Jump to content

User talk:GoldenRing/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Edit warring accusations

GoldenRing, FYI, Xenophrenic is edit warring on the same articles that he was blocked for edit warring over after being unblocked. He has wasted so much of everyone's time. Is it time to open another ANI thread for a topic ban? desmay (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Desmay: I've had a brief look through Xenophrenic's recent contributions and I'm not seeing obvious problems; it could be that I'm being slow or not looking far enough back, but at this point I think it's traditional to provide diffs or retract the accusation. GoldenRing (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand the necessity of providing diffs completely. Here is one diff, where Xenophrenic continues to remove the category that was kept through consensus [1]. In this other edit, he removes "atheistic" from the article despite it being in the reference [2]. Here, he also does the same thing, trying to mischaracterize the Cult of Reason [3]. (Personal attack removed) I would propose that he be topic banned from anything related to religion/atheism completely. Despite being blocked a few times in the last year for edit warring on this topic, he still persists. desmay (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The request wasn't to provide random diffs, Desmay, but to provide diffs that actually substantiate your accusations. Let's look at your first diff, where you falsely claim I removed a category from a page when there was consensus to keep it there. There was no such consensus to keep that category on that page, as you'll note in the Talk page discussion about it; in fact, consensus is to the contrary. Now let's look at your 2nd and 3rd diffs, where you falsely claim I tried "to mischaracterize the Cult of Reason". Once again, if you'll read the Talk page discussions at each of those articles, you'll find the reasoning clearly explained for those edits, and there has been no mischaracterization. I also once described it as atheistic before seeing that it is the reliable sources that conflict on how to accurately characterize the cult. If you have reliably sourced information that would help resolve the conflicts, you should bring it to the Talk page and engage in discussion. You'll find that to be a much more productive approach than to campaign to have editors banned just because they get in the way of your personal efforts. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since being called to comment on a vote on an 'atheism' topic some months ago, I've been watching with dismay as one admin after another arrives towards the end of a long conflict/discussion on this (or related) topic, gives the case a cursory glance, and makes a bewhaviour-related 'face-value' judgement (in totally ignoring the policy or content issues that started the thing in the first place). Xenophrenic is alone against what seems to be an organised group of congtributors maintaining a 'footprint' in certain articles, and their methods... well, let's just say that it reminds me of a tactic my little brother used to use when he didn't like someone playing with a shared toy he considered 'his': he'd try to grab it from whoever (no friend of his) while shouting (for an adult to hear) "You're going to break it! You're going to break it!".
I'm not going to name names (this is not an ANI case) but I would advise any admin to investigate further before meting out any punative judgements based on accusations alone (or a events 'interpreted' through the same). There is a concerted effort to 'remove opposition', and it seems to be working, and complaints seem to be directed at admins who have 'behaved accordingly' in the past. To witness this is disturbing, so remain vigilant, please. TP ✎ ✓ 22:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Xenophrenic is alone against what seems to be an organised group of congtributors...
While I agree with your overall summation about the concerted effort by an organized group to 'litigate' opposition to their agenda out of the picture, I'm far from "alone" in spotting and resisting it. Numerous Wikipedians, editors and Admins alike (see the recent CfDs and AN/Is), have also noticed and denounced their efforts. I just happen to be one of the more vocal editors as of late. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

AN/I closure

Thank you for your close of this AN/I discussion. Without that action, I suspect the initiator and the 3 like-minded editors would be re-re-repeating their accusations and bumping that thread every 71 hours until they achieved a successful lynching. I cannot claim to know what exact considerations and evaluations led you to conclude, "No-one has suggested any action that has any hope of gaining consensus, so I am closing this", but needless to say I came to the same conclusion for several reasons.

What brings me to your Talk page, however, is this warning you added to your closing statement: User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you think you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them. I am asking you to please consider striking that part of your statement. Why? Because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened, and that AN/I discussion (and your closure of it) is going to be referenced in other proceedings. To be sure, several other editors and even Admins did argue on my behalf that my edits were "right", and "correct" and had "the moral high ground", so perhaps that is what prompted your warning? Please understand that I never spoke those words (even if I agree with them), nor did I ever claim that reasoning as a justification for edit warring. And I certainly didn't claim any "exemption from the edit warring policy" for my edits. Your remark strongly implies I took that position, which I never did. The message in your warning that "being right isn't justification" is 100% accurate, I don't dispute that at all, but the warning itself is inapplicable in this situation, and sends what I feel is the wrong message to readers of your closing statement. I hope you will consider my request.

Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't catch this earlier, but your little editorial insertion: "and even less for when you think you are right (italics emphasis yours)", strikes me as unnecessarily provocative -- it goes beyond what our EW policy states, and instead appears intended to convey an unsubstantiated personal judgement of yours. You didn't think that might be just a little bit offensive? Anyway, I'll take your silence in this matter as your response to my request. I'll pursue this elsewhere and won't bother you further. Thank you for your time, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: My apologies for not responding sooner. I'm happy to at least discuss this. Perhaps, without re-litigating the whole ANI thread, you could state why you were edit-warring? GoldenRing (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm always willing to discuss (perhaps too much, as my detractors are fond of pointing out). It is a fact, per our policies, that even a single revert can be viewed as edit warring, and it is also a fact that any change to article content, whether adding to, subtracting or otherwise altering what other editors have previously edited, meets our definition of reverting. So given these two facts, and with enough wiki-lawyering of the policy wording, all of my edits to Wikipedia (with the rare exception of edits to new or virgin articles where no one else has yet edited) can be (mis)interpreted as edit warring. Some edit warring is of course exempt from administrative action (gross BLP violations, CopyVios, clear vandalism, etc.), but every other edit I make can be subjected to a judgement call. But I'm sure you know all this. So there is your answer as to why my edits are edit-warring. The real question that needs to be asked is: was I editing disruptively in this situation? No, in my opinion, but I would appreciate your take on it. I commented already on this editing situation here (see 3rd bullet point), but here is the "in a nutshell version":
An editor (BD2412) created a problematic category and started inserting it in multiple places. I replaced it with an improved category name. Another editor then re-inserted the problematic category. I removed it, and I also took the additional step of initiating a Talk page discussion, which is considered best practice. Again the problematic category was re-added, but I left it there while waiting for an explanation and discussion, which is again best practice. I requested justification for the inclusion of the problematic addition, as required by policy. I waited, and waited, and after almost 4 days of silence I went ahead and removed the problematic category. (As an Admin, I'm sure you've witnessed this many times: as long as their preferred edit is still there, bad-faith editors feel no need to engage in discussion. You can witness this happening in real time, yet again - check out the last comments, even as you read this right now.) My edits were always policy-compliant and reflected the Talk page discussions; I also was not alone in voicing concern on the Talk pages for the problematic category, nor was I alone in removing the problematic category when discussions failed to produce the required justification to add it. I also never broke 3RR, or 2RR for that matter, and there was never any "gaming". At no time did I ever express the sentiment: "I'm right, so therefore I'm going to edit war". I did, however, persist in requesting (or "badger", to use BD2412's term) that the editors proposing to add the contested content provide the required reliable sourcing and justification. That resulted in BD2412 trying to have me removed from "this area" via administrative or community action, a tactic I've been the target of time and again. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This unfortunately appears to be slowly sinking into a memory hole, so I've gone ahead and removed the unsupported commentary on behavior mentioned above. If you'd like to revisit the matter in the future, I'm always open to that, just ping me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: I am still thinking about this, though admittedly life has been rather busy of late and I haven't been thinking about it very much. At any rate, it is completely inappropriate for you to edit the close of a discussion about yourself. I have reverted it. I will get back to you in the next day or so. GoldenRing (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I can totally relate to "life has been busy of late", so I feel bad for pushing things along - but as I mentioned above, I'll be referencing that discussion elsewhere and I want to be sure all the "i's" are dotted and "T's" are crossed. I hope it's the good kind of 'busy'. I also just noticed, and regret, that my gripe here came immediately on the heels of another editor's similar complaint, and I certainly didn't want to give the impression of "piling on". As for my edit being "completely inappropriate", of course it wasn't (see WP:RPA), but it would certainly be better all around if you were the one, instead of me, to redact or strike the unsubstantiated commentary about an editor's behavior (see also What is a personal attack - bullet #5). The "closure box" in the corner of an AN/I discussion is not exempt from our policy against making such personal attacks.
I didn't intend this to be a time-sink for you. You requested that we not re-litigate this thing, so I haven't bothered to go into detail on the two arguably legitimate edit-warring blocks in my decade-long log (which had nothing to do with "thinking" I was right), or what my level of familiarity is with our edit warring policy. I assumed I was requesting a quick and simple fix to a small oversight. Looking forward to your thoughts, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: I've been thinking this through at some length over the weekend and have finally found some time to formulate some thoughts on it. My apologies that it has taken so long.I don't know how to interpret your approach to this other than that you think you are right and it excuses "edit warring, disruptive and tendentious editing" (to quote your block log). A large chunk of what you've written above is simply an explanation of how you were in the right. You don't seem to understand that being right and editing disruptively are not mutually exclusive; reading through the AN/I discussion again, I don't see anyone objecting that you weren't edit-warring or editing disruptively; the argument is about whether your edits were excusable because you were right on the content underlying it and whether those opposing you weren't behaving just as badly. Since it is clear that there is good-faith disagreement between editors on the underlying content, you need to proceed by building consensus, not by edit-warring or bludgeoning discussions.
In case it's not obvious from the above, I decline to change my close at AN/I. WP:NPA does not give you the right to edit the closure comments on a discussion about you (or about anyone, for that matter) to say what you would like it to say. If I'd seen you doing it to someone else's closure, I'd likely have blocked you for it. If you object to the terms of the closure and still wish to pursue this, then requesting a review of the closure at AN is your next step (you can of course also request arbitration, though it is my opinion that such a request would be declined as premature and I do not recommend it). GoldenRing (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for giving the matter some additional thought, but it doesn't appear that we've advanced the discussion at all. In fact, after reading your latest response, I'm left wondering if you've even bothered to read my comments just above. You appear to be repeating the exact same thing, without even the slightest acknowledgement of what I said above. I'm going to respond once more, but please forgive me if I mostly copy-&-paste what I've already said just above.
...you think you are right and it excuses "edit warring, disruptive and tendentious editing" (to quote your block log). A large chunk of what you've written above is simply an explanation of how you were in the right. You don't seem to understand that being right and editing disruptively are not mutually exclusive... the argument is about whether your edits were excusable because you were right on the content underlying it --GoldenRing
Incorrect. Regarding me "thinking I'm right", I've already explained to you that never happened, ... To be sure, several other editors and even Admins did argue on my behalf that my edits were "right", and "correct" and had "the moral high ground", so perhaps that is what prompted your warning? Please understand that I never spoke those words (even if I agree with them), nor did I ever claim that reasoning as a justification for edit warring. And I certainly didn't claim any "exemption from the edit warring policy" for my edits. Your remark strongly implies I took that position, which I never did. The message in your warning that "being right isn't justification" is 100% accurate ... At no time did I ever express the sentiment: "I'm right, so therefore I'm going to edit war". -- do you not see the disconnect in what you are saying, GoldenRing? You and I (and WP:EW policy) agree that "being right" is not a justification for edit warring. I've never used that justification, so I'm going to have to call bullshit on your accusation and insist that you provide diffs of evidence to where I've excused edit warring because "I think I am right". And while you are at it, please quote for me, exactly, that "large chunk of what I've written above" that you misinterpreted as an explanation of how I was "in the right". If you'll read the above with more care and comprehension, you'll discover that instead of "edit warring because I was right", I chose to pursue dispute resolution by initiating and engaging in discussion, seeking problem resolution and editing in line with consensus. If you want to argue, for example, that I misjudged consensus, or that I misunderstood a policy, I will listen attentively to your reasoning.
... I don't see anyone objecting that you weren't edit-warring or editing disruptively ... --GoldenRing
Nobody objects (not even me) that I had edit-warred, because anyone who makes even a single revert (which I did) qualifies as having edit-warred. However, nobody in that discussion suggested that I had edit-warred disruptively with the exception of Ramos1990, and nobody has substantiated with actual evidence the allegation that I had edited disruptively, including Swarm and Ramos1990.
WP:NPA does not give you the right to edit the closure comments on a discussion about you ... to say what you would like it to say. If you object to the terms of the closure... --GoldenRing
As I said previously, I don't object to the terms of the closure, I actually agree with them: Thank you for your close of this AN/I discussion. ... needless to say I came to the same conclusion, so your suggestion that I request a review at AN or Arbitration seems nonsensical. As for your assertion that WP:NPA doesn't give me the right to edit your comments to say what I want them to say, that is rather obvious, and I'd never change someone's comments to say what I want them to say. WP:NPA does allow me to remove clear-cut personal attacks, which is all I've done. Here is the relevant policy wording for your edification: Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. ... Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. ... especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The RPA template can be used for this purpose. It shouldn't be necessary for me to be quoting policy to an Admin. Your commentary about a fellow editor's behavior was made without a single shred of accompanying evidence, which makes it an unacceptable personal attack, in addition to being insulting and, well, nasty. If you post unsubstantiated accusations about a fellow editor, and I bring that violation to your attention, you are expected to remedy it. You've already demonstrated you know what to do in your comment below: "it's traditional to provide diffs or retract the accusation." It's more than 'tradition', it's mandated policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, GoldenRing. 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.

1R question

I have a question about what counts as one revert - would reverting several edits count as one revert if the edits included content changes to substantially different sections of the article (enough that I would say they were entirely separate reverts) as well as some citation needed tags (made in separate edits) - is what counts as an edit it's proximity in time it's been made to other edits? Seraphim System (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I think the deciding factor here is the material you are reverting. If you're reverting material a single edit or a cluster of edits by a single user but it takes you a couple of bites to get it right then I think most people would understand that as a single revert. If you take several edits to revert edits by multiple editors, or material added by a single editor over a longer period, then I think that would count as multiple reverts. My word is not as law on this, though. GoldenRing (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard Diff

In your last post, that diff, I do not think it leads where you think it leads😁! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:28C1:7200:8495:9757:BE49:FE5D (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you know, you are so very, very right. Thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137

Morty's been causing me some concern at Talk:United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy#So_I_cut_it_out_again, effectively accusing Carptrash, a productive editor of long-standing, of lying and implying that he was a fellow-traveler with hate groups there and at RSN. This has caused Carptrash some distress, and it appears to be a return to the battlefield behavior and tendency toward personal attacks that was the subject of a long ANI thread that you closed with a one-month topic ban (since expired). I'm not quite there yet, but Monty's determined not to drop that stick. For extra joy, the sockpuppet that was following Morty has returned. I'd appreciate your views on the matter. Acroterion (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As a lurker who's been following the various related conversations I'm wondering if Acroterion noticed the other responses to Carptrash on the noticeboard, especially from Calton. It would seem that Morty is not the only person losing patience with the behavior of Carptrash there.67.245.223.5 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I read the whole thread, and that's not an excuse. Acroterion (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Acroterion: I've left a note at their talk page. The personal attacks are not acceptable and indeed entirely unnecessary; "I emailed this guy and he said I was right" is never going to meet V or RS so it should be left at that. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Carptrash has one of the references at hand - Monty has neither. Marek may have the other or had access to it. In this case the RS and V matter can be settled by reference to the source (eventually), but RS and V should never be used to treat with open contempt an editor's sincere concern that we have inaccurate content, or to discourage their work to verify it.
Going a bit beyond that, there appears to be a now-set notion on Monty's part that Carptrash is "gaslighting" and an enemy to be battled and belittled. Carptrash has been studying war monuments for years, which doesn't make him a confederate sympathizer or a fellow-traveler with hate groups, and he's said so. The commentary at RSN appears to me to have degenerated into attempts to Godwin the discussion by several editors, at least some of whom should know better. Carptrash may be wrong about some things, and he may be persistent, but he's been reasonably patient and mostly polite, which cannot be said of other participants in that discussion.
I'm traveling over the next couple of days for work, so I was reluctant to to engage in extended discussion when I might be unavailable, without consulting you. It was getting repetitive in any case, and these kinds of situations are best handled by consensus. I'll look in when I can. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Happily, Volunteer Marek has addressed the issue raised by Carptrash and has offered a gracious acknowledgement and apology. Acroterion (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Acroterion: I can't see any documentation at SPI, but Morty has now been indeffed by a CU so I guess it's just a game of watching out for the next sock. GoldenRing (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Lexers615

What about the issues with the other involved admin and editors with powers? As I said, my petition for appeal was not about the rejection, but the behavior of the involved people... I may only have a couple months old account but I've been collaborating for about three years now, in English, French and Spanish, and though it's the first time I see this much trolling, seeing that common trolls ganging up on a so called help desk, seeing how high a common troll can rise in the hierarchy without even hiding his ill intents, and seeing the double standards definitely encourages me to stop wasting my time in here... Lexers615 (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lexers615: Either way, arbitration enforcement is not the right place for it. Things which can be brought to AE are:
  • Enforcement of sanctions imposed by the arbitration committee (typically where an editor is named in an arbitration decision and has a sanction such as a topic ban imposed);
  • Enforcement of discretionary sanctions authorised by the arbitration committee (these always cover some topic, such as biographies of living people, post-1932 American Politics, climate change, the Arab-Israeli conflict etc). Any edits related to a topic covered by discretionary sanctions can be the basis for an AE complaint, though for anything to be done about it an admin would have to agree that the edits are disruptive in some way.
  • Appeals of either of the above.
Since your complaint didn't pertain to any of these, I closed it.
Regarding the underlying issues, I think that David is right that the draft you submitted to AFC amounts to a dictionary entry, and so far every other editor you've interacted with regarding the issue has taken the same view. I don't see that there has been any abuse of admin or other powers here; David rejected your draft on absolutely correct policy grounds and with a brief but civil and helpful message; your response was to call him a "self-centered arrogant vandal and scumbag." I'm having difficulty seeing any grounds for you to complain about anything, and indeed difficulty seeing why you haven't simply been blocked from editing for making baseless, uncalled-for personal attacks.
Wikipedia operates by consensus. Sometimes you disagree with that consensus and that's just tough; you have to abide by it anyway or not edit here. GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A professional note telling me: "Look you got to beef it up a bit this way or that way." would have triggered a very different reaction. However, all I had was a meaningless canned response and the direct link to his profile. Speaking of which, and have you double checked his flamebait profile? First line on, he caricaturizes anyone he reverets the edits of and/or disagrees with him.
As for consensus, if I meet four friends at a bar, and we start picking up on some random guy there, the four of us agreeing on something vs a single random dude has no validity whatsoever as a consensus, so it's wrong from A to Z to consider David's friends ganging up to defend him to be some form of consensus; and my very first mistake was to bring it there on API in the first place, as it is more or less openly referred to as Wikipedia's trolls playground, even by many experienced users! WP:ANIISLOUSY, for exemple. That's also why I was seeking a forum to have this point addressed.
As for the "every other editor you've interacted with regarding the issue has taken the same view", well, next time, I'll just do what seems common practice here, gather and coordinate buddies IRL to fake a consensus here and game on, more or less just like what that other guy did, and my seeking of an appropriate forum just resulted in his buddy ATrain to grease an extra layer of public shaming to savour their victory, and wait for the next unsuspecting guy who will have fallen for the troll bait.

Lexers615 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I've indef blocked this user per WP:NOTHERE; after looking at their contribs this morning I saw 90% drama-mongering, 10% (arguably) useful edits. A Traintalk 08:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@A Train: Thanks. I was basically in the process of making the same decision. GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference Desk at AN/I

Thanks for taking the initiative to close. Alex Shih (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Notification

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_request_for_.22StuRat.27s_behaviour_on_the_Reference_Desks_.28again.29.22 StuRat (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Dank

I've decided I want to say something there, but first, I'm in search of clue. One way to get clue is to talk with people who disagree with me (particularly if they're making a statement at WP:RFAR, because people often truncate their statements drastically, and actually know a lot more than they're saying). I was 100% with you as I read your statement ... and then you arrived at the opposite conclusion to mine. I don't think it's fair to say that Arbcom shouldn't take the case because there are options they can't pursue. Arbcom is much more likely not to fix something that they could actually fix than the other way around; there is little chance that they will go all bull-in-a-china-shop. They may go the other direction, and do something minimal and limited to just the two principal parties. But even a minimal ruling can be one important step along the way, as people grapple with this very extensive and tough problem.

So, I'm leaving this note for both you and Hawkeye7, for two reasons: 1. you guys are the only two who disagree with me (although we do have a few noncommital statements from others), so you're the ones in the best position to explain to me why I'm wrong, and 2. Arbcom is hesitating, and I can understand that ... they're not masochists. But I think it would be good to apply peer pressure to get them to step up and do the right thing, the necessary thing, and a unanimous case request would be a suitable form of peer pressure. IMO, Arbcom is a kind of single point of failure for Wikipedia ... if they turn away from disputes that can legitimately be framed as ongoing policy violations and that can't be solved elsewhere, then the whole dispute-resolution system fails. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Hawkeye just struck (in part). - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: thanks for coming by to discuss this. I'm struggling to formulate coherent thought this weekend as I have a heavy cold. So my apologies if I'm a bit muddled.
I hoped that I was clear, but maybe I wasn't, that my opposition was to the committee answering the big policy questions about wikidata, not them dealing with behavioral problems.
The point of my statement was that underlying all the behavioral disputes there are hard policy questions that need to be answered somewhere. Our policy framework at the moment, if applied rigorously, probably doesn't allow us to use wikidata at all on Wikipedia. We require that basically everything in an article be verifiable from reliable sources. Wikidata does not have that requirement. So someone inserting a link to wikidata not only has to check that the information currently in wikidata is verifiable, but needs to worry about whether someone's going to change that information on wikidata to something that's not verifiable, according to our policies, but still ok by wikidata policies.
As far as I can see, this leaves us in a position where we can use wikidata templates on Wikipedia so long as the information on wikidata is reliably sourced. If someone changes some information on wikidata so that is not reliably sourced, our only option is to stop using the template on Wikipedia. If wikidata policy also held to our standard of sourcing, then we would also have the option of going and fixing it at wikidata, but they don't so we don't. If our only option is to switch back and forth between wikidata and non-wikidata versions as the data at wikidata changes, that seems to me obviously untenable. Or at least far too much effort to be worthwhile.
Arbcom have no remit to create policy. They can only enforce our existing policies. I think it follows that if they are asked to answer the policy questions, the only answer they are capable of coming up with is to ban the use of wikidata on Wikipedia. Anything else would be creating policy.
There are certainly some people on the project who would like to see that outcome and maybe aren't too worried about how we reach that outcome. But I think that arbcom imposing that solution would only lead to trouble. I'm not yet convinced that it is the best outcome for the project and there are certainly editors who believe in good faith that it isn't. So I think it's the sort of decision that needs to be taken by the community and have the support of the community. GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, cold season, I hate it. Anyway, this stuff is so good that I pointed people to it in the Arbcom case request; if I overstepped, I'll be happy to strike. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
"Our policy framework at the moment, if applied rigorously, probably doesn't allow us to use wikidata at all on Wikipedia." - I don't think that's true; for example, Template:Infobox road allows for us to share the maps for each road between different Wikipedias, without our having to manually enter it into the page (useful for languages where the other language article is more developed). There has also been a long-existing RFC from 2013 that has allowed this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2.
I was going to write something about the legitimate concerns of people concerned by the lack of sourcing, the bots run amuck on Wikidata, and the battleground behavior on and off the site, but it probably wouldn't be politically correct, especially at 12:45 AM. All I can say is, I would encourage people to get involved on Wikidata more and try to at least present these concerns. My perception has been that after more scrutiny was placed on Commons a few years back, things did improve a bit. --Rschen7754 07:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Yes, I'm aware of the 2013 RFC but I don't think it resolved any of the policy questions, just said we're going to start trying it out and see what happens.
I feel, and I suspect a lot of people are in a similar place, that I can see a lot of potential in wikidata but that as things stand its use is not feasible. I just can't see myself adding links to wikidata knowing that tomorrow the data may be edited in a way that is incompatible with enwiki policy but which is considered perfectly acceptable by wikidata standards.
To encourage people to be involved at wikidata is probably the only way that wikidata is going to become usable here. But the call to wikidata often looks, on the one hand, like people who have built a failing project blaming those who don't want to use it for its failure, and on the other hand like a call for lots of enwiki editors to invade wikidata, kick over the furniture and rebuild it all how enwiki wants it. Those are both very course caricatures, of course, and you have been at pains above to avoid that look, I know, but all too often wikidata advocates do appear to be trying to push something on a community that doesn't want it while also blaming that community's lack of interest for wikidata's shortcomings. I don't think you'll find wife support for wikidata here until these problems are sorted out, and those pushing its use here before they are resolved (and all too often denying the existence of a problem at all) are probably not doing themselves any favours or winning people over to their cause. GoldenRing (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I, honestly, don't care if Wikidata is used on WP or not - so long as the data sourced from it is reliable. Because there is no guarantee that it is reliable and verifiable at any given point in time (as I write this) perhaps it would be for the best if we stopped using data sourced from WD even in the short term until the necessary policies are both written and rigorously enforced. As a concept, I like the Wikidata idea: to centralize various datapoints on various topics, but surely when the WMF started it up they should have seen this coming.
If WP (and other sister projects) just stopped using WD within themselves, even briefly, perhaps it'll get the attention of the right people (either to sort out the policy mess over there, or shut it down) - because it's only useful while it's being used.
Just my opinion, Dax Bane 06:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
On enwiki I've mainly seen folks who believe that Wikidata should be shoved down everyone's throat and no objections are legitimate, and others who want to burn Wikidata (and VisualEditor, and any new WMF software product, really) with fire. That's where all the battleground behavior comes in. There's all sorts of nonsense in the policy discussions on Wikidata lately too. This was our last attempt to institute a BLP policy, which went down in flames because a small group of editors successfully derailed it without making any changes.
What Wikidata really needs is sensible people who are willing to compromise and come to a consensus rather than drawing battle lines. We are in the top 5 of largest wikis with over 38 million items, and yet we only have 52 admins, and many of them are not that active, and those that are are dealing with nonsense like this. I used to try and work on sensible policies years ago, but Wikidata is not even my highest priority on Wikimedia, and I just don't have the time to edit like I used to.
With that being said, people who want to get involved should be willing to get their hands dirty and do some work on the site. It's just a general principle that people don't really want outsiders coming in and telling them what to do. But people who really seem interested in contributing to Wikidata (or Commons, or Meta, or whatever) and who have the edits to prove it generally get listened to more. Maybe I'm rambling at this point, but maybe it will help someone, so I dunno. --Rschen7754 07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: It's hard to disagree with much of what you're saying here. I'd love to have enough time to contribute to masses of wikimedia projects; as it is, I don't really have the time to do what I do here, let alone get involved in another project from scratch.
The BLP discussion you linked to is indeed worrying, though I'm not that surprised by the opposes. To pick up one point, the proposal was to say that (with a few exceptions) all information must have at least one reliable source. This actually goes further than our policy on verifiability here; our policy requires that all information be verifiable, not verified. We only require an actual inline citation for "all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged." In practice, the "likely to be challenged" provision is not much different to "has been challenged" and people who remove large swathes of uncontentious material from articles solely because they are unsourced tend to end up sanctioned for it. Even for material where an inline citation is required, the policy still only says that it may be removed, not that it must. As one editor in that discussion said, it would have been better to draft a detailed guideline that spelled out some of the complexities, rather than a series of (essentially) bullet-point proposals.
The same could be said about the proposals on living persons; the enWP policy on verifiability in BLPs only really differs from WP:V in that information requiring an inline citation must be removed immediately, rather than may be removed in the more general case. The categories of statements which require inline citations are the same. Compare that to the proposal you linked, which required that any unverifiable information must be removed immediately. It's not surprising that editors there opposed a proposal that goes even further than our policies here.
The enWP model of verifiability relies a lot on the concept of material being challenged; insertion of un-sourced but non-controversial information is generally tolerated (though perhaps not encouraged, as such), so long as when material is challenged, either a source is provided or the material is removed. This model works reasonably well here, where the process of content creation and maintenance means there are lots of human eyes on content. I wonder how well it would work at wikidata, where (I gather) much more of the content is created by automated processes; could we rely on there being enough human eyes present to challenge contentious material, or would the human eyes that are there be swamped by the amount of bot-created material? I suppose the theory is that all the eyes on all the wikimedia projects that consume that data are also available to challenge contentious material, but there we get into a chicken-and-egg situation. GoldenRing (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me butting in, @Dank and Rschen7754: but the ArbCom link brought me here. I have a different perspective to yours, GoldenRing, and perhaps you'd like to consider it. When people are bemoaning problems with the use of Wikidata, I ask them to consider how we deal with the equivalent problem when the same issue crops up with edits made locally on Wikipedia. Let's take the example of adding unsourced content to Wikidata. I've written the code used in many of the infoboxes to import from Wikidata (Module:WikidataIB) in such a way that a local value always takes priority a Wikidata-supplied one, and that no value is returned from Wikidata by default unless it is sourced. So if somebody changes a Wikidata value which is imported into an infobox here, I ask how does that differ from an editor simply changing a local value? The answer is that possibly fewer people are likely to spot the change, although such a change will be reflected on Wikidata as well as potentially on other wikis, so it's not a simple matter to determine how many people have watchlists that would monitor such changes – I mean that the item will be on Wikidata watchlists and other language watchlists, as well as on some enwiki watchlists. To get an idea of the scale of any problem caused, we'd have to get examples of vandalism from Wikidata causing problems here, and compare that with the rate of vandalism locally on enwiki. So far there's little actual evidence of a problem.
Nevertheless, it is proper to ask the question, how do we protect enwiki from problematical editing on Wikidata? I don't accept that "ban all use of Wikidata" is either an appropriate or sensible response, as there are many measures that we can take to guard against the issue. For example, we can build an infobox that will only show Wikidata values that have a source better than "Imported from Xyz Wikipedia", or make other filtering rules. That paradoxically results in slightly better situation than happens here. Despite the WP:V policy, our articles are riddled with unsupported statements, and it is easy to add a value to an infobox locally that is unsourced, so having at least some assurance that a value is sourced is going to be a bonus. Note that I can't guarantee algorithmically that the source is reliable – or even relevant – but at least we know immediately where to look to check.
If we examine the situation you postulated above: someone changes the Wikidata value, I believe that it does not follow that "If our only option is to switch back and forth between wikidata and non-wikidata versions as the data at wikidata changes, that seems to me obviously untenable." That is clearly what also happens when somebody changes a value locally in an infobox: if it's wrong, we change it back. Why would we not simply do exactly the same thing with a change to Wikidata? If it's wrong, use a local value that is verifiably correct. There's no back-and-forth because the local value always overrides Wikidata: no amount of changes there will affect what our infobox displays. Of course, if somebody eventually fixes the Wikidata by updating it from the verifiable value here – and adds the reference! – then there's no reason why we shouldn't go back to using the Wikidata-imported value, but there's no rush to do that.
The only policy (or behavioural guideline) change we need is to forbid the replacement of a locally-supplied value in an infobox with a Wikidata-supplied one, unless the two are the same. That would put the onus on anyone wishing to alter an article's infobox to one that uses Wikidata to make sure that the information displayed was no less reliable than that already in place. In the case of an infobox presently containing incorrect information supplied locally, the first course of action would be to establish the correct value (if necessary by showing that the previous value was wrong). That would ensure that a baseline of accurate information was present in the infobox before switching to a Wikidata-supplied infobox.
I hope all of that makes sense to you, and I'm happy to discuss further; but I do think you should reconsider your view that "as things stand its use is not feasible". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"The only policy (or behavioural guideline) change we need is to forbid the replacement of a locally-supplied value in an infobox with a Wikidata-supplied one, unless the two are the same." So in effect, you're saying that if some bots mass-remove locally supplied values that are identical, there's no way for anybody to object to it? If so I don't think that's going to go down well with a lot of people. --Rschen7754 19:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Who's talking about bots? Not me. Behavioural guidelines are for editors (although the bot operators need to be aware of what behaviour is acceptable, of course). What problem do you foresee with an editor replacing a local value with a Wikidata-derived one that is the same? I assume you read the rest of what I wrote above to justify my conclusion. As for bots, even if you think that BAG is going to approve a bot to do that sort of job – which is almost inconceivable – that "lot of people" are going to be insisting that any such bot operator is held responsible for the bot's edits. I'm neither seeing a likelihood nor a problem there. --RexxS (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking bots, or AWB, or really any very determined editor who has a lot of time on their hands and who decides to remove the parameters from hundreds of articles. --Rschen7754 01:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't we simply refer them to the 2013 RfC's conclusion: "this modification should be done carefully and deliberately, at least at first"? Nobody should be making any wholescale changes to large numbers of articles without careful consideration beforehand, in any case. For example, I wouldn't support removing parameters wholescale from articles using {{Infobox book}}, as there are far too many transclusions and too many nuances in the fields for the change to be simple. At the opposite extreme, the change of {{Infobox telescope}} to using Wikidata went off with few hitches, because there are relatively few articles, so they were easy to check and manage, and it was planned in advance and well executed. One consequence is that several smaller Wikipedias have now built a complete set of articles on telescopes, starting from an initial Wikidata-aware infobox that held the outline of the article for them to work from. If we ban the use of Wikidata because we're frightened of somebody potentially causing damage with {{infobox book}}, we have to remember we're also throwing out all the good work exemplified by {{Infobox telescope}}. The trick is to find ways of scaling up the curation of articles, so that the more complex cases become realisable. I think that establishing a convention that we don't replace local values with Wikidata ones without being absolutely sure that the transition is completely transparent is key to creating a pool of responsible editors who can modify infoboxes without causing WWIII to break out. --RexxS (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
(GoldenRing, if you ever want your talkpage back, please let us know... )
I think you've summarized the crux of the ArbCom case right there. "Nobody should be making any wholescale changes" - but at some point someone behaved badly, and that's what started it all. I'm a Wikidata admin and I have 100,000+ edits on that site, so I sure hope they don't ban Wikidata here. But I fear that it will happen if Wikidata is forced on groups of editors that don't want it. Telescopes and roads (my subject area) aren't BLPs, for example. VisualEditor could have been a great product, but it was rolled out too early and forced on groups of people that didn't want it, and eventually people lost patience and just wanted to burn it with fire. --Rschen7754 02:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries having this discussion here.

I had written a long comment on this, then my phone ate it. Probably the only thing really worth saving out of it is an example of where I see real problems caused by the incompatibility of sourcing policies. Right now, something that causes some fairly protracted disputes on enwiki is the display of ethnicity and religion in infoboxes of living (and sometimes long-dead) people. This seems to be a particular problem for Jews, for whom complicated issues of ancestry, culture and religious belief intersect in the question of whether someone "is Jewish." It is reasonably common to find someone who the world generally regards as "Jewish" - even who reliable secondary sources routinely describe as Jewish - but for whom we will leave that field of the infobox blank because our standard for including it is a positive, reliably-sourced self-identification of Jewishness. Given the difference in policies, it would be very easy to have a statement in wikidata that someone is Jewish, sourced to what would normally be considered a reliable source here but where we would still want no value in the infobox. It is absolutely trivial right now to find people who wikidata describes as "religion: Judaism" where making the same statement here would be, roughly speaking, the end of civilsation as we know it; consider wikidata:Q302.

These types of situation are not resolved by strict application of rules, they are resolved by discussion and consensus. For all the potential I see in wikidata (and I am a fan of the concept) I can't see how this information can be stored at wikidata and questions like this can be resolved without essentially saying that enwiki will defer to consensus at wikidata on questions of sourcing and verifiability and I can't see that happening unless the policies on sourcing, verifiability and living persons are roughly compatible, both in their text and their practice. People here need to trust that problems at wikidata will be sorted out in a way that is broadly acceptable to the community here before there is mass adoption of wikidata here.

I hear what you're saying about local overrides, but it seems very likely to me that the result of such as scheme will be that every value in every infobox will be overridden with local data and then what's the point? Even if someone doesn't immediately write a bot to mass-import all the wikidata values into local overrides here or override them with null values (and there are certainly a few editors who would attempt exactly that), there are numerous situations where editors will have an incentive to override wikidata values with local values and never any situations where editors will have an incentive to change them back (except perhaps that they are wikidata fans - but try building a consensus on that basis!)

I think that trust between the projects needs to be built first, before we start with mass adoption of wikidata-based templates. Various things going on at present are not serving to build that trust but to build scepticism. Resolving that is going to take real humility and willing spirit from both sides, and perhaps some big sacrifices (eg perhaps deleting swathes of bot-imported data from wikidata because the sourcing is awful) and I sort of doubt that either community collectively possesses those qualities in sufficient quantity. GoldenRing (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps making it easy to fix any problem with the Wikidata entry is better than using local overrides, at least for simple errors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: We had that scenario over 18 months ago at {{Infobox book/wikidata}}, where SarahSV explained that Night was problematical because there was no academic agreement about its genre, so the 'genre' field needed to be excluded. The section at Template talk:Infobox book/Archive 8 #See if this works explains how the module WikidataIB was coded to allow any field to be blacklisted on a per article basis. If an article using {infobox book/wikidata} contains |suppressfields=genre then the genre is never displayed (even if a drive-by editor adds something locally). The Wikidata-aware infobox can actually make dealing with the exclusion of fields easier, not harder.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It would be great to have a pop-up editing window to make the changes without leaving the article, but that's still in the pipeline. In the meantime, I made it so that values fetched from Wikidata will by default have an 'edit pen' icon after each one, which is a direct link to the statement on Wikidata that was used. Anybody who has done any Wikidata editing can click that link (or open it in a new tab) and fix the problem there and then. I know it's not everything that everybody wants, but it's a long way from being as difficult as you seem to imply. A lot of thought and development has gone into meeting the needs of Wikipedia editors and it's rather dispiriting to see no acknowledgement whatsoever that we've come along way in terms of usability over the past four years. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I was more saying why I don't like having too many local overrides. Personally I only use Wikidata for Interwiki links. Perhaps there is a case to make that humans tend to work better with prose whereas automated things like bots struggle and thus that Wikipedia is more geared towards human readers and human editors, while automated things deal better with data and humans don't find them so interesting and thus Wikidata should be primarily edited by bots and semiautomatic scripts, with humans being more in an operational role. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"somehow better than just not filling in those fields"

You see this really is the problem. You choose to disparage my efforts without showing any sign of understanding the problem and any possible solution. The reason why having the ability to have a blacklist – note that doesn't make it a compulsory element – is "somehow better than just not filling in those fields" is that these sort of occurrences are plagued by drive-by editors who come along and add a local value to the Genre field, if you "just don't fill in the field". As you'd understand if you'd bothered to read any of the discussions. You don't have to have blacklists on 99.9% of articles, but they are useful when you need them. What's easier for an editor who curates a music article: to continually revert editors who regularly add |genre=thrash metal despite consensus on the talk page that no genre should be in the infobox; or add |suppressfields=genre to the infobox once?

31 hours or indef?

You only blocked User:Mahir M for 31 hours; I was about to grumble about how it should be longer for that kind of bigoted attack, when I saw that you said at ANI you'd indef'd them. So now I'm thinking this was just a misclick? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Yes, it was intended to be indef. Someone who's not trying to do something else at the same time take this block button away from me for a bit. Would you mind extending to indef? I've arsed this up enough times. GoldenRing (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done. And I know the feeling... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

List of European islands by population arbitration

I don't see how the case here relates to The Troubles as it is an issue of international borders rather than a historical or political point. You can have an opinion either way about Northern Ireland, but the article in this case relates to the current status of the territory of the Island of Ireland, as is recognised internationally, as this is a encyclopedia, not a political debating forum. The Troubles article is obviously a very different case to the one here, as that is an issue which is disputed by historians to this day. While Irish Republicans personally may dispute the status of Northern Ireland, there is no dispute internationally regarding recognition, nor is there a dispute regarding the reality of the physical presence of the United Kingdom there. Moreover, other lists such as the article listing islands by population worldwide on wiki, and the article for Ireland itself (the island not the Republic) both use the Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) format to describe the governance of the territory. I mean there is a case that other options, such as Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) could be considered, but then we'd have a political flag dispute which would not exist if the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) was used, but claiming that the entire island of Ireland is currently recognised as the territory of the Republic of Ireland is simply false. I respect the fact that many Irish Republican editors may feel that it should be as such, but similarly, the article references the current recognition of the territories listed, and its a geographic article, rather than a historical or political one, so the standard is obviously different to that used in The Troubles arbitration. As you can see on the Ireland article, they have mentioned both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and as such any other articles on Wikipedia should be consistent with that. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I would add that I have made attempts at dialogue, but the other editor made changes despite my prior notice on the talk page of the article. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@PompeyTheGreat: If that's how you want to pursue the matter, then you are entitled to make the request. I was only offering advice from my perspective. In particular, I would direct you to Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope_of_arbitration - you are expected to have exhausted - not just tried - other means of dispute resolution before arbitration. If someone is edit-warring against consensus and won't respond in talk space, a report at WP:ANEW or WP:AN/I will usually find an administrator who is willing to help get their attention. GoldenRing (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, GoldenRing. 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.Deb (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI hat -- "despite what the usual AP2 suspects have to say"

Hello GoldenRing. It's not clear to me why you'd hat the subsequent exchange and not the gratuitous personal disparagement that prompted it. It's possible we'd all be no worse off without my observation, but I do believe we'd all be better off without that editor's disparagement of the several editors who commented there. FYI this view that there's some sort editorial bias or biased editors at American Politics relates directly to the narrative of Thucydides411 whose behavior is being discussed there. And this is not the first time that user Cjhard has injected that kind of partisan talk into a noticeboard thread. I don't think it's helpful. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there SPECIFICO. When one group of editors (or perhaps a tag-team) routinely (exclusively) pushes one agenda or point of view in a specific editing area, and then supports sanctions on those whose editing conflicts with that agenda, despite a lack of serious misbehaviour, it's pretty helpful and common to raise that point. This is the case for any issue, whether it be Israel/Palestine, Gamergate, or AP2. Cjhard (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil, see WP:Tag team. See also WP:Wikispeak#T: "tag team n. & v". Bishonen | talk 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC).
I don't really see an accusation there or anything even remotely uncivil. Perhaps is pretty mild - not really worth a civility warning, imo. Seraphim System (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to hat someone's !vote. Their reasoning is, in my view, transparently inadequate and I wouldn't expect any closer in their right mind is going to give it much weight, but that decision is for the closer to make, not me trying to keep the discussion vaguely in order. We all know the narratives that are constructed around the AP2 subject area. Responding to that kind of comment only leads to endless threads of bickering that make it that much harder to form any sort of consensus at AN/I. Please just let it go. GoldenRing (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Steele

I thought the information shared there was mainly bullets points, which as far as I am aware avoids copyright violation due to the fact that it is mere facts, like a recipe, without further elucidation. That blog got the info from here: https://library.syr.edu/digital/guides_sua/html/sua_steele_d_prt.htm. I'd be happy to rewrite it so that it avoids any possibility of copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossReach (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the highly considerate approach you've shown in connection with the unblock request for BS. If the user still persistently resorts to sockpuppetry and CU reveals the same, no one can help! --Muzammil (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Appeal

Here you go. Volunteer Marek  16:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline alpha demo is ready for testing

Hello,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Appeal

I am appealing the three-month IBAN you imposed on me at AE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your kind intervention is need

Dear GoldenRing,

As I posted above, I am thankful for intervention in connection with BS sockpuppetry discussion/ standard offer discussion.

An unrelated aspect mentioned there (BS offer discussion) had reference to the last section on my talk page.

Some of the comments by one of the users in the BS discussion had disparaging comments on I and I suggest they be taken down even though the discussion is closed.

As an "crat on UrWiki" I would have either removed such unrelated stuff or simultaneously posted a note that this is unrelated personal attack. But I am no admin or EnWiki and hence I leave this to your discretion. Hope you will act positively. Thank you --Muzammil (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hindustanilanguage: I had a quick look at this when it first came up but didn't have the language skills to really figure out what it's all about (and I believe the offending content has now been revdel'd on another wiki). At any rate, it's on your talk page, so you are very free to just remove the discussion - this is what I'd do. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: To be precise, what I am referring to the following disparaging sentences from BukhariSaeed standard offer by another user about me:
  1. " I do NOT have ANY faith in the c******** User:Hindustanilanguage's..."
  2. "No, you WERE inc******** then and your continued..."
Request you to remove or strike these unneeded text-parts. --Muzammil (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Since above comments remain as they existed, I've just removed my explanation - this was totally unneeded. --Muzammil (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Heated topic and personal attacks

I have two requests:

  1. One of the editors noted [5] that this edit summary[6] might be construed as personal attack so I like if this possible that this edit summary will be redacted.Could you please do it.--Shrike (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. user:Malik Shabazz made the following edit [7] its clearly crude personal attack and violation of WP:NPA.When I asked him to strike his edit[8] he deleted my request.To the very least I ask personal attack to be redacted--Shrike (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Shrike: Regarding the second point, I have hatted a couple of unhelpful comments on that talk page and warned those involved. Regarding the first, I don't have the technical ability to modify the contents of the edit summary, only to apply revision deletion to it. I don't think this rises to the level of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" required by the revision deletion policy. GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldenRing/Archive_4&oldid=1084041377"