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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Here are some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:IRC channel
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:Current polls

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

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

You may wish to revoke talk page access. Misused of the talk page, disguised as an "appeal" of the block.--Cahk (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the User:Antibot009 account has been blocked since March 12, 2017 which was at the same time as their creation of Russian State Scientific Center for Robotics and Technical Cybernetics according to their talk page, so how does this not qualify for WP:G5? Snickers2686 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Snickers2686: I believe that criteria applies whenever a user who is blocked on one account edits via a sock or IP address. The user was blocked after the page was created. — Gestrid (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like it's an indefinite block either way Snickers2686 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but the user wasn't blocked when the page was created, so the CSD wouldn't be correct. WP:G5 says This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block. (Emphasis and links not mine.) The page had to have been created while they were banned or blocked on at least one account or IP to qualify for G5 deletion. — Gestrid (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, Wikipedia is becoming a totalitarian regime. And you're just a deletion-obsessed puppet for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvm21 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Jvm21, please remember to remain WP:CIVIL and assume good faith when interacting with other editors. — Gestrid (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jvm21: Not a threat; advice. Ignore it if you wish, but don't say you weren't warned. I'm other news, I see that two more such articles you've created have been PRODed, so I'll reiterate: The community has limited patience for people who waste the time of others in this way. GoldenRing (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldenRing - for info. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You forget to add the {{Administrator topicon}}. --219.79.126.217 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Congratulations on your successful run for sysop. I was promoted to adminship 10 years before you with about the same number of edits under my belt when I was promoted, and I'm glad that RfA participants' appreciation for the quality of work has won over our increasing obsession with quantity. Deryck C. 10:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, if you don't start editing after you get back, I'll be sure to mark your page with {{Deceased Wikipedian}}. — Gestrid (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestrid: Still alive. And on the Oodnadatta Track. GoldenRing (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still alive at Uluru. GoldenRing (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for looking into the diffs that Nishidani provided at the recent AE discussion. However, your (well-meaning) analysis suffers from several serious shortcomings. Please see this. (I was going to write almost the same exact things but user Kingsindian was a little bit faster than me.) Thanks and regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: I've seen this but I'm afraid real life has taken over for now; I'll get back to you with a considered response, I hope tomorrow. GoldenRing (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: Made a mess of the ping, sorry. GoldenRing (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: I guess we're going to disagree on this. But here's my thinking. Civility is a requirement on Wikipedia. Being "hounded by dozens of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and racists" does not give you a free pass to tell other editors that they are somehow mentally deficient. You are expected to be civil even with trolls and sockpuppets. That there are worse things happening in other areas doesn't excuse what's happening in this area. Kingsindian gave the edit summary "facts of life," as though somehow I'm living in some serene cloud-land; in fact my position here is based on not inconsiderable experience of real life, and my experience is that civility is important in every situation. I don't believe the aphorism that it always takes two to tango; some people are just out to cause trouble. But I do believe that there is no situation where losing your cool leads to a better result than not losing your cool. Even with the worst of trolls and sockpuppets, responding in kind always makes the situation worse, not better. And this is reflected in the standards we expect of editors here. Civility is both policy and one of the five pillars. It's not a "sometimes" thing. It's even more important in fraught topic areas, because the existing tensions in those areas will make situations escalate even more quickly if you act in a way that escalates, rather than defuses, them.

To comment on the specifics of Kingsindian's comments:

• Regarding the Jordan Valley dispute, what I wrote was cut down from a longer earlier draft and I'm sorry that it didn't come across very well. Of course there are other meanings of the term "Jordan Valley". But to attempt to argue that, in an article about the geographic feature, the definition should end at the river itself, defies belief. This is to deny the simple everyday meaning of the English word valley. Of course there may be other meanings connected with political entities, private organisations or in specific technical literature; this article is not about them. Contrary to the current lead of Jordan Valley (Middle East), it is in fact common to name an area the "X Valley" after the river X but which is not coincident with the exact valley containing the river X (eg Thames Valley, Severn Valley, Humber Valley and so on); but I really struggle to think of one where it might be sensibly argued that the valley includes only one bank of the river.
• The point regarding Archaeology of Israel is that Nishidani was claiming that his edits are singled out for reversion even when the reversion is "utterly farcical." But this example is far from farcical; there is no way that that content belongs in the lead and, I would argue, not in the body of the article either. The underlying statistic might well be used in the article, but merely quoting the statistic without any apparent connection to the surrounding context is clearly bad editing. If it was me, I probably wouldn't have reverted the second time, I would have tried to edit it more neatly into the article, but I don't think the reversion was "utterly farcical" (leaving aside the 1RR violation for the moment). That someone else was also reverted when they tried to insert the text surely works against the contention that Nishidani's edits are singled out, not for it?
• Contrary to Kingsindian, the content re Michael Sfard was indeed opposed on the grounds that it was meant to give more positive light to the political activist in question. Hagiography was perhaps unhelpfully hyperbolic in this context but these are the grounds on which it was opposed.
• The assertion that Nishidani isn't dedicated to collegial editing is, of course, not based on one diff from their own talkpage but from a long list of diffs presented in the evidence; I gave an example that was additional to the evidence presented. Should I have recited all the diffs already presented? I don't think so. Although we traditionally give editors more leeway on their user talk, we're not meant to; WP:CIVIL is clear that it applies everywhere.
• Lastly, I think the indefinite ban from eight years ago (it was rescinded, not enacted, six years ago) is relevant here. It is part of a long pattern of topic bans Nishidani has received from this topic, with civility frequently cited as a reason for them. His response shows he clearly isn't getting the message - it largely amounts to WP:NOTTHEM. GoldenRing (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this discussion, and it is largely meaningless because Nishidani is not planning to appeal. However, I can respond to this, because I am really tearing out what's left of my hair after reading it. This will be very harsh, but justifiably so.

The main issue is that admins are allowed to look at content to see what the issue is about, but you are not allowed to substitute your own judgement about content. You can't say that I like this position, therefore the other person is wrong. This is precisely what has happened here:

• The comment about the Jordan Valley is wrong. There are many many sources which use "Jordan Valley" to refer only to the part of the West Bank: Nishidani provided half a dozen sources for their position. We follow sources, and Nishidani's position was indeed a completely legitimate position. Indeed, it is the dominant use of the term nowadays. You are free to think that it "defies belief", editor's judgements do not trump sources; which was, of course, Nishidani's point. The editors on the page managed to find a mutually agreeable solution satisfying to all, and this is somehow used as evidence that Nishidani cannot work collegially?
• Similarly, it is not up to you whether the passage added to Archaelogy of Israel belongs in the article or not. For the record, there was one other editor who supported using the information further down in the article, and only one (the complainant) was opposed. Discussion went on on the talkpage; apparently discussing things on the talkpage is evidence against "collegial editing"? Also, who gave you the right to decide that there is no way that that content belongs in the lead and, I would argue, not in the body of the article either. If you want to opine on content, do it on the talkpage, not at an AE request.
• The Michael Sfard one is completely silly. The "hagiography" comment completely misses the point. It is not up to you to decide that it shouldn't be in the article. Besides, you are wrong about the matter. In the diff you cite, Shrike did not oppose the text because it was hagiographic; they opposed it because they didn't like the source. This is because Mondoweiss was cited for this banal fact, and there are many people who revert Mondoweiss on sight. I re-added it myself with some more sources, and Shrike agreed with my addition on the talkpage. This shows without a doubt that the objection was to the sourcing, not the content. The text is present in the article to this very day.
• The last point is extremely silly. And it also mangles the policy: WP:NOTTHEM is neither policy nor guideline. Moreover, it refers to the behaviour after a block (during an appeal), not before. The relevant essay is WP:BOOMERANG, which is standard practice as ANI and AE. Moreover, the vague close from TheWordsmith (from 9 months ago), which was used as a justification for the T-ban, asks all sides to behave. In this context, it is completely legitimate to bring up the behaviour of other people.
• If anyone cared a damn about "civility" or "collegial editing", someone would have done something about "patronizing dick". Or perhaps I should start using this term for admins now, since it is now considered a compliment? Indeed, Debresser, by their own admission, had absolutely no role in reaching the mutually agreeable consensus we finally reached on the talkpage. They provided no sources and their contributions consisted of no more than a couple of snipes at Nishidani and support for Icewhiz's position. Anyone who has edited in this area knows that "tribal" supports and opposes are the norm. Is that "collegial editing"?

If I was advising Nishidani, I would advised them to not bring up the ugly background to the whole matter, because I know how Wikipedia "justice" operates. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Better to say as little as possible in your own defence. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kingsindian: Would you like me to respond to this? I'm happy to, and (of course) I disagree with you on various points. But from my point of view it's not achieving anything at this point. So if you want me to respond, I will, but unless you ask me to, I'll leave it there. GoldenRing (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to respond. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty bad for you to topic-ban Al-Andalusi without giving him/her time to respond. Actually, it doesn't just look bad; it is bad. There is no evidence that he/she even knows about the case yet. It wouldn't have hurt you to wait if only to give the appearance of due process. Zero^talk 10:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) I'm really surprised at what I'm seeing here. Imposing a topic ban merely three hours after the case was opened, before the accused has had a chance to respond, and when the only comment was from an editor coming from the same side of the content dispute as the filer of the case – this looks really bad. – Uanfala 10:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zero0000: @Uanfala: I imposed the ban on the basis of about an hour's reading through evidence and talk-page discussion. I explained the reasons for the ban at the user's talk page. There is no requirement for discussion at AE, or even for a report at AE, for DS to be used. If User:Al-Andalusi wants to appeal the action then they are free to do so and I'll stay out of it and let my fellow admins assess the ban and appeal on its merits. GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice to wait a little bit and let people weigh in, because one of your stated reasons is wrong: the page Acid throwing is not under 1RR restriction. There's no ARBPIA template on the talkpage, so the normal 3RR rule applies. And a request was declined a few days ago on the edit-warring noticeboard as no violation. The rest of the reasons are indeed accurate, however. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The report also said that AN3 noticeboard can take action only if 4 reverts were made under 24 hours, and there is long term edit warring thus other noticeboards should be tried. Capitals00 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: I wasn't aware of the previous AN3 request, thanks for pointing me to it. My reading of WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is that any page that could be reasonably construed as related to the conflict is under 1RR, regardless of templates or edit notices applied to the article or its talk page - have I missed something? GoldenRing (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that DS can be applied without an AE report, but once a case been formally opened at AE it should be allowed to take its course. Whether that is strictly required or not, I am 100% sure it is the community expectation. Regarding 1RR, I mostly agree with you. Practice has been to apply it to parts of articles that relate to the A-I conflict and not only to articles that as a whole concern the A-I conflict. This is not clearly stated in the ArbCom decisions, but it seems the most sensible interpretation. The ARBPIA template doesn't allow this fine distinction, but as far as I'm aware it is not actually required on an article for ARBPIA to apply. Under this interpretation, reverts that concern acid thrown at Israelis by Arabs in the West Bank come under 1RR, but the revert concerning acid thrown within Gaza is not about the A-I conflict so it doesn't come under 1RR. Zero^talk 13:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: IIRC this has recently been clarified by the arbitration committee; the controversy at the time was about administrators who close reports against an emerging consensus at AE, and even then the committee did not go so far as to disallow such action, only saying, When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. IMO this case is clear-cut enough that this was always going to be the outcome; the only question in my mind is about the length of the tban and I could perhaps be persuaded that six months is too long in this instance. GoldenRing (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• West Bank and Gaza Strip section of the article in question includes mention of First Intifada, and attacks on Israelis by Palestinians as part of Israel-Palestine conflicts, over which Al-Andalusi edit warred.[1][2][3] We should remember that this is a long term problem, it was also highlighted in my ARE report. He has been edit warring over Palestine-Israeli issues for a over 7 years, and prefers to edit war until the next one gives up and agrees to his version. He also prefers avoiding the talk page discussion as much as it is possible and when he sees that its not going according to his thinking, he resorts to personal attacks. Even if we ignore 1RR, he still violated WP:3RR by making no less than 4 reverts over same content in the short time, despite being reverted by 3 editors and later 4. Even an indefinite topic ban wouldn't be a bad option. And now even more that he has already violated his topic ban already under a few hours even after acknowledging topic ban on his talk page, see [4]. Capitals00 (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closure was out of process. The editor should have a chance to reply. Other editors should have a chance, should they choose, to weigh in. And uninvolved administrators at Arbitration Enforcement generally propose a course of action, generally but not always finding consensus before they act. You are not correct that only closing against emerging consensus is a problem. The way you closed is simply not how Arbitration Enforcement operates. I don't know how to correct the error - reopening the closed would also be out of process. Perhaps you need to ask the committee, or other uninvolved administrators. Jd2718 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jd2718, we have been through that before. There is no rule that a person would be sanctioned only after providing a reply to the complaint, and its good that there's no such requirement, a person would better take temporary retirement to evade the report. Capitals00 (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a useful response.. Nobody said that the accused person has to respond, only that they be given an opportunity to respond. Failure to respond in a reasonable time can even be taken against them. Zero^talk 01:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I was particularly responding to "The way you closed is simply not how Arbitration Enforcement operates". Capitals00 (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully. I wrote "the editor should have a chance to reply" and you responded as if I'd written "the editor must reply before a decision is reached." Zero is correct; that's not at all what I wrote. Jd2718 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I read it as you are treating it as some requirement, to read the editor's response before sanctioning. Sometimes disruption is so obvious that it requires no more clarification. Capitals00 (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couple points:

• If an admin feels they have enough info to act on an enforcement request they are under no obligation to wait for further input or responses. This does not look bad or is bad - it's the same process used in places like WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. We don't have "due process" on Wikipedia. If an admin's sanctions are constantly being overturned then that's something to examine.
• Page restrictions need to be logged at WP:DSLOG. There is no 1RR logged for Acid throwing.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @NeilN: thanks. However, I don't believe your second point is correct in the ARBPIA area where the committee has directly put the whole topic under 1RR and there is no need for individual administrators to impose it on specific pages. I may have that wrong, though. GoldenRing (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • see if I can get a ping right this time: @NeilN: GoldenRing (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Arbitration_motion_regarding_the_logging_of_sanctions. You'll see admins logging page restrictions at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Palestine-Israel_articles. Editors can't be expected to guess if a non-obvious article is under restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing and @NeilN:. Al-Andalusi was reminded of violating 1RR and was asked to self-revert, and he rejected it.[5] Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Palestine-Israel_articles has only one article where 1RR has been applied, because everything "Israel-Palestine" is under 1RR on wikipedia, and it is not possible to put Acid throwing under 1RR too because this most of the article is not about Israel-Palestine and many large sections of the article such as Europe, Africa, South America, are rid of any AC/DS. Capitals00 (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @NeilN: When I look at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Palestine-Israel_articles I see a few administrators logging actual extended-confirmed protection of pages. I don't see any logging of decisions that particular pages fall under ARBPIA except that extended-confirmed protection is assumed available when ARBPIA already applies. Moreover, I can't manage to read Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Arbitration_motion_regarding_the_logging_of_sanctions as you do. I think GoldenRing is right and that ARBPIA applies to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". The ARBPIA decision is a "remedy" but what needs to be logged is a "sanction" made pursuant to the remedy. If I protect a page, block a user, etc, on the authority of ARBPIA, I have to log that, but pages about the I-P conflict are covered by ARBPIA already (including 30/500 and 1RR) without an additional administrative decision being needed. Note that the ArbCom remedy does not say that administrators may impose 1RR and 30/500 on I-P related articles, it explicitly imposes those restrictions. If you know of a disproof of this interpretation, please let us know. Finally, it is completely impossible for someone to edit about the I-P conflict without knowing it. Zero^talk 09:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I have filed this request at ARCA to clarify this point as there seems to be general confusion regarding it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Did I stop just in time at seismometer? Or will I be blocked too? The garmine ^(talk) 13:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The garmine: Both of you should have taken it to the talk page. You haven't broken 3RR, but edit warring is edit warring. However... A brand new account edit-warring promotional links into an article against multiple established editors? I'm sure not going to block you for it and I doubt other admins will see it differently. GoldenRing (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,GoldenRing! The garmine ^(talk) 13:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent intervention: On 26 December 2016, Wikipedia's WP:ARCA ratified a new amendment affecting all articles broadly construed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, making all newly deleted content subject to consensus before it can be restored. But, as you can see by my edit made on 16 June 2017, where the word "illegal" was deleted (see edit), since it did not apply to settlements around Husan, User:Huldra followed in suit by responding in a questionable manner, (see edit), deleting this time valid content, knowing that she can hardly be held accountable in Palestinian-Israeli related articles after the ratification of the new amendment, although, in actuality, what she did is considered WP:Gaming the system. Another edit that can clearly be construed as "Gaming the system" is that of User:nableezy, whose recent edit on the Wikipedia article, Urif, deliberately caused valid sources to be deleted, those sources which showed that, by one account, no Israeli had set fire to a field, and that it had been set ablaze by somebody else, perhaps even unintentionally. See edit. He deleted what was "balanced" reporting, to make Israelis appear as the sole culprits. What disciplinary measures can be taken against this phenomenon, to assure that we maintain a basis of cordial collaborative editing, and without abusing the system?Davidbena (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should try writing on the talk page and explaining why you continue to engage in OR and write things in articles that simply do not appear in the sources cited. nableezy - 19:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Either follow Nableezy's suggestion or take it to AE - this is beyond me getting my head around it today. GoldenRing (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration clerks are excited to welcome GoldenRing (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#GoldenRing appointed trainee clerk

You seem to have been deleting G13s using Twinkle atthe rate of about 1 per second. Are you using the mass delete function?I didn;t know it could be used for this? If you're doing it manually, I assume you;re using some sort of additional macro or automation. If so, it really should be specified in the deletion summaries.

I don't thing G13s can be checked that rapidly, and I do think every G13 needs manual checking--the ones that a dups of mainspace articles are better deleted as such; but , much more important, somer may be useful redirects, and some of them may be satisfactory for mainspace, having been wrongfully declined, or be almost ready, and readily fixable. (In my experience, the proportion ranges from 1:10 to 1:100). I have not yet checked all of yours, but the ones I have checked seem to be correct (as with similar mass deletions, I try to recheck anything that sounds plausible from the title.) The same really goes for G8 links to draft pages--it's an occasion for a final check. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Yes, I deleted everything in CAT:G13 using Twinkle D-batch. No, I shouldn't have done it. See the discussion at WP:AN#G13 eligible help? - my reading of it is that it's not worth undeleting them all, but that I should go back through them and evaluate them properly - which I'm doing. GoldenRing (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldenRing, I am following up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Global accounts .2F COI. The user has been informed but it seems they did not respond, so I suspect the soft block is in order now? Also including @Jytdog: and @Timothyjosephwood:. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't had any profound change of heart on the issue if that's what you're asking. Thanks for following up. TimothyJosephWood 16:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: Yes, thanks for the reminder. They've not edited since 12 June, before it all blew up. I've issued a soft block; if they ever come back then they'll have to do something about their username. GoldenRing (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks. I almost forgot about it myself, so even though there are no recent edits, it would be good to add the block while we still remember the history and have another disucssion should they desire rename/continue editing in line with policy. Thanks. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but you may want to cool your jets on that one and give time to let some folks weigh in. There's only been two involved admins, and pretty much everyone else who has commented has been deeply involved. This is an issue that has gone on for a long time and has involved basically every editor who touches US politics. TimothyJosephWood 21:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Well, I've been convinced not to take it to AN, but perhaps slightly against my better judgement. In my view, a block was sorely needed, and I've done it, but I'm a bit unhappy indeffing someone (who's not an obvious vandalism-only account or similar) on my own say-so. IMO it's better to build a consensus for a site-ban (which I think would have been fairly obvious) in this sort of situation - to some degree it insulates the admin from blowback and is harder to undo. I've tried to leave a reasonable indication of the reasons for the block in the block template so that any reviewing administrator, in a year's time, will take it all reasonably seriously. Pinging @Salvidrim!: and @Dennis Brown: to see if they have any further thoughts on this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you have any idea what he was on about with you outing him in December? GoldenRing (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unusual to have a combo block, part AE and part not, but I'm never against creativity in using the bit as long as it is transparent. I think you could have done it without any AE connection at all. Not all acts, even if AE related, have to be acted upon as an AE action, even if taken to AE. That is absolutely admin discretion if you think the activity transcends a particular Arb restriction. I think in this case, the problems were not related to American Politics, that is just where they happened. In the end, I think your actions were within admin discretion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dennis Brown: Thanks. My reasoning is that I generally only use indefinite admin-discretion blocks for really obvious throw-away/vandalism accounts. Otherwise, my feeling is that they cause a lot of drama. So, although I agree that the disruption is not closely tied to American politics, the fact that that's where it happened gives us latitude to use an AE block for the first year. After that, if they come back and can convince someone they're actually here to build an encyclopaedia, then I'm absolutely fine with an unblock. But a purely non-AE block seemed to me likely to produce a string of IDHT-type unblock requests, followed by an appeal to AN. Might as well restrict his appeal options to just AN/AE in the first place. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I mean I do agree that a block was needed, I've just seen a few times where pretty high profile blocks were better left to folks who are more on the crat side of the admin scale, and so it ended up being messy before it was all said and done. Hopefully this doesn't go that route. But... the last block required two reblocks for clarification. So we'll see I guess. Anything involving ArbCom seems to be the only place where NOTBURO categorically doesn't apply.

As to the supposed outing? If you look at enough pieces of toast you eventually find one that looks like your favorite deity. After all, this is an editor who seems to seriously think that I'm a secret Nazi, and, how to put this, they don't mean that as a hyperbolic personal attack. They think I'm like a "legitimate" Nazi, like... shadowy hail Hitlers in an empty parking garage or a smoke filled basement. I'm just playing the long con before I can turn Wikipedia over to the Fourth Reich. TimothyJosephWood 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Well, I'm sure I'll be added to the next pogrom or something. If it all blows up, I guess we get to see how thick my skin is. The profile of this case is why I though it'd be better done at AN - better for the community to do this sort of thing and make clear to the user that they are against the community rather than give them the possibility of thinking they are a victim of the admin cabal etc etc. But the storm of protest at the suggestion swayed me against taking it there. We'll see whether that was wise or not. GoldenRing (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. You'll be fine. It's not like you deleted the main page. If there's serious objection it'll be procedural and not material. TimothyJosephWood 11:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm used to it, as I've done a great number of controversial blocks and other actions over the years, particularly since I have regularly patrolled ANI for many years. This wasn't exactly unilateral as there was input from other editors. In cases like this, the community has been pretty good about supporting the admin as long as the action was within discretion and not just a knee-jerk block. He's going to appeal, he will find a couple of contrarians to agree with him, but considering the last block was 4 admin all agreeing and for 6 months, this shows a clear pattern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have to ask: Timothyjosephwood, what exactly are you calling "folks who are more on the crat side of the admin scale"? Since most actual Crats avoid controversial activities (understandably), I'm a little confused by how you define this interesting term. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing what he was gently trying to say is, "Leave it to someone who didn't only pass RfA a couple of months ago on what some consider a pretty slim sort of consensus and whose stature will count in their favour in the likely post-block bust-up at AN." Oh well. GoldenRing (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't want to rain on GR's contributions or experience, but this was round about their 100th block, and most of their blocks have been for pretty clear cut vandalism and promotionalism, and not the kind of... you could say "drama blocks" that come out of ANI and AE. So, really I just meant not literally our newest admin, but I was trying to be a bit more PC than that.

I can't remember the exact thread, but if you were around and remember, there was a pretty big blow up on ANI some time three or four months ago that involved a "drama block" by the then one of our, if not our newest admin. There was a lot of hurt feelings and people "taking breaks", and I pretty much hate that specifically, and would prefer to avoid any potential risk of that happening, even if the risk is small. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that I'm not at all scolding GR, or saying that the block was inappropriate. I was just tabulating the "actuarial-hurt-feelings-risk" and trying to guard against every last percent. TimothyJosephWood 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware of GoldenRing's tenure. We seem to agree on much more than we disagree, so I just assumed he was an old salt like me ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you made the block, you might want to close that discussion and add a line to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2017. No appeal can start until it is closed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Fair point. I've done it. I left it for a bit so others could comment if they felt it necessary, but you're right that it's not fair to let it stay open. I need to run out for a bit just now, but could you take a look at User talk:SashiRolls? It seems to me to be continuing the actions that led to the block, but I'm not sure how much leeway to give here; I don't want to make appeal immediately impossible, but TP access is not there to give pointers to off-site harassment. I thought about redacting / rev-delling their second comment; any thoughts? GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a warning for now. I don't think there is any ambiguity regarding what my next step will be if he misuses his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see email. Sagecandor (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your email. As above, I need to dash out for a bit, but will consider what to do when I'm back, if others haven't got there first. GoldenRing (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me deal with stalking and harassment. Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestine-Israel articles arbitration clarification request of June 2017, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see it was sorted out and we were correct. Capitals00 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For being considerate, thinking things through, and willingness to own and correct mistakes. Almost every edit of yours I see makes me glad you passed your RfA. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed Exclusion of Sandbox and Users own TalkPage from T-Bans

I don't see any violation, but I wanted you to be aware of the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Thanks for the notification. I don't see any problem with this discussion in general terms; policy is just the result of long-running consensus and consensus can change. I can't see them getting any traction for this particular change, though. GoldenRing (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would have brought up the specifics in that discussion though; of course they're unable to respond and it feels a bit like a way of forcing them out of a discussion they've started. Would you perhaps consider hatting that comment? GoldenRing (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since on CNN blackmail controversy it was just one user edit warring against everyone else, and since the merge discussion has a pretty clear consensus [6], and since that one editor got indef banned, could you change the protection level from full to semi? Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I think I'd prefer to wait until that merge discussion is closed by someone uninvolved. If you think there's something very pressing that needs doing before then, get back to me and I could be convinced. I realise the article is in a pretty poor state editorially, but I'm not seeing any pressing BLP/vandalism concerns that need to be addressed right now. So if the merge discussion is closed as 'merge' then let's not waste anyone's time editing it. If the merge discussion doesn't close that way (as unlikely as that perhaps seems now), I'd prefer to leave protection in place for a couple of days to let it all calm down before anyone gets back to editing it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dee Savage 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Savagedee

With all due respect, and I mean that, I felt I had appeal your topic ban. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Debresser Debresser (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you hatted my comment at WP:AE with a snide message instead of indicating that you had understood it or even read it, I'm reposting my message here:

GoldenRing, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Only one "side" of the dispute regularly conflates criticism of Israel or its policies or actions with antisemitism. If you don't believe "anti-Jewish" is the same as antisemitic, I recommend you read an encyclopedia article about antisemitism or consult a dictionary.

During the past decade, I don't believe you and I have ever run across one another. I don't know anything about you, such as your background or where you come from. Let me assure you that when somebody calls another person "anti-Jewish", they mean only one thing: they are accusing that person of being antisemitic. Anybody who tells you differently is either dissembling or outright lying.

And while it's hard to attend a gathering of Israel supporters, especially those on the right or center of the political spectrum, without hearing those who criticize Israel, its government, its policies, or its actions called antisemitic, it is almost unheard of for a person who is critical of Israel, its government, its policies, or its actions to call her- or himself or her or his fellow critics antisemitic. Anybody who tells you differently is either lying or has a poor grasp of English (e.g., several of the commenters at AE, who have a functional ability to use English as a second or third language but don't understand the meaning of the word "conflate").

I'm sorry if you think these facts are "unhelpful", but I'm not the person who made the pronouncement in a public forum that "anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli are regularly conflated by both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute" and "I don't think it necessarily amounts to the same as 'anti-semitic'". As John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just couldn't figure out from context why Anti-Israel was added at all, since it was a dispute about chronology. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]