User talk:Risker/Archive 17

Orangemoody socks

Hi Risker. After participating in four current AfDs, it appears to me that the articles were almost certainly created by three as yet unidentified/unblocked members of the sockfarm. I'm not sure where to post this. Is it worth me taking to Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody? Could you advise? Obviously the IPs are stale; all three users stopped editing in June 2015. However, the behavioural evidence is very strong. All four articles were started by creating an (implausible) redirect and returning a few days later to turn it into an article. All four articles are about firms connected to two articles by known Orangemoody socks—three to 20Collective and one to Armchair Committee. All four articles were marked as reviewed by known Orangemoody socks. Below are the three users and their articles.

Created by Jiaulinoisk

• Sam Gibson Weddings review log AfD

Created by Armvecciol

• Neil Palmer Photography review log AfD
• Wasaphone review log AfD

Created by Fedrickson43

• York Place Studios review log AfD
• Oliver Preston review log (not at AfD, a notable subject) However, note that Draft:Oliver Preston created by Tom Garrigan was rejected by AfC on 7 April 2015 and he appears not to have edited it any further. On 23 April 2015, Fedrickson43 created it as a redirect and two days later turned it into an article, fully formed and professionally formatted, with no credit to any previous drafts. Garrigan's draft was deleted last month as an abandoned AfC submission.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voceditenore - you have keen observational skills, and I am 98% certain these accounts are part of the sock farm, even just with your brief descriptions above. I'll look more closely and see if I can find some further interweaving over the weekend; even when we were posting the socking case, we were certain we missed out on many socks that were "too old" to be caught on CU or just hadn't edited using the same IPs as other identifiable socks. I am really glad that you and others in the community have remained vigilant for additional accounts; it helps me to feel that all those hours of work and documentation were worthwhile. Risker (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Risker. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody is invaluable. I can't believe how much work you and the others put into this operation. As you can see, Neil Palmer Photography has now been deleted as G11, and I strongly suspect from the timing that Tom Garrigan and/or Oliver Preston himself got a shake down from the OM gang after Draft:Oliver Preston was rejected. Anyhow, I suspect that a perusal of the review logs for the known socks who reviewed the above articles will throw up many more advertorials. I'll be keeping an eye out, although I tend to participate in AfD discussions in fits and starts. The amount of advertising encountered is very depressing and the checks I do prior to !voting can be very time-consuming. I'd much rather create articles on once famous but now forgotten operas, their singers, and their composers. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I just found two more possible socks and have prodded their articles. Same MO—create the implausible redirect first, followed by fully formed article for an utterly non-notable small business complete with multiple spurious references. Both were marked as reviewed by the known Orangemoody sock Nielsonharris.

Created by Jilanioski

• Paperstone review log

Created by Droinglipse

• Neumarkets review log

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Me yet again. On the advice of DGG, I've taken this lot to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG gave you good advice, Voceditenore. My apologies for the inattentiveness, I've been awfully tied up doing year-end stuff at the office, family, holidays, higher than average levels of insanity in Wikimedia-land, etc. Risker (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The SPI came to naught (Mike V decided the behavioural evidence wasn't strong enough [1]), but at least all their articles have now been deleted. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI - beating dead horses

I'm asking you to review this SPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Velebit.

Looks like the same administrator is obsessed by some long time blocked user and with no evidence is throwing accusations against anyone he dislikes for some reason. You already intervened on behalf of the falsely acucsed in the archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Velebit/Archive

I am at a complete loss for this one: The IPs are obviously not connected (and one hasn't edited since April), the Aries no Mur account hasn't edited since 2013 (and it's completely unclear why anyone would think it is connected to the IPs), and this particular SPI file seems to be a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. Also, please refrain from tagging IP pages; in 2014, IP addresses are so rarely dedicated (they tend to be reassigned regularly) so the next person who gets assigned that IP address is going to be treated like a sockpuppet instead of a potential new editor. Declining CU because there's really nothing to check. Risker (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This administrator was already blocked for abusing his administrative power here.

P.S. If you find this appeal not appropriate for any reason. please, ignore it.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there. My apologies for not responding sooner; as noted above, I've been mostly away from Wikipedia for the past few weeks. (Well, tied up with other matters, perhaps more accurately.) As I did not look into this matter myself, I will leave the issue at rest. Risker (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's that season again...

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind greetings, Ealdgyth! It should definitely be a productive year for me, although it may not necessarily be visible. Risker (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and happy new year

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine^✉

Thanks for your best wishes, Pine. Hope the holidays have been good for you, too. Risker (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!!

Happy Holidays Risker, I hope you like this Wiki-decoration for this holiday season. Thank you for all the silent work you do for the project. My very best wishes for 2016!! --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your greetings, Crystallizedcarbon - hope that you have a happy and healthy 2016 as well. Risker (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Risker!

Happy New Year!

Risker,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^Read! Talk! 21:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi Liz! Thanks for the fireworks (as if we don't see enough of those around here...) - I wish you and yours a healthy and happy 2016. Risker (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Reason

• I want to enquire why you had deletated the page Anushka sen. She is a child actress. Vsumavane 11:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • My apologies for the delay in responding, Vsumavane. The article was deleted following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Sen in December 2013. I deleted another attempt at creating the article in April 2014 in accord with the rules that govern speedy deletion; specifically, the new article contained only information that was present in the previously deleted article. That was almost two years ago, and it is possible that Anushka Sen has achieved greater notability in the interim. You may wish to draft an article in your userspace or using articles for creation processes. You might also want to ask for the previous article to be reinstated. You can do that at deletion review. I hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gender gap

I subscribe to the gender gap mailing list, and realized just now I am not sure how to contribute to it (this is not a request for an answer, I can figure it out if I need to.)

I saw the query about James and gender gap issues, and I was tempted to respond that I viewed him as very supportive of gender gaps solutions, but I didn't see any evidence that his positions on that subject had anything to do with his removal.

Then I saw your reply, which said almost exactly the same thing, so i just wanted to acknowledge it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your acknowledgement, Sphilbrick. Nice to know that you're reading along; please participate whenever you feel you have something to add. Risker (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. A a bit of a pleasant surprise. Have you thought of running for bureaucrat? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

email sent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at The Quixotic Potato's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Enjoy! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oooohh thank you! I love Dobos torte! Risker (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. That's why I created that template. I appreciate your helping me out. Seriously. Graffiti sucks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would we see you at ArbCom again?

While you've served 2 terms and many will call it enough for a lifetime, will you be interested in running for another term anytime soon? No reasons, just asking. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello QEDK. I don't think it's particularly likely that I'll run for Arbcom again. I find the work I do now, which includes active participation on the Funds Dissemination Committee, carrying out sockpuppetry investigations, helping the rest of the Oversight team maintain a rapid response rate, to be more fulfilling and useful to both English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. I will give the current committee credit for dismantling both BASC and AUSC: despite the fact that I was one of the people who helped to establish both of those subcommittees, their time had passed. I wish that more areas of Wikipedia (and in fact the Wikimedia and MediaWiki movements) would do more of that. So...I guess that answers your question, with a little more information than you expected.  :-) Risker (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't want to overfill your cup. I respect your decision and the reason that entails it. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 04:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemoody question

Sorry to bother you, was wondering if you or one of the other Orangemoody-related admins could take a look at OTRS ticket:2016042810015351? I submitted it, but I've been told it hasn't been picked up for action yet and regular OTRS volunteers have been told to leave Orangemoody-related submissions alone. Thanks. --Krelnik (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemoody? If not, close enough

Could you take a look at: ticket:2016050710003801

I don't know whether it is orangemoody, but if not, it is still in your wheelhouse. Please let me know if I should do anything more.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that I should move the ticket to the Orangemoody queue - even if it is not part of that organization - the people with the experience to handle Orangemoody will be able to handle this one - does this make sense?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been moved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThePlatypusofDoom

As it is not possible for me to file an SPI without having to give a suspected sock, can checkuser be run? I ask about this editor, mainly because his account is only six weeks old, yet he was trying to get Swister Twister blocked for his AfDs in the same thread as the Winterysteppe sock; also, considering the newness of the account, he seems keen on some of the arcane and frankly political areas of board administration that one would probably not expect of such a young account. Such as, the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard! And things like having his own 'RfA standards' to meet?! ←See the user page for examples.

Cheers! _Fortuna ^Imperatrix Mundi 10:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker:, any ideas? _Fortuna ^Imperatrix Mundi 05:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortuna. Well. I can say that "Platypus" is not the same editor as Winterysteppe, and while I can certainly understand a high level of suspicion that he is a returning editor, provided he's not evading sanctions it could well be a cleanstart account. I am concerned, however, that he seems to be focusing his attention perhaps excessively on a few editors. It may be worth considering a one-sided interaction ban if this proves to be the case. Risker (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please be so kind......

I seldom edit Wikipedia these days as I am tired of mindless morons buggering about with things they don't understand (pour example: [2]; however, I do keep a watch om pages and images I have worked on. Therefore would you please be so kind as to undelete File:Belton Arch Giano.jpg and File:Belton Belvedere Giano.jpg. As they are architectural photographs taken by myself and regrettably do not feature naked ladies (or men for that matter) or people enjoying their own company or the company of anyone else, I am hard pushed to see what can be considered so offensive about them that they have had to be deleted. It's a pity no one told me that they were considered illegal and offensive, but here we are. One can't help wondering why anyone contributes to this project at all. Best wishes. Giano (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is some half witted admin here: User:Explicit. God preserve us from the stupid. Giano (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and this one too all the pages I've ever worked on are eing destroyed by some bunch of clueless idiots. Giano (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That editor is deleting an awful lot of files en masse. @Explicit: Can you outline your methodology here? How are you finding and adjudicating these so quickly? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what the issue is for the first one. You originally uploaded it as a .gif file, someone else transferred it to a .jpg, and now Kelly has decided that instead of fixing the link to the original so that there is evidence that YOU as the author added the PD-author tag, it's simply another violation. I've fixed that by linking to the original file which (surprise, surprise!) still exists. It just took a bit to track it down. Now to look at the other one... Risker (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC) And the second one is now fixed... another to go. Risker (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, all three files had the same problem - Amandajm had converted .gif files to .jpg files (way back in 2008) but did not link directly to the original files, so there was no direct line between Giano and the image. Heaven forbid we're going to have to go through all of her transfers from 8 years ago to fix this issue to Kelly's satisfaction. Risker (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Risker; sometimes, people do seem to like to make life unnecessarily complicated. I object strogly to little bots then running around removing the lead images fro articles which took a great deal of time to write. Giano (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Giano, I suggest you (or a friendly talk page watcher) review Amandajm's uploads for November 2008 and make sure that any relevant files are properly tagged, linked to the original .gif file (the .gif files will mostly be in your account's uploads), and the {{keeplocal}} tag added. There is likely another half dozen or so images that may have similar problems to the ones identified here. Risker (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Risker; I will attempt to do that, although I don't really understand all this JPG and GIG business and as for "nowiki" that's all a complete mystery. I can't help feeling that life would be a lot easier if people like Amanda were to mind their own business and stop fiddling about with things. Giano (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

when you have some spare time, please explain .....

Ok, there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Altenmann

And yet, the user is alive and well and living in _______

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Altenmann

It would seem that account would be blocked and the user walled up alive behind bricks? HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, HammerFilmFan. This is certainly a case of ancient history. Back in 2010, Arbcom desysopped Altenmann and an immediately following community discussion resulted in a community ban; this was in direct response to Altenmann's socking. Subsequently, in 2012, Altenmann requested an unblock, and Arbcom brought the request to the community for discussion, since the ban was a community ban. Based on the feedback from the community, Arbcom lifted the ban with conditions. So...what's going on that brings you to my page to ask about this? Risker (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No major reason - I was just following a trail, and couldn't figure out why he was still "alive."  :-)

Amendment request on arbitration decision against Rodhullandemu

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Rodhullandemu and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telegram

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC). 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.

-- samtar ^talk or stalk 19:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Protect user pages by default

A request for comment is available on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. I am notifying you because you commented on this proposal when it was either in idea or draft form. Funcrunch (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I wonder why you Deleted the Concats of my page or undo the edits ? and sorry for my english :) --MuhammedIQ (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Risker. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like...

...7 candidates for 7 positions open on ArbCom, with about a day to go before nominations close. Any thoughts about throwing your hat into the ring? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever, Beyond My Ken. I am, even as I write this, very deeply involved in another Wikimedia-related activity that is far more fulfilling and (I'm going to be honest) useful than Arbcom. I think it really is time for the community to start thinking about decommissioning Arbcom, as there is very, very little they do that isn't done at least as well by the community. Risker (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, and I'm glad that you find the project you're working on fulfilling. Sometimes I wish I that was the case for me with editing Wikipedia, as it once was. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Risker.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Risker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the CSD delete. Remaining cleanup: Karrahlian_Tercet_(Poetic_Form). --JustBerry (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JustBerry, got it. Risker (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Shaded0's talk page.
Message added 16:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Shaded0 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt

Hi Risker. I started a discussion at talk for James Blunt. I have researched what did happen at Pristina and Blunt's claims do not make any sense.Charles (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reverts

I just eliminated my reverts of her edits. My job so I did it. Hmains (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

other

What, if anything, should I do about this edit that appeared on my talk page:

*And for good measure, I'll just complain on behalf of the reasonable community about the totally disingenuous and vindictive vote at the RfA. Such behaviour will soon be earning such editors topic bans from RfA - do you want to be one of the first? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Oh my, Hmains. I really did go to bed right after our last exchange so didn't see this until this morning. I think that just moving on, as you seem to have done, is just fine. It doesn't seem to be a comment intending to open a discussion, but rather one individual's (strongly worded) perspective. I see that you were pretty busy after our exchange, and I thank you for working to remedy the issues we talked about. I think there's a question directed toward you in the discussion following your RFA vote, and I will leave you to address it directly. Hope you feel better, I have a feeling I'm coming down with that nasty bug as well. Risker (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, will do and I am glad I asked you. Everyone around here seems to be getting/being sick and I must be far away from wherever you are. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'll add that I certainly don't see any reason you (Hmains) should worry about your vote at my RfA. It's your opinion and your right to express it. I certainly respect it and thank you for expressing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth thanks for your thoughtful words. I know you will be a fine administrator already! Hmains (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC). 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.

AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the situation has cleared itself for now, but you can of course still look around if you wish. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 04:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AntiCompositeNumber, I've responded to your email. Risker (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC). 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.

Mz7 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mz7, I will look at it this evening. Risker (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the help. Mz7 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can you please check the refs for this draft BLP article

It contains a subsection which is related to an AfD you commented on, specifically this portion.[3] You are incorrect about the depth of the Tyson ref methinks, although thanks to fonts, at first I did not think there was any depth there myself -- the discussion of the parody-work posted on the site covers about three pages. And although the formatting/layout/fonts used don't make it exactly clear that is what is going on, after looking at it long enough, methinks Tyson actually wrote an intro-paragraph, about ten sentences by Tyson on the meaning of particular faux-headlines (interleaved with the TPC-authored headlines themselves), and then a concluding sentence. Which is not a *chapter* on TPC, but is a reasonably detailed analysis of that one parody-piece by TPC, I would say.

I'm not actually doing a rewrite of the AfD'd website, but shifting to writing about the creator thereof. The advantage is that there are other refs, some recently discovered and some just better-organized-and-formatted; if you can please tell me on a percentage-scale from zero to 100% whether you think the broader BLP-topic has achieved WP:42, that would be much appreciated. (Where 'zero' means none of the refs presented are RS, and 100% means passes WP:N with flying colors, with 50% meaning 'probably has coinflip shot at surviving AfD' roughly.) And if you have time to help compose neutral body-prose, that also would be great of course  :-) But mostly I would just like a second opinion on whether Atbashian passed WP:GNG with the current refs, there are a few others being evaluated for the draft on the talkpage thereof. Besides the PlutoFiles by Tyson in 2010, the other best refs for GNG are Gries in 2015, FoxNews in 2004, and NewRepublic in 2004 (some of it stuck behind a paywall), plus additionally several bluelinked conservative pundits have provided further depth/details. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I saw your comments on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy where you write that 250 indefinite blocks are made daily and almost none are reversed.

I have made a suggestion that all indefinite blocks be cancelled after one year if the user requests it. If they have bad behaviour, it would be easy to reblock them again for a year. A year is a long time. Lakeshook (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THT file

Thanks for quick response! That was pretty stupid... Requested oversight to scrub it. Blythwood (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

Hi Risker,

I've just stumbled across University and college crowdfunding platforms, and I have no idea what to do with it. It seems to be on the borderline of notability as a topic, but I think it's badly named. It's really badly written, and I can't even imagine how to use the article title in an introductory sentence. What would you recommend? --Slashme (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slashme. Having given the article a quick scan, I think the core issue is that it's more an essay than an article. It's also not at all about any kind of crowdfunding platform, it's about how some organizations now include some form of crowdfunding as part of their fundraising strategy. I'm pretty hardline about notability, and I wouldn't consider this a notable topic, at least not without a parent article focused on fundraising strategies of universities and colleges - which we don't seem to have. Indeed, fundraising isn't even a topic within the articles of many universities and colleges. (I think it would be a valid inclusion into those articles, or even potentially a daughter article in some cases.) On the other hand, I have no idea what would happen if it went to AFD. Risker (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!

Hi, Risker! Please allow me to follow up on a project that was discussed at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin a couple of weeks ago:

I am writing you to ask for your support for the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 250 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has recently passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Now, we are working with the Wikimedia Foundation staff to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.

In order to demonstrate that this is an issue that the community really cares about, I would like to ask you to sign the project page as well. Thank you! --Gnom (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Restoring Deleted Page

Hi Risker, I originally contacted sphilbrick and was pointed in your direction. I am the administrator of Mirus Academy (a private school in Katy, TX). The wiki for our school was deleted over a year ago, but I only just now discovered it. This is the message I see: This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 13:33, 1 September 2015 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Mirus Academy (U.S) (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody)

I read the Orangemoody information and see that it applies to the wiki I created for our school. When the wiki was not approved initially, I was contacted by an editor who agreed to make the needed corrections for me in exchange for $100. We completed the transaction, I saw the page online for a couple of days, and didn't think more about it until I just went to do some updating and found that it had been deleted.

Is it possible to restore the page? If not, should I just start from scratch and make a new one? Thanks for your advice! -- Slhogan94 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slhogan94. It is unfortunate that you were caught in this situation. I cannot un-delete the article that appeared in the main pages of the encyclopedia, because it is a copyright violation. I note, however, that you yourself created a draft article on the subject (Draft:Mirus Academy), which was deleted shortly after your contact posted the article in mainspace. I can undelete that draft at your specific request. I must point out, however, that you have a pretty clear conflict of interest here, in that you are writing about your employer. I strongly urge you to follow the conflict of interest guidelines I have linked to, so that the article won't get deleted again. Under our current notability guidelines and policies, schools such as Mirus Academy would normally be considered notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Let me know if you would like me to undelete the draft and I'll do so when next I log in. In fact, if another administrator sees such a request before I get to it, they should feel free to proceed. Risker (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

Thanks for the block exemption. I really need it. This is the article for Free Basics. If you need clarifications on anything, please ask :) --JethRoad the FactBoy 16:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you do anything about another global block on all wikis: Your account or IP address has been blocked. 2A03:2880:3010:BFF6:0:0:0:0/64, you have been blocked by Tegel until 16:57, 26 April 2018, because: Open proxy. --JethRoad the FactBoy 16:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! Im currently rebuilding the WikiProject Investment.

I already am pretty much finished with updating the project page.Take a look at it. Ping me if you want to help! Thanks. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

"denying speedy - three minutes is way too fast to tag this page"

...but it had been over 3 hours at the time you removed it. — Smjg (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smjg. In answer to your implied question - yes, the decision about the article came some time after it was tagged for deletion. It was a contested CSD. Contested CSDs are usually the very last ones admins will deal with, because CSD is the kind of thing a lot of admins do when they are looking for a relatively simple task; working out a contested CSD is often more complex than they're looking for. (I count myself amongst admins who tend to review all the rest before going to the contested CSDs.) Three minutes is just about always too short a time to tag a page for CSD unless it's a blatant ad, copyvio or BLP violation; I'm fine with immediately tagging those last three categories right away. But let's try to look at this from the perspective of a new user. They start an article on the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit^TM. They've barely got their first sentence written when someone tags it for deletion. The deletion tag tells them they can contest it on the article talk page (thank goodness for the hyperlink)...and they do. But it doesn't tell the user whether or not they're allowed to keep editing; for a lot of people, that big sign at the top means "stop what you're doing right now". The same person who tagged the article leaves a difficult-to-understand message on the user talk page (forget your wiki-experience and try to figure out what you're supposed to do from that template) that says the article has no content and mumbles something about A3 (again...forget your experience and try to see how "Mario Nesich, martial artist" is equal to "no content"). Now, I understand entirely why a reviewer would use Twinkle to add that template, but I'm going to lay odds that hardly anyone has read the messages it leaves. There's a link to an article wizard...but why and how does someone use an article wizard when they have already started the article? There's a link to Wikipedia:Your first article, which is a pretty long page that isn't too badly out of date...but again, the article is already created, and it isn't as helpful on what to do with an existing but extremely incomplete article.

This is just brainstorming on my part, and I've probably done all of these things at various times. Perhaps instead of tagging the article, it may have been helpful to reach out and offer to move the article to draft space, and encourage continued development? Give them another 15 minutes? Offer other assistance? (Yeah, I know there's no point in giving them another 15 minutes, someone else will probably tag it before the initial reviewer finishes writing the talk page message.) I don't have all the answers, but I do know that such rapid tagging of brand new pages by brand new editors is extremely likely to scare those new editors away...and we very much need new editors, particularly ones who are starting articles on red-linked subjects (Mario Nesich is a well-known award-winning muay thai practitioner, and it kind of worries me that I knew that without googling him). I know there are plenty of new articles created that are sheer dreck - when I'm deleting, it's almost always the CSD queue - and I also know that a lot of the stuff that looks relatively well written but has any commercial application is about 50% likely to be paid editing (happy to delete those too!). But on those occasions when we're getting a new article that isn't about a current event or a football/soccer star, it will do us well to try to support new editors who are trying to create them. We want to try to keep the ones with potential. After all, long ago some other editors decided we had potential, and helped us get better. And here we still are, after all these years. It’s a pleasure to find a visitor on my talk page who’s been here even longer than me. Risker (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP

In the past you have written stuff like this, writing All this "we have done everything we can" nonsense is just that, nonsense. Where's the RFC on increasing notability standards for organizations? Where is the RFC on automatic deletion of advertorial or promotional articles, especially those created by SPAs and obviously undisclosed COI editors?

I opened a discussion to raise NCORP standards and pinged you there. It would be useful to have your voice there. I've been waiting for you and others to weigh in before moving forward.

There have also been several discussions about speedy deletion of paid articles at WT:SPEEDY and you have not participated there.

It is too late at the speedy discussions but it would be great if you could weigh in at NCORP. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Gord Downie

Hello. I have moved your NYT reference as to where Gord died from the infobox and put it in the section of the article. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  05:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ummm....why? Since it is an area of dispute (it's the infobox that keeps getting changed), that is where the reference should be. Please put it back where it is needed, Aloha27. Infoboxes can have references. Risker (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reference would be best served in the article itself after the place of death as I have placed it. I shall keep an eye on the infobox to keep up with any disputes and will advise the editor(s) to take it to the talk page. The reference has been properly cite formatted. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  05:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, use the reference twice. It needs to be in the infobox, the place of death has been changed at least four times. Cases like this are precisely why we allow references in infoboxes.

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Risker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]