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.

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]

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]

		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]

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]

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]

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]

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

At the time I saw that happen I thought it was very harsh (which is why I remember it, and why it comes to mind when similar cases are brought to AE), but I assumed that going forward, other editors would be treated in the same manner. This doesn't seem to be the case though, which is especially odd when the language in the more recent case is arguably nastier and more personal. Cheers, Number 57 16:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[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 57 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 57 13:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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

GoldenRing, I'm not sure I understand what warnings are being proposed here? [[1]] 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.[[2]] 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 [[3]] 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 [[4]] 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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

Leaving notification of [5] my arbitration enforcement action appeal. Take a look. Thanks Raymond3023 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Capitals00 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have just closed the above AE appeal [6]. With all respect for your opinion and you administrative actions, I believe consensus goes in the other direction, and I will now restore the page you deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hi GoldenRing, much appreciated your comment^[7] at ANI re the recent RfC on alt-med and COI. Could you tell me what made you say "Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly ... if their user page is at all indicative of their approach to sourcing regarding acupuncture, I'd say they were on thin ice"? Thanks, Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC); ce 21:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC); chg header, fmt 22:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Since it's userspace, I'm not citing every statement, including the one about chronic pain. Rather, those first two sources are for the assertion that acu is used in academic medical centers (which is what the article cites them for). That said, the assertion that acu treatment is helpful compared to no-acu-treatment is well-supported, from e.g. Mayo Clinic's blurb^{see § Results} to an IPD meta analysis.^{see § Interpretation} As a matter of general interest, regarding acu in practice, User:WhatamIdoing made a great comment^[9] at the RfC, part of an illustrative exchange with User:JzG-aka-Guy under my "ask the US National Academies" comment.
• The National Academy of Medicine statement is not offhand: what I quoted was only from a summary introduction. Detailed discussion is in Chapter Two, the very first sentence of which says the chapter has two purposes, the second of which is "the effectiveness of pharmacologic (both opioid and nonopioid) and nonpharmacologic treatments".^[10] Seven non-pharm treatments (both conventional and alt-med, including acu) are discussed in a section^[11] that follows, with acu having its own short subsection (with an overview of its +'s, -'s and ?'s efficacy-wise), and then a conclusion/summary. It's not offhand, but at the same time I certainly don't claim it's a slam-dunk endorsement: their "powerful tool" characterization is significantly qualified, but it does weigh with regard to acu's mainstream support.

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

P.S. Might as well include above sources, so.... [12]. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 15:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Good to hear; thanks. This is good advice, and I grok what you're saying about first impressions that uninvolved admins could glean. (I hope the current version is a substantial improvement.)

Please consider this from my point of view too, as an editor who's been hounded about my profession and COI for some time. You've created a diff that clarifies the RfC, but will also haunt me in ways I don't think you intend. Everyone who reads it will also read your "thin ice" comment, and this: Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly: no, being an acupuncturist doesn't inherently give you a COI that rises to the level of WP:COI; but yes, it is still perfectly possible for you to misuse sources, use poor sources (and MEDRS applies here), edit disruptively to make a point and generally edit in a way that seeks to promote acupuncture rather than improve the encyclopaedia. Strong criticisms, yet (if I understand correctly) based not on mainspace edits but on sources I cited in userspace that on closer inspection are actually used reasonably.

Unfortunately that comment is going to fuel a much-too-broad range of headaches, likely including: It will be used to counter anything I say about COI, even if I'm repeating what you've said (you've just seen how internal logic hasn't been an obstacle to such accusations). It will be used to fuel accusations of poor mainspace editing on my part even though you didn't -- and didn't claim to -- base it on my mainspace edits. It will be used to argue that my edits somehow indicate or even trigger a COI. Because some of these editors have indicated that they're not likely to stop.^{[13][14][15][16]}

I wish you'd strike/modify (or at least clarify) that comment and rephrase your concerns about my part in this COI dispute more specifically. To the extent that your concerns have been alleviated, please consider doing so; it would probably save editor-hours in the future. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 13:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC); better diff, 13:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC); add/abridge 00:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC); +diffs, ce 01:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC); +wl 01:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC); ce 01:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC); add last sentence 01:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC); ce, clarity 04:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC), 04:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC), 04:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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

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