User talk:GoldenRing/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Question

Hi, I wanted to ask you about a recent comment you posted at WP:AE. First off, I don't know a lot about this area (pretty much nothing really) so I apologize if this is in any way out of line. I've never been reported to AE, so it's been an eye-opener, and I'll certainly work on not getting reported again. The report was filed against me and of course I would like to see it dealt with as soon as possible, but you've now asked about the behaviour of a different editor, and I'm wondering if there is any way that you could address that issue separately?. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 13:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

See the top notice of WP:ARE. Behavior of the reporting user is also observed and GoldenRing is observing the behavior of involved users. If you have any comments about conduct involved users, you can use your own section for addressing that. Capitals00 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the info. - ^theWOLFchild 15:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Capitals00 has basically nailed it here. Complaints brought to AE can look at the actions of everyone involved. I understand you'd like the complaint dealt with quickly, but everyone here's a volunteer and the time for a complaint to be closed can vary wildly - some are closed in minutes, while another currently open has been there 11 days and is only starting to look like it's winding up. GoldenRing (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I get it. Basically the same as ANI. It's just that, on the one hand, I agree that editor's behaviour should be looked at. He just now, very pov-ishly removed directly related sourced material from that article for the 2nd (3rd?) time. I not posting anything there about it because I said I would avoid that page for a few days. But it's a catch-22; if my report gets wrapped up, then his behaviour doesn't get addressed. On the other hand, if there is a examination of his behaviour, the longer it goes, the longer I have to wait for the report to close. It kinda' sucks, but I get it. Thanks anyways. - ^theWOLFchild 16:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

It appears to me that User:DanaUllman is violating his indefinite topic ban. His recent comments have been noted. That ban is noted on his talk page. I do not know if anything has changed since then. Would you please investigate and see if he should receive some sort of "attention" for violating his ban? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

My e-mails

Sorry if I'm annoying you, but I would really appreciate a response to what I posted here. I probably should have posted these e-mails sometime yesterday, and I hope it isn't too late for you and other admins to take their contents into account when deciding how I should be sanctioned. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

DS edit notice

Over at AE, you mentioned the recent amendment to the DS procedures that DS like 1/0RR need to be in the edit notice. That's something new to me (though welcome in some fashions), so I was wondering if you had a link handy to that decision? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: It was enacted at Special:Permalink/820600857#Discretionary_Sanctions:_Motion and codified at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Do note though that it only applies to page restrictions imposed by admins under DS, not to remedies like the ARBPIA 1RR restriction that come directly from the committee. GoldenRing (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. That's partly what I was curious about too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about Joefromrandb entry in DSLOG

Hi GoldenRing. Is there a reason why Joefromrandb's entry is at WP:DSLOG/2018? I looked through the logs until 2014 and no other editor's Arbcom case has been singled out in this way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Bump. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for the reminder. I think this might have changed fairly recently. I was following the instructions in the "Enforcement log" section of the case page. I'll ask the question on the clerks' mailing list. GoldenRing (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Following discussion with the arbs, I have removed it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

First adminship anniversary!

Wishing GoldenRing a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

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

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Bad 'law' makes for piss poor decisions

And circling the wagons to defend a sub-standard action taken in defence of the poorly written 'law' doesn't help clarify or improve anything. It's a ridiculously counter-productive decision that will only appease the IB warriors, stalkers and trolls. – SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: You may well be right, but trying to reopen a discussion on the AE board is only ever going to cause more heat than light as closing them is itself an AE; undoing it is therefore sanctionable. I agree there's ambiguity in the wording of the remedy and I've requested clarification from the committee at ARCA. Let's see what they say. GoldenRing (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

ARCA motion

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion in response to the ARCA requested you submitted. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Refactoring

Hi, GoldenRing, greetings:) I hope you didn't mind my refactoring of your post at AE, for easier accessibility at hand-held devices.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Not at all, thanks. I'll admit I never use mobile view - even when I'm using a mobile device I use desktop mode - so I'm less aware of the accessibility issues. GoldenRing (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to know that:) It' s too difficult and cumbersome to smoothly maneuver the desktop-site, with a flurry of scripts and all, in small screens.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Me neither. But for what it's worth, at the very bottom of each editing page is Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia etc., and then Mobile view, which allows a preview as it is seen by others. Particularly helpful for placing images, etc., even when working on desktop. Happy holidays, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions: Motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1.1 of the Civility in infobox discussions case is amended to replace dot point 3: *making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. with the following: * making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is primarily about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Civility in infobox discussions: Motion

Interaction Timeline V1.1

Hello GoldenRing, I’m following up with you because you previously showed an interest in the Interaction Timeline. The Anti-Harassment Tools team has completed V1.1 and the tool is ready for use. The Interaction Timeline shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits.

The purpose of the tool is to better understand the sequence of edits between two users in order to make a decision about the best way to resolve a user conduct dispute. Here are some test cases that show the results and also some known limitations of the tool. We would like to hear your experience using the tool in real cases. You can leave public feedback on talk page or contact us by email if the case needs discretion or you would prefer to comment privately. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi GoldenRing. Would you happen to have the time to continue the conversation we had at the end of this section on my talk page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Appeal process

I read up the appeal process. Is this a step by step process or do I choose whichever method from the three? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@JosephusOfJerusalem: It is not a step by step process. You can select any of the three you want. I would encourage you to go WP:ARCA since WP:ARE has been already seen by enough admins. Capitals00 (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@JosephusOfJerusalem: You may appeal at whichever venue you think most appropriate. But once you've appealed at AE or AN, you can't appeal here. And appeals to ARCA are final; you can't then appeal to AE or AN. I will tell you for free that unless you have something distinctly different to what you presented at AE, any appeal here will be wasting your time. I would also advise that, given the general agreement of administrators at AE, your chances of success at the other venues are not high, though of course you are free to pursue them. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Okay. So if I select option 1, will it be conducted on this TP or is there another method available such as email? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@JosephusOfJerusalem: You are welcome to email me if you prefer, or to request reconsideration here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Will do. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Surprised

Hy. I am indeed surprised that you gauged everyone with the same tool and T-Banned everyone, including me who didn't even see/participate at the AE. Following comes to my mind: "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Thanks—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 15:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

AE

Perhaps fix a user name in your last statement ;) - I do minor formatting but not change that much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm sure I'm being massively slow on the uptake, but could you please spell this out for me a bit more? GoldenRing (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It was here, but probably not worth fixing now that it's collapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2018 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Did you get a chance to ponder over the email I sent? Please let me know if you already had made your decision so that I can go to the next step in the process but I am willing to wait if you just need more time to go over the email as I understand it was quite lengthy. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarification and Amendment

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan regarding the ARE decision that affected you. — MapSGV (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A motivated observation

		The Administrator's Barnstar
		Whatever the result of the present review at ARCA, your proposed solution to the disruptive environment in ARBIPA topics was a thoughtful and reasonable approach. Wikipedia would benefit enormously from more administrators like yourself who can come up with creative solutions to complex problems, and fewer like me who would just ban everybody. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Hi GoldenRing. This editor was indefinitely banned from all edits related to the Balkans [1]. However they continued to edit such articles and per this they were warned by an admin [2]. Now they repeated their topic ban violation [3], [4]. The second edit is made on an article that is considered a battleground due to political situation in the Balkans. I was advised to notify you on this case [5]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

ARCA motion regarding PIA

There's been a motion proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#India-Pakistan:_Motion. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The big argument you referred to got big enough to warrant an indef

[6]. To paraphrase Dlohcierekim, the editor seems fixated on certain aspects of the situation and can't let go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. My. God.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I hope she's okay. GoldenRing (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Me too. But straight up implying that a fellow editor will physically attack you is not acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request closed

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?

Hi GoldenRing,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Calton

(pinging User:Sandstein too) Just want to help by sharing my diff here since removed by NeilN for being longer than text limit in which you can take a glance on his prior ANI records from there. Lycka till. JantheHansen (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your email

I got a notification that you sent me an email, but it hasn't arrived in either my inbox or my spam folder. Please could you try sending it to thryduulf.wikigmail.com. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

AE close

You closed the AE appeal by Netoholic. At that time, I think that Thryduulf was still discussing further sanctions that might perhaps be attached to the decision. Depending on what Thryduulf thinks, it might perhaps be better to reopen the discussion. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: If you want to go further, don't take my closing the appeal as a barrier to further sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind logging the decline on this one? I can’t seem to find it on the log. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time now to do anything, and can't guarantee I will before Sunday. If anyone wants to do anything more before then please feel free to carry on from where I left off.

GoldenRing - I can't read your email at the moment. Hopefully I will be able to before I get home late Saturday but again can't guarantee it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the reminder - now done. @Thryduulf: - I've not emailed you since the one you responded to on the 19th of June. GoldenRing (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok, must have been a duplicate notification then. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: or any other interested administrator: The block is over and the editor has resumed commenting at the pages that were discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Move needed

Hello GoldenRing, I accidentally moved Bengalis in Pakistan to Bengladeshis in Pakistan in Pakistan. I need it to be moved to Bangladeshis in Pakistan as the correct spelling is Bangladeshis, not Bengladeshis. I need an administrator to move it as I can no longer move it. Thank you for your assistance.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @NadirAli: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Neil!--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Mathsci

You placed an IBAN on Mathsci's talk, and misspelled the name of the other party. I am worried about Mathsci, who carried the load of work on An Wasserflüssen Babylon and hasn't edited after 6 June. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Email and proposal

I sent back a reply. Sorry about the length. I did not include specific diffs as these do not show up well in email, however, I can provide them on request. More generally, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Also see my proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Tarique Ahamed Ashrafi Bron 1/1/1995 Gopinda pur Post LG Pur PS Islam pur West Baingla Ahle Sunnat ul jamaat me father name Fashi Ahamed my 3 fourbrothers Siraj Ahmed Mera Ahamed Zulfiqar Ahmed khidmat e khalq Bangalore Tarak Ajmer Sharif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:560A:9719:151B:42C6:8BFD:F65C (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Arbitration clerk

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Arbitration clerk. Hhkohh (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, GoldenRing. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [7] TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Where is GoldenRing lately? Haven't seen him around, and he didn't leave an away notice. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you for caring. What was meant to be a one-week break in August because a several-week-break from the stress of administrating enwiki, which became work pressures, which became redundancy, which became a new business venture. I am still alive and still occasionally checking on on-wiki, though not taking part much. My new work situation doesn't leave me much time to sit and watch things, which I think is what I do best. GoldenRing (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back, GoldenRing! Nice to see you making the rounds. I hope work will ease up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's a big change, GR! Best of luck in your new business venture! Hope to see you back here when things smooth out more for you. Meanwhile. have a great holiday season. Your helpful input is missed on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2018 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 23:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

AE followup

Hi, GoldenRing. Just wanted to say that I read your comment here. Your observation about DBigXray's conduct was was spot on. I don't have the incentive to comment at the AE thread, since DBigXray has apparently attempted to bludgeon his way out, hence I believe my comments would be ignored there so I would post here instead.

I had already described DBigXray that his edits were too improper, yet he continued to ask the same question again and again about the content modification of the article's lead and the body,[8] and consequently this discussion ran longer than it was expected, with about 4 editors opposing DBigXray, while no one supported his views. Still DBigXray reverted same text about 7 or 8 times to get his version protected.[9]This talk page edit was undoubtedly disruptive because DBigXray is not an uninvolved admin.

A few hours before you responded on AE, DBigXray had added more than 12,000 bytes (!) on talk page.[10]

In spite of the AE scrutiny, DBigXray can be still seen bludgeoning and doubling down with his troublesome editing and adding over 7,300 bytes (!)[11] to discuss same issues that we already discussed last week.

• Since we don't misrepresent sources nor we violate WP:RSPRIMARY, it was expected from DBigXray to just drop the matter, or try any other dispute resolution for seeking clarification, but in place of doing either, DBigXray started this new thread to repeat same discussion.
• Another user (Gazoth) responded DBigXray that "many sources here that are inappropriately used", and described him how his edits are problematic.[12]
• DBigXray responded with his typical WP:IDHT tendency[13]
• DBigXray also modified the comment of Gazoth, which looks disruptive.[14]
• Gazoth still responded DBigXray[15]
• Even after so many adequate responses, DBigXray is still not seeing problems and has instead started using the talk page as his userspace.[16]

Gazoth seems to have stopped responding as well now,[17] which DBigXray considers as failure to gain consensus against his edits as we have previously seen on this article[18] as well as other articles as he clearly believes that "if you don't respond to the discussion for 2 days"[19] then he can revert to his own version. People stop responding him not because they are not capable to reply him, but no longer wants to spend time telling same thing.

Again, this is not a one-off behavior because it's frequently seen with this editor also in India-Pakistan conflict area. Another recent example of this, apart from the Pakistan administered Kashmir AfD, is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears; wherein the same problematic behavior was on display, coupled with the refusal to accept the outcome.[20]

It is very clear that we have an uncivil editor who does not understand how to represent sources, how to edit in a neutral manner, what constitutes as reliable source and this website is a collaborative project, not a battleground. I think any more leeway would make situation more worse, since not even AE scrutiny has any effect on him. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Now DBigXray is removing my comments by falsely claiming I edited his comments[21] and also left me warning on my talk page.[22] His own link "WP:REFACTOR" states that "Correcting indentation levels" is allowed. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Informing here that after the AE close, I had discussion with Lord Roem, who says that he has no issue of you or any other admin wants to take action.[23] GenuineArt (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Philip Cross Arb

Hi, I have added more relevant difflinks on Philip Cross Arb Case and wondered could you please check?

I am new and apologise if they are not correct but the new information includes an edit to an article linked to George Galloway for which Cross' original Arb case was brought.

I thank you for your clear understanding earlier today and thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I genuinely thought I was making edits that were helpful. I have now been reading more on editing and the use of the talk page so will definitely try harder to get it correct. Alex Tiffin (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, did you even notice my statement, pointing out a clear and unambiguous breach of Cross's topic ban? I think you should reverse your close and allow time for further comments, otherwise I shall certainly appeal your decision. --NSH001 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my request. --NSH001 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I clicked a couple of links that led to an Arbcom filing, concerns (apparently considered not a concern), and something about a private email of more info. I am not trying to jump in the middle of ANYTHING but my "clicking around" ended up in seeing a request for help and apparently the Arb initiator making statements of "I'll not bother editing anymore.". I saw the whole thing began with a new editor, that seems (to me) to know more about ArbCom filings than editing (maybe just a good researcher), made a complaint. There apparently were "some" justification in the complaint as another editor had concerns, even wording in the final closing comments, "I would consider a warning at most", but without getting into all that:

My concerns would ONLY be a check to make sure an editor (right, wrong, or indifferent), and I didn't "investigate" deeply, does not feel (if sincere as appears) of being attacked so not wanting to continue editing, and there may be more than meets the eye. If so then it is what it is-- If you can add anything I would appreciate it. Otr500 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Note: If it involves "Twitter" then never mind. Otr500 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• @NSH001: This has now been closed a second time by another admin. If you really want to pursue this, your next step is to appeal the closure to the committee. I would note, however, that there was no particular appetite for action among a range of admins at AE and I don't think the committee are likely to overrule that. I would also note that, in my view, your last comment at AE is at best perilously close to a BLP violation and I advise you not to ascribe pernicious motives to the actions of living people without really good sources to back it up, and even then it didn't need to be said. GoldenRing (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  There is no excuse for calling people "antisemites" who really aren't, so no, I don't accept your false and insulting comment above. But that isn't the main point. The main point is that Alex isn't really a sockpuppet, as I pointed out earlier in my first comment this morning, and ignored by Sandstein. I have to go out now, but it's looking as though I will have no other course open to me than to appeal as you describe. --NSH001 (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  @NSH001: It may well be inexcusable, but that does not make Wikipedia the right venue to call it out. I intended no insult, and if offence was given I regret it. Whether Alex is a socketpuppet or not is something you will have to take up with BURob13, though I note the evidence was not behavioural but based on checkuser; it is unlikely to be overturned (and would be more than my bit is worth to undo). GoldenRing (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  I've only just got back, so this is just a quick first response. Thank you for expressing your regret, it's appreciated. I did (sort of) take it up with Rob by pinging him in my first comment, but the time difference meant that he was probably in bed when I pinged him, and he probably wouldn't have risen before the case was closed by Sandstein. I will have to look around, and see how to take it further. Of course Checkuser will show the same IP address, the two accounts made no effort to try to conceal that they are the same person, and left plenty of evidence to that effect all over the place, including off-wiki. Of course I expect to deal with Rob as the blocking admin in the first instance, and that particular aspect is of course not for you to deal with. I was simply explaining that my main reason for appealing is that Sandstein ignored my first comment this morning, which pointed out that Alex is not really sockpuppeting. Not a good idea to set up two accounts, but understandable for a relatively inexperienced editor who lost access to his first account. He is obviously not intending to deceive editors into thinking they are separate accounts, which is the definition of sockpuppeting. And, nota bene, I won't hesitate to point out intended deception when I see it, even for an editor for whom I have the highest respect. There are obviously other reasons as well for appealing, but Sandstein's ignoring my comment is the main one. --NSH001 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The Editor Formerly Known As EurovisionNim

Hello GoldenRing. In relation to this ANI, please be advised that EurovisionNim's username is now "Renamed User 47dkbz99habhxxl". Perhaps this should be noted somewhere in the ANI to prevent confusion in future? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@1292simon: thanks for the note, I've updated WP:Editing restrictions accordingly. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:CordialGreenery

I'm posting here because you warned User:CordialGreenery yesterday against edit-warring and today the editor was back at it. Would you like to look into their contributions to BAMN, or should I make a report to WP:ANEW or WP:AE? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This is laughable. I got consensus on the talk page and made an entirely unique edit to the ones from yesterday. Malik Shabazz ignored the consensus and the talk page entirely and has resulted in personal attacks on my talk page. They also immediately blanked my warning about personal attacks and decided to escalate this fairly mundane issue. CordialGreenery (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz and CordialGreenery: I'm within a whisker of sanctioning both of you for edit warring on that page. Cordial Greenery, you need to discuss changes you know will be controversial on the talk page. And Malik Shabazz, you need to stop blindly reverting changes and work on improving the text collaboratively. Editing is not a game where you revert someone's changes until they get them perfect, you are expected to work together. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For making ANI, Mathematics and Wikipedia great again. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Thanks - and apologies for being fat-fingered enough to hit "rollback" when I meant "thank"! GoldenRing (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comments, they are on point. Well nearly, if my house has a transparent ceiling but opaque (concrete) walls, then why wouldn't I just throw my bricks at the walls? or do you think the vibrations would cause the ceiling to shatter? The bickering does not help me though. It's entirely inimical to what I set out to do. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

AE close

Hi Goldenring, a bit of a procedural concern with your AE close here. In short, admins at AE don't have the authority to override ArbCom like that without an amendment request when the discretionary sanctions were meant to be broadly construed to anywhere pesticides came up (short of some weird DS gaming). That said, I will say your comments are otherwise more in line with how the DS are supposed to work in contrast to Masem's comments at least. You can read my most recent comment over at Masem's talk page for a summary of what I've brought up that already addressed what you commented at AE, but the DS apply to both content and behavior regardless of page (similar to bullet 4 at WP:TOPICBAN), and this scope misunderstanding needs to be fixed to avoid ArbCom issues.

The behavior issue would be like American Politics DS applying on a talk page if someone started soapboxing about Donald Trump at say a national park page (e.g., someone ranting about how the US shutdown affected parks even without content). The DS apply to those comments. My edits were clearly labeled as pro-pesticide, etc. on the talk page too, so there doesn't need to be any content for the behavioral DS to apply.

For 1RR, the content itself cannot be discussed in a WP:DUE manner without pesticides (or land use and other reasons) because that's what the source(s) bring up as the main reasoning for their finding even if content specifically naming pesticides isn't included in the current version. I didn't even bother going into that step of the due weight discussion because of the behavior violations I was facing, so that shouldn't be misconstrued as the content not being related. Had the study justification not included pesticides, obviously the DS wouldn't apply. At the end of the day though, you can't separate pesticides from this particular topic within the article and is far from any stretch outside broadly construed like Collect brought up. Of course 1RR wouldn't apply to Insect as a whole, but it would apply to areas of the article where pesticide is germane to the content.

I'm not meaning to bludgeon you specifically on this, but we've had a history now of some admins outright ignoring the discretionary sanctions in this subject that ArbCom put forward, so I'm trying keep that from getting out of control. Things like the aspersions principle I linked at AE were specifically crafted to tamp down hard on any GMO/pesticide aspersions behavior like I reported whether it be at articles, talk pages, admin boards, etc. That's why I bring up the procedural issue of overriding ArbCom in your close statement. It was already a problem that some admins have chosen to ignore ArbCom's finding that the behavior was a problem, but we're getting into even worse territory with these claims pesticide related discussions are out of scope of the pesticide DS.

Of course admins can simply decide to take no action despite the aspersions principle (a "lesser" problem that might need to be remedied someday too), but they cannot claim it's out of scope. With that, I'd at least suggest striking the out of scope language from your close in order not to conflict with ArbCom findings or confuse anyone looking at past requests as it may be used as justification without a proper amendment filing. No action is one thing that's within admin discretionary sanctions decisions (I mentioned to Masem that I was perfectly fine with a logged warning to knock it off), but the wording of your close currently violates the case language and findings. I'd at least rather see a close that doesn't get into that kind of trouble even if it's no action, so that would dot the i's a little better at least. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: I am going to stand by my close. To follow your AP2 analogy, this situation seems to me to be like an editor wanting to discuss the Mexican education budget and another editor bringing up AP2 DS because Trump wants Mexico to pay for the wall and obviously that's going to affect the education budget. "Broadly construed" is not "follow every link between subjects until you reach something covered by DS" and the topic of pesticides only came up in the course of this dispute because you brought it up (by posting the DS notice on their TP and claiming that the article is covered by 1RR).
I don't believe that I have "override[n] ArbCom" or "ignor[ed] the discretionary sanctions in this subject that ArbCom put forward" but that I have interpreted the scope of the DS correctly. If you disagree, you are welcome to ask the question at ARCA, where I will state my reasoning but won't oppose a different interpretation vociferously if the committee decide I have interpreted it too narrowly. GoldenRing (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Good on you GoldenRing. King has put back their Fringe version on Insect. Im probably going to stay out of that, as I cant see a way to engage with them in a collegial way. While the gross NPOV violation is unfortunate, correcting it doesn't seem the risk of causing further distress to someone who is possibly a good faith academic. On the other hand, if they take this to ARCA I might join the debate their too, as that would be potentially a wikipedia wide issue. Those who value NPOV cant complain about the weaponization of DS tags for fringe POV pushing, if we only let the other side do the talking.

On the subject of NPOV, I just checked on my old buddy user:Lihaas and was gutted to note they seem to have been indeffed for alleged socking, which you've taken an interest in. FWIW my take is they are likely innocent. Lihaas has done some paid editing, but AFAIK has always been transparent in declaring this, e.g. here. I doubt theyd be the sort to sock.

Most of their editing seems to be unpaid, where they are a far more valuable editor than it might seem from their admittedly eccentric use of English. Lihaas was a pleasure to work with in building up currency war for GA, where they helped me achieve NPOV across a number of dimensions, helping me to see subtleties Ive missed (and I have reasonable inside knowledge of that topic). Just my opinion, I don't know anything about the off wiki info, but wanted to say there would be quite an upside to having Lihaas back, if that is in the scope of reasonable discretion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Please read what you've written again and realise you're not doing yourself any favours. At its bottom, this is a content dispute about the coverage, prominence and sourcing of material related to insect decline. Labeling the other side "fringe" is not a good way to start. You are required to edit collegially, even when you disagree with someone and even when you believe they are not editing collegially.
Regarding Lihaas, as far as I know he never responded to my request on his TP. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand my comment might be disadvantageous to me, I just don't care. Thanks though for the well meant advise. I've always thought it was common practice to call out blatant Fringe pushing - as you seem to think I might be wrong on that, I'll think twice next time, and / or use more careful language. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, the main reason I stopped by here (ignoring the Feyd stuff since it looks like you might be getting through a little bit finally) was because you simply are not allowed to stand by your close without violating the DS and was giving you a heads up so you can fix it even if you wanted to go the no action route (e.g., just changing the close itself to "No action" rather than declaring out of scope.). When both the DS and aspersions principle were being crafted, we spent some time making sure it would apply anytime someone tried the kind of pursuit that happened to me here after notifying Feyd part of the content discussion involved pesticides. That was in part because you could previously find it happening almost anywhere pesticides came up, which includes any time someone unambiguously pops in to any talk page with aspersions between an editor and pesticides. That is why part of your close overrides the ArbCom DS because it amounts to saying talk comments about pesticides are not covered by the pesticide DS. Modifying that unambiguous problem at least eliminates the need for anything like a WP:SNOW ARCA posing the question as my previous sentence at least, hence being here instead of needing a formal ARCA for something easy to fix.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, especially since I've had good interactions with you in the past, but ArbCom related stuff can get picky and catch people off guard as I'm sure you've seen before. Even if there hadn't been direct comments about pesticides, previous ARCAs have been pretty clear about casting a wide net to prevent demarcation gaming or leaving openings for this kind of stuff on talk pages though, which also helps prevent WP:POT behavior saying the DS are being weaponized, etc. If someone disagrees with that, the onus is on them to get a change at ARCA at this point. Even I asked arbs to narrow the wording down to pesticides rather than commercially produced ag. chemicals, and they decided to keep it broad instead. Your AP2 example isn't really the best analogy for this case either. It would be more like if someone made comments about Trump on that Mexican talk page, then AP2 would apply to those specific comments. If content was being discussed that has sources prominently discussing what the Americans are doing as reason for Mexican policy (rather than incidental or no mention), then the specific content and directly related discussion would be subject to AP2 as well. There's a pretty huge difference between X happening and needing to discuss the why question posed by the sources versus having to winnow through the content material to even find the DS subject in question.

Either way, I'm not going to try to rehash all the discussion here further, but the relevant thing is that there's at least any easy fix for the procedural problem that came up with the close without changing that no action was taken. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind my opinion GoldenRing, changing the close to 'no action' might be a good resolution to this. Your close was a reasonable interpretation, but King's argument here looks strong. ( Despite King's "interesting" take on science, when it comes to things like Arbcom, they are an operator of extraordinary skill. If King takes this to ARCA, they could get a result that would strengthen what I see as an already too strong non - NPOV faction. While my efforts might be in vain, I'd feel compelled to get involved as it would have been partly me that kicked it all off. It might get rather confrontational, or at least time wasting. You'd possibly be doing the community & King, and definetly me, a big favour if you were willing to apply the easy fix. )FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Would you be happy with: "Article edits in question do not fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions. To the extent that talk-page comments do fall within DS scope, editors are reminded to edit collegially and in good faith." GoldenRing (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That works ok for me since the focus is on the behavior issue primarily. Adding "Direct article edits. . ." at the beginning might not be a bad idea, but that's up to you. That text doesn't exclude that the content conversation itself needed to deal with the subject matter, so it works for me on the less important issue of 1RR application.

As an FYI, this is the kind of content Feyd would have needed to discuss if the behavior issues hadn't scuttled the talk discussion (part of why that aspersions principle was needed again). Some sources there directly focus on pesticides, and others bring them up for changes in biodiversity that would need to be discussed for any fleshing out of content discussion in order to cover the main topics the primary source at the center of the dispute brought up. That is only a clarification of how I applied 1RR to the related content at this point though. The behavior issue was intended to be the main focus, so what you propose takes care of that and doesn't conflict with the DS either. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

RE

In regards to diff, I believe you've misread the report - as it concerns several other (in addition to Killing of Aya Maasarwe) articles: Israeli occupation of the West Bank, IDF field hospital for Gazans, 2017 Halamish stabbing attack, and an AN report covering ARBPIA edits that are clearly in scope of ARBPIA DS. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

AE (in)consistency

With regards to your comments on a recent AE case, I was just wondering what was different compared to this case in which you topic banned an editor for two months?

At the time I saw that happen I thought it was very harsh (which is why I remember it, and why it comes to mind when similar cases are brought to AE), but I assumed that going forward, other editors would be treated in the same manner. This doesn't seem to be the case though, which is especially odd when the language in the more recent case is arguably nastier and more personal. Cheers, Number 57 16:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: I did not mean to excuse behaviour in the recent case, but I think that the content in question is outside the scope of DS and so we are not empowered to act on it at AE. GoldenRing (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As clearly stated above prior to the close (diff) - the report contained several articles that are clearly in-scope - e.g. Israeli occupation of the West Bank, IDF field hospital for Gazans, 2017 Halamish stabbing attack. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Debresser case was in relation to naming of an era over 2,000 years ago ("Roman era" vs. "Second Temple era") well before the start of any Israeli-Arab conflict - which is surely less conflict related than "Israeli" vs. "Palestinian" label on a modern person. Coupled with sanctions against in this case against AmYisroelChai/"עם ישראל חי" who was indef banned from AP2 for "anti-Trump" labeling - this doesn't seem consistent at all. Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing. That doesn't really answer the question of inconsistency in the outcomes of the AE reports. Why were Debresser's comments aimed at other editors actionable but Nableezy's not? Number 57 12:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: I don't understand how I didn't answer your question. Debresser's comments were actionable because they were within the scope of DS. Nableezy's were not actionable because they were not within the scope of DS. (This is, of course, assuming that I was right about the scope argument; I'm happy to accept that my comments were based on a very quick reading and mostly assuming that the complaint was a rehash of the one that had just been closed, and I could well have been wrong about it. I haven't had much time of late to look into it.) GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I don't understand how Debresser's comments were within scope but Nableezy's not. Number 57 13:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

question

Hi Goldenring. I wondered if you had had a chance to give any any reflection to your banning me for 500 days because a sockpuppeting topic-banned former admin (Cirt) had requested it? (as they had requested my previous 180 day ban with no more evidence of wrong-doing). (I think in fact 500 days represents the total for both Cirt-bannings in fact, my mistake)

Do you plan to acknowledge the error? Do you still feel the same way about the clear astroturfing I identified?

I notice you became an admin shortly after I returned from the first of two bans at Cirt / Sagecandor 's hand, and returned from a long break shortly after I was unblocked by the community. I just wanted to tell you that I was glad to have been unblocked and have, I think, done good "work" since then to mainspace. I found your complete silence about your role in the mix-up rather troubling (see WP:ADMIN) and wanted to give you a chance to explain why you blocked me for an obvious sockpuppet and did not act on the information I emailed you, which was eventually seen as conclusive in their SPI. The fact that they left en.wp just after I emailed you the proof, made me wonder if you forwarded them the information I provided you by mail in summer 2017? I would appreciate a response (better 1.5 years late than never). Best, SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

{[re|SashiRolls}} I have reflected on this block at considerable length and have said what I had to say about it. Regarding this request, I have some further advice and suggestions:

• If you still think the block was in error, I suggest you read the comments in the unblock discussion again and honestly ask yourself how many there agree with you.
• I suggest you review the commitments you made in the course of that unblock discussion and drop this.
• I suggest you don't try to further your campaign with transparent lies about me. By my "complete silence about [my] role", I assume you mean the five emails I sent you discussing it? I'll happily admit that I stopped emailing you when it was clear that you had nothing new to add and weren't listening to what was being said. GoldenRing (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

OK. Of course I listened and thank you for the free advice which I will value for its weight in pixels. Mine for you would strangely be identical. The block was in error. As the majority of people agreed, Sage had no standing to prosecute or to bully, because they were a sockpuppet. It's fascinating that you don't get that. :) Consider it dropped, I just wanted to know if you'd wised up. Best, SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Motion

Hi Golden Ring, a motion has been proposed at the Arbitration Request you filed. For The Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih

The "Alex Shih" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Alex Shih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a duration not to exceed one year, during which time Alex Shih will be temporarily desysopped.

If Alex Shih should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the Clerks' noticeboard.

If such a request is not made within one year of the "Alex Shih" case being opened and suspended, this case shall be automatically closed, and Alex Shih shall remain desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih

Moving my coment at WP:AE

As I am uninvolved my comment should be in uninvolved section please move it back --Shrike (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You also deleted section for uninvloved editors please restore it --Shrike (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shrike: Sorry. We're not supposed to have threaded discussion, each editor is supposed to have their own section. But you're right, I made a hash of reorganising it. I've redone it now. GoldenRing (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed warning?

GoldenRing, I'm not sure I understand what warnings are being proposed here? [[24]] As one who may be warned for something I guess I don't understand what I did that was a policy/guideline issue. It looks like MC is suggesting a "BATTLEGROUND" based warning but I don't see how that applies to my talk page comments/article edits. See comments by Drmies and Pudeo. Springee (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, do you have any thoughts on my question regarding reciprocity of weight? As I said in the ARE, I think the fundamental issue is establishing weight. I've used this discussion of putting crime material in two automobile articles as a good reference point.[[25]] I think we see the same issues of weight here as we do in many firearms articles. Many mentions of the car in discussions of the crime. The question would become, does that establish weight for inclusion. The closing of the RfC was clearly against inclusion with a comment that the closing editor didn't see this as a question of policy, rather that it was in the area of WEIGHT where editor judgement was deciding inclusion or exclusion. I think most of the firearms discussions are similar but with rather staunch supporters on both sides of the discussion. I think the fundamental solution is to help clarify the question of weight in cases like this. If for example, we decide that weight has reciprocity (to use my term) then I would argue a very notable crime where RSs talk about the model XXX gun that was used or the model XXX watch the perp was wearing would establish weight. Conversely, if we decide that in general weight doesn't have reciprocity then we have the opposite case. Either way, it's the ambiguity associated with weight that causes at least some of the issues we see in these articles. Is there an effective way to create some guidance here? Springee (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: I agree with MastCell that there is at least the appearance of trying to shut down legitimate discussion and stonewall here. I think all three of you should be warned against it. I don't think you should be particularly upset about that; after all, not shutting down legitimate discussion and not stonewalling are what every editor is supposed to do.

My apologies, but I don't have time today to give a detailed answer to your question on weight. Fundamentally, these types of editorial decisions come down to the consensus of the community and, at a glance, it seems clear there is consensus not to include the material you point to on cars and to include the material you point to on guns on a case-by-case basis. GoldenRing (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I typed up a long reply objecting etc then thought... that was rather long and looks like stonewalling :D Anyway, I would request that if a warning is going out it goes to all involved. Dlthewave ignored a discussion they participated in (last November) when restoring the list 3 months after the fact with no additional comment. Dlthewave also accused me of CANVASING [[26]] in a case where APPNOTE applies. As I've said, I think they are a generally good editor with a strong POV in this area. I've reached out to them to try to work on the question of weight since I think that would really solve these issues if we had an agreement on what constitutes weight in these cases [[27]] and will be willing to do so in the future.

As for the reciprocity discussion, I would appreciate it if you can give it some thought later. I do get that local consensus. In cases like this it seems weight for inclusion is often decided by votes. These questions, debates will likely continue if we don't have some sort of guidance which is what Project Firearms was attempting to provide.

Anyway, sorry for what is still a lengthy reply. Please don't confuse the length of this comment with an attempt to stonewall your talk page :) Springee (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal

I've opened an appeal of your recent AE action here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)