a right to correct a procedural issue) as per your comments on EEML case page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears he is correct, the account should be blocked til 31 May 2010. I'll take care of it. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 19:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You missed one
I think User:Classical Esther is part of the "Peaceful Paul", "Faithful Mary" etc accounts that you just blocked. Perhaps a checkuser might be useful in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That account was deliberately left unblocked, thanks, Delicious carbuncle. It has been making more serious edits, while the others were all myspacing (for lack of a better word). While I will continue to watch the account, it is not necessary to take a "scorched earth" policy at all times. Let's see where things go. Risker (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They just seemed to be a rather unlikely 13 year-old to me. I won't worry if you're keeping an eye on them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry there's been all this confusion. PrettyLydie is my sister. She made the "Peaceful Paul" and "Faithful Mary" ect accounts herself to play...well...a sort of joke on me. Perhaps you believed I was her sockpuppet, or vice versa, because our email address was the same? I put Pretty Lydie's email address on my account because I almost never check my email. Anyway, thank you for your concern and notice of this matter, but I can honestly assure you that Pretty Lydie and I are very different people. If you would be so kind to write back, please do so on my talk page. In any case, I am certain Pretty Lydie has learned her lesson of playing "jokes" on Wikipedia - which, though not ill-intentioned, were productive of a lot of confusion and misunderstandings - and I have spoken to her about it, and represented very strongly the bad effects of such things on Wikipedia. Yours truly, Classical Esther (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Classical Esther, thanks for that completely reassuring explanation. You and your delightfully mischievous sister may wish to read WP:COPYVIO. Although you write very well for your age, your thoughts on the Vicar of Wakefield may not be entirely original. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)