User talk:GoldenRing/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Deletion review for User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, as a very involved editor I don't think I really want to wade into the deletion review but I do have a question about this. What happens to this list if the OpEd article, which links to this list, is accepted at The Signpost? Does that mean the list should remain even if it is found to otherwise be a POLEMIC. My read of the discussion is many are saying let it stand until it's intended use is done. But if the OpEd is accepted when does that utility end? Springee (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: IMO policy is quite clear that "as backing for a signpost opinion piece" is not a valid reason to keep this kind of material. But this now looks like it might well end up at ARCA so who knows? GoldenRing (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi GoldenRing,

Regarding

• 12:23, 20 February 2019 GoldenRing (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles (Arbitration enforcement action under gun control DS.

I have some simple/stupid questions:

• Do I have the following correct? In this AE action, you have no special role beyond any administrator? i.e. You are not an arbcom member, former member, clerk, or any kind of special ArbCom appointed delegate? WP:AC/DS authorizes any uninvolved admin to perform AE enforcement?
• All admins performing AE actions can be discovered by browsing Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log? Beyond that, there is no formal networking of AE admins?

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe: You are correct on both points. I am an arbitration clerk, but that is not relevant to my role in arbitration enforcement; DS authorises any uninvolved admin to perform AE enforcement. There are not many admins willing to enforce DS (mainly because of the amount of blowback it creates) so those who do tend see each other around (on-wiki) a fair bit, but there is no formal networking of AE admins. GoldenRing (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry about the blowback. I thought you sounded familiar, I see that I considered you to be "Astoundingly refreshing". I also see some mature intelligent responses to the unexpected blowback. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe: The blowback comment was not a reference to this current issue; responses here have been critical but overwhelmingly courteous and thoughtful, at least by comparison to some of what we see at AE. GoldenRing (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Get Well Soon!

Hey, Just seen your Clerk Note at ArbCom, you seem an excellent arbitrator and I wouldn't worry about not being able to get involved. Life should come first. Hope your feeling a lot better soon and here's a cookie to make you smile, RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 17:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Just came here as well to wish you well. Pains are not nice, but painkillers usually help, and in a couple of weeks this will be just remembered as an unfortunate accident.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Third — take care of yourself, rest up, the wiki will survive. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@RhinosF1, Ymblanter, and Amorymeltzer: Thank you for your kind words. I'll be back on my feet (literally) in a few days. It might be another week before I can lift anything. I can still type. GoldenRing (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 to get well wishes. May I suggest a statement? "Dr said I should not perform heavy lifting. Clerking this case counts as heavy lifting..." --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

GRuban, GoldenRing, Don't stress yourself out or worry about the wiki. GRuban is probably correct, This case is only likely to add to any issues not help. If you need it, take a break and enjoy something you like while recovering. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ach, sorry to hear about your accident. Your recovery is far more important than any ArbCom case, so be sure to put yourself first! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

On that parties-in-RfArbs matter

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to sound combative in that thread about adding parties. Anything as legalistic/bureaucratic and rule-bound as ArbCom stuff almost automatically has an adversarial feel to it. It was important to clarify whether there's an actual rule in place (created by the community or by ArbCom) about that matter, since ArbCom is one of the only places on the project where rules aren't subject to WP:IAR. If there's a rule about it, it's needs to be written, and clear, and have a demonstrable source of authority.

It's a non-trivial question for several reasons. The case-opening phase is one of the only points of open community input into anything ArbCom does, and the entire purpose of that phase is to lay out the entire issue to be considered. Adding a party after that phase has closed is actually unusual, and most often not permitted, because the time to do it is in that first phase, unless there are extenuating circumstances. A second reason is that WP:EDITING policy applies site-wide and universally, except where very specific exceptions have been carved out (e.g., the ability of ArbCom to require non-threaded commentary, within length limits), which are spelled out in those very clear rules. If there's no rule establishing an exception to the right to edit, then the exception is imaginary. Another is that the community authorized our elected ArbCom to create some rules around how it operates, but we did not do so for volunteer clerks to invent new ones on-the-fly, even if they have been delegated by ArbCom the power to refactor particular case pages to be consistent with those rules or to comply with Arbs' more specific in situ instructions. How removing addition of a party during that phase might fall under those criteria isn't actually clear (absent such a rule or instruction), but not a point I will press right now.

In short, I cannot see any good reason for any clerk to remove the addition of a party before case-opening, absent some kind of nonsense going on, like a vandal adding random names. Maybe that's moot, since in this case the party removed himself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks for following this up. I've asked the committee and other clerks for further clarification on this. GoldenRing (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have commented at WT:A/R where I suggest we should keep the discussion. AGK ■ 18:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Case comment

Your comment it certainly has the appearance of trying to drag a DS topic into an unrelated conversation in order to win a content dispute really concerned me, especially if that line of thinking resulted in the AE being closed. This was of the type of content being discussed prior to the AE As of 2017, at least 66 insect species extinctions had been recorded in the previous 500 years, which generally occurred on oceanic islands.[4] Declines in insect abundance have been attributed to artificial lighting,[5] land use changes such as urbanization or agricultural use,[6][7] pesticide use,[8] and invasive species.[9] Possibly over 40% of insect species may be threatened by extinction during the mid-21st century due to these factors.[10] and was also eventually later settled on. I know the related talk pages have been all over the place (I've been having similar troubles trying to work on content stuff with Feyd), so I don't really blame those uninvolved for missing details. To suggest I'm dragging pesticides into a topic where pesticides are directly listed as a cause of insect decline is going a bit too far though, so I'd appreciate if you didn't characterize me as doing that in your comment.

It's kind of a shoot the messenger problem. Pesticides are often going to come up in insect related topics, and topics where they are directly related or causing a problem were always meant to be under the DS without stretching the broadly construed. I'm bound to following those DS, so these situations of mischaracterizing me don't help prevent disruption in the topic. A similar thing happened (first paragraph of my statement there) related to an insect named after Donald Trump and the application of American Politics DS on the talk page. Us entomologists frequently use genitalia as identifying features for insect species, so you can probably guess that attracted the need for the DS too. This is a reality of the subject matter unfortunately rather than me springing the topic into completely unrelated areas. I would have preferred that we didn't need DS where they cross over into insect subjects obviously, but they were made broad to prevent exactly the kind of behavior going on currently. Just trying to give you some background on the subject as you're an active admin at AE, and we really need those DS actually enforced in areas arbs pointed out as problematic in order to keep content discussion disruption to a minimum at the related pages. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you think any mention of insect decline is necessarily covered by GMO DS; I think I represented that fairly in my comments at A/R/C. I disagree, and if you accept that they are not necessarily connected, then it does indeed have the appearance of trying to broaden DS beyond even the bounds of "reasonably construed." I think that editors should be able to comment on American manufacturing output without worrying about ampol DS, so long as the edit is not political; about agriculture in Israel without worrying about PIA DS, so long as the edit is not related to the conflict; about knife crime without worrying about gun control DS, so long as the edit is not about guns; and about insects without worrying about GMO DS, so long as the edit is not about pesticides. But we shall see what the committee have to say about it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The specific content under dispute has always involved pesticides rather. I'm not sure if the committee will address that directly since it hasn't been posed, but we'll see what they say. The problem was that the topic was directly connected here with pesticides discussed as a direct cause with sources discussing that rather extensively, so we really can't bring up the thought experiment that they are not necessarily connected. It would be like saying the GMO portion of the DS don't apply to content discussing crop rotation practices that specifically became available from specific GMO traits (e.g., more no-till farming due to herbicide resistance and background related to that). You have to involve discussion of the GMO topic in that both in discussion and tie-ins of actual content unlike a topic that actually has some degrees of separation.

If the DS weren't broadly construed, then someone could maybe try to make a case against this one (that could even be borderline), but the underlying content material is very clear in this case. If I don't treat the topic area as being under the DS, that would easily be considered disruptive on my part for avoiding DS I'm very familiar with and helped craft, so this whole recent problem is putting me in a difficult position too. That's why I'm at least asking you to remove the direct misrepresentation of me at ARC that I'm trying to drag the pesticide topic in even if you don't agree with the broadly construed DS. There should at least be a clear distinction between those two ideas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I had to file an AE given the recent DS violations by Feyd given the seriousness of them, and I did link this talk discussion about the DS as an FYI.

I am one that takes a firm stance against crying WP:INVOLVED, so I hope you take this with that context in mind when I say it. Please be careful while acting as an uninvolved admin in this area. You've accused me of trying to drag the DS into a topic we are supposed to follow the DS quite carefully, and that does get into direct misrepresentation territory considering what I just said in my above comment. You've been given some advice on the recently declined case page from a few editors, and I agree that this is based in a good faith mistake on your part with the subject matter. It's fixable, but my caution here is about what happens when you inadvertently overrule what ArbCom set in place by mistakenly saying something doesn't apply or there isn't a problem.

Normally editors that run afoul of the DS I cited are removed from the topic because they tend to inflame the topic, but that prevention didn't happen this time. Now we're left trying to sort through a talk page at Decline in insect populations where I've been having to deal with pro-pesticide sniping (the direct opposite of what I've actually been doing) and other pot stirring directed at me while trying to stick to the DS as best I can and trying to explain them to other editors. Sticking to the DS is only riling some up there more now. That's basically pre-Arbcom all over again. Arbcom imposed the DS in the subject because behaviors like I reported at AE recently needed to be tamped down hard to prevent such disruption. At the least, I hope this gives you an example to learn from about the dilemma it leaves editors in who make sure to follow the DS appropriately while allowing others to disregard them. That easily creates an illusion that those following the DS are "weaponizing" them and destabilizes the preventative measures ArbCom put in place to settle the topic down.

I'm not going to keep going on with that little history-based essay, but I hope at least it helps a little. If you want more guidance on the GMO/pesticide ArbCom case, I usually can pull up most arb discussions for how and why things were set up, so I can help out with questions in that area if you have any that don't need a formal ARCA filing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification

Leaving notification of [1] my arbitration enforcement action appeal. Take a look. Thanks Raymond3023 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you, much appreciated. Gary Calder1966 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Regarding this restriction, I was Just curious... if it applies only to blocks, excluding i-bans and t-bans, and if "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate" overrides the 1 year restriction? I read Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions and it's unclear. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: My understanding is that "of up to one year duration" applies only to blocks, not to the other measures listed, and that is certainly the way it has been interpreted historically. AE admins are not authorised to (effectively) apply indefinite site-bans; these are reserved to the arbitration committee and community consensus. The sentence needs to be read as a whole and the "other reasonable measures" clause doesn't override the earlier "up to one year duration". GoldenRing (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm...so what is the purpose of "other reasonable measures" if not to override the previous statement? Why can't it be written without ambiguity? As I'm sure you're aware, these loopholes cause more problems than they resolve, or at least that's how it seems based on my own limited experiences. You're in the trenches, so I'm inclined to give your interpretations far more consideration than my own and why I seek your consultation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 27 March 2019 (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. Capitals00 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

X3 close

Hi. You make some strange comments in your close of the X3 proposal at AN. First, "those against often do not want to see useful content thrown out with the useless. " As has been explained repeatedly, there is no content in these pages. No content is lost when deleting these portals. Second, you seem to make a strange jump in your reasoning that "As it seems likely that a less-aggressive proposal would gain the support of most of the supporters as well as a large segment of those opposed, the arguments in opposition seem somewhat stronger. " That an intermeidate proposal may get the support of both sides, does not mean that the arguments of either side are somewhat stronger.One could just as well argue (with the same fallacy) that "as it seems that most people argue for deletion of many of these, the arguments in favor seem soewhat stronger". Fram (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: If you think you can gain consensus for the proposal by hashing it out further, by all means revert my close. I still can't see any consensus for the proposal in that discussion. And yes, I think that the opposers being vehemently opposed to this proposal but able to support something similar while the supporters generally support this proposal but wouldn't mind if it was changed a bit makes the opposes stronger than the supports. GoldenRing (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a very poor (and frightening) way to judge strength of arguments. Being vehemently opposed doesn't make the arguments of the opposes any stronger, and your stating that both sides would (in your view) be amenable to support "something similar" / something "changed a bit" makes the arguments of one side stronger, and of the other side weaker? Never mind that many of the opposes will not support "something similar" at all, they want individual MfDs spread out over a long, long time, because that is so much more productive. Fram (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not what the opposers said in their oppose rationales. Would you like me to second-guess what they really think? GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: At any rate, as I said, if you think I have misjudged consensus or if you think further discussion will help, then by all means revert. I don't think so, obviously, but I don't mind. I'm about to disappear for a week on holiday, so my general statement on my admin actions applies in spades. GoldenRing (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, if no one else disagrees, then it's just some personal grumblings, and not a reason to prolong this mess. In any case, I don't disagree with a no consensus (I think it could have been closed as "support X3" as well based on numbers and strength of arguments, but a no consensus is not an unreasonable reading of the discussion either), I just disagreed with a few elements in your statement, but not enough to reopen it or make more of a fuss than this. Fram (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wrote up a no consensus close yesterday, but held off as I wasn't sure I'd be considered entirely neutral on the subject. I think GR's close is good — and far clearer and less wordy than what I'd've written! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"No consensus" was the right judgment. The issue is polarizing. Thank you for your unbiased close. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing, I agree with @Fram. I too was surprised by your close. Four points stand out for me:

1. Your description of portals as content. As Fram noted, they actually contain zero content. They are a navigational tool for content which exists elsewhere. Why did you not discount thise !votes which falsely claimed that portals are content?
2. Your description of the balance as a a small majority in favour of the change. Can you expand what number or other factors led you define it as a "small majority"?
3. Your mention above of the vehemence of opposes is very troubling. That's effectively giving more weight to editor who rage and throw toys out of prams than to those who calmly make reasoned comments. That approach to weighing consensus would mean that the way to prevail at a consensus-forming discussion is to throw a tantrum ... which is precisely the opposite of what consensus-building should be based on.
4. You made no mention in your close of the point repeatedly made by supporters of the proposal that TTH created the portals a rate of one every one-to-two minutes (Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes)). Why did you attach more wight to minority demands for more scrutiny than to the majority concern that vastly more time is being spent scutinising each of these creations of non-content navigational devices than was spent creating them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't manually counted the !votes, but https://tools.wmflabs.org/apersonbot/vote-history/?page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27%20noticeboard says 22 support/14 oppose before the break, 4 support/3 oppose after break. I'm not sure how accurate that bot analysis is, or whether the first figure is all inclusive ... but the percentages work out at over 60% support. That doesn't look to me like a "small majority". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm on holiday & mobile so don't feel equipped to respond to these points in detail, but I will now that my count have a majority of 56%. This was after discounting two!votes of people who had !voted twice and one who was later CU blocked as a sock. IIRC, the really was 26-19. GoldenRing (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the close. I'm obviously far from neutral, but I can see no consensus in that discussion. While the raw numbers may favour support (I haven't counted, nor have I attempted to verify BHG's figures), several of those !votes marked support did not address concerns raised by those of us who opposed - especially those who say they would support a narrower criterion but opposed this one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If several of those !votes marked support did not address concerns raised by those of us who opposed is a factor, then please also and most of the opposes did not address the concerns raised by those who supported the proposal ... esp the grotesque imbalance in editorial time between the driveby creations and lengthy MFD discussions, and the many objections to the repeated false claims that portals are content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave closed

I have just closed the above AE appeal [2]. With all respect for your opinion and you administrative actions, I believe consensus goes in the other direction, and I will now restore the page you deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I've just come back from a week on holiday to find this. Can I ask how you came to this decision? On my reading of the comments at AE, there were two admins who favoured declining this portion of the appeal (regentspark and MastCell) one who couldn't make up her mind (Bishonen) and one who suggested deferring to the consensus at DRV (Floq). The only admin who supported overturning on the merits was DGG, on the basis that the deletion was out of process; you and EdJohnston supported overturning "based on the apparent consensus of admins in this thread" (to quote Ed). Since when does one admin make a consensus? Additionally, that one admin has been proved wrong; the motions at ARCA that would have made the deletion out of process have failed and the motion that clarifies that the DRV was out of process (as I always said it was) has a majority and will be enacted tomorrow morning (assuming support votes are not changed before then). So I think your close is wrong, both on the its assessment of consensus and on questions of policy & procedure. Can I ask you please to reconsider? GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I read MastCell and Regentspark as no strong opinion, Bishonen as overturn (but she is involved), Floquenbeam, DGG, and EdJohnston as overturn. But I also count the DRV votes as support of restoration (the deletion review has not been implemented only because of the potential conflict with the arbitration enforcement). To be honest, even if I unclose it, I do not see it being deleted as a result (and ArbCom is still debating what one can do at all). I think if you want the page deleted, MfD is a much better option.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Arbcom are not still debating what is allowed; two motions that would have forbidden or restricted AE deletion are at absolute majorities against and one that forbids review of AE deletion at DRV is at an absolute majority in support. If you want to wait the 24 hours for the motion to be enacted and the request archived then fine, but I still don't see how you're comfortable with overturning the action on the basis of the DRV and one admin's opinion that AE deletion is forbidden. As for your reading of admins' comments, Bishonen says, "I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind." How on earth do you count that as a vote to overturn? That, to my mind, is a "no strong opinion." regentspark explicitly said that it was "within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part" - that is the normal form of words for endorsing an action in AE appeals so how do you count it as "no strong opinion"? MastCell uses a similar form of words. And lastly, the standard of review at AE is "the clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE" - how do the opinions of editors at an out-of-process DRV come into it? GoldenRing (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will unclose it and let another admin dealing with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications (April 2019)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:

All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications (April 2019)

Question re RfC & userspace etc.

Hi GoldenRing, much appreciated your comment^[3] at ANI re the recent RfC on alt-med and COI. Could you tell me what made you say "Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly ... if their user page is at all indicative of their approach to sourcing regarding acupuncture, I'd say they were on thin ice"? Thanks, Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC); ce 21:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC); chg header, fmt 22:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: made a usertalk edit for clarity, fwiw: [4] --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 22:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Middle 8: On your userpage, you source the statement "At the same time, some patients with chronic pain get some benefit from acupuncture, so it's used in certain settings, including major academic medical centers," to two studies, neither of which say anything about patients benefiting from acupuncture and one of which says in its abstract, "a close examination of the methodologies indicates that, from a standpoint of basic science, the vast majority of 'integrative' treatments are supported by little, if any, scientific evidence." The sources do not support the statement. You go on to say, "In fact, the National Academy of Medicine -- you don't get better than them as a source -- says acupuncture is a "powerful tool" in pain management." But the source you are citing is a National Academy of Medicine text on opioid use and over-use in pain management which - as far as I can tell - makes a single off-hand remark that lumps acupuncture in with a wide range of other alternative therapies. If these are the types of sources that back your position on acupuncture, I'm not surprised that it "has tended to make [you] unpopular among editors who are convinced that acupuncture is useless quackery and cannot tolerate an article that suggests it's not" because I would absolutely agree with them. I haven't looked through your acupuncture edits in detail so I don't know if this is representative of your editing in this area, which is why I qualified my statement at ANI and leave it qualified here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. A clarification and a correction:

• Since it's userspace, I'm not citing every statement, including the one about chronic pain. Rather, those first two sources are for the assertion that acu is used in academic medical centers (which is what the article cites them for). That said, the assertion that acu treatment is helpful compared to no-acu-treatment is well-supported, from e.g. Mayo Clinic's blurb^{see § Results} to an IPD meta analysis.^{see § Interpretation} As a matter of general interest, regarding acu in practice, User:WhatamIdoing made a great comment^[5] at the RfC, part of an illustrative exchange with User:JzG-aka-Guy under my "ask the US National Academies" comment.
• The National Academy of Medicine statement is not offhand: what I quoted was only from a summary introduction. Detailed discussion is in Chapter Two, the very first sentence of which says the chapter has two purposes, the second of which is "the effectiveness of pharmacologic (both opioid and nonopioid) and nonpharmacologic treatments".^[6] Seven non-pharm treatments (both conventional and alt-med, including acu) are discussed in a section^[7] that follows, with acu having its own short subsection (with an overview of its +'s, -'s and ?'s efficacy-wise), and then a conclusion/summary. It's not offhand, but at the same time I certainly don't claim it's a slam-dunk endorsement: their "powerful tool" characterization is significantly qualified, but it does weigh with regard to acu's mainstream support.

-- Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 13:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC); minor clarification & wl 14:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC); clarify 15:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC) & 17:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC); tighten 15:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC) & 20:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Might as well include above sources, so.... [8]. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 15:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Middle 8: That does sort of reassure me. I do ask you to see it from an uninvolved admin's perspective, though: When a complaint is made, what we're basically trying to figure out is, is this person here to make the encyclopaedia better, or are they here to push a POV on acupuncture? When I load your userpage and find your statement of your position on acupuncture backed up by what look like very misleading sources, it immediately puts me in the mindset of dealing with a POV-pusher, not someone who's here to improve the encyclopaedia. Even the NAM source, you have linked to a page which says something very different to what you claim it says, even if some digging would have found something more reassuring elsewhere in the text.

Go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, good advice, and I've improved the text. (Sorry for the overlong earlier reply that I blanked and replaced with this... wikistress and all.)

I do believe I deserve an answer to this. I'm not meaning to rush you; normally I would've waited for your reply here, but I didn't want the ANI thread to archive without at least my objection/question being included. Thanks. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 10:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

...or was the rest of your comment due to the same concerns duscussed above? Sorry if I seem dense, but I can't address these concerns without grokking 'em. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 23:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Struck: again too voluble under wikistress. Onward w/ care. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 14:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

I noticed a disagreement at User talk:Huldra#AE where Huldra asked who can place ARBPIA 1RR notices (is it admin only?). Checking led me to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction which you recently updated.

I'm wondering whether that update is complete. From permalink the motion seemed to also include the following:

The community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

That is a key point with assertions that only admins can place the notice being made at Huldra's talk. Is that qualifier part of the motion and should be recorded in the index? Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a question of great interest to me, and to indeed anyone who edits in the I/P area. Up until now, more than 90% of {{ARBPIA}} notices have been placed by non−admins. If we have to ask an admin to do this every time we see a need, then this will seriously increase the level of bureaucracy on Wikipedia. This can hardly be a good thing? Huldra (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a technical limitation in that edit notices may only be placed by template editors and admins. The decision at ARCA, per my understanding, was not to require admins to place this - this is simply a technical limitation regarding edit notices.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I hadn't included this text because it's not part of the remedy. But since this is clearly a source of confusion, I've now added the extra text to the index. GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb

Greetings, I am pretty sure that the {{banned user}} template is no longer necessary there as the ban lapsed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

How comes it's invisible though? ——SerialNumber54129 08:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the prod. GoldenRing (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Deliberate decision, communicated by Opabinia regalis Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@JJE, that's rather clever. Thanks for the info. ——SerialNumber54129 09:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thread on britishfinance.

Thanks for the ping. I hadn't been in the discussion for about a week, so just checked when I got the notification. I realise its wrong to do that without evidence. I had been building evidence of bias in the articles with the hopes of someone reviewing it later, but realise it may not be possible. I hadn't opened that discussion and just felt pressure to respond once it started, which was a mistake. Then, I wasn't sure the correct process to close it off. Just to confirm that I don't think there was any paid editing either and agree with the consensus. Anyway, thanks for closing it off. Renmap0o (talk 05:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Right-wing conspiracy" at RFAR

Have a look at the diff in my evidence. Edit: why don't I just put it here? [9] Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

New message from Winged Blades of Godric

Hello, GoldenRing. You have new messages at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.
Message added 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Failed ping :-( ∯WBG^converse 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10 fallout

FYI R2 (bleep) 22:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: Could you explain to me, please, who am admittedly dull of brain and slow of learning, how calling another editor's actions a "cancer" (diff) is helpful? GoldenRing (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Extreme battlegrounding and fostering an "us-versus-them" mentality, treating every dispute in AP as a partisan dispute, is terrible and widely recognized problem that spreads when not addressed. I suspect that's something you'd agree with and I needn't explain further. In this instance, I was simply calling out a good example of that problem and asking that the community do something about it--in the face of multiple editors who have been asking me why this is important. It was not meant as a personal attack against anyone, nor was it meant to demean cancer patients or survivors. The use of the word "cancer" in the non-medical sense is widely accepted and I believe appears in every major dictionary. For example, Merriam-Webster defines "cancer" in the non-medical context as "something evil or malignant that spreads destructively." I think it's appropriate and necessary to address such battlegrounding, and identifying it and the threat it poses to the project is an important part of that. R2 (bleep) 16:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: Thank you for your kind explanation of the English language, that really was thoughtful. I did not ask why you did it, or what you meant by it, but how it was helpful. Now, let me explain to you: You are expected to work collaboratively and collegially with everyone. Carry on describing other editors as "something evil or malignant that spreads destructively" and I will ban you from AP2 myself. Consider this a formal warning. GoldenRing (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's listening, reasonable, fair, or consistent with the goals of the project. Like I said, I didn't call any editor a cancer, just specific behavior. If the community doesn't agree with me on that, then I'll be a monkey's uncle. And between the sarcasm laden snark, it would be nice if you could at least recognize my desire to make this a more collaborative environment. I guess that's pressing my luck. R2 (bleep) 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

To respond to your follow-up edit, did I not explain how it was helpful? R2 (bleep) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You did not. GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

To identify extreme battlegrounding behavior and to explain to other editors why addressing it is important. Did I not already mention that? R2 (bleep) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec) And do you think that helps you to edit collaboratively and collegially with Rusf10? Even supposing that identifying extreme battlegrounding behaviour and explaining to other editors why addressing it is important is a legitimate goal, calling it "cancer" is needlessly battlegrounding yourself. GoldenRing (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Can the community not have a full and robust debate about battlegrounding? The "cancer" comment wasn't directed at Rusf10. I didn't say to them, "Your editing behavior is a cancer." I suspect we agree that would have been unduly provocative and counterproductive. I was responding to El_C by explaining that the "'us-versus-them' mentality" was a cancer. This was in direct response to El_C's comment that it was okay to compromise on such matters. I disagreed since I believe that what El_C was calling a "compromise" was not good for the project. My "cancer" comment was simply in aid of that, to say effectively, this is a serous problem that we as a community shoudn't be compromising on.

So to answer your question directly, do I think that my comment helped me edit collaboratively with Rusf10? No, but neither did it hurt it. Rusf10 has, in my view, consistently shown an inability to accept any sort of input from any editor unless it hews 100% to their political views, which is exactly the sort of attitude the community should try (and for the most part, is trying) to address. If they can be rehabilitated, then that would be great, and I support any and all efforts to do that. But that shouldn't prevent us from identifying a problem where it exists, nor from openly discussing such matters. R2 (bleep) 18:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

And by the way GoldenRing, I suspect that if you were to canvas participants in AP2 you'd find that most editors would say I'm one of the more collaboration-focused editors in the place, and that banning me for being intolerant of battlegrounging would be counterproductive. But of course that's just speculation, and you wouldn't know that yourself. Just something to think about. R2 (bleep) 17:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I will sit on this for a day or so, but I'm considering taking this to ANI to assess whether your formal warning is consistent with community consensus. My concern is as follows. Should admins such as yourself be taking steps to prevent good faith efforts to combat battlegrounding? R2 (bleep) 17:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@R2, Please don't. I happen to think you're right about the "us-vs-them" mentality being bad for Wikipedia, but going to AN/I for something as insignificant as a warning isn't going to be a good use of anybody's time. It would be better if you just prove GoldenRing wrong about the BATTLEGROUND business by choosing not to fight the warning and moving on with normal editing. ~Awilley (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, I haven't decided, but I'd feel much better about not bringing it up with the community if I felt some reassurance that I won't be sanctioned the next time I call partisan battlegrounding a cancer or something similar. And an AP2 topic ban no less. Geesh. R2 (bleep) 19:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, do you really think GoldenRing's warning was insignificant? If you were sharing some political view in public and a police officer came up to you and said, "If you say that again, I'll arrest you," would you consider that insignificant? R2 (bleep) 21:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

R2, I think you're editing is refreshingly congenial on difficult pages. Realize that this isn't true of all editors. But, those that are destructive eventually get culled from the herd. That's the purpose of playing out WP:ROPE. Patience will out. O3000 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, rope has a purpose, but keep in mind that the only difference between a halo and a noose is a few inches. R2's choice to sit on it was a good one. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope that GoldenRing will reconsider the warning now that the dust has settled, but I won't be taking the matter to ANI. Happy editing, everyone. R2 (bleep) 19:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A

request for the clerks over Rama/Evidence/(t/p). I have requested culling of certain evidence (since they are not under the ambit of case request) and that I am (for the first time) seeing graphs being submitted, choose to believe that sans the underlying data-set(which equates diffs) they shall not be allowed. Let me know about whether I am right or wrong:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: We're discussing it off-wiki. I'll be signing off shortly so I'm not sure exactly when it'll be dealt with, but I wouldn't put a lot of time into rebutting them yet. GoldenRing (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, your advice is appreciated :-) ∯WBG^converse 16:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Minor annoyance

At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence one of the sections has an unnecessary subsection. This shouldn't matter, but I find it annoying -- sort of like how your tongue keeps going to where you are missing a tooth. I will leave it up to you decide whether it is worthwhile to format all of the sections the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: time limited TBANs

Not commenting on the current one, but to your general question, I think the reason we’ve stopped doing them is that once a TBAN expires, it usually takes double the disruption for a new sanction to be considered, and reimposing one for the same behaviour will lead to calls of admin abuse and the significant possibility of the sanction being overturned. It shouldn’t be that way, but that is the reality of the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite T-bans in contentious areas are nearly impossible to appeal. Personally I'm supportive of time limited ones before something so drastic as an indef. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as you’ve unblocked Huldra, do you also intend to remove the sanction on Sir Joseph? Both sanctions came from a less than productive discussion, and it’s not exactly fair that one editor should get a pass while the other doesn’t. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason I've personally stopped doing time-limited TBANs is that it was happening too frequently, especially with caste warriors and in ARBIPA generally, that the user simply left Wikipedia for the duration of the ban, and then turned up and started right in on the topic again. I don't like that, because it means they've learned nothing about editing Wikipedia in the meantime. I like to see a ban appeal that shows constructive editing on other topics during the ban, and/or constructive editing of the sister projects. Anything that shows a learning curve. It's certainly not my impression that they're "impossible to appeal", on the contrary, just as long as there has been some editing. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC).

GoldenRing, I support your position for timed t-bans, especially when it's a first t-ban ever for an editor. Indef anything is not the best way - it's an incentive killer, especially when veteran editors are involved - and it really doesn't stop disruption in conflicted topic areas (probably in some cases, it was because the wrong editor was t-banned), and it may well be considered punitive. Worse yet, it leaves open the possibility of POV t-banning, intentional or otherwise, when it's actually a content issue rather than a behavioral issue. If there is no question about behavioral disruption - such as legal threats, unrelenting use of profanity, PAs, and the like, and the editor is known for such behavior, then an indef block may be in order rather than a t-ban. That's the kind of behavior that typically carries over to all topics. We're giving actual vandals across the project more consideration than what our veteran editors are being given, and that's just plain wrong and a potential abuse of the tools if it's POV motivated. Just my 5¢ worth - and I'm pretty sure there are quite a few others who believe as I do. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

marchordie

Was he right? If he was OK I will drop it, but you are the first users to imply he was (about 6 editors (excluding me) said he was not). I am concerned (as I said at BLPN) that this is more then just about one source at Tommy Robinson and is about setting a precedent. I suspect this will not in fact be the last of this, maybe at the Tommy Robinson page, but not elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

To add this is not isolated [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]. I have no idea if these were valid removals or not, but it is clear the Tommy Robinson business was not isolated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I didn't mean to imply that he was right, but to comment even if he was right. Per the banner on my userpage, I'm not up to thinking about complex questions today. Ask again tomorrow. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry did not see it, I tend to just go straight to users talk pages. I apologize.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: No problem. GoldenRing (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well they appear to have stormed off in a huff (I assume form your removal of the tag that you are now in a better place? If not delete this).Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: blocked for a week for repeated PAs, IIRC. GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry they seem to have posted a retired tag. I assumed that they meant it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Ah yes, I see. Not that unusual in the circs. GoldenRing (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my error on the discussion page, I was not aware that I should not be replying there. Always learning on here! Jesswade88 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to OTRS!

AKA small rag-tag team of email responders. (Trade secret: If you solve more than 10 tickets in a week, S. Philbrick gives you a homely welcome on the mailing list) Hope you'll enjoy your stay. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I smell sock

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_of_two&diff=898822542&oldid=896540941 – attention on the author of 896540941. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Norman Bay

If you have the time or inclination, I would appreciate you taking a look at Norman Bay. The article has had a lot of strange seeming edits in the past few months and I'm having trouble parsing through what makes sense to keep. Marquardtika (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmph

I don't really think this was justifiable. I was not doing anything whatsoever to interact with that person any more than seemed genuinely necessary (i.e. to respond to ill-advised demands to change the MoS – of which I'm one of the primary shepherds – to suit this person's whims, and to deal with this editor's hounding of me in user talk, after being asked repeatedly to stop). Should have been a one-way i-ban, since only one of us is being a problem. I'm traveling right now and don't have time to deal with this much further other than to register my objection to this in absentia and "just punish everyone rather than actually look into the problem" action being taken.

Frankly, that should have been an open-and-shut BOOMERANG given the unclean-hands nature of the report, the excessive and ranty length, and the fact that the user in question was encouraged to just drop the matter instead of "dwelling" – by me, by EEng, and by others, and observations by others even in the AE itself that the behavior was getting harass-ish. I did everything I could to just stop this LAME DRAMA crap in its tracks, but the other editor persisted, even after I just took my leave from the site entirely for a while. I don't appreciate being spammed with ranting from someone I effectively banned from my talk page already (twice) unless they have something to say that relates to improving the encyclopedia. No way this should have been treated by AE as an ongoing dispute in need of two-way "preventative" medicine. Making this a mutual i-ban has all the hallmarks of punitive action, along the "It's been a while since we've gotten to stick it to SMcCandlish" lines. Not cool.

I logged back in today hoping that this stupid and annoying drama had dissipated, only to find you and other AE admins unwisely allowed it to escalate in my absence, with a wicker effigy erected in my place. Exact opposite of what was needed, or what would have inspired me to take time out for this project right now.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, the interaction ended on 12 May, Roy McCoy complained 9 days later on 21 May, and then this on 22 May. Ridiculous. No interaction ban is sensible when interaction has stopped. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This guy's pulling the same crap on User:Ealdgyth's talkpage now. It'll probably play out differently if they go to a noticeboard. Primergrey (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone shoot me an e-mail if something develops, please. I've learned the hard way it is utterly fruitless to try to appeal anything AE does unless circumstances change significantly to overwhelmingly prove the problem lies elsewhere. It clearly does, but it's going to take another dramaboard action of some kind to demonstrate it, apparently. In the interim, I decline to volunteer my time to a project that sticks punitive and unjustifiable sanctions on me when I was the one being harassed. F that. I have a lot of other things I can do with my time, without being treated like some kind of criminal for my efforts. I'll say the same thing here that I said at my own talk page: when AE and other admins allow a NOTHERE party to bully their way into sanctioning someone else (over a dispute that was already over, and was one-sided the entire time, and which involved the same party repeatedly causing tendentious drama at a user talk page they were banned from other than for encyclopedia-constructive messages), then all those admins are doing is teaching people how to game the system and get away with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I formally request that the derogatory references to me delineated in my recent email to you be deleted – not because they are derogatory, but because they are in violation of the recently instated IBAN. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Amendment Request archived

This is a courtesy notice that "Reopening Closed AE Actions" at ARCA has been archived. You may view the final discussion here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Closing

Hi, I think you may mean "no longer edited", not "no longer watched" here. Or have I misread it? - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: The text comes from a template. I think 'watched' is correct - it's a notice that new messages may not get anyone's attention. GoldenRing (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I had posted the same question. I removed it when I saw Sitush's same query. I do not think you are correct. I suggest you check previous cases - as I did. If a case cannot be watched - and they can be - then any dodgy amendments could not be capable of revert. Which would be silly, wouldn't it? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I can understand both rationales. GoldenRing knows about it and can do whatever they think is correct. I'm not that fussed and it has just struck me that I think the case pages end up being protected anyway. It's a while since a followed a case right through, so I'm probably out of touch. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

They obviously can be watched but it is possible that they may not be watched by anyone. I don't see the confusion here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

inquiry about wiki tool for astroturfing investigation

i was told you may have some wisdom in regards to an idea i have. i would like to crossreference public relations client lists with wikipedia. is there a tool that lets you search multiple articles for a shared editor? thanks and sorry for posting this in the wrong place originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for guidline

I've created the userpage as per your guidline thanks. PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)