Jump to content

User talk:Risker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases
Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages
User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js in case I need it
User:Risker/Mauricie
{{OversightBlock|sig = ~~~~}} signs the template.

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

Notes

[edit]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
WP:ARBAP2
{{subst:W-screen}} {{subst:User:Alison/c}} Wikipedia:SPI/CLERK and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.

Please post below

[edit]

I'm around a lot more now!

[edit]

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)[reply]

Notification

[edit]

I reference the questions you asked at WT:RFA in this case clarification request. [7] 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)[reply]

IP address blocked

[edit]

@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 Wikipedia policies. Please reconsider and unblock my IP address.

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

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)[reply]

IPBE for User:Lynnzh0913

[edit]

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 Talk to me 07:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

IPBE question

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, 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) [reply]

Protecting 2024 United States presidential election

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Donald Trump Barnstar
For your work bringing cohesiveness and order to 2024 United States presidential election during AP's, CNN's, ABC's, CBS's and NBC's reporting last night; for making sure orderly process and structure were facilitated on Talk:2024 United States presidential election. Admins like you are the best! BarntToust 13:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Risker&oldid=1255751356"