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

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.

January 4 special:diff/818580130 in your summary of discussion you include:

his views on how much detail is appropriate in an article are out of step with community expectations

You taking the roll to summarize the discussion seems wrong to me given that you were involved with it, and seem to be pushing aspects of your own comments in the discussion on January 3 to the forefront:

• 13:49 special:diff/818426601 paraphrase: "I didn't mention every possible detail so the stupid amount of detail I did mention can't be a problem"
• 16:47 special:diff/818449038

  if you can't see that the sorts of detail you're pushing aren't part of a "summary of accepted knowledge" then you're going to keep on running into trouble, whatever topic you choose to edit.

  You should be able to see that, because the sort of detail you're pushing has been rejected repeatedly over a period of months.

You are conflating the rejection by specific editors as if that reflects what policy actually is. Editors wanting to obscure the details of a case and keep them out of articles despite reliable coverage does not mean there is a policy against including those details.

Mentioning car brands / colors is not a "stupid amount of detail". If it were stupid, why would reliable sources mention them?

A "summary of useful information" would naturally include these. Brands are useful for verbal reference, color is useful for video/photo understanding.

Where I can see "summary" discussions happening is:

• is it necessary to mention the YEAR model of Dodge Challenger? We have the information it is 2010 but this isn't necessary for disambiguation.
• is it necessary to mention that the "red" of the minivan is described as "maroon"? While we have this information, it would probably just confuse people and isn't necessary to tell apart from any other reds.
• is it necessary to mention the "Challenger" aspect of the Dodge since there are no other Dodge vehicles discussed?
• is it necessary to mention the "Camry" aspect of the Toyota since there are no other Toyota vehicles discussed?

Given the alliterative overlap of Challenger/Camry I am open to the idea that we might simply refer to them as Dodge and Toyota, which is more distinctive. In that case, we can still cite sources which mention the specific models without needing to use them in the case. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScratchMarshall: You seem to have misunderstood how arbitration enforcement works. All arbitration enforcement actions are unilateral actions by a single administrator and the purpose of any discussion at AE (which is not itself necessary to the process) is to informally gauge the views of others, not to form consensus which has to be judged by someone previously uninvolved in the discussion. This is very different to how things work everywhere else on Wikipedia, but it is how arbitration enforcement works. I am not inclined to change my close of that discussion. If you wish to appeal it, you can do so either by filing an appeal at WP:AE or at WP:AN, or by requesting the committee to review the close at WP:ARCA. My advice is that any such attempt will be seen as time-wasting, since the discussion was closed without any sanction.

Regarding the rest of your points, I am tempted to just tell you to go away but I'll make one more attempt to explain this to you. We do not list all detail given by reliable sources, we aim for a summary of accepted knowledge about a subject. A fact being mentioned by a reliable source (verifiability) is necessary for that fact to be mentioned, but it is not sufficient, otherwise we would have to include every fact ever mentioned by any reliable source anywhere. There is even debate in the community about whether verifiability is any reason at all for inclusion, or merely a requirement for inclusion. Your argument Mentioning car brands / colors is not a "stupid amount of detail". If it were stupid, why would reliable sources mention them? is therefore irrelevant.

Fundamentally, what is and is not included in an article is a matter for debate and consensus-forming. There are boundaries around what may or may not be included (verifiability, BLP etc) but within those boundaries, it is a matter for editorial judgement and consensus. When you have raised at least half a dozen of these similar issues at an article talk page and each time the consensus is (to paraphrase), "That level of detail is not appropriate to the article," then it is time to drop the stick. Continuing to start these discussions becomes disruptive and if you keep doing it then sanctions will follow pretty shortly. GoldenRing (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't objecting to the closure, just the summary you used during the closure. It was phrased in a way that favors your viewpoint and ignores the other views expressed that I didn't do anything wrong at all. You seem to be seeding this as something to bite me later the next time I add reliably sourced information to an article and someone wants to sanction me for doing so.

I again object to what amounts to a straw man argument. I was not listing "ALL" detail. I was summarizing it. This is not ALL v SUMMARY but rather, our discussing different degrees of summarizing and what details ought to be left in or out of a summary.

RE necessary v. sufficient / requirement v. reason these are good adjectives and nouns. I would like them to be associated with some kind of impartial criteria so that it's a bit less "I know it when I see it" type input from people who hold different opinions on it.

I do think my point about sources mentioning details as argument against those details being 'stupid' is relevant. I believe it was inappropriate to use a rude word like 'stupid' which insults both me and the reliable reporters who I cited. There is surely a more polite adjective you could find for describing a reliably sourced detail which you agree with me fulfills tier 1 requirement/necessity but upon which we have a difference of viewpoint over it fulfilling tier 2 sufficiency/reason for inclusion.

I understand the value of consensus and editorial judgment, but I also observe the consensus can be misrepresented. Most of the time, these discussions were buried before any sort of large input. The "general agreement" by which we define consensus was sometimes 1 person objecting (in which case 1v1 is neither consensus for or against) or maybe 2 people objecting. A consensus of 2v1 is too narrow a field of input for important issues. If this were something like 19:1 it would be easier to accept.

When wider input beyond 2 or 3 persons total is allowed, I have observed support for inclusion or neutrality. The supporting/impartial parties appear to be ignored in summaries regarding consensus, which only appear to acknowledge objections. The neutral/impartial is also often situational, where it can involve partial support of an idea but wanting to modify it.

I believe you are wrong, and pushing a personal agenda, by prohibiting me from starting discussions regarding adding new details. You are conveying the false impression that I am just bringing up old details over and over again, which is untrue. It is not disruptive to start new discussions on new details.

Furthermore, I do not agree it is disruptive to bring back buried discussions when they had very little input. In articles with high activity, bots often archive talk page sections after a couple weeks to a month, so not enough people get to read it and convey opinions. There is too small a sample.

Perhaps my mistake is the choice to use article talk pages rather than some other approach. Would you suggest 'request for comment' or WikiProjects to reach a wider audience than those who happen upon (or who are following) an article talk page?

I want to know if you would allow those in good faith for my desire to pursue consensus from a broader number (perhaps double-digit?) of Wikipedians, when it comes to important and controversial articles, or if you will simply push to sanction me for bringing it up again, as if one meager and brief harumph from a small few means discussion of a detail's relevance must be buried forever. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regents park placed a good faith sanction on all Kashmir conflict related topics, breaking which results in an immediate block. Unfortunately one editor, who goes by the username of Anmolbhat, has broken it by casting aspersions against other editors on a talkpage which comes under these sanctions.[1] His comment is this ″I also doubt the credibility of your account as well as Dilpa kaur. Registered during 18-25 October 2017 and engaging in same POV pushing on same days.″ Another editor had to strike off part of his bad comment [2] (though not all). He has removed part of his bad comment but not fully.[3] This part (″ I also doubt the credibility of your account as well as Dilpa kaur″) remains.

This user is aware of ARBIPA sanctions [4] and has even been blocked for introducing copyright violations[5] despite being warned several times for their copyright violations.[6][7][8][9]

I don't think this user is willing to learn or abide by our policies and since their editing is generally tendentious and unconstructive[10][11][12] they should be blocked. But final decision belongs to the administrators. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JosephusOfJerusalem: My apologies, but I am not very familiar with sanctions in this area and will not have time to look into this today. I suggest you try another admin or AE. GoldenRing (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: Thank you. That is very kind. GoldenRing (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you really know how to make someone want to eat crow. I have to say you've really amazed me with your administrative work here since you got the bit. I was highly suspicious at first, but now I've come to realize that was perhaps the dumbest prejudice I could have had. You've been a great addition to the team, and thank you so much for helping out in the extremely contentious AE arena. Holy hell that area needs people like you. I'm truly glad to call you my colleague now. And I hope you can forgive my early assumptions way back when you requested adminship. I take literally everything I said back. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		In the short time since you were given the sysop right, you have shown a very steady hand and an incredibly good judgement in matters of the site's administration. I am very, very impressed and I think you more than deserve recognition for your actions. As such I award you this Barnstar as a token of the hopefully grand working relationship we can continue to have in the future. I will definitely be coming to you for advice, in my own actions, because I see that your mind has a great degree of clarity! (or is it the power of Sauron finally pulling me in...??!?!) :P — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: I'm a bit taken aback by this and don't know what to say. I'll start with: thank you. That's very kind. I wish I had more time to get involved in more aspects of the encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to extend a closed discussion much, but there's no issue with the flag on a user talk page. (After all, look at mine). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it as one of the more ridiculous "incidents." --DHeyward (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore and DHeyward: Thanks. I'll go and apologise to the editor in question. GoldenRing (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, not to prolong this, I do share your concern somewhat with adding graphics that cover up "default" wiki links. My flag goes under, I think, the logo and it doesn't block the hyperlinking. I have seen images and userpages where it's very difficult to navigate to core wiki functions without paging down to move the image out of the way. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question arose... elsewhere too... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:James J. Lambden returned to editing the Stephen Miller article. My question is, are these two reverts [13] [14] of my edits a violation of his IBAN with me? The first one is a revert of this edit of mine - basically Lambden is resuming an old edit war against me, which had died out in his absence. The second one is a revert of these edits of mine [15], [16], [17]. Again, restarting an old dispute. Since both of these disputes involved myself and Lambden, this looks like a willful violation of the interaction ban rather than just forgetfulness.

Asking here per WP:IBAN instructions rather than heading straight to WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Thanks for bringing this here. Yes, technically those are violations of the IBAN but I'm reluctant to take action since the material was inserted four or five months ago and Lambden made a series of edits that removed this material but also made other changes; I think it's not at all obvious that he was aware that he was violating the IBAN. I've left a warning at his TP. GoldenRing (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove my name once again please: I will not be taking part, and just because one editor with a grudge against me has tried to shoehorn my name into this case does not mean I am in any way involved, particularly given the number of false statements it contained. Re: your note on my talk page: there was absolutely no personal attack in my edit summary. If I accuse an editor of being a liar, that is a personal attack. If I say that a statement contains lies, that is not a personal attack. I would, of course, have to be able to prove that there were lies in there, but that is some ease, given how much untrue information that particular statement contains. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Saying that someone has lied (or, if you want to be very precious about it, that something they said is a lie) without evidencing it is a personal attack and if you repeat it (without evidence) at this point, it is going to lead to sanctions.

Whether you end up a party to the case (if there is one) is up to the arbs, not you or me. GoldenRing (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated above, the statement contains lies and if one of the Arbs would like further details, I will provide them, complete with a full list of diffs. Only one editor has raised my name, and they have a long-held grudge against me. I will not lower myself to having to interact with him, and (as you can see from the most recent thread on my talk page) I am considering asking for an IBAN with that individual. I have pointed out to them directly where they have spread false information about me, and yet they continue to do so. Just to ensure you undertake no action against me for making unsubstantiated accusations, two of the lies are fairly easily dealt with, just to give you an indication. I can shred the rest of his statement relating to me too, but as I say, if an Arb wants to ask me on my talk page or contact me directly, I'll be happy to provide diffs of the rest.

• "SchroCat (also with multiple civility blocks)": lie. One only (and that was seen by two other Admins as being problematic).
• "he likes to dare people to do anything about him" lie. HE removed a talk page post. When I reverted him, he threatened "If this is restored again, I will make a noticeboard matter of it." On the basis of his threat, I advised him to go to go ahead if he thought it was a problem. That's not even close to "daring" people to go to ANI.

As you have removed entire posts for not including diffs (quite rightly), I will invite you to read through the posting mcandlish has made and remove one of the lies he has added which include no diffs at all. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: If the Committee accepts the case request, the drafting arbitrator will review the list of parties and remove any that the drafting arbitrator considers outside the scope of the case. In the meantime, please don't remove your name from the list of parties. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And what steps are going to be taken against the OP for his canvassing ([18], [19], [20], [21])? It seems odd to "invite" comments from people with whom Cassianto has disagreed: the comments from those canvassed should, of course, be struck and disregarded, but I doubt such a step would be taken (although if Cassianto went round asking people to defend him, I guarantee a knee-jerk revert would follow). I also invite you to remove the post by Coffee, containing aspersions and accusations without a single diff as evidence. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldenRing. Is there some reason that the Joefromrandb arbitration case has not been opened yet?- MrX 🖋 16:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's waiting for clerking. I've just lost a village quiz night & am suffering the consequent overdose of intoxicants, so am not about to speed it on. GoldenRing (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, that's the best time to clerk an arbcom case. Be bold! - MrX 🖋 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a lot of discomfort with this case. I nearly always agree with MrX. And that would include some sanction in this filing as there is reason for such. But, I’ve also had good interaction with Joe. I think some are hoping for a non-arb solution. But then, in addition to being out of my element – I also had an overdose of intoxicants with my Bolognese tonight. O3000 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case will be opened at some point in the next 48 hours; we are still discussing the logistics of the case. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone going to block KrampusC? I'd do it but, you know, that'd be "abuse". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I understand a CU has it on their list. GoldenRing (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You missed one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Ta. GoldenRing (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Your clerking action, Moxy's final comment in his section was a response to me (made in my section), rather than part of the interaction with Ceoil. Could you put back just that final comment? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat:  Done Good catch, thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - much appreciated. Sorry if I came across as a bit terse in the thread further up your talk page: it's not nice to be dragged into something on a flimsy basis, but I certainly shouldn't have 'vented' at you. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re this, I thought the end of the phase meant no further postings should be allowed? Am I correct in that? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SchroCat: It's not absolutely forbidden to comment at the evidence talk page once the evidence phase is over, but I've asked the committee how they'd like to handle this particular one. GoldenRing (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much. This looks less like a "comment" in the usual sense of a talk page, and more of an attempt to put in evidence by the back door. Thanks for picking up on it. – SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to this as I notice you are listed as a clerk: Gerda Arendt has just added more to her submission on the workshop talk page. The decision is, I believe, due to have been posted shortly and is already beyond the initial deadline? I have not commented nor been involved in this case and, if anyone takes the time to check the article where I reverted, it has a prominent 'page notice' regarding IBs as soon as the edit window is opened. In my edit summary, I also directed the editor concerned to the FAQ, which has been included on the talk page. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it myself. - When I was a new editor, Sagaciousphil, I didn't know what "FAQ" and "TP" mean, nor where to find a "talk page" even if spelled out as you did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ is a standard abbreviation; the page notice can hardly be missed. No doubt, if it had remained, then shortly someone would claim a silent consensus for the inclusion. Please do not attempt to lecture me. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that Gerda Arendt has removed part of one of her comments above (against TP guidelines as it had already been replied to so leaving a [deliberately?] false impression). She has also chosen to remove a further comment she made. Anyway, I'm done here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular opinion on the appropriateness of blocking people for participating at Arbcom cases. But why, oh why, are you adding autoblock? That's just sloppy. Please lift the autoblock. Risker (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Risker (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have an opinion: that block for someone unfamiliar with arbcom speak (what arbcom calls "evidence" is not what is normally called evidence) was not a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: edit warring with a clerk despite being warned was not a good idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know it wasn't a good idea, and regret that I didn't tell Ceoil, as I just explained on his talk. I saw it coming but went to bed instead of warning him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GR - I'm trying out a couple of your scripts, but I'm stumped over how to use the generate diffs script. I've added it to common.js and I get the checkbox, copy to clipboard and input bar. What I'm not understanding is what to do with diff once it's generated. I tried putting it in the search bar but get nothing. I've attached an image of how it looks in Safari on my user contributions page - I'm assuming that's the only page it works on? It doesn't show-up on any other pages that I can tell.

As you can see by the image, the little box shows-up beside the diff with a checkmark, the copy diffs to clipboard is above the timeline, and when I click on copy diffs it automatically adds the diff in the input bar. I can check several diffs and it adds them all. I just don't know what to do with them after that. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: The purpose of this is to generate a list of diffs that can be pasted as wikitext into another page. So when I'm commenting on something at AE or ANI or something, it's very tedious to copy the link for each diff that I want to refer to. The script means I can select some diffs, click the 'Copy diffs to clipboard' button, then paste them into a project or talk page. The result should look like [[Special:Diff/1234567]], [[Special:Diff/12345678]]. It should work on user contribution pages and page history pages. It's particularly useful with Writ Keeper's commonHistory script which lets you inspect diffs within a user contribs or page history list. GoldenRing (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

💡💡💡⚡️ Duh...🤓 The light just went on. Awesome!! The Writ Keeper commonHistory is, too! It took me a while to figure out how to get to the short version for common.js but I got 'er done. Thank you, thank you!!! What a great tool. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRM drops in to the Women in Red wikiproject, demands they help him immediately, tells them they're not interested in supporting women on Wikipedia when they turn him down, and that's not a violation of his prohibition? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan, nope, you're wrong yet again. Try it like this: I dropped a courtesy note requesting help to get 8 women hooks at WiR, the note was soundly rejected, I suggested it was a shame, but we'd carry on regardless. Yet somehow, you, an "admin", managed to try to get an AE case out of it? And it's just a coincidence that you've been in direct conflict with me over edit summaries? You should consider your position. A lot of us already are. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think your characterization of the incident is reading into it a lot that isn't there. GoldenRing (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it was just an opportunity to promote women in general. I understand if you're no longer interested in that. Sorry I mentioned it.

No, the fact that no-one here is interested in getting eight women hooks onto the main page for the whole day is clear, regardless of process. There's always an opportunity to rise above such things, yet clearly not on this occasion.

That's a bit of a stretch to characterize that as "suggested it was a shame". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need some help here? The first note was to say that I was hoping the WiR would help DYK get 8 hooks onto the main page, and those who responded said they weren't interested in DYK. The second note was a statement of fact, and was an attempt to encourage people to ignore the process of DYK about which issues had been noted in previous comments, but a confirmation that no-one was going to go beyond those issues. What is your problem with this? Why are you complaining when no-one else is complaining? Why are you (a demonstrably involved admin) going to such ridiculous lengths (i.e. AE) to get at me? You are one step away from Arbcom yourself, so continue, if you wish, to pursue this empty vessel, but I'd strongly advise against it if you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia the way you currently do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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