Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Current Checkuser and Oversight elections

Notes

{{subst:User:Alison/c}}

Messages below please

Very sorry to hear of your loss, Risker. Bishonen | talk 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. Certainly puts this website into perspective. Risker (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Strategic Planning followup

Risker, thanks for your fantastic contributions to last night's strategic planning office hours. There's some followup at the strategy wiki. I hope you'll join us there and continue to share your thoughts! Philippe Beaudette, Facilitator, Strategy Project (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

RfPP

Hi Risker, there's been a request on RfPP that Template:Administrator review be unprotected, partly on the grounds that it's not transcluded on many pages. As the protecting admin, do you have any objection? SlimVirgin 05:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SlimVirgin 06:05, 7 April 2010 (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 WP:RFPP. Risker (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for sorting it out. SlimVirgin 06:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

James Nguyen article

Hello, I want to ask, why cannot an article about James Nguyen (the director of Birdemic: Shock and Terror) cannot be created? He, and the movie in question, was mentioned quite a lot of times in various newspapers. --Have a nice day. Running 22:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a guideline on what is to be included in an article?

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.

Hi,

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: WP:NOTABILITY explicitly does "not directly limit the content of articles" (it only affects whole stand alone articles) and WP:NPOV 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).

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.

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).

My question: is there a guideline dealing directly with this problem? if there isn't, maybe there should be one?

Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the arbcom has already ended, I think it's OK now for me to ask: Is there a guideline that can help us decide whether an accepted issue (or fact) would better be included in an article? I mean, the way WP:NOTABILITY helps us decide whether we should keep an article or not.

I have not been able to find any guideline, but this could just be because I have missed something (a very probable hypothesis, no irony implied...) Sorry to insist on this, but I'm afraid the current Gibraltar dispute is very much about whether we should include or not certain issues that are accepted by everybody. Thank you! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Altenmann

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? Alatari (talk) 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. Risker (talk) 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. Alatari (talk) 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. Risker (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sock puppetry, please help

Dear Risker,

I have strong reasons to believe that User:Assyria 90 and User:Destudent are Sock Puppets of User:Shmayo. Their comment on this page 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.
Best Regards,--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tisqupnaia2010. If you are concerned about sockpuppetry, your best bet is to request a sockpuppet investigation at the page on that link. That will allow an independent, non-arbitrator checkuser to consider the appropriate course of action. thanks. Risker (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Risker

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.--Epeefleche (talk) 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.

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. Risker (talk) 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. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed the curious similarity as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 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, Billy Graham or the Archbishop of Canterbury, 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. Risker (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Pretty to think so, anyway. Greg L (talk) 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.--Epeefleche (talk) 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. Risker (talk) 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 Anwar al-Awlaki article to be unlocked and delivered unto the huddled masses. Greg L (talk) 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.--Epeefleche (talk) 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 User:Risker/Anwar). 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.

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. Risker (talk) 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".--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Risker. We're missing you over here. Are you coming back? :-) --causa sui (talk) 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. Risker (talk) 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. Risker (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki#Proposed update for lead. –xeno 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Risker -- I have posted something new at Response to Risker:

I wonder what distinguishes the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread from "moving the goalposts"? If this is not "moving the goalposts", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Risker -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to your further comments; and I continue to hope for action. --Tenmei (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tenmei. There will be a motion up on your request within the next 24 hours. Thank you for reminding me. Risker (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Missed one

I think you missed one revision of Talk:Temple Lot in your purge: this one that started it all. I don't care if you delete it or not, but I thought you'd like to know. – jaksmata 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, it isn't suppressed; there wasn't personal information in that edit, although all subsequent ones had the non-public personal information in it, which meant they all met the criteria for suppression. I can't quite justify suppressing it under current circumstances. Thank you for taking the time to notice, it is good to know that others keep an eye on such things. Risker (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Case Comments

I just wanted to bring to your attention a few things on the Gibraltar case.

1. When I was having problems I said some regrettable things, which I have apologised for, if you still feel a topic ban is appropriate then I'm not going to argue about it. I just make the point that bans and blocks are supposedly preventative not punitive. I made those remarks whilst in a bad place, they haven't been repeated and they're out of character. Now that I am a lot better is it still appropriate?

2. The assertion that the self-governing status of Gibraltar is an "opinion" not a fact. Sorry but I cannot accept that remaining in the case. Gibraltar is self-governing, it is a fact that the Spanish editors could not dispute. Instead they have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV. I think you're being incredibly naive if you feel those remarks are helpful in steering the dispute, I can see those remarks coming back to haunt you in various nationalist disputes.

3. When this case was started, I couldn't participate fully as my father was ill and another editor was hospitalised. The evidence produced by a number of editors who've effectively held the article hostage was directed toward removing editors they disagreed with by topic bans; you'll note that I didn't propose of suggest any blocks/bans/sanctions against individuals. Effectively what you're proposing is to remove one side but leave the other intact. You're rewarding editors for baiting others into uncivil remarks.

4. In reading your comments I can only conclude you have apparently disregarded the workshop. In the workshop there was case of RHoPF hounding editors, walls of text being put up to derail discussion by Ecemaml, non-apologies such as "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke" not to mention examples of bad faith and uncivil remarks:

activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination
"Gibnews' rottweiler" repeated

I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here.
So that is three untruths in the same section from you, Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?

5. In the workshop, the editors were lobbying to have my conduct examined more fully. I would still welcome that.

6. This was never an arbcom case, there had been no previous attempt at long term solutions. I can only note my bitter disappointment that arbcom would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap or even have their conduct examined at all. Particularly an editor who apparently delights in teasing and tormenting those with temporary mental problems. I've seen this editor hounding people for years and I can't believe he is going to get away with it again.

The solution you're proposing might reduce conflict, well if you ban only one side then what's left can violently agree on skewing the POV of the article. What it isn't is a long term solution, I did propose something like this some time ago , it would be more workable. Justin talk 09:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin. I read the talk pages and responses to proposed decisions on the Arbcom-related pages, where they appropriately are placed. I note your concern. I also note that part of the issue is this perception of "sides". I will be mostly away from the computer for the next 48 hours so won't be in a position to properly respond until then. In fairness, though, I am not sure there's much to respond to here. Risker (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for at least listening. As regards your comment about sides, well there shouldn't be any in a collaborative project, nor should there be any winners. Also, see this comment by Redcoat10 back in August 2009, then try and imagine a scenario where for months you have one editor who constantly returns to the same point, ignores discussions, misrepresents a position, just at the point where consensus is very nearly reached makes a nit picking comment about detail for it all to unravel and then returns to the same point that he started of with back in July 2009, shops around multiple forums, raises every single point to mediation and insists on forcing the same peripheral piece of information into every Gibraltar article. I just wonder if you wouldn't be a little irritable and irascible with the sheer frustration. Then see how you feel when they pick the moment you're at your most vulnerable to take every snappy comment and spin every expression of frustration to paint you as being unreasonable. I don't claim to be innocent at all, I've said right from the start where I was wrong and haven't even tried to avoid any sanction against me. And they're still needling at me, trying to provoke me, I haven't retaliated but I am somewhat perpelexed that there is no strong admin action in response. Justin talk 00:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

SITT

Why can't I find an article on "Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications" (SITT), your version of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, mostly because the Canadian counterpart to the FCC is the CRTC; however, it isn't nearly as well organised. SITT is part of Industry Canada (and the CRTC reports into that department as well). This is the external link heading directly to the SITT portal for Ministry. Risker (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I found that SITT page. I read in my CISSP book that SITT is the equivalent of FCC, so they were talking from a computer geek POV, so it appears SITT is more computer field oriented, is that so? I see SITT is one-lined in the Industry Canada article, so there's a article someone familiar with SITT (you or Coren, hehe) could write ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 14:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sig

Seems better to me, too. —fetch·comms 00:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus music video screenshot

Hi Risker. The music video screenshot wasn't copyvio, it was a single frame directly taken from the music video. I blanked the FUR and license when tagging the file {{db-author}} (I thought that's what one was supposed to do... my apologies if not, I've misunderstood something). It did violate WP:NFCC#8 since the text in the article never specifically discussed the image. Anyway, thought I'd clarify; thanks for deleting. – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 06:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dust 362

Hello, I just reverted a diff by User:Vange Whedon 468 who I think may be a sock of Dust 362. Same editing pattern as user:Boom-Boom 309 whom you blocked a while ago as a sock. GainLine ♠ _♥ 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: CheckUser and Oversight elections

You might want to see if there can be a dropdown notice on Wiki about the elections as the AN post will just get archived in 24 bringing voting to a crawl if not a halt. Having a notice on Wiki will bring the elections out in the forefront where everyone can see and vote. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I quite agree with you, NeutralHomer, but I make it a point never to go near MediaWiki stuff; the one time I did, it took two hours for my heart rate to return to normal. ;-) One of my colleagues will be doing the site notice thingy tomorrow, I just did the first pass at the most obvious places tonight. Thanks for the reminder, though! It's good to see that others are looking out for each other to make sure that this information is out there. Risker (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand with the MediaWiki thing. Glad I could be of assistance :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on policy

There have been regular difference of opinion in article deletion debates regarding NPOV application. It's an intersecting of WP:WAX the final entry on legitimate usage, WP:BIAS and the current reading of WP:NPOV. I hopefully summarized my case effectively here. Alatari (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight elections

My recent edit to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/May_2010_election was based on the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:SecurePoll/vote/120 which gave me this message:

The requirements are that your account:

• not be blocked; and
• not be a bot; and
• has made at least 150 main space edits prior to 1 November 2009

Oh dear. I will draw this to the attention of the election administrators, Coren and KnightLago. I am very sorry to see there is a problem here. I will ask them to get back to you soonest. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Risker (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the actual suffrage date is correct, but the message is not (it was left untouched from the ArbCom elections). I need to track down where it lives in Mediawiki space and fix it — sorry for the confusion Coopkev2. — Coren  19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(To be clear, the actual requirement is 150 mainspace edits on March 31, and you only had 129 — it's just that the explanation why you did not have suffrage was outdated). — Coren  19:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Found and fixed (MediaWiki:Securepoll-not-in-list). — Coren  19:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears my work here is done. Thanks Coren! KnightLago (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for all the places and ideas you have pointed me to. MBisanz 05:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, MBisanz. I really appreciate this. Risker (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:65.81.149.197

This anon appears to have been caught in a rangeblock imposed by you--can you offer some guidance? Blueboy96 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The range is unblocked now. Risker (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

CU review

At this SPI case you came back with a "likely" result instead of a "confirmed" result on User:Sally Jefferson. If it's not invading privacy could you go into why you didn't say "confirmed"? The user is requesting an unblock and I would have declined it outright if it weren't that this was the only account you didn't say "confirmed" on. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There were notable variations in the editing pattern between the "Sally" account and the other ones. The user agent that this account has in common with one or more of the other accounts is generic and insufficient to consider it a "confirmed" match. It may be worthwhile to unblock and watch for a bit, as it is confirmed that other users are on the same range. Risker (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IP user

Most people, me included, regard IP contributions as suspicous of unrelibilty. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fall of '09

Re: , I don't see any edits by Ferrylodge to abortion or to Talk:Abortion in fall of 2009. Am I missing them, or did you mean to mention a different timeframe? Confused... :) MastCell  23:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it was the Fall/Winter of 2008-09. I will make the correction to my comment. Risker (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that makes sense. And sorry to bug you. MastCell  00:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just to follow up on this, because it's been bugging me a bit. I'm not sure that Ferrylodge's behavior in fall/winter 2008-2009 was really any more constructive than his previous behavior. In the course of this lengthy discussion, he called Tznkai (talk · contribs) a "censor and propagandist". Tznkai filed a request for enforcement, where Ferrylodge repeated the line that he was "opposing blatant and politically motivated censorship". Shell responded to the request, opining that Ferrylodge had "stepped over the line", but "into the realm of incivility and personal attacks and not in ways that would trigger the Arb case." () To be fair, Sandstein, reviewing the same request, also found nothing that would trigger the sanctions (), but it doesn't exactly seem like evidence of constructive engagement, either.

  I guess what I'm saying is that the absence of blocks and bans isn't necessarily evidence that his editing has been constructive. Personally, I gave up on the sanction after this incident in 2008, so would not have reported anything after that point anyhow.

  I will freely admit that I may have a blind spot, or at least a strongly preconceived notion, here. In my 4 years on Misplaced Pages, I have never encountered an editor as persistently, intractably difficult for me to interact with as Ferrylodge. I don't have the patience of a saint, but others do (Tznkai, Andrew c, Severa), and he's consistently driven them bananas as well on the topic of abortion. Anyhow... MastCell  18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, MastCell. I am going to be re-examining this in the next few days (a tad swamped at the moment), and I think you may have a relevant point here. Risker (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like power is there

but I assume that is the kind of thing you had in mind. There is a Dilbert as CEO cartoon wheere his "all is well" gesture is taken to mean "throw Jones out of the window" so I thought I might check.. --BozMo talk 09:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly his appeal by email also cites Risker as a text "Let's face it. Blocking Giano is the administrative equivalent of touching the third rail. Few admins survive unscathed, and there is inevitably drama. Therefore the decision to block Giano or any other high profile editor should take into consideration opportunities for alternate actions (e.g., deleting the offending edit, discussing at AN or AN/I, giving a warning), whether the benefits of blocking outweigh the drama that will result from the perspective of the community at large, and holding Giano to the same standards as other blocked longterm editors (not a higher or unrealistic one), who as a group have a propensity to spout off on their talk pages. In particular, the escalating blocks were poorly considered. Risker (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC) " . Perhaps he is right.--BozMo talk 10:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do you know - I am flattered that somebody took that message to heart, although I admit a bit of surprise that it was WMC who did so. I do still adhere to that philosophy, that de-escalating and working to find a non-blocking solution is usually preferable to blocking people with a solid history of contribution to the project. I also believe that de-escalation is more effectively done by those who already have a bond of mutual respect with the person whose behaviour is going off the rails; I've seen it work many times. Having said all that, I didn't really anticipate people blocking each other, although I recognise that there are indeed situations where that is necessary, when other methods have been ineffective.

I think, as well, that editors and admins from all sides of this discussion could use a little work on their ability to raise an eyebrow, shake their head, and walk away from provocative comments. There's a meatball around somewhere called "Defend each other" that nicely summarises the benefits of stepping away from direct confrontation and letting others not directly affected address the situation. We could use a bit more of that, too. Risker (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Risker, some of us have tried that. You may notice that when these situations start you'll find people that typically agree with WMC about various content issues attempt to step in and diffuse situations by hustling him out the door. In response to this, individuals who take this kind of action are refered to as a "Claque," or a host of other inapropriate terms - and the individual escalating with WMC will often say things like "My question is for William." or "you should consider allowing people the respect and opportunity of standing up for themselves" or "since WMC won't answer direct questions about his behavior now," or "asked WMC a variant of this question and what I got was ... no answer from him but a lot of back and forth from others. As a defense tactic it's admirable (speaking purely tactically). As a discussion style? Not so much." I can probably rustle up over a hundred attempts to prevent meatball:DefendEachOther from working. Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been a strong proponent of DeEaO ever since I first found it, back in 2006. But the quote of mine you cite is from an incident where DefendEachOther very much wasn't going on. At least not the right kind... The right kind of defense is to explain calmly why a charge is incorrect. It is not to interfere with a legitimate question, or to reflexively attack back at the questioner. If you think those sorts of responses are appropriate, then I'm not really sure you know what DefendEachOther actually means. It never includes bluster. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, the most relevant part of DefendEachOther is: "Most of the time personal attacks need not be defended at all, because the attacker only hurts their own reputation and credibility." It would be ideal if editors in the topic area internalized this at least a little bit. As admins, the best thing we can do is probably to set an example, which I think has occasionally been a bit lacking. MastCell  16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was truly astonished to see the Giano Exception invoked as an unblock reason by WMC. But if the situation were reversed I wouldn't have blocked WMC for those remarks anyway. For his stunt yesterday where he characterised the input of several other editors on the CC enforcement page as "twaddle", perhaps. But not for venting. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I did not block him for the remarks per sae but for undoing when I struck the remarks. There was some discussion in the Climate Change probation pages broadly supporting an approach of uninvolved admins (yep, me) striking PAs and incivility with a block warning for unstrike. There may be a technical argument that this supercedes your ruling on whats allowed on a user talk page but it seems pointless to waste community time on that, so I have conceded the technical argument to WMC. But I have to say I recognise the description by Hipocrite very clearly; people do try and hustle WMC out the door but sometimes with abuse being shouted both ways. And the comments made about those trying to quietly sort out the problem with fists behind the bike sheds even in the last couple of weeks are not helped by other people mixing in baiting him ("I want his answer to this") and characterising many of those trying as a "cosy club". I particularly think Boris has put in a bit of work on this and deserves credit.--BozMo talk 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think striking them wasn't advisable either. If we let people vent, we let them vent, we don't come in and strike, and edit war over keeping the strike in place and then block. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well as a tactic it may be imperfect but perhaps it is preferable to venting back, may be? Seriously though I remember hearing Polkinghorne saying that Patience was the behaviour with the biggest disparity between how much we all love the concept and how much we all hate the practice. I suspect that walking away from disagreements is something where there is also a gap between belief and practice for more people than just me... --BozMo talk 19:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, striking is better than blasting back. And walking away is better than striking. But walking away is terrifically hard. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• So was I surprised to see me referenced! Here I sit shivering to death in a fucking fleece being told its fucking summer in this miserable bloody, horrible, cold country of William M Connolley's. Global bloody warming, I should fucking cocoa - people need to look out of the window more and less at computers! I shall write the next page on global warming!  Giacomo  19:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What country is that? I live near where WMC claims to and was in our solar heated outdoor swimming pool this afternoon enjoying the sun :) Last weekend it was 28C in the shade and the veg garden was in peril. --BozMo talk 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I am in London, the big place at the end of the rail network, and yes the weekend was pleasant for a nothern European climate, but today, it's bloody freezing!  Giacomo  20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

London, ah yes I remember London... I used to work there before I downshifted. You have my smug sympathy (from a garden where I cannot even hear any vehicle noise). But at least you probably have mains gas to keep you warm. --BozMo talk 21:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• That should work out well! :) (and not just referenced, man, you've an entire Exception named after you) BTW how's my wife? I think she talks to you more than me. Or used to. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Email at once Lar - if you please!  Giacomo  20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we are managing to sort this. --BozMo talk 11:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

that's me

I usually try to avoid hurting people's feelings. In Misplaced Pages, there is too much mean behavior. Sometimes, I make a mistake but then I try to go back to erase things within a few minutes, if possible. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible misclick?

Just want to check about this edit of yours. NW (Talk) 12:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. Sorry about that. I think I was on that page when my browser crashed, and then I wasn't able to return. Please feel free to revert me. Risker (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

I've replied to you at User talk:AGK#Drama llama. I agree with you that my method of phrasing could have added to the heat of the discussion (though I, and the editor I was speaking to, maintain that I spoke carefully enough to make it clear I was just making a point—as I'd have hoped you would realise). Otherwise I would disagree in the strongest possible terms with your comments. Thank you all the same for making them; discussion is healthy, and all that. Regards, AGK 12:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

IRC?

Hi Risker. Was looking for you on IRC there, but you don't appear to be online. Hopefully I'll catch you later tonight or at some point in the next few days. It's not an urgent matter, but I'm looking for a brief chat (following on from your e-mail of yesterday) if you'd be okay with that. Regards, AGK 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A chat would be fine. I am logged on now, although also doing other things, and will be on and off over the weekend. I do try to squeeze in a bit of "real life" whenever I can. :-) Risker (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem here might be that we are both trying to fit in IRL time and are both (I think) in different time zones :). I'll catch you at some point I'm sure. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. AGK 19:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my...

Risker, it looks like I missed something pretty nasty on my user and talk page. Thank you for finding it and deleting it. Basket of Puppies 02:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WOOF! New article

• J. K. Ralston, western artist — Dog The Teddy Bear • • 17:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow, I can't believe we didn't have an article about this fellow long ago. I'm not exactly one to haunt the art galleries, but even I have heard of J.K. Ralston. Good work! Risker (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WOOF WOOF! — Dog The Teddy Bear • • 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya :)

just thought i should say hi :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophie (talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! :-) Risker (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hiya from me too. Replied here, your further comments would be appreciated before I take the time to file a bugzilla request. –xeno 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya back. Responded there. :-) Risker (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

photo cropping

Hello, I was wondering if there is a way to crop a photo so it will fit better on the Tea Party Movement. Every time we add or move text, the photo ends up displacing the citations section, creating a huge white gutter down the side of the references section. If the photo could be cropped at the top, it might not be such a problem.Malke2010 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As multi-talented as I am, my skills with images are minimal. I suggest you consider speaking with the photographer, User:Ragesoss, who has provided modified versions of photographs he has taken; or perhaps hope that one of my lovely TPWs can give you a hand. I've just taken a look at the placement of the image in the article, and it looks fine right now, but I can understand it being troublesome if you're rearranging things. Risker (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the size is a problem every time something gets rearranged. I spent quite a bit of time this morning getting it to fit. I will check with the photog. Thanks.Malke2010 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind

Could you free this imprisoned unfortunate .  Giacomo  23:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xtzou

First off, I don't believe Xtzou is a sock. I worked with him and my Sock-DAR never went off once. Second, Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since he has been blocked as a sock, does that void my GA article's review? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

CAn you at least bring this up at ANI? Xtzou is a very productive editor and it;s hard to belive that he was a sock....--White Shadows 02:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought this very post to ANI, listed here. So it will get some views. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're worried about a GA review, why did you not post to WT:GA? I'm sorry to tell you that Xtzou is a checkuser-confirmed, behaviourally-confirmed sock of an indefinitely blocked user who was indefinitely blocked for multiple episodes of socking. I believe that if you draw your partially-completed GA review to people who are in the best position to do something about it (i.e., other GA reviewers, rather than the crowd who hang out at ANI), you are most likely to get a satisfactory result. Risker (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the problem, it isn't partially-completed GA, it is completed. Has been for a week or so. Hence my worry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, I misunderstood. From my perspective, I do not think there were likely any quality problems with the GA review; if the article was granted "good article" status, I do not think it should be rescinded because of this block. Risker (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

*WHEW*...Good...cause that would have been a big bummer. I also got a response frm HJ Mitchell who said the same thing that since it is complete, it is no worries. I think I can breathe now. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have a question, who was he a sock to? Sorry to be nozy. --Nascar1996 02:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I demand request to see some evidence. Xtzou was probably the best GA reviewer we had. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the word you are looking for here, William S. Saturn, is "request". Xtzou is the return of indefinitely blocked Mattisse, who was blocked after a third bout of disruptive sockpuppetry over the course of several years. It is no surprise she was good at it; she has been doing GA reviews for a long time. I am a bit surprised that nobody at GA found it unusual that a week-old account was so knowledgeable about the standards expected, but I don't hold any animosity about that. The standard expectation is that users in this situation stay away from this project for an extended period (six months to a year), and if they return, they do so under controlled circumstances. Risker (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize, there's just been some crazy stuff going on today.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I can confirm Risker's findings. I was the one who originally discovered the connection, and I asked her what I should do. J.delanoy_adds 03:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn, thought Xtzou/Mattisse was a good user. Oh well. Just glad the GA articles are safe that Xtzou/Mattisse reviewed, though I wouldn't be against being re-reviewed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When is the last time she socked? I mean, if she's not currently socking shouldn't it mean something?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

She was blocked on March 9, in the midst of using socks disruptively to harass other users. She was under mentorship at the time. She had created multiple other sleeper socks as well. She had used socks in 2009 to attack and harass other users. The Xtzou account was created three weeks after the block, and only shortly after all the dust had settled from it. Risker (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your decision because I know it's the customary thing to do, but if the user is not currently doing any harm, might this be punitive?--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the talk page, but I haven't read the case yet. But before I do, let me say that I've interacted with Xtzou a lot lately, probably more than anyone else and I thought she was perfectly civil and helped me out a great deal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also interacted with Xtzou/Mattisse as well (primarily on my GA) and thought she was a great editor and very helpful. Like I said above, my SockDAR never went off once. I guess I didn't dig enough into the contribs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is good to know that your experiences were positive and pleasant; Mattisse has had good relations with many editors over the years, and has made many useful contributions.

Now, for anyone coming upon this section in the next 24 hours (I may be away from the keyboard for much of that time), please keep things civil. It isn't appropriate for anyone to bring up long-past disputes, or examples of either exemplary or problematic behaviours. Regardless of how anyone feels about their interactions with Mattisse, she is a real person, and I expect people to treat her with humanity on this page. The account is blocked, there does not appear to be any harm to the encyclopedia or to its editors, checkusers have reviewed the findings to ensure there's unlikely to be anything else outstanding. The block is explained in my prior posts, and I don't think the events that have led to Mattisse's current status need to be rehashed. I thank everyone in advance for taking the high road. Risker (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Might it be possible that this is her granddaughter (as explained here) or some other family relative? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I had asked whether Xtzou had edited before (no SockDAR necessary for that conclusion), because it was fishy to me and received the response "Yes, I have been an editor before." This doesn't fit with a first time user like a relative, no? Hekerui (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now, in the light of the evidence here presented, declined unblock. I note a question above relating to punitive/preventative blocks; I submit that any editor who is prepared to create 32 socks cannot be trusted not to create more. --Anthony.bradbury 16:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Snottywong (geez, it's hard to type that username with a straight face!). I will observe, but will probably not opine. Risker (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors who should have Autoreviewer/Edit reviewer activated ASAP

I'm collecting names! Flagged protection will be trialed starting on June 15th, and autoreviewer and edit reviewer permissions will not be granted automatically to experienced, knowledgeable editors; they will have to ask for it. That means editors who have been able to edit semi-protected articles for years will now have to have all of their edits vetted before they go live, once the article is changed to "flagged protection", unless they have this permission. I fully intend to "flip the switch" for any non-admin brought to my attention as soon as I am able to do so (unless, for some reason, 80% of their edits include the word "poop"). To all my talk page watchers: please add the names of editors you know ought to be able to edit without constraint. Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

List editors here

From SandyGeorgia

• Crohnie (talk · contribs)
• Colin (talk · contribs)
• Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
• Dispenser (talk · contribs)
• Elcobbola (talk · contribs)
• Fainites (talk · contribs)
• Jayen466 (talk · contribs)
• JNW (talk · contribs)
• Kablammo (talk · contribs)
• Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)
• Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)
• RelHistBuff (talk · contribs)
• Riggr Mortis (talk · contribs) et al
• UberCryxic (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• WLU (talk · contribs)
• Yomangan (talk · contribs) (No exceptions for me, thanks - if it isn't given to me automatically the system is >100% broken. Yomangani 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

Risker, I'm way too swamped IRL to follow this confusing discussion, so for now I am only adding users who 1) aren't sysops, and 2) don't currently have autoreviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To be sure, compiling such a list and handing out the autoreviewer rights is good! I'm all for it, and it will make this go so much more smoothly. All I'm saying is that there's no need for panic mode – yet, and hopefully not ever.
FWIW, I've heard from some that they don't want to have the active reviewer right (and the slight responsibility that comes with it). Amalthea 12:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for this, since we're going to automatically generate lists then grant review rights, see here. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sasata (talk · contribs)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Philcha (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC), but I have a persistent RL problem that seriously reduces how much I can work on WP, so I won't be disappointed if not included.

• Philcha, of course you will be included! From my perspective, you should never have to wait for someone else to approve your edits! Risker (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've granted autoreviewer to all of those on the list above this message who didn't already have it (except Malleus, and yomangan might make me take his away). I started going through FAC yesterday to identify people who needed autoreviewer and I'll continue that today. If you've got a good enough grasp of content policies to review/edit/maintain a featured article, you darn well don't need to have your edits reviewed by others. Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The autoreviewer usergroup is unrelated to the reviewer usergroup (which doesn't exist yet), unfortunately the terminology is misleading (I had objected to the name at the time, preferring autopatroller), I just proposed a rename at WP:VPR. Review rights will be semi-automatically granted on a large scale, there's no need to worry about this at this point. Cenarium (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Legitimus (talk · contribs)--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Fainites scribs 07:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Self listing in the event this unnecessary process is not stopped.
• Scottalter (talk · contribs) (self-listing by Fainites' reasoning) --Scott Alter (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) - Um, I don't think I've ever used the word "poop" in an article. Have passed 1 featured article, 1 featured list and 4 1/2 good articles. (One is in the can under development.) It would be incredibly helpful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion break

This has been considered already, no need to get in a hurry. For the trial we're going to use automatically generated database reports to semi-automatically grant reviewer rights. So most experienced users will not have to ask for it. There's no need to manually make lists at this point. And all autoconfirmed users are automatically reviewed except in rare cases, see my reply here and at SandyGeorgia's talk page. Cenarium (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, take another look. If an autoconfirmed editor makes an edit after someone else, *both* edits need to be reviewed before anything goes live. Autoconfirmed does not mean that they can directly edit the article. Risker (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It will just be one more weapon for Admins to threaten with . Keep it! It will kill all the good fact and expansions added by drive-by IPs, it is a terrible idea. It wants nipping inthe bud. I cannot beleive I amthe only person who feels this way? What happened to Jimbo's high ideals for the project?  Giacomo  06:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Risker, is this for BLPs or all articles? --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The intention is that it will be, and eventually for all GAs and FAs and God knows what next.  Giacomo  07:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What a thoroughly stupid idea - I can see the point for BLPs, just; but as usual WP takes a moderately sensible idea and makes a farce of it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a form of protection and subject as semi-protection to the protection policy. This is an alternative to using semi-protection in order to allow editing by unregistered or non-autoconfirmed users. Cases where an autoconfirmed user without review right edits a flagged protected pages right after a non-autoconfirmed users edited it should be rare. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It means a 14 year old Admin (chosen subject: self-abuse) will be adjudicating edits on the less known architects of the early Italian Renaissance by drive by professors. How clever is that?  Giacomo  08:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to panic, at this point. This is, for now, only a trial, and only a limited number of articles can be put under that PC-protection through a technical restriction. The key will be to keep the backlog of unreviewed changes minimal. That way, autoconfirmed users will not usually notice whether an article is semi-protected of switched to PC. "Minimial" is, in my view, less than five minutes on average.
I keep pushing that for at least the first month of the trial all PC-protections MUST go through a centralized place (Discuss here), both to keep the trial in a controlled state so that we always have enough reviewers to keep the review-backlog minimal, and to force admins to stick to the evolving guidelines on how it should be used in the first place. If we don't do that I'm certain it will turn into the same RevDelete chaos.
I expect that this protection mode will work really well with obscure, largely unwatched topics that get only a handful edits a month. I think this won't work as well with the TFA since it gets too many edits.
But again, please don't panic yet. Nobody knows how useful it will be, and on what articles. We just need to take it slowly, and mass-trout any admin who thinks unilaterally putting his pet articles under PC-protection would be a good idea.
Amalthea 09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• No. no , no , this is being rushed through without proper and full consultation. It is a recipe for disaster open to admin abuse. It will spread from BLPs to FAs, GAs and eventually any page some half-witted admin likes. It will destroy the spirit of Wikipeda, it needs stopping now, once here, we will never get rid of it. This is nothing but cencorship through the back door.  Giacomo  09:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There were a gazillion discussions and polls, it's taken forever to develop it. It is not rushed. As with every new feature rolled out, the community has not been preparing for it enough, and won't know how it can be used most productively. We will hopefully figure it out in the months to come. I agree, as I said, that it shouldn't be used too liberally without testing out repercussions. But that's what this trial is for, figuring out how this can be useful, what works, and what doesn't work.
    It's also not censorship. If a reviewer declines a pending change it is absolutely equivalent to a revert, the only difference is that a pending change wasn't visible to readers/re-users/search engines. If any reviewer uses different criteria than for a revert he is doing it wrong.
    Amalthea 09:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It will be nothing more than cencorship and a tool for admins to play with and bash editors over the head with. It is a terrible idea; I shall oppose it strenuously - am I too have to ask somebody like TSBDY for permission to edit a page I have written and monitored for years? because that is where this will end up, the content edotors being bashed by Admins.  Giacomo  09:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't have to ask anybody for permission – and certainly not to edit it, that's the whole point.
If this system works as it should, you will not usually notice it. If there's an intrinsic problem that makes it harder for established editors to get edits published, the system will be adapted. If it makes it harder because the wrong protection levels are applied, the admins will be adapted. Amalthea 09:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the whole point "established editors" this making an elite - it is against the whole ethos and will quicky be abused by Admins.  Giacomo  10:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe there is just a very wrong impression of what Pending Changes are. Level 1 PC protection is a lower protection level than current semi-protection – assuming that the review backlog is kept minimal! Level 2 PC protection is a lower protection level than full protection – again, assuming that the review backlog is kept minimal! See WP:Pending changes/Trial#Reviewing; the table there is suggestive, it's not quite as simple since autoconfirmed users will have their edits pending if they edit on top of an unreviewed edit by a non-autoconfirmed, which is why I keep saying that it's crucial to keep the review backlog minimal.
Any kind of protection is "against the whole ethos", how you call it. And I do expect that more articles will be under the lowest kind of protection in the future that will IPs and non-autoconfirmeds to have their edits reviewed first (mostly BLPs; although personally I'd be in favor of using patrolled revisions for that). But if there are 6,941,324 articles that need to be kept clean of vandalism, I'm afraid it just will need to get part of the whole ethos.
Amalthea 10:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I'm already busy enough abusing other things and people and perhaps even myself, thank you. I can't abuse yet another (mis) feature -- I'm quite spent as it is. ¶ I presume that people will indeed find a way to abuse this. What's certain is that people are abusing the lack of this (mis) feature. ¶ It means a 14 year old Admin (chosen subject: self-abuse) will be adjudicating edits on the less known architects of the early Italian Renaissance by drive by professors. Ahem, I am not 14 (my user ID was chosen for a reason) and that is not my chosen subject. Still, I too was once a 14-year-old with a shameful vice; boys will be boys. Now, as for the drive-by professors, I've always found it hard to believe that people who've climbed that high on the greasy academic pole would be deterred by a bit of "Captcha" mumbo-jumbo. Far more likely is that they're deterred by the sheer volume of wrongheadedness in what they see. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

One could say that with autoconfirmed users we've been making an elite, I don't think that's the case, and this is little different. We could use the software to automatically give review rights to users with e.g. more than 200 edits and 3 months since their first edit, for the trial we're going to grant those permissions semi-automatically although that could change. Furthemore, all autoconfirmed users are automatically reviewed except in rare cases. Giving review rights to all autoconfirmed users would have been open to abuse by vandals and mistakes due to inexperience. This system is intended as a possible alternative to page protection to allow more editing. Experienced users should not be affected except when making an edit right after a non-autoconfirmed user to a flagged protected page, they'll be proposed to review that edit. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about an example: yesterday an established editor made a series of edits to semi-protected Ernest Hemingway claiming he was bi-polar . I reverted (actually I commented it out) until I'd reviewed the sources. Turns out one source was a juvenile book, one source claims Hemingway fit the profile for bi-polar, and one (from a medical journal) claims the diagnosis could not be definitive. After some investigation I found the edit was in response to an IP request. The bi-polar information had also been added to that article. I reverted by commenting out. After spending more time than necessary to review the information, I think the claim may be specious. Under the new regulations would my reverts be challenged by an admin? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hard to say, Truthkeeper88; if the original edit was inserted by someone with reviewer rights, and you didn't have them, your edits would be held until reviewed *if the article was under flagged protection*. Not all articles will be. Risker (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The editing process would not change. In the same situation the IP would have made the edit, a reviewer may have approved it because they didn't determine that it was vandalism/BLP violation, or reverted it if they found the claim specious. In the first case you could have reverted just like you did, and since you're autoconfirmed your edit would have been automatically reviewed, so Risker's answer is incorrect. You're also experienced enough to be granted semi-automatically the permission to review other user's edits. Cenarium (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim was added by an administrator in response to an IP's request. So, essentially I overturned an admin's edit. Presumably that would change - or no? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not explicit in either the policy or the process, Cenarium. There are pretty coloured charts and lots and lots of words, but there is nothing there that explicitly says which articles autoconfirmed users will get to edit directly and which ones not, and if there is another edit already in the queue, the edits of autoconfirmed users are held too. Risker (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The latter case would be quite rare. As for level 2 flagged protection, the policy for usage is the same as for full protection, essentially concerning articles subject to massive sock disruption. I'll try to clarify a few things.

That you overturned an admin or IP's edit doesn't make any difference policy or process - wise. Cenarium (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to some of the other questions on this page, there is no technical or policy restriction on what pages can have flagged protection attached to it. The plan is to start off with about 2000 currently semi- or fully-protected pages and expand from there. Many proposals include both FA and GA articles, both of which are substantially edited and maintained by non-admin editors. Articles containing a substantial amount of BLP material are also likely to be quickly included in this category, although that will take considerable time as it would involve more than 25% of all articles. As well, all of the vandalistic edits by unconfirmed editors to popular articles like Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama that have automatically been rejected by the system up until now will now go into the "review" queue for the article, and will have to be manually cleared by real editors. Risker (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please propose that we use an autopromotion then, if it can upset people that admins grant them the right instead of this being done by the software itself. But I repeat, experienced users don't have to ask for it, most of the rights will be granted based on automatically-created database reports, of course individual requests will also be considered. I've no objection to using an autopromotion but autoconfirmed is just too low and open to abuse by vandals and mistakes by inexperienced users. And again all autoconfirmed users have their edits automatically reviewed except in rare cases.

There is a policy restriction to using flagged protection, as you can see in the proposal which has been approved, it is subject to the protection policy like semi-protection. I think there'll be a technical restriction too, like capping to 2000 articles for the trial. The other proposals you mention have not been approved and not part of this trial. Articles like Barack Obama will remain semi-protected because it would obviously not be beneficial to use flagged protection instead. Cenarium (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, I have proposed it on more than one occasion; it's obvious from all the polls that too large a percentage of participating administrators are unwilling to allow editors to have these permissions without admin intervention. The articles I identified above were actually used as examples of articles that should fall under flagged protection during the discussions that led to the proposal's approval. All in all, we've invested a huge amount of developer and community time into creating a replacement for a system that was already working, without doing anything that actually protects the vulnerable articles that did not before and do not now fall under the protection policy. Frankly, your comment about autoconfirmed users is pretty insulting and, if you genuinely believe that vandalism and incompetence is that big of a problem in newly autoconfirmed editors, you should bring a proposal to change the standard for autoconfirmed users. Risker (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Risker, I'm pragmatic. I don't think autoconfirmed should be raised at all, I would strongly oppose any such attempt, but yet it is trivially easy for some disruptive editors to become autoconfirmed, see for example the need to fully protect Satanic ritual abuse, and of course Grawp et al; those disruptive users could wreak havoc with active permissions like being able to review other user's edits. It's not insulting to say that new editors are not experienced, it's normal and has been studied by the usability team, most new editors even with 10 edits, 4 days, don't know about diffs, I didn't know about them back then, even less could have been able to review an edit, you can't expect new editors to know about vandalism, BLP, etc. Cenarium (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the last to suggest we need more bureaucracy, but assuming we solve the problem of granting rights, the next issue is to ensure they are not arbitrarily or capriciously removed as Giano suggests. These rights are so important, as they represent the 'right to edit', I'd like to see a commitment that they will only be removed in exceptional circumstances and then by Arbcom, or at very least by a method akin to that of the 'community banishment'. All this stuff needs to be in place before the switch is flicked, not sorted out on the hoof afterwards when we've pissed off long-term contributors to the point of leaving. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer group doesn't contain the right to edit. It contains the right to publish unreviewed edits so that they are viewable by the public. Any registered editor will see any pending edits right away. Almost any edits by an autoconfirmed user a PC1-protected article will be automatically reviewed. If this is not the case, then there is something to complain about, and correctly so. But please let's not panic before anything has even happened yet. Let's make sure it doesn't get there by having a large enough pool of reviewers.
And I'm amazed by the kind of vengeful admins we apparently have. If any admin removes reviewer right because of an unrelated incident then please come to me so that I can raise hell.
Amalthea 14:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever - I can plink about on my wordprocessor at home to my hearts content, but the kick from editing wikipedia is having the public view it - I've been doing that for years. If I'm in good standing, I'd expect that to continue - so is it too much to ask that such assurances are given before the switch is thrown and establish what the mechanism is by which that right will be taken away? As far as I'm concerned, if I sign up for this right, I want to be crystal clear it's there for keeps and I'm not going to be threatened with it's removal the next time some rouge editor starts a content dispute with me, or some over-zealous member of the civility police doesn't like the particular way I've phrased my 'go away' to him. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's nothing more than an insult. It is complete preumptious ignorance, to expect long established editor to ask a 14 year old Admin who has never written a page to be able to edit a FA or any page that they wrote when that kid Admin was 8. This will result in nothing more than further Admin abuse, bad behaviour, RFC, ANI threads and God knows what else. It will deter new editors and IPs, it will no longer be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I cannot beleive anyone was stupid enough to dream this up! Giacomo  14:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Giacomo, as I've said above: you don't need to ask anyone to edit an FA. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. It is simply not true. Amalthea 14:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Review rights will be taken away if a user repeatedly approves obvious vandalism and BLP violations, after being warned not to do so. We can't prevent admins from misusing tools, be it removing rights or blocking, but removing rights to a user with whom the admin is in dispute is, like blocking, grounds to desysopment. We could also make a requirement to initiate an ANI discussion for such removals. Cenarium (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh at minimum Cenarium re. ANI. Please point me to the policy page which says all this. Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• I'd also like to note that the prospectus on which we were sold this, was so that potentially libelous BLP violations could be dealt with, and yet you already talk about using it a method to control vandalism - so the creep has started apparently. Giano's concerns seem perfectly valid. We implement this for one reason, find it's useful for vandalism, so then how do we resist it's implementation across the board for the secondary reason? We need to be clear about the limits of this from the get-go and establish principle for it's use now, with a strong presumption against further slip. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Take my word for it, this will start off quietly on BLP and then spread throught all types of pages from GAs to Fas to anypage over which an admin wants to claim ownership. Already you are talking of ANI threads to strip people of these magical powers. Yopu can say what you like, but it is pretty obvious the direction that this travesty of user's rights is going to go. It's an appalling idea - first sort your admins out before giving them even more chance to abuse. However, admin abuse is just one small facet of what is wrong with this idea - it is censorship through the backdoor, and it will be a pervading and increasing cesorship as it spreads throughout all sections of the encyclopedia - how long before there is even a God/office given directive on what edits and views are permissable and what are not. This idea stinks to hell - it is just the start of something very nasty.  Giacomo  15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• The feature is used as an alternative to semi-protection, under the same conditions. The trial policy is not fully fixed yet, the basics are here, and the comprehensive trial policy will probably be at WP:Pending changes. I'll add something on removing rights. Feel free to weigh in. Cenarium (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Can I get this straight please. Most of the GA/FAs I have had a hand in and keep clean are often semi-protected due to OCD spamming from one banned user. Does this mean I have to have this new thingie in order to keep these articles clean? Or wait for approval when I revert the voluminous, copy-paste spam that appears so regularly and predictably? If so, how many times am I going to have to explain things to an un-informed admin before this? Fainites scribs 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You won't have to, nothing stops you from effectively reverting the edits, and I suspect the sockpuppeter will give up seeing that the edits don't show up. With a few exceptions you don't even need the review permission, you'll have it 'automatically' in any case since you're experienced enough. Admins won't have anything more to do with the editing process than they already have. Cenarium (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My two cents

The reason semi-protection sucks is that it's not configurable. You can't set a particular page to limit accounts younger than 30 days or limit editors with under 1,000 edits. You get a flat protection that only works in one particular kind of case (blocking out brand new and unregistered users).

If you're going to automatically grant rights to a large number of people, it's usually better to have the software do so, as it's more reliable and removes the politics. I don't know how much of that is feasible given the (alleged) time constraints before the June 15 launch, but it is the preferred course of action in this case. You would have an implicit group (as opposed to admin-set explicit) that would have a much higher threshold than autoconfirmed, and perhaps use different criteria than autoconfirmed.

That said, having an explicit user group does allow for a lot more flexibility. If you set the limit at 1,000 edits and an editor with 500 edits doesn't need his or her edits reviewed, you're stuck in an implicit group setup. So there is some merit to an explicit group, however the wiki-politics surrounding the addition or removal of user rights might make it untenable on this project in particular. Perhaps a policy of only removing the group in cases of vandalism is warranted? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)