User talk:Risker: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:13, 7 April 2019 edit109.180.237.226 (talk) →Talk pages consultation 2019 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:55, 22 December 2024 edit undo36.37.211.144 (talk) →Nadolig Llawen: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
(457 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together." style="background:#cfc; border:1px solid #090; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;"><b>Please don't add me to any google groups for any reason without prior authorization. I don't do google groups. </b> ] (]) 05:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC) </div>
	{{clear}}</br>

	{\| style="background: transparent;"		{\| style="background: transparent;"
	\|- valign="top"		\|- valign="top"
Line 7:		Line 4:
	{{clear}}		{{clear}}
	<br>		<br>



	]<br>		]<br>



	]<br>		]<br>
	]<br>		]<br>
Line 14:		Line 16:
	] in case I need it <br>		] in case I need it <br>
	]<br>		]<br>
			{{tlx\|OversightBlock\|sig {{=}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}} signs the template.
	\|}		\|}
			{{Centralized discussion}}
	{{cot\|Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links<br>}}		{{cot\|Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links<br>}}
			<table class="multicol" style=";border-spacing:0;background:transparent;" role="presentation">
	{{columns
			<tr style="vertical-align:top;">
	\|col1 = '''Notes to self''' <br>
			<td style="width:45%;;;">
			'''Notes to self''' <br>
	]<br>		]<br>
	]<br>		]<br>
Line 35:		Line 41:
	<br>		<br>

	<br/>		<br/></td>
			<td style="width:5%;"></td>
	\|gap = 5%
			<td style="width:45%;;;">
	\|colwidth = 45%
	~~\|col2 =~~ '''Other stuff'''<br/>		'''Other stuff'''<br/>
	]<br>		]<br>
	]<br>		]<br>
Line 57:		Line 63:
	]<br>		]<br>
	]<br>		]<br>
			]<br>
			]<br>


Line 72:		Line 80:
	] <br>		] <br>

	<br/>		<br/></td>

	}}
			</tr></table>
	{{cob}}		{{cob}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==
	<br>		<br>
			] <br>
	<nowiki>{{subst:W-screen}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{subst:User:Alison/c}}</nowiki>		<nowiki>{{subst:W-screen}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{subst:User:Alison/c}}</nowiki>
	] and ]<br>		] and ]<br>


	Note to self: ~~Research ] (or persuade one of the Riggrs to do so), consider~~ writing an article about in the ]. Some day.		Note to self: Consider writing an article about in the ]. Some day.


			]

	{{hat\|Emergency desysops}}		{{hat\|Emergency desysops}}
Line 102:		Line 113:
	==Please post below==		==Please post below==

			==I'm around a lot more now!==
			Well, now that we on the Movement Charter Drafting Committee have published the final text of the proposed ] (ratification vote coming up soon!), I can finally get back to the work I've been missing so much here on this project. I figured I should look at backlogs, and first off I'm going to work on clearing the IPBE requests; that will take a while, as it isn't top priority for most checkusers. Then there's SPI and other CU requests, as well as getting back into OS requests. Feel free to ping me if I can be of assistance. ] (]) 02:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Notification ==

			I reference the questions you asked at ] in this case clarification request. I figured this crosses the threshold of when it's a good idea to give someone a courtesy notification. ] ] 03:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

	== A ~~kitten~~ ~~for you!~~ ==		== IP address blocked ==

			@Risker
	]
	Thanks for stepping in!

			You have blocked my IP address, so I can't edit. Although I may have made mistakes in the past, I have familiarized myself with all Misplaced Pages policies. Please reconsider and unblock my IP address.
	] (]) 09:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
	<br style="clear: both;"/>
	*That sort of ] article is very problematic. People confuse "I can source this statement" with "This statement should be in this article". Or perhaps it's not really confusion. Always happy to eradicate such nonsense. ] (]) 22:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

			] (]) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
	== Jeremy Kyle ==
			:You seem to be editing pretty well, at least when you're logged in. I haven't done many IP blocks in the last year, and most of the time I am making them more accessible (e.g., allowing logged-in editors to edit instead of blocking all editors). I really don't want to have to use the CheckUser tool to find out what IP address or range you are using, since you are able to edit logged-in. If you are encountering difficulty logging in or editing while logged in, that's a bit of a different story. If that is the case, the best step would be to email the address listed on ] so that it can be further reviewed by the CheckUser team. ] (]) 17:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

			==IPBE for ]==
	Hi,
			I saw that you granted IPBE to this editor. As the first thing they did was cryptospamming (]), I am inclined to revoke that, but wanted to ask your opinion before doing so. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
			:Thanks for letting me know, {{u\|Seraphimblade}}. I've revoked the IPBE; while the account met the criteria for the initial grant, this is exactly why it is meant to be easy to revoke. I've been clearing the backlog of IPBE requests (there were over 100, I've lost count....), I'm hoping this will be the only one that messes up so obviously. ] (]) 16:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

			== IPBE question ==
	Thanks for protecting it. I did wonder about doing that myself but it doesn't usually get that sort of vandalism so I had left it for the time being. Hopefully there won't be any more like that, if there is then I'll extend it to extended confirmed protection. The trouble is, he's the sort of person that's always going to attract vandalism.

			Is it generally acceptable for admins to grant IPBE to new editors who are in a geography (or on an ISP) where they'd need IPBE to edit? Was looking at ] and it isn't exactly clear (the request I was reviewing was at ]). ] (] \| ]) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
	Thanks again!-- ] (]) 22:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
			:Hi {{u\|Elli}}. Reasonable question. This would probably fall into the "use common sense" category, more so than anything. I deliberately didn't include the "geographies" issue for a few reasons: listing "concerning" geographies is a mug's game since they keep changing and expanding, and it's a potential vector for abuse (and yes, we've seen some inappropriate requests involving these "concerning" geographies). Gonna be honest, by the time an admin starts feeling comfortable in granting any additional permissions to people, they've usually developed a feel for situations where they don't really want to go. We've got a lot of really good and smart admins.
	:Perhaps the advantage of not really knowing much about this guy allows me to take the 30,000-foot view. That kind of nonsense isn't okay, regardless of how much of a jerk an article subject may be - and refer back to sentence 1, I really don't know. ] (]) 22:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
	::It's not even that he's a jerk, it's because he's a talk show host with a past that includes things like a gambling problem. So now because he has a go at people on his talk show who have problems like gambling etc, people think he's a bit of a hypocrite and the guy really isn't that well liked, well not in the UK anyway.-- ] (]) 23:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

			:I think there are also a few issues that need further discussion. Should we be range-blocking IPs that have no history of abuse, simply because they're a VPN or similar? With an increasing number of people and devices only operating effectively through VPNs and similar colocation vectors, should we become more liberal in our granting? How can we deal effectively with the IPBE-related issues that stem from deeply rooted systemic biases that exist outside of our small slice of the internet? Should we request that the developers separate Tor access from IPBE, which would reduce the risk of inappropriate behaviour? There are a lot of things we could be doing better to reduce the need for, and the risk of, granting IPBE. It becomes increasingly difficult to say to people "we want to see a reasonable editing history" when the reality is that they can't even gain access. ] (]) 18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
	== Heh ==

			== Invitation to participate in a research ==
	Heh, I assume you got what I meant by now, but just to be sure: I do have the system email enabled. I just have emails for pings and talk page messages disabled on en.wiki. ] (]) 21:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
	:Yeah, the penny dropped after a few minutes - ironically when I opened my email and found a bunch of pings. Sorry about that! ] (]) 03:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
	::You good :) As I told another former arb a few weeks ago, I value our good working relationship, so I have no problem with ever being called out by you if I’m being dumb. ] (]) 03:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

			Hello,
	== Template Deletion ==
	{{Ping\|Risker}} Hello there. Can you please recreate ]? There are still numerous articles that rely on using that subtemplate, and ] is one of those articles that have pretty much been destroyed by the template deletion. At the very least, if the Japanese episode template shouldn't be recreated, then all of its functions and parameters should be fully merged into ] (and probably redirected as well), and then every article currently employing the Japanese episode list/sublist template needs to be adjusted so that they use the "newer" template. Can you please restore the template or merge the two, so that the affected articles can work properly? Thanks. ] 🌀 (]) 06:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
	:Hi {{u\|LightandDark2000}} - this is now restored. Or at least I have pressed the right buttons. However there isn't much there, so I am not sure what additional pages may be affecting things. I'm almost inclined to revert the whole pile of deletions. Let me know what else you need, although I may not get to it for several hours. ] (]) 06:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
	::Can you please also restore the ] in the meantime? It would probably help effort with merging (and also understanding parameter functions) for that template. Thanks. ] 🌀 (]) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
	:::Done, {{u\|LightandDark2000}}. And now I really have to go to bed, but I'll check for messages when I arise. ] (]) 06:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|LightandDark2000}} This is my fault. I'm the one who placed the CSD template on these pages. I thought they were all taken care of as part of the convert/merge. Sorry for the issue and thank you for catching it. Risker sorry for causing you a headache and thank you for resolving the issue! --''']''' (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
	:::::No worries, {{u\|Zackmann08}} - it was a very complicated discussion, and one involving so many subpages. Just glad that interested editors were watching what was happening an were able to respond quickly when a correction needed to be made. As I note, I'm happy to restore anything else that will help to resolve the convert/merge issue. ] (]) 17:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Risker, when you get a chance, we can now safely delete ] as all article transclusions have been removed. --''']''' (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 04:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

			The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
	==Giant steps==
	Steps taken at time? Hope little Risker referring to steps taken by Bishzilla! ] ] <b><font color="#A7A0F2">]</font></b> 19:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC).
	:{{u\|Bishzilla}}! Hello! I am sure your steps would indeed be giant ones - we little editors would never be able to fill your shoes. Very nice to have you come by and visit my page; I consider it a great honour. I may find myself in your neighbourhood ], and perhaps we can find an opportunity for a bit of socializing. I trust you not to breathe fire in my general direction. :-) ] (]) 19:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
	::That would be nice. I had a lot of trouble restraining Bishzilla from posting and boasting directly at ]. Mind you, I don't blame the old girl for being proud of the block she placed ten years ago. Something of a high point in her wiki-career! ] \| ] 19:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC).

			You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
	==Barnstar==

			The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
	{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| For moving a particularly big mountain. ] ] 01:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
	\|}

			Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
	== Thanks for your review of ] ==

			Kind Regards,
	I am available to talk as you like. I appreciate any response you have. ]] 20:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
	:We'll keep it onwiki, I've responded on the talk page. ] (]) 20:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

			]
	== Checkuser at RFA ==

			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	I wanted to follow up a bit on the comment I made at WP:ARBN, where I stated {{tq\|Checkuser is routinely used during RFAs}} and you responded {{tq\|Checkuser is not routinely used during RFAs; in fact, such checks are very rare, and normally are well-substantiated in advance, often at WP:SPI or potentially as a private discussion at the checkuser mailing list or between two or more checkusers. I'm concerned that you have the impression it is commonplace and routine.}} followed up by {{tq\|You're the one alleging that checks are routinely being performed, so it is up to you to substantiate your statement.}} I've gone and pulled together some points to back up my statement.
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->

			== Protecting 2024 United States presidential election ==
	I checked a few recent RFAs. In the Enterprisey RFA here is {{u\|Bbb23}} removing from socks, who they later blocked. In the JJMC89 RFA here is Bbb23 again removing , all of whom were later blocked (I think with KAGFan2018 however a checkuser was probably not run). In the Galobtter RFA Bbb23 removed from socks, who turned out to be the same one if I understand the SPI report correctly.

			I just noticed that you goldlocked the article "]". Why? Is it just that much of a contentious topic? Just curious. ] (]) 08:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	I could go on, because like I said, this is routinely done at RFA. I hope this helps you understand my position a bit more, and why I would make such a comment. I didn't say that such activity was bad or negative, just that it was common. I'm thankful to Bbb23 for his hard work cleaning out socks. ] (]) 09:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
			:It is indeed a ], and was also having an ongoing edit war. ] (]) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	:"I didn't say that such activity was bad or negative" Yes, you did. "I found another example of Bbb23 running an ''improper check'', but I will not share that publicly due to privacy concerns." <br /> — ] ] 12:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
	::~~In that one specific case, in my opinion, the check wasn't warranted~~. ] (]) 14:13, 13 ~~February~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)		::Ah. ] (]) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	*Hello Mr Ernie. I am traveling now and will respond on my return next week. If other CUs drop by to address your concerns, they're more than welcome to do so here. In the meantime, perhaps you'd like to give some thought as to what is attracting sockpuppeters to participate at RFA; three out of the last three having had confirmed socks is pretty concerning from my point of view. ] (]) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

			== Talk Page of 2024 United States Presidential Election is also locked (not only the article, which for the article is understandable) ==
	== A barnstar for you! ==

			Good evening brother. Just wanted to ask why cant one post a topic on the talk page?
	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| I award this is to you for all your amazing abilities to tackle difficult situations and enter into unfamiliar territory. You have the enormous power to spread positivity, perhaps as a consequence of your years of experience and obedience. You have shown excellent signs of mediation and your showcase of civility, patience, and boldness makes you deserve more than this simple token. May you succeed in real life and do something greater for the sake of the majority. Hope we cross paths one day. <span style="color:orange">'''THE NEW'''</span> ]] 00:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
	\|}
	== Talk pages consultation 2019 ==

			And also I basically just wanted to ask what the hold up is with updating the article?
	The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Misplaced Pages, to participate in ] on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at ''']'''. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. <!--You are informed of this consultation, because you were an integral participant of the previous discussions around Flow per <https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Flow?editorlimit=200>. Please ignore, if you are not concerned.--> ]<sup>]</sup> 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

			Trump was declared the projected winner for 4 hours and the article still shows him as 266. Which is outdated information.
	== If you were British, you would be a Remainer :) ==

			Sources:
	'''Primefac's RfB'''

			https://www.foxnews.com/elections
	The following questions were removed without explanation. On being asked to provide an explanation the editor refused.

			https://elections2024.thehill.com/
	;Additional questions from 92.19.174.36
	:'''19.''' A CheckUser noted that the page ] (about which the consensus is that it is an attack page without diffs supporting the allegations and should properly be deleted) has never been reviewed in accordance with policy:

			https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2024-us-presidential-election-results-live-map ] (]) 10:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	<font color="green">There is something of a backlog in the review process (probably not helped by the lack of instructions). See and ]. I have marked this case as active. Please keep in mind to keep it updated. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)</font>

			*Not touching the protection on that talk page; if you really want to pursue it, you can post at ]. The full protection of the article has been lifted now that the predetermined 5 mainstream media outlets have unanimously called the election for Trump. You will see much work done there in the coming hours. ] (]) 10:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	The link is to abuse by ]. Further abuse by him will be discussed later. On behalf of the Foundation, Maggie Dennis stated (14:49, 29 November 2016) "...they can review the particulars in case action is possible or necessary and, if needed, confer with our legal team." Maggie has been supportive throughout - her Meta talk page (29 December 2016) noted:

			== A Barnstar for you! ==
	{{xt\|Two independent observers, Anna Frodesiak and RedPanda25, have certified that the page is scurrilous criminal harassment.}}

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	Action was taken to implement the consensus by way of a discussion at the MfD talk page:
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Donald Trump Barnstar'''
			\|-
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| For your work bringing cohesiveness and order to ] during AP's, CNN's, ABC's, CBS's and NBC's reporting last night; for making sure orderly process and structure were facilitated on ]. Admins like you are the best! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 13:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			\|}

			Thank you, {{u\|BarntToust}}. I think. I'm still half asleep. :) ] (]) 15:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	I propose the deletion of this page. It is a spoof report ]. Its originator, Elockid, has now left the project, while Sunshine, who provided much of the content, appeared before the Arbitration Committee in January charged with abuse. ] (]) 11:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
	:This morning's ''Daily Telegraph'' reports:

			== #2024110610012222 ==
	<blockquote>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said people who create false profiles ... could face charges including harassment. New draft guidelines published by the CPS set out how prosecutors should take tough action against anyone who attempts to humiliate or undermine someone else by publishing false information online ...</blockquote>
	<blockquote>"... an online footprint will be left by the offender."</blockquote>
	<blockquote>A CPS spokesman said the guidelines cover the use of false online profiles ... which are set up to publicise "false and damaging information".</blockquote>
	<blockquote>For example, it may be a criminal offence if a profile is created under the name of the victim with fake information uploaded which, if believed, could damage their reputation and humiliate them," the spokesman said.</blockquote>
	<blockquote> ... "This may amount to an offence, such as grossly offensive communication or harassment."
	</blockquote>
	<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:A deletion request here is unlikely to succeed; for legal disputes you could try . The page you refer to wasn't created for harassment, but to document a suspected pattern of disruption and to be linked to, to provide context when dealing with it. I wouldn't call what is documented there "abuse"; it should probably be moved into user space or into the sockpuppet investigations case. Are you ] or not? ] (]) 23:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
	::Whether the page was created for harassment can be determined by what it says. It starts off

			Hey Risker! Thank you for actioning that request. For future reference, what is the correct way to request RevDel without using the Oversight process? The suggestion of 'Find active admins in ]' can be described as tedious at best. There has to be a better way? Thanks in advance, ] (]) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	{{xt\|She routinely edit wars with Jc3s5h ...}}
			:Hi {{u\|OXYLYPSE}} - you did the right thing. If you're not in a position to raise an admin's attention quietly, you or any other user can make the request through emailing User:Oversight. This is especially important for apparent BLP issues; it's to everyone's benefit to keep that off noticeboards or other public spaces. The Oversight team does review every request that comes in and takes the most appropriate action; often that is revision deletion instead of suppression. Thanks for asking! ] (]) 23:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
	The overarching reason why we are here is to provide the public with factual information. If you look at Jc3s5h's contributions you find s/he added the following claim at 11:44, 11 May 2016:

			Hello,
	{{xt\|the Gregorian calendar ... moved Washington's birthday a year and 11 days to February 22, 1732.}}

			I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
	It didn't. Under the calendar reform, eleven (not 376) days were removed. Wednesday, 2 September 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, 14 September of the same year. ] (]) 15:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

			Take the survey ''''''.
	:This page is currently being used for ongoing harassment by administrators who admit to being involved:

			Kind Regards,
	Thanks! Vote and I have ]. ] (]) 18:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			]
	In his next two posts, Favonian lets slip the motivation behind his actions:

	~~It's~~ ~~what it does, time and again. Can't blame a troll for trying. ;)~~ ] (]) 21:19, 7 ~~December~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->

			== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
	Attention is what the species craves above all. Apart from that: malice is its own reward. ] (]) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	'''Uninvolved editor speaks out against criminal harassment'''
			<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2024\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	:ping\|BethNaught\|Mike1901\|Timothyjosephwood\|Samtar\|Ritchie333 This might be the strangest edit war ever. An IP editor who may or may not be a sockpuppet leaves a comment on Ritchie333's talk page, someone removes it, they re-insert it, this continues, then I re-insert it, and then it gets removed ''again''. In all of tis no one has actually responded to the IP's concern. ]]] 16:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	::ping\|Samtar\|Mike1901 All that is true, but what everyone is missing is the comment ''itself''. They raised a legitimate concern. And about me being an alt account, I will confirm that. ]]] 16:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	:ping\|Samtar\|Mike1901 Okay, this truly concerns me. This is obviously the same user, but again, they are ''very'' convincing. Can you help me with this?
	#Are the LTA reports really criminal harassment?
	#Was the comment by Zzuuzz really a threat?
	#Was Mike1901’s comment “an expression of support”?
	What is going on here? Thanks, ]]] 19:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
	Seeing that the discussion was trending to "delete" our old friends ] and ] wiped it off the page. Jayron32 then protected. An editor remonstrated:

			</div>
	<font color="green">Jayron32 appears to have ] issues. First he links to a sex book in a discussion about air pollution and then he claims that nominating a page at MfD is "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked."</font>
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->

			==Mail call==
	Jayron32 made a crude joke about "lubrication of the jackscrew assembly" in a discussion about an air crash which killed hundreds of people and also commented "I like my beer like I like my women: frigid". He was still at it in a discussion about birds on Thursday when he commented "I've always enjoyed a ]." It's disgusting. Eventually Xaosflux removed the indefinite protection.
			{{ygm}}] \| ] 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC).

			== Sorry about that ==
	The discussion continued at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion, but not for long:
			I mentioned it there, but I just wanted to reiterate here that in the light of day one of my comments at ] was rude. Sorry about that.

	~~...~~ ~~Just~~ ~~delete.~~ ] ] 18:01, 8 ~~December~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		I look forward to (more) politely continuing to share our different perspectives! - ] (]) 16:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::Doug Weller, who thinks he knows a lot about calendars, is heavily ] here. In 2010 he protected ] to prevent an irrelevant, offensive picture with a spurious caption being removed after a consensus was reached to remove it. The article remains protected to this day. In May 2015 an editor removed from ] the false claim that Dionysius Exiguus made a mistake in calculating the first year of the Christian era. The change was fully sourced but Doug tag - teamed with someone else to restore the misinformation and remove the reference. Instead of making a case at the talk page for the removal of the reference he prayed in aid ] with this post:

			:Oh RevelationDirect, just the other day I was accused of kicking dogs. I do not find anything you said to be particularly rude at all. Bottom line, though, I am really impressed that you hold yourself to such a high standard. It's a challenging discussion, for sure, but I think the focus has been on improvement and re-humanizing the process. ] (]) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
	<blockquote>I'm involved in reverting ... at Common Era. I don't know if given the three blocks if you think anything needs to be done. I'm not going to be concerned too much about it though. Block, protect, or ignore. Your judgment, your choice.</blockquote>

			== No big deal... ==
	Since when? The cycle is '''BRD''', not BR-run-to-an-administrator-to-stab-another-editor-in-the-back. Looking at the three blocks, all by Future Perfect at Sunrise, they seem to relate to tendentious editing by the same people. Future Perfect at Sunrise didn't bother to reply, much less discuss their conduct with the IP, but clobbered it with a six month block. Forward to June 2016 and it was Groundhog Day revisited. An editor adds a link to the Astronomical Almanac and ] removes it, replacing it with a deadlink under the uninformative edit summary ''Vote (X) for Revert''. Mojoworker then embarks on an edit war to keep the Astronomical Almanac reference out and the deadlink in, for good measure adding the ridiculous claim that the ''Anno Domini'' era dates from the Creation. After more argy - bargy Future Perfect at Sunrise swoops in, restores all the nonsense and protects the article for three months. A number of articles are in a sorry state because Future Perfect at Sunrise has protected them:

			Hi, I haven't edited for almost 2 years, but I've been lurking (just a bit). I came across RECALL and its REWORKSHOP more by accident than design and I was so pleased to see you being active there. It certainly needs your special touch. It inspired me to throw in just two or three minor comments, and though I'm certainly not staging a comeback, I still have a vested interest in both encouraging potential admin candidates to throw their hat in the ring without fear, and even more important to ensure they get a ''fair deal'' when they get the bit - or lose it. Warm rgds, ] (]) 07:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
	* Solar time (indefinite) - makes the amazing claim that -6 is greater than +14.

			==Invitation to provide feedback==
	* Equation of time (December 2017) - includes the nonsensical phrase "equation of centre", claims the equation of time is zero at date of latest sunrise (1 January, the actual date is 25 December), claims it reaches its maximum value on 3 January (actually 3 November) and minimum "half a year later" (actually 12 February), defines the ecliptic as "the path of the Sun seems to take in the celestial sphere", and claims the vernal equinox falls most often on 21 March (the date given previously was 20 March). In the complete 400 year cycle beginning in 1753 the equinox falls on 20 March 256 times and on 21 March only 104 times. From 2007 to 2101 it does not fall on 21 March at all, and it will fall on 20 March every year from 2136 to 2175.
			Inspired by Worm That Turned's ] where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my ]. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my ''''''. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, ] (]) 16:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

			==Io Saturnalia!==
	* Tropical year (December 2017) - contains the amazing claim that "the actual timing of official midnight is based on UTC" despite the fact that the European Union and practically every civilised country bases it on Greenwich Mean Time, also the remarkable (and false) claim that sixteenth century astronomers had measured the rotation rate of the earth and found it to be irregular. How did they manage that, given that their most accurate timepiece was the sundial? We are also told that the tropical year has "a duration of. (Astronomical Applications Dept., 2009)".

			{\| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
	* Adoption of the Gregorian calendar (March 2017) - incorrectly claims that Greece uses the Gregorian calendar following removal of sources confirming that it uses the same calendar as its established church (because it issued three anathemas against it in the sixteenth century). ] (]) 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			\|rowspan="2" valign="right" \| ]

			\|rowspan="2" \|
	As the consensus firmed, ] splashed down to remove the "delete" !votes and ] took off for RfPP at 04:32, 10 December 2016 with a request for protection, which was granted. You then took action to ensure the Community consensus was respected. At 15:10, 10 December 2016 you created the page ]:
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" \| '''Io, ]!'''

			\|-
	'''Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/** * * **'''
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|O}}
			\|}

	:{{la\|Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/** * * **}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
	:({{Find sources AFD\|Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/** * * **}})

	I propose the deletion of this page. It is a spoof report ] section "Why Do We Need Something New?" Its originator, Elockid, has now left the project, while Sunshine, who provided much of the content, appeared before the Arbitration Committee in January charged with abuse. ] (]) 11:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
	:It would be great if we could figure out a way to get them to leave and not come back. I don't think that is going to happen. - ] ] 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	::Vote {X} for change has an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses. Just delete. ] ] 18:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

	At 15:16 you created ] with the following heading and copied the content over:

	:{{la\|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/** * * **}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) - <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>

	] (]) 15:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

	As the page had been created by Elockid, you placed a notice of the discussion on his talk page at 15:16. You tagged the AfD for speedy deletion and it was deleted G6 at 16:09. You then became aware that ] was doctoring the discussion. Compare the archived version with the previous:

	<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
	:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
	<!--Template:Afd top

	Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

	The result was '''Speedy keep'''. ] (]) 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	''']'''
	:{{pagelinks\|Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/** * * **}}

	*Um, '''speedy keep''' for obvious reasons. Socks don't get to nominate their own LTA for deletion. ] (]) 15:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{clear}}
	:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
	The allegation that an editor has impersonated a member of the Arbitration Committee is yet another example of criminal harassment. How can a post signed by an IP be "impersonation of other users"? It can't, obviously, and equally obviously Ian.thomson removed Doug's post because it supported deletion. The "speedy keep" is a bad faith close - taking the matter to ANI for review. ] (]) 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

	When you became aware of the misconduct, instead of reporting it you participated in a cover-up. IMHO, instead of being promoted to Bureaucrat you should be sitebanned. At 18:18, you requested semiprotection at RfPP. The IP responded, Samtar removed the response and protected. Editors should be advised that the various pages which were interfered with are all redlinks - i.e. the evidence has been hidden. '''MfDs do not get deleted'''. The logs of MfD's go back fifteen years. There are thousands of them. There is only one redlink (which you can inspect at ]). Thus the page being discussed wasn't deleted but the deletion discussion was! How could this come about? If you look at similar discussions it was the other way about:

	]

	]

	]

	]

	]

	]

	]

	]

	]

			== Nadolig Llawen ==
	]

			<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:yellow; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]]]<br/>
	Contrary to ]'s claim, the North Carolina vandal initiated the discussion but his contribution was not deleted and neither was the discussion - the LTA page, however, was. In fact, 70% of the LTA pages were deleted compared to NONE of the discussions. Will you now do the honourable thing and withdraw your candidacy?
			<big>'''Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.'''<br/>Happy Christmas and Best wishes for a peaceful 2025:</big> performed by the ].<br />(], ] folk carol)
	::'''A'''
			----
	:'''20.'''
			</div> ] (]) 09:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	There's one loose end to tie up - who deleted the incriminating pages? At 10:33, 11 December 2016 Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the MfD. His log entry was ''G5:Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban''. At 10:34, he salted it. Were you aware that, in order to hide content detrimental to him from the Community, he had averred that you are a blocked or banned user?
	::'''A'''

			:@ ] (]) 19:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hello 92.19.173.101, I have participated in that RfB by voting, so am recusing myself from anything to do with the reviewing or clerking of it. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:55, 22 December 2024

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

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Stats for pending changes trial
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases
Category:Misplaced Pages semi-protected pages
User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js in case I need it
User:Risker/Mauricie
{{OversightBlock|sig = ~~~~}} signs the template.

Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links

Notes to self
The Siege of Rhodes
Palladian Villas of the Veneto
Gabriel Williams
Almeric Paget, 1st Baron Queenborough
Gomez wordcloud
Useful stuff
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Risker/Questions for the candidate
recent changes
Image:ACE2008.jpg
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Results
Interesting pages
Useful stuff
Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags/Public domain
Future reference re BLP on ANI
To AFD

Admin stuff:
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' how-to guide
Misplaced Pages:New admin school
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list
Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace
Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace/Blocks
Misplaced Pages:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table
Template:Unsigned
Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators
Template:SPI case status

Notes

WP:ARBAP2
{{subst:W-screen}} {{subst:User:Alison/c}} Misplaced Pages:SPI/CLERK and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators

Note to self: Consider writing an article about the Forster Family Dollhouse in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Some day.

Listeria Bot Misplaced Pages:New_page_patrol_source_guide#Africa

Emergency desysops
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Other note to self re "emergency" desysops: Spencer195, Marskell, Cool3 - Level 1 Hemanshu - committee motion, mischaracterized as "emergency desysop" on noticeboard, desysop occurred minutes before the motion passed. Sade - to check "involuntary per arbcom", Feb 09 RickK/Zoe - July 08. Long dormant admin accounts, shared compromised password. Eye of the Mind - Dec 07. Main page deletion. Shreshth91 - done at request of single arbitrator, Aug 07. Vancouverguy - Jun 07. Long dorman admin account, apparent compromise. Yanksox - Mar 07 - Jimbo desysop, confirmed by Arbcom in full case (DB deletion wheel war) Robdurbar - Apr 07 - mass blocking, self unblocking, deletion. Wonderfool. Husnock - Dec 06. Admitted shared password, desysop confirmed by Arbcom in full case.

Emergency desysops

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Other note to self re "emergency" desysops:

Spencer195, Marskell, Cool3 - Level 1
Hemanshu - committee motion, mischaracterized as "emergency desysop" on noticeboard, desysop occurred minutes before the motion passed.
Sade - to check "involuntary per arbcom", Feb 09
RickK/Zoe - July 08. Long dormant admin accounts, shared compromised password.
Eye of the Mind - Dec 07. Main page deletion.
Shreshth91 - done at request of single arbitrator, Aug 07.
Vancouverguy - Jun 07. Long dorman admin account, apparent compromise.
Yanksox - Mar 07 - Jimbo desysop, confirmed by Arbcom in full case (DB deletion wheel war)
Robdurbar - Apr 07 - mass blocking, self unblocking, deletion. Wonderfool.
Husnock - Dec 06. Admitted shared password, desysop confirmed by Arbcom in full case.

Please post below

I'm around a lot more now!

Well, now that we on the Movement Charter Drafting Committee have published the final text of the proposed movement charter (ratification vote coming up soon!), I can finally get back to the work I've been missing so much here on this project. I figured I should look at backlogs, and first off I'm going to work on clearing the IPBE requests; that will take a while, as it isn't top priority for most checkusers. Then there's SPI and other CU requests, as well as getting back into OS requests. Feel free to ping me if I can be of assistance. Risker (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Notification

I reference the questions you asked at WT:RFA in this case clarification request. I figured this crosses the threshold of when it's a good idea to give someone a courtesy notification. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

IP address blocked

@Risker

You have blocked my IP address, so I can't edit. Although I may have made mistakes in the past, I have familiarized myself with all Misplaced Pages policies. Please reconsider and unblock my IP address.

ᱤᱧ ᱢᱟᱛᱟᱞ (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be editing pretty well, at least when you're logged in. I haven't done many IP blocks in the last year, and most of the time I am making them more accessible (e.g., allowing logged-in editors to edit instead of blocking all editors). I really don't want to have to use the CheckUser tool to find out what IP address or range you are using, since you are able to edit logged-in. If you are encountering difficulty logging in or editing while logged in, that's a bit of a different story. If that is the case, the best step would be to email the address listed on WP:IPBE so that it can be further reviewed by the CheckUser team. Risker (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

IPBE for User:Lynnzh0913

I saw that you granted IPBE to this editor. As the first thing they did was cryptospamming (Draft:Aibit exchange), I am inclined to revoke that, but wanted to ask your opinion before doing so. Seraphimblade 07:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Seraphimblade. I've revoked the IPBE; while the account met the criteria for the initial grant, this is exactly why it is meant to be easy to revoke. I've been clearing the backlog of IPBE requests (there were over 100, I've lost count....), I'm hoping this will be the only one that messes up so obviously. Risker (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

IPBE question

Is it generally acceptable for admins to grant IPBE to new editors who are in a geography (or on an ISP) where they'd need IPBE to edit? Was looking at User:Risker/IPBE and it isn't exactly clear (the request I was reviewing was at User talk:Caralice). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Elli. Reasonable question. This would probably fall into the "use common sense" category, more so than anything. I deliberately didn't include the "geographies" issue for a few reasons: listing "concerning" geographies is a mug's game since they keep changing and expanding, and it's a potential vector for abuse (and yes, we've seen some inappropriate requests involving these "concerning" geographies). Gonna be honest, by the time an admin starts feeling comfortable in granting any additional permissions to people, they've usually developed a feel for situations where they don't really want to go. We've got a lot of really good and smart admins.

I think there are also a few issues that need further discussion. Should we be range-blocking IPs that have no history of abuse, simply because they're a VPN or similar? With an increasing number of people and devices only operating effectively through VPNs and similar colocation vectors, should we become more liberal in our granting? How can we deal effectively with the IPBE-related issues that stem from deeply rooted systemic biases that exist outside of our small slice of the internet? Should we request that the developers separate Tor access from IPBE, which would reduce the risk of inappropriate behaviour? There are a lot of things we could be doing better to reduce the need for, and the risk of, granting IPBE. It becomes increasingly difficult to say to people "we want to see a reasonable editing history" when the reality is that they can't even gain access. Risker (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Protecting 2024 United States presidential election

I just noticed that you goldlocked the article "2024 United States presidential election". Why? Is it just that much of a contentious topic? Just curious. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed a contentious topic, and was also having an ongoing edit war. Risker (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk Page of 2024 United States Presidential Election is also locked (not only the article, which for the article is understandable)

Good evening brother. Just wanted to ask why cant one post a topic on the talk page?

And also I basically just wanted to ask what the hold up is with updating the article?

Trump was declared the projected winner for 4 hours and the article still shows him as 266. Which is outdated information.

Sources:

https://www.foxnews.com/elections

https://elections2024.thehill.com/

https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2024-us-presidential-election-results-live-map 2806:2F0:1080:F8C0:9901:73EA:1D3F:3883 (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not touching the protection on that talk page; if you really want to pursue it, you can post at WP:RFPP. The full protection of the article has been lifted now that the predetermined 5 mainstream media outlets have unanimously called the election for Trump. You will see much work done there in the coming hours. Risker (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

	The Donald Trump Barnstar
	For your work bringing cohesiveness and order to 2024 United States presidential election during AP's, CNN's, ABC's, CBS's and NBC's reporting last night; for making sure orderly process and structure were facilitated on Talk:2024 United States presidential election. Admins like you are the best! Barnt Toust 13:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, BarntToust. I think. I'm still half asleep. :) Risker (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

#2024110610012222

Hey Risker! Thank you for actioning that request. For future reference, what is the correct way to request RevDel without using the Oversight process? The suggestion of 'Find active admins in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_handle_RevisionDelete_requests' can be described as tedious at best. There has to be a better way? Thanks in advance, OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi OXYLYPSE - you did the right thing. If you're not in a position to raise an admin's attention quietly, you or any other user can make the request through emailing User:Oversight. This is especially important for apparent BLP issues; it's to everyone's benefit to keep that off noticeboards or other public spaces. The Oversight team does review every request that comes in and takes the most appropriate action; often that is revision deletion instead of suppression. Thanks for asking! Risker (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC).

Sorry about that

I mentioned it there, but I just wanted to reiterate here that in the light of day one of my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator recall/Reworkshop was rude. Sorry about that.

I look forward to (more) politely continuing to share our different perspectives! - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh RevelationDirect, just the other day I was accused of kicking dogs. I do not find anything you said to be particularly rude at all. Bottom line, though, I am really impressed that you hold yourself to such a high standard. It's a challenging discussion, for sure, but I think the focus has been on improvement and re-humanizing the process. Risker (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No big deal...

Hi, I haven't edited for almost 2 years, but I've been lurking (just a bit). I came across RECALL and its REWORKSHOP more by accident than design and I was so pleased to see you being active there. It certainly needs your special touch. It inspired me to throw in just two or three minor comments, and though I'm certainly not staging a comeback, I still have a vested interest in both encouraging potential admin candidates to throw their hat in the ring without fear, and even more important to ensure they get a fair deal when they get the bit - or lose it. Warm rgds, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to provide feedback

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my recall process. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.
Happy Christmas and Best wishes for a peaceful 2025: "Gabriel's Message" performed by the Winchester Cathedral Choir.
("Birjina gaztetto bat zegoen", Basque folk carol)

Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@ 36.37.211.144 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)