User talk:GoldenRing: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:52, 15 March 2019

Archives (index)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 01:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Outstanding contributions recognition

Outstanding Contributions Recognition

GoldenRing, I've followed your Rfa and subsequently have had a chance to see your contributions across Wikipedia. What I've noticed is a person who is passionately dedicated to Wikipedia and is amongst the most intelligent ones I've come across here. I applaud the absolute honesty you've shown in your Rfa while offering to contribute as an administrator. They may not be necessarily as many as of other prolific editors, but in my opinion, your contributions are exemplary.

And in that spirit, you truly are an outstanding contributor.

Keep up the great work! :)

Lourdes

email

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

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. [1] TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

You've got mail

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

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

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,[2] 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.[3]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.[4]

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 (!)[5] 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.[6]
DBigXray responded with his typical WP:IDHT tendency[7]
DBigXray also modified the comment of Gazoth, which looks disruptive.[8]
Gazoth still responded DBigXray[9]
Even after so many adequate responses, DBigXray is still not seeing problems and has instead started using the talk page as his userspace.[10]

Gazoth seems to have stopped responding as well now,[11] which DBigXray considers as failure to gain consensus against his edits as we have previously seen on this article[12] as well as other articles as he clearly believes that "if you don't respond to the discussion for 2 days"[13] 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.[14]

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)[reply]

Now DBigXray is removing my comments by falsely claiming I edited his comments[15] and also left me warning on my talk page.[16] His own link "WP:REFACTOR" states that "Correcting indentation levels" is allowed. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.[17] GenuineArt (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Note: If it involves "Twitter" then never mind. Otr500 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Barnstar

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 5 7 16:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 5 7 12:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I don't understand how Debresser's comments were within scope but Nableezy's not. Number 5 7 13:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

{[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Proposed warning?

GoldenRing, I'm not sure I understand what warnings are being proposed here? [[18]] 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)[reply]

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.[[19]] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 [[20]] 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 [[21]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

+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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 307: / Line 307: @@
 :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.  [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing#top|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. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 14:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)