| Revision as of 16:25, 27 April 2010 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Ping: underlining← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:55, 22 December 2024 edit undo36.37.211.144 (talk) →Nadolig Llawen: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together." style="{{divstylegreen}}"><b>If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together. I tend to watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a few weeks after my initial post. If you , I'll respond here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. --] (]) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)</div> | |||
| {{clear}}</br> | |||
| {| style="background: transparent;" | {| style="background: transparent;" | ||
| |- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| Line 9: | Line 6: | ||
| {{hat|Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links}} | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| {{columns | |||
| |colwidth = 45% | |||
| |col1 = '''Notes to self''' <br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ] in case I need it <br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| {{tlx|OversightBlock|sig {{=}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}} signs the template. | |||
| |} | |||
| {{Centralized discussion}} | |||
| {{cot|Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links<br>}} | |||
| <table class="multicol" style=";border-spacing:0;background:transparent;" role="presentation"> | |||
| <tr style="vertical-align:top;"> | |||
| <td style="width:45%;;;"> | |||
| '''Notes to self''' <br> | |||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 41: | ||
| <br> | <br> | ||
| <br/> | <br/></td> | ||
| <td style="width:5%;"></td> | |||
| |gap = 5% | |||
| <td style="width:45%;;;"> | |||
| |colwidth = 45% | |||
| '''Other stuff'''<br/> | |||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| Line 41: | Line 52: | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ]<br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| Admin stuff:<br> | Admin stuff:<br> | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| Line 52: | Line 77: | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ] <br> | |||
| <br/> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| <br/></td> | |||
| </tr></table> | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| ==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
| <br> | <br> | ||
| ] <br> | |||
| <nowiki>{{subst:User:Alison/c}}</nowiki> | |||
| <nowiki>{{subst:W-screen}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{subst:User:Alison/c}}</nowiki> | |||
| ] and ]<br> | |||
| =Messages below please= | |||
| Very sorry to hear of your loss, Risker. ] | ] 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC). | |||
| :Thanks, Bishonen. Certainly puts this website into perspective. ] (]) 19:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Note to self: Consider writing an article about in the ]. Some day. | |||
| == Strategic Planning followup == | |||
| Risker, thanks for your fantastic contributions to last night's strategic planning office hours. There's some followup at . I hope you'll join us there and continue to share your thoughts! ] (]) 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| {{hat|Emergency desysops}} | |||
| == RfPP == | |||
| Other note to self re "emergency" desysops: | |||
| *Spencer195, Marskell, Cool3 - Level 1 | |||
| *Hemanshu - , mischaracterized as "emergency desysop" on , desysop occurred minutes before the motion passed. | |||
| *Sade - to check "involuntary per arbcom", Feb 09 | |||
| *RickK/Zoe - July 08. Long dormant admin accounts, shared compromised password. | |||
| *Eye of the Mind - Dec 07. Main page deletion. | |||
| *Shreshth91 - done at request of single arbitrator, Aug 07. | |||
| *Vancouverguy - Jun 07. Long dorman admin account, apparent compromise. | |||
| *Yanksox - Mar 07 - Jimbo desysop, confirmed by Arbcom in full case (DB deletion wheel war) | |||
| *Robdurbar - Apr 07 - mass blocking, self unblocking, deletion. Wonderfool. | |||
| *Husnock - Dec 06. Admitted shared password, desysop confirmed by Arbcom in full case. | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==Please post below== | |||
| Hi Risker, there's been a request on RfPP that ] be unprotected, partly on the grounds that it's not transcluded on many pages. As the protecting admin, do you have any objection? <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 05:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==I'm around a lot more now!== | |||
| :Thanks. <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 06:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Well, now that we on the Movement Charter Drafting Committee have published the final text of the proposed ] (ratification vote coming up soon!), I can finally get back to the work I've been missing so much here on this project. I figured I should look at backlogs, and first off I'm going to work on clearing the IPBE requests; that will take a while, as it isn't top priority for most checkusers. Then there's SPI and other CU requests, as well as getting back into OS requests. Feel free to ping me if I can be of assistance. ] (]) 02:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for letting me know, SlimVirgin. I've downgraded editing protection to semi-protection; Gary King makes a reasonable point, and there should be no issue with knowledgeable community members editing this template. Anything with the word "administrator" in it, however, seems to eventually become a target of certain vandals, so I've left full move protection in place. I've also commented at ]. ] (]) 06:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification == | |||
| :::I agree, thanks for sorting it out. <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 06:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I reference the questions you asked at ] in this case clarification request. I figured this crosses the threshold of when it's a good idea to give someone a courtesy notification. ] ] 03:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == James Nguyen article == | |||
| == IP address blocked == | |||
| @Risker | |||
| You have blocked my IP address, so I can't edit. Although I may have made mistakes in the past, I have familiarized myself with all Misplaced Pages policies. Please reconsider and unblock my IP address. | |||
| ] (]) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You seem to be editing pretty well, at least when you're logged in. I haven't done many IP blocks in the last year, and most of the time I am making them more accessible (e.g., allowing logged-in editors to edit instead of blocking all editors). I really don't want to have to use the CheckUser tool to find out what IP address or range you are using, since you are able to edit logged-in. If you are encountering difficulty logging in or editing while logged in, that's a bit of a different story. If that is the case, the best step would be to email the address listed on ] so that it can be further reviewed by the CheckUser team. ] (]) 17:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==IPBE for ]== | |||
| I saw that you granted IPBE to this editor. As the first thing they did was cryptospamming (]), I am inclined to revoke that, but wanted to ask your opinion before doing so. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for letting me know, {{u|Seraphimblade}}. I've revoked the IPBE; while the account met the criteria for the initial grant, this is exactly why it is meant to be easy to revoke. I've been clearing the backlog of IPBE requests (there were over 100, I've lost count....), I'm hoping this will be the only one that messes up so obviously. ] (]) 16:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == IPBE question == | |||
| Is it generally acceptable for admins to grant IPBE to new editors who are in a geography (or on an ISP) where they'd need IPBE to edit? Was looking at ] and it isn't exactly clear (the request I was reviewing was at ]). ] (] | ]) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi {{u|Elli}}. Reasonable question. This would probably fall into the "use common sense" category, more so than anything. I deliberately didn't include the "geographies" issue for a few reasons: listing "concerning" geographies is a mug's game since they keep changing and expanding, and it's a potential vector for abuse (and yes, we've seen some inappropriate requests involving these "concerning" geographies). Gonna be honest, by the time an admin starts feeling comfortable in granting any additional permissions to people, they've usually developed a feel for situations where they don't really want to go. We've got a lot of really good and smart admins. | |||
| :I think there are also a few issues that need further discussion. Should we be range-blocking IPs that have no history of abuse, simply because they're a VPN or similar? With an increasing number of people and devices only operating effectively through VPNs and similar colocation vectors, should we become more liberal in our granting? How can we deal effectively with the IPBE-related issues that stem from deeply rooted systemic biases that exist outside of our small slice of the internet? Should we request that the developers separate Tor access from IPBE, which would reduce the risk of inappropriate behaviour? There are a lot of things we could be doing better to reduce the need for, and the risk of, granting IPBE. It becomes increasingly difficult to say to people "we want to see a reasonable editing history" when the reality is that they can't even gain access. ] (]) 18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| Hello, | Hello, | ||
| I want to ask, why cannot an article about ] (the director of ]) cannot be created? He, and the movie in question, was mentioned quite a lot of times in various newspapers. | |||
| --'']''. ] 22:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| == Is there a guideline on what is to be included in an article? == | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| ] | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 --> | |||
| == Protecting 2024 United States presidential election == | |||
| I just noticed that you goldlocked the article "]". Why? Is it just that much of a contentious topic? Just curious. ] (]) 08:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It is indeed a ], and was also having an ongoing edit war. ] (]) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah. ] (]) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk Page of 2024 United States Presidential Election is also locked (not only the article, which for the article is understandable) == | |||
| Good evening brother. Just wanted to ask why cant one post a topic on the talk page? | |||
| And also I basically just wanted to ask what the hold up is with updating the article? | |||
| Trump was declared the projected winner for 4 hours and the article still shows him as 266. Which is outdated information. | |||
| Sources: | |||
| https://www.foxnews.com/elections | |||
| https://elections2024.thehill.com/ | |||
| https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2024-us-presidential-election-results-live-map ] (]) 10:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Not touching the protection on that talk page; if you really want to pursue it, you can post at ]. The full protection of the article has been lifted now that the predetermined 5 mainstream media outlets have unanimously called the election for Trump. You will see much work done there in the coming hours. ] (]) 10:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == A Barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Donald Trump Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your work bringing cohesiveness and order to ] during AP's, CNN's, ABC's, CBS's and NBC's reporting last night; for making sure orderly process and structure were facilitated on ]. Admins like you are the best! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 13:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Thank you, {{u|BarntToust}}. I think. I'm still half asleep. :) ] (]) 15:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == #2024110610012222 == | |||
| Hey Risker! Thank you for actioning that request. For future reference, what is the correct way to request RevDel without using the Oversight process? The suggestion of 'Find active admins in ]' can be described as tedious at best. There has to be a better way? Thanks in advance, ] (]) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi {{u|OXYLYPSE}} - you did the right thing. If you're not in a position to raise an admin's attention quietly, you or any other user can make the request through emailing User:Oversight. This is especially important for apparent BLP issues; it's to everyone's benefit to keep that off noticeboards or other public spaces. The Oversight team does review every request that comes in and takes the most appropriate action; often that is revision deletion instead of suppression. Thanks for asking! ] (]) 23:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ]. | |||
| Take the survey ''''''. | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| ] | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| ''WARNING'': this question has relation with the Arbcom case about Gibraltar, but it has a much wider scope (that's why I post it directly to you). In case you think it should go to the Arbcom workshop (or wait until later) please tell me. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| I see that you think that one of the main problems in the case is "fact vs opinion". I completely agree, but in a very specific way. Most ''facts'' are agreed by almost everybody but we have very different ''opinions'' regarding which ones should be included in the article. I have seen that this is something quite common in controversial articles. I have looked for some guidelines on this question, but have not found any that are directly relevant: ] explicitly does "not directly limit the content of articles" (it only affects whole stand alone articles) and ] deals with balancing viewpoints such as "POV A says that X is white and POV B says that it is black" (not with whether some undisputed fact should be in the article). | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| The problem with this type of disputes, with only our opinions to guide us, is that they can often lead to accusations of censorship, bad faith, and lots of frustration. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I have proposed some kind of +/- objective benchmark using the number of mentions in reputed secondary sources: if an issue is well over the benchmark set by other issues undisputedly in the article, then it can probably go in; if it is well below, then it's hard to justify its inclusion. I think it would save us a lot of time, "blood, tears, toil and sweat". But maybe it is completely out of place for some reason or maybe there's a guideline that already deals with this (and I have not been able to find it - which is something plausible and then I apologise for wasting your time). | |||
| </div> | |||
| My question: is there a guideline dealing directly with this problem? if there isn't, maybe there should be one? | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
| ==Mail call== | |||
| Thanks. -- ] (]) 07:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{ygm}}] | ] 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC). | |||
| == |
== Sorry about that == | ||
| I mentioned it there, but I just wanted to reiterate here that in the light of day one of my comments at ] was rude. Sorry about that. | |||
| I look forward to (more) politely continuing to share our different perspectives! - ] (]) 16:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| His work intersected with mine somewhere in the past and I can't remember where. Since he's banned how can I refresh my memory? | |||
| He's been extremely active since 2003 and going through his contribution log 50 at a time will take hours and hours. I know I corresponded with him on his talk page... He contributed through this account alone more than I will do in my lifetime. I wonder where some editors get the time to do all they do. How can you feed yourself and edit Misplaced Pages as much as some do? I thought he was a decent fellow and guess I'm looking to adjust my regards to him. Should I mourn his banning? ] (]) 08:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's a quick list of the articles that both you and Altenmann edited. That might help to narrow things down. As to Altenmann's character, I wouldn't venture to say, but the majority of the 150,000 or so edits were very good and improved the encyclopedia. It's just that the problematic ones were problems in a very specific way. ] (]) 12:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| That's surprising cross section. I thought he was good at being NPOV and a few of those had pretty contentious sections. I hope that energy he has gets put to good work somewhere. I WISH I had some of that energy. Is he forever banned from Misplaced Pages? Thanks for the response. ] (]) 07:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, right now he is community banned, and I anticipate the ban will remain in place for a very extended period (years as opposed to weeks or months), particularly as the socking occurred over at least a 4 year period. Nonetheless, we have seen previously banned users return and do good work after other situations, so I won't profess to say that this is a permanent situation. ] (]) 15:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh RevelationDirect, just the other day I was accused of kicking dogs. I do not find anything you said to be particularly rude at all. Bottom line, though, I am really impressed that you hold yourself to such a high standard. It's a challenging discussion, for sure, but I think the focus has been on improvement and re-humanizing the process. ] (]) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible Sock puppetry, please help == | |||
| == No big deal... == | |||
| Dear Risker, | |||
| Hi, I haven't edited for almost 2 years, but I've been lurking (just a bit). I came across RECALL and its REWORKSHOP more by accident than design and I was so pleased to see you being active there. It certainly needs your special touch. It inspired me to throw in just two or three minor comments, and though I'm certainly not staging a comeback, I still have a vested interest in both encouraging potential admin candidates to throw their hat in the ring without fear, and even more important to ensure they get a ''fair deal'' when they get the bit - or lose it. Warm rgds, ] (]) 07:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have strong reasons to believe that ] and ] are Sock Puppets of ]. Their comment on ] came just minutes apart after more that 18 hours of Shmayo last activity, all to handle a single issue. Those other accounts have been basically idle, and just awoke at the voting stage of some suggestion in the above mentioned page. Please help verifying this issue, and please let me know what you find out.<br> | |||
| Best Regards,--] (]) 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Tisqupnaia2010. If you are concerned about sockpuppetry, your best bet is to request a ] at the page on that link. That will allow an independent, non-arbitrator checkuser to consider the appropriate course of action. thanks. ] (]) 19:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Invitation to provide feedback== | |||
| ==Risker== | |||
| Inspired by Worm That Turned's ] where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my ]. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my ''''''. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, ] (]) 16:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Risker -- I'm concerned about the page protection of the Anwar al-Awlaki page in its current state. Since Causa upped the hostility by blocking me, I've not edited that page. As pointed out by others, he has taken a different approach and made 75 edits. Also as pointed out by sysops and others, a number of his edits are controversial--examples are in diffs at the AN/I. I would like to address them, but have waited till we got AN/I input to do so (which we now have). The circumstances make the present form of the article a poor one to protect. Thoughts? Thanks.--] (]) 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :First, the BLP issues must be addressed. You are, of course, free to identify what you consider to be "controversial" edits made by Causa sui on the talk page of the article, and to suggest alternatives. But I will be reviewing the article as it stands now with a fine-toothed comb later tonight to ensure that every source actually says what is attributed to it, and that every attribution is actually properly sourced. I'll be removing BLP violations through protection, as permitted by policy, should I find any. <p>The BLP policy doesn't just apply to nice guys like Mr. Siegenthaler, it also applies to articles about tyrants and villains as well, and we absolutely must be consistent in its application, no matter how despicable the subject is. ] (]) 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :* Oh, well… there you go. I didn’t know that you had the unique wisdom and ability to accomplish what the rest of us were struggling with. By all means. Reserve the right to edit the article for yourself, Risker; that’s what Cuasa sui was trying to do but rather failed at. ] (]) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I noticed the curious similarity as well.--] (]) 22:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps the similarity is because we actually do understand the policies involved. Just for a moment, think about whether we would be having this discussion if an anonymous government official from Cambodia or China or Iran was to make a similar allegation about, say, ] or the ], or even a controversial minister from a local New York or Sydney church; even if it was reported in the most reliable source from that country, I am 99% certain it wouldn't even be considered for addition to the article, let alone have people complaining about admin abuse if it was removed. ] (]) 22:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes. Pretty to think so, anyway. ] (]) 22:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *The claim would be ''more surprising'' in that case. This distinction is clearly stated in the guidelines. That is a distinction with an enormous, and highly relevant difference. As I'm sure you know, given your understanding of the policies. But yes -- if Billy were named by our highest level RS source to be killing Americans, of course I would support the same treatment.--] (]) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Erm, newspapers are nowhere near our "highest level source". Peer-reviewed books and journals top them out by a long shot. Let's not call a sow's ear a silk purse, please. ] (]) 23:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Well then… We will all wait with bated breath for the dust drifting on the horizon to develop into the dramatic image of Risker riding her galloping steed towards the camera (extreme telephoto view and stop-action playback speed) as she rescues the article all the heck by herself this evening (using her '''Unique Insight Into BLP Policy Powers'''®™©). The Wikipedian world watches and waits for the currently locked-down ] article to be unlocked and delivered unto the huddled masses. ] (]) 01:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *@Risker--The above conversation heightens my concern that we may be talking apples and oranges, and (to mix metaphors) I think it would be helpful to get on the same page. I haven't seen you quote the precise language you have in mind from BLP, and at this point to fully appreciate your comment that would be helpful. Further, as to your comment about books ... I don't think that you are saying we must under the policy wait for a book to be published. Or a journal. And clearly those are among the highest-level RS newspapers in the world. (I'm confused by your reference to them as a "sow's ear") But as you will see on the AA talk page, I've asked for you to be clear there as to what language in the policy you are referring to. I've read it and re-read it, and could use your help.--] (]) 05:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Epeefleche, I'm heading to bed now and will be unavailable pretty well all day tomorrow, so it may be 18-20 hours or so before I am able to respond to you fully. I have spent the last few hours reading over the article for a first impression, and then doing a focused review of the first part of the lead (you can see my notes at ]). You will see in my notes that I have not identified any further egregious BLP violations at this stage, mostly issues of appropriate source selection (you might really want to think about whether that Sperry book is necessary, it reads like a spy thriller instead of a good reference source, and has quite a bit of supposition in it despite the numerous footnotes). Quickly, though, newspapers will never be as sterling a reference source as a well-researched, peer-reviewed book; they are written contemporaneously, often when significant facts are unavailable, and frequently depend on sources who speak anonymously only under circumstances of plausible deniability (e.g., one does not seem to find any government official who will go "on record" with the quote I removed earlier today). I do not think that this subject should wait until someone writes a book; while there may not be evidence that directly links the subject to terrorist plots, there is obviously a noteworthy proportion of those who have been caught in terroristic activities who have studied his teachings. I have pretty high standards for notability, and AA easily meets them; there is place for an article about him here. Nonetheless, it is a BLP about a highly controversial figure, and such biographical articles demand our best effort to ensure proper balance, the most optimal sourcing, and pruning to exclude anything that is more properly covered elsewhere (e.g., the sections on the various alleged terrorists can probably be shrunk, as there are articles about them all that go into far greater detail). I fully expect that the issues with this article can be worked out satisfactorily over the next few weeks at most. <p>The one thing that you might want to start looking at closely are any direct quotes that are in the article, to ensure that they are attributed to an identified person. If not, and if it is attributed to only one source, then it probably needs to come out. Keep in mind that the thrust (although not the specificity) of the sentence I removed still exists in the article right now; the problem has always been the highly inflammatory direct quote from an unidentified person. ] (]) 06:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know you're busy, so just a cut and past of the relevant passages from the guideline would give me something to look at while you are tied up over the next day. The language that supports deletion of the quote by the American official, for example, and your view expressed immediately above with regard to quotes. Also, when you come back, I would ask that you look at the article before Causa's edits two weeks ago, and look at what he deleted which was fully supported by RSs. Balance here means balance in accordance with the balance in the RSs. Not that we have a balance that is half "he is sweet" and half "he is not sweet".--] (]) 06:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Hey Risker. We're missing you over here. Are you coming back? :-) --] (]) 15:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Haven't forgotten, unfortunately was tied up with real-world issues the past few days and have barely had a chance to log in. I tend to give priority to the work that will pay my internet bill, if you know what I mean. Tomorrow looks favourable. ] (]) 06:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just so you know, I've spent several hours today reading the various references from end to end, trying to derive the most benefit from them. There are duplicates, incidentally, and there don't seem to be as many non-US ones as I would hope, given the international flavour of the subject. ] (]) 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==Io Saturnalia!== | ||
| You might want to weigh in ]. --] (]) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;" | |||
| ==Ping== | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="right" | ] | |||
| ] -- I have posted something new at : | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Nadolig Llawen == | |||
| I wonder what distinguishes the ] "clarification" thread from "]"? If this is not "]", <u>please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me</u>. | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:yellow; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]]]<br/> | |||
| :::<b>Ping</b>. | |||
| <big>'''Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.'''<br/>Happy Christmas and Best wishes for a peaceful 2025:</big> performed by the ].<br />(], ] folk carol) | |||
| :::] -- Now what? ]? | |||
| ---- | |||
| :::*This ''whatever-it-is'' is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left ] | |||
| </div> ] (]) 09:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*What ] is thus prevented? | |||
| :::How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --] (]) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :@ ] (]) 19:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:55, 22 December 2024
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog
Stats for pending changes trial |
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
Notes
WP:ARBAP2
{{subst:W-screen}} {{subst:User:Alison/c}}
Misplaced Pages:SPI/CLERK and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators
Note to self: Consider writing an article about the Forster Family Dollhouse in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Some day.
Listeria Bot Misplaced Pages:New_page_patrol_source_guide#Africa
| Emergency desysops |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Other note to self re "emergency" desysops:
|
Please post below
I'm around a lot more now!
Well, now that we on the Movement Charter Drafting Committee have published the final text of the proposed movement charter (ratification vote coming up soon!), I can finally get back to the work I've been missing so much here on this project. I figured I should look at backlogs, and first off I'm going to work on clearing the IPBE requests; that will take a while, as it isn't top priority for most checkusers. Then there's SPI and other CU requests, as well as getting back into OS requests. Feel free to ping me if I can be of assistance. Risker (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Notification
I reference the questions you asked at WT:RFA in this case clarification request. I figured this crosses the threshold of when it's a good idea to give someone a courtesy notification. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
IP address blocked
@Risker
You have blocked my IP address, so I can't edit. Although I may have made mistakes in the past, I have familiarized myself with all Misplaced Pages policies. Please reconsider and unblock my IP address.
ᱤᱧ ᱢᱟᱛᱟᱞ (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be editing pretty well, at least when you're logged in. I haven't done many IP blocks in the last year, and most of the time I am making them more accessible (e.g., allowing logged-in editors to edit instead of blocking all editors). I really don't want to have to use the CheckUser tool to find out what IP address or range you are using, since you are able to edit logged-in. If you are encountering difficulty logging in or editing while logged in, that's a bit of a different story. If that is the case, the best step would be to email the address listed on WP:IPBE so that it can be further reviewed by the CheckUser team. Risker (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
IPBE for User:Lynnzh0913
I saw that you granted IPBE to this editor. As the first thing they did was cryptospamming (Draft:Aibit exchange), I am inclined to revoke that, but wanted to ask your opinion before doing so. Seraphimblade 07:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Seraphimblade. I've revoked the IPBE; while the account met the criteria for the initial grant, this is exactly why it is meant to be easy to revoke. I've been clearing the backlog of IPBE requests (there were over 100, I've lost count....), I'm hoping this will be the only one that messes up so obviously. Risker (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
IPBE question
Is it generally acceptable for admins to grant IPBE to new editors who are in a geography (or on an ISP) where they'd need IPBE to edit? Was looking at User:Risker/IPBE and it isn't exactly clear (the request I was reviewing was at User talk:Caralice). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Elli. Reasonable question. This would probably fall into the "use common sense" category, more so than anything. I deliberately didn't include the "geographies" issue for a few reasons: listing "concerning" geographies is a mug's game since they keep changing and expanding, and it's a potential vector for abuse (and yes, we've seen some inappropriate requests involving these "concerning" geographies). Gonna be honest, by the time an admin starts feeling comfortable in granting any additional permissions to people, they've usually developed a feel for situations where they don't really want to go. We've got a lot of really good and smart admins.
- I think there are also a few issues that need further discussion. Should we be range-blocking IPs that have no history of abuse, simply because they're a VPN or similar? With an increasing number of people and devices only operating effectively through VPNs and similar colocation vectors, should we become more liberal in our granting? How can we deal effectively with the IPBE-related issues that stem from deeply rooted systemic biases that exist outside of our small slice of the internet? Should we request that the developers separate Tor access from IPBE, which would reduce the risk of inappropriate behaviour? There are a lot of things we could be doing better to reduce the need for, and the risk of, granting IPBE. It becomes increasingly difficult to say to people "we want to see a reasonable editing history" when the reality is that they can't even gain access. Risker (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Protecting 2024 United States presidential election
I just noticed that you goldlocked the article "2024 United States presidential election". Why? Is it just that much of a contentious topic? Just curious. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is indeed a contentious topic, and was also having an ongoing edit war. Risker (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Talk Page of 2024 United States Presidential Election is also locked (not only the article, which for the article is understandable)
Good evening brother. Just wanted to ask why cant one post a topic on the talk page?
And also I basically just wanted to ask what the hold up is with updating the article?
Trump was declared the projected winner for 4 hours and the article still shows him as 266. Which is outdated information.
Sources:
https://www.foxnews.com/elections
https://elections2024.thehill.com/
https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2024-us-presidential-election-results-live-map 2806:2F0:1080:F8C0:9901:73EA:1D3F:3883 (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not touching the protection on that talk page; if you really want to pursue it, you can post at WP:RFPP. The full protection of the article has been lifted now that the predetermined 5 mainstream media outlets have unanimously called the election for Trump. You will see much work done there in the coming hours. Risker (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you!
|
The Donald Trump Barnstar |
| For your work bringing cohesiveness and order to 2024 United States presidential election during AP's, CNN's, ABC's, CBS's and NBC's reporting last night; for making sure orderly process and structure were facilitated on Talk:2024 United States presidential election. Admins like you are the best! BarntToust 13:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
Thank you, BarntToust. I think. I'm still half asleep. :) Risker (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
#2024110610012222
Hey Risker! Thank you for actioning that request. For future reference, what is the correct way to request RevDel without using the Oversight process? The suggestion of 'Find active admins in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_handle_RevisionDelete_requests' can be described as tedious at best. There has to be a better way? Thanks in advance, OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi OXYLYPSE - you did the right thing. If you're not in a position to raise an admin's attention quietly, you or any other user can make the request through emailing User:Oversight. This is especially important for apparent BLP issues; it's to everyone's benefit to keep that off noticeboards or other public spaces. The Oversight team does review every request that comes in and takes the most appropriate action; often that is revision deletion instead of suppression. Thanks for asking! Risker (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Take the survey here.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Mail call
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Bishonen | tålk 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC).
Sorry about that
I mentioned it there, but I just wanted to reiterate here that in the light of day one of my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator recall/Reworkshop was rude. Sorry about that.
I look forward to (more) politely continuing to share our different perspectives! - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh RevelationDirect, just the other day I was accused of kicking dogs. I do not find anything you said to be particularly rude at all. Bottom line, though, I am really impressed that you hold yourself to such a high standard. It's a challenging discussion, for sure, but I think the focus has been on improvement and re-humanizing the process. Risker (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
No big deal...
Hi, I haven't edited for almost 2 years, but I've been lurking (just a bit). I came across RECALL and its REWORKSHOP more by accident than design and I was so pleased to see you being active there. It certainly needs your special touch. It inspired me to throw in just two or three minor comments, and though I'm certainly not staging a comeback, I still have a vested interest in both encouraging potential admin candidates to throw their hat in the ring without fear, and even more important to ensure they get a fair deal when they get the bit - or lose it. Warm rgds, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to provide feedback
Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my recall process. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Io Saturnalia!
.jpg)
|
Io, Saturnalia! | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
Nadolig Llawen
_Adoration_of_the_Magi_in_the_snow_by_Pieter_Brueghel_the_Younger_-_Correr_version.jpg)
Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.
Happy Christmas and Best wishes for a peaceful 2025: "Gabriel's Message" performed by the Winchester Cathedral Choir.
("Birjina gaztetto bat zegoen", Basque folk carol)