User talk:GoldenRing: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:04, 10 September 2017 editXenophrenic (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits +cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:10, 10 September 2017 edit undoGoldenRing (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,924 edits →AN/I closure Next edit →
Line 515:		Line 515:

	I didn't catch this earlier, but your little editorial insertion: "{{xt\|and even less for when you ''think'' you are right}} (italics emphasis yours)", strikes me as unnecessarily provocative -- it goes beyond what our ] states, and instead appears intended to ] of yours. You didn't think that might be just a little bit offensive? Anyway, I'll take your silence in this matter as your response to my request. I'll pursue this elsewhere and won't bother you further. Thank you for your time, ] (]) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)		I didn't catch this earlier, but your little editorial insertion: "{{xt\|and even less for when you ''think'' you are right}} (italics emphasis yours)", strikes me as unnecessarily provocative -- it goes beyond what our ] states, and instead appears intended to ] of yours. You didn't think that might be just a little bit offensive? Anyway, I'll take your silence in this matter as your response to my request. I'll pursue this elsewhere and won't bother you further. Thank you for your time, ] (]) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

			{{re\|Xenophrenic}} My apologies for not responding sooner. I'm happy to at least discuss this. Perhaps, without re-litigating the whole ANI thread, you could state why you were edit-warring? ] (]) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

	== Hillbillyholiday new violation ==		== Hillbillyholiday new violation ==

Revision as of 07:10, 10 September 2017

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.

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I thought useful:

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

Be Bold!

Sam 01:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Outstanding contributions recognition

Outstanding Contributions Recognition

GoldenRing, I've followed your Rfa and subsequently have had a chance to see your contributions across Misplaced Pages. What I've noticed is a person who is passionately dedicated to Misplaced Pages 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

Topic ban of Al-Andalusi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couple points:

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

--NeilN 05:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Urgent Intervention

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

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

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

GoldenRing appointed trainee clerk

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

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

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

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

G13

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

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

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

CommHa

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

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

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

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

Close in the morning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emailed you

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Arbitration clarification request archived

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

FreeatlastChitchat

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

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

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

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

fp of CNN blackmail controversy

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

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

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

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

WP:AE appeal

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

Your recent comments at WP:AE

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Malik Shabazz: The observation that anti-Jewish is conflated with anti-semitism when it is convenient to the speaker, by both sides of this dispute, is my observation of the world (in particular the part of it that makes up British politics, if you want to know where I'm coming from). I'm not saying I could reliably source it or that I'd say it in an article, but it's what I observe in the world. My observation is that certain groups of people say very obviously antisemitic things (we're talking blood libel, or Jewish-control-of-the-media, or international Jewish conspiracy, or blaming ill-of-the-world-X on The Jews etc) and then, when challenged about them, clarify that they're not antisemitic, they're anti-zionist or anti-Israeli. I'm wary of commenting on any specifics due to the obvious potential for BLP-violations, but an obvious example is documented in David_Ward_(British_politician)#Comments_on_the_Holocaust - so at least if I'm violating BLP here, I'm in company. Ward criticised the actions of "the Jews" but later clarified that he isn't anti-Jewish, he is anti-Israel. I don't see how you can understand this in any way other than conflating anti-Jewish with anti-Israel. Examples in British politics abound, but again I'm pretty reluctant to spell them out due to BLP concerns.

Please understand I'm not trying to take sides in the Arab-Israeli dispute. I have the happy privilege not to be involved. I very much believe you that the accusation of anti-semitism is frequently used to silence critics of Israel - that is patently obvious. I'm saying that I also observe others using anti-zionism as a cover for anti-semitism and apparently bare anti-semitic remarks later "clarified" as only anti-Israeli.

I'm not sure there's a lot of point carrying this on. I thought long and hard about whether to respond at all, but decided in the end you deserved a response. If you think there is some productive end that could come out of this then please say so and continue the discussion - otherwise, I expect we're just going to disagree on this. It happens. GoldenRing (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GR. I don't want to you to feel that you are under any obligation to extend this further than is needed, but perhaps a little discussion, rather than the registration of differing views, would be useful, without writing treatises in a thread. (Feel welcome to hat or revert his if you deem it a nuisance). It's important to be absolutely clear in arbitration about this because the life/death of editors cannot be allowed to hang on semantic equivocations. Most long-term editors from wherever they are coming understand that the inference 'criticism of an Israeli policy' = 'questioning Jewish rights/being anti-Jewish' is one that should not be made. The equation simply means that, say, Noam Chomsky is no different from David Duke, Arik Ascherman on a par with Charles Coughlin, David Shulman interchangeable with Sayyid Qutb. When I saw the word 'conflate' I thought of the lines:

As knots, by the conflux of meeting sap,

Infect the sound pine and divert his grain

Because they preface remarks on 'degree' that apply to the crucial role of keeping one's semantic fields articulated and cognitive categories neat (which is what numerous RS news sources have forgotten to do). I.e.

Take but degree away, untune that string,

And, hark, what discord follows! each thing meets

In mere oppugnancy.

To illustrate with an (innocuous) example from yesterday. I wrote this, a passing point to show that Israeli policy on the point-in-question is more complex than one editor made it out to be (hoping for this to be a final word). The response, from a fair and gentlemanly editor, was to take the remark as having a premise concerning 'Jews' generally. Since we are obliged, willy-nilly, to edit articles that are inherently conflictual, because the real-time politics are deeply, irremediably contentious, keeping the concepts (Jews/Israel/Israeli/Zionism) sufficiently 'limpid' so that touching one note doesn't precipitate a symphonic hammer of repercussive effects, on the talk page, is ineludible if we are to get work done. Sometimes, at AE, one gets the impression that admins are so fed-up with this ostensible 'bickering' that all distinctions are lost in the temptation to either ignore the evidence, or take any scrap as felonious, or to wrap up all those who comment as, on both sides, equally involved in gaming, and therefore to be regarded indiscriminately with suspicion.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this problem only arose because of the poor choice of the word "conflate", which involves bringing concepts into unison rather than separating them. One camp puts a lot of energy into arguing that anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli are the same, which is conflation. The other camp puts a lot of energy into arguing that anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli are not the same, which is the opposite of conflation. So this is not something that the two camps have in common, but something they fundamentally differ on. Zero 14:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, GoldenRing. I understand better what you mean now. I don't want to engage you in a discussion if you're not interested in having one, but I see those as two different phenomena that are related to one another: some critics of Israel, its government, its policies, or its actions conflate different but sometimes overlapping groups of people (Jews and Israelis) and some supporters of Israel conflate different but sometimes overlapping opinions (criticism of Israel, its government, its policies, or its actions and antisemitism). Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 00:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, GoldenRing, that being goaded by editors who don't agree with me is nothing new. I linked to this, where Debresser insists on addressing me as he/him, even though he knows I am female. Note also that the reason he gives for that changes....from being an "honest mistake", to being "his custom is to refer to all Misplaced Pages editors as "he"." That sort of makes it a bit difficult for me to AGF.

Or look at this. Again, this is a childish game many plays/or have played. Huldra (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Bit late to the party here GoldenRing, but the wording of your close suggests that you have effectively banned Debresser for stating that certain editors are anti-Israel. If this is the case, I have to say it's extremely concerning. Anyone who has edited in this topic area knows that the majority of editors are clearly divided into two camps, one pro-Israel and one pro-Palestinian (both of which could be described as anti the other and both of which produce content that shows their side as the victim and the other side being at fault, or removes content that is contrary to that view); there are only a handful of editors who have shown they are consistently capable of editing this topic neutrally. I cannot believe that stating the obvious could be considered an attack – if anything, it's the opposite – editors should be called out on their bias. I edit around the edges of the topic area but occasionally get dragged into disputes and have never been afraid to call a spade a spade when it's been appropriate (nor would I ever consider requesting someone be banned for the accusations of bias I've had from both sides). Ever since I started editing my concern has been that other admins seem to focus on all aspects of misbehaviour except bias and this seems a rather extreme example of that being the case. Number 5 7 13:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Number. It's intensely frustrating here because (qui s'excuse, s'accuse/He doth protest too much etc), somehow, the concept of 'critical of Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967' has been constantly, imperiously, insistently, confused with 'anti-Israel' or 'anti-Israeli'.

Now 'anti-Israel' means 'opposition to the state of Israel', and endlessly, I for one have repeated that those (Westerners/outsiders) who are opposed to the state of Israel are so in contempt of international law, and probably anti-Semitic. (I specify 'Westerners/outsiders' because a political actor like Hamas or Hezsbollah might be opposed to the state of Israel without this reflecting by necessity anti-Semitism, in my view)
'Anti-Israeli' can also imply 'Israelis' as a people, a national group, and opposition to any aggregate of peoples expresses an antipathy for all individuals within that group. It's racism.

Simon once stated, jumping into my talk page, when a protégée of his attacked me as anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic, saying he had minutely combed through my 20 archives and found no trace or evidence that would warrant that accusation (go to AN/I and AE and you will find me accused of that a dozen times, invariably dismissed). Simon may be wrong; Simon is a Zionist, and I am deeply critical of Israel's military and settlement projects in the West Bank. But this has nothing to do with Jews, Israel itself (I've lived there very joyfully and done my bit for the country as a youth) or Israelis, and insinuations of this type against any editor who happens to be critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians are unacceptable.

This is not, either, a 'pro-Palestinian' or 'pro-Israeli' divide on Misplaced Pages, though those two disastrous terms are now normative. To be critical of Israel's policies against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza does not translate into not pro-Israeli (or denying Israel's right to exist). If it did, it would meam 'pro-Israeli' means hostility to Palestinians. And I doubt anyone self-identifying as an editor working to ensure Israel-related articles are properly constructed would automatically construe this as implying (s)he is anti-Palestinian. Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that being critical of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians (which I am) does not make one anti-Israel but I never stated that it did. Given our past interactions, I am not interested in debating this subject with yourself, but was hoping for a response from GoldenRing (I did consider emailing them to avoid this sort of distraction, but I am not a fan of behind-the-scenes communications as I know off-Wiki discussions have contributed to the problems in this topic area. Number 5 7 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Despite the snub, I take you to be a rational, policy-based editor generally, which is not common around here. You are entitled to a sense of distaste of course, but since I was involved, and your judgements bear on the decision, I think it fair to comment here. I don't expect GR to feel obliged to respond to anyone, but this is as fair a page as any to iron out equivocations from any or all involved parties, particularly because they are recurrent. Discussion of general problems, esp. those personalizing disputes, ought to be salutary.Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: We have a simple rule here: Don't personalise disputes. Focus on edits, not editors; on content, not contributors. Debresser was clearly in violation of that, and was sanctioned accordingly.

There is no rule against being biased on Misplaced Pages, for the simple reason that if we did, no-one would be allowed to edit because everyone has biases, conscious or otherwise. There is nothing wrong with that; our biases are usually just the sum of our experiences as humans and the only way we could ask them to be unbiased would be to ask them to be inhuman.

So, while we don't ask editors to be unbiased, we do ask them to be conscious of their biases and to edit in a way that doesn't assume their biases represent the truth. One of the key ways we do this is to edit collegially with other editors who have different biases, recognizing that, while the other is undoubtedly biased, so is the self, and that consensus is reached by editing with those others, not against them.

This is why applying labels to other editors is so insidious; once you start doing so, and categorizing their editing according to the label you have assigned, you are no longer editing with them but against them. This is the beginning of the battleground.

In short: if this is your approach to editing in this, or indeed any, area, please change it. It is antithetical to how we build the encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately I find the idea that editors should not be able to point out obvious bias from other editors extremely disturbing, as it the idea that doing so is personalising a dispute. You are correct that there is no rule against being biased on Misplaced Pages and for almost my entire time on here I have thought that it is probably the most obvious omission from the various codes of conduct. However, when an editor consistently edits in a manner that supports one side of an argument, especially in cases where they violate guidelines such as NPOV, UNDUE etc, they deserve to be called out on it. Number 5 7 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Sandstein once stated a similar view, i.e. one must have a record of editing that shows concern for both parties, and not unilaterally edit pages regarding only one side. Actually, I tend to agree with you regarding the first part (unilateral editing), but since WP:Undue etc., are often cited in policy flag-waving, without any argument apropos, I'm rather wary of the other. There is a string of articles where one can observe whether editors register indifferently all items or data regarding injured parties in the I/P area, namely the several since 2014 List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 onwards. From memory, only User:Bolter21 and myself have consistently added to both sides. Virtually every other contributor had simply added material that favours the side he/she identifies with. It is one reason I hope, once Bolter has finished his 3 years with the IDF that he be voted in as an administrator.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Especially in cases where these edits violate UNDUE is a legitimate issue, but that is not how these discussions go down, which is why our various advisory essays and guidelines on Civility and collaborative editing suggest that you not resort to calling people "POV pushers" during the course of discussions. When has it ever helped to do this? There are ways to discuss why you think something is POV without using language that is derogatory and confrontational, this is a qualitative difference. In many cases, these types of arguments are not persuasive and they do not seem serve any collaborative purpose - they seem to be more along the lines of the tactics described in WP:ADVOCACY (wearing other editors down, stalling article development and consensus discussion, etc.) - calling someone a "POV pusher" or a "POV warrior" is different from pointing out a bias, but you should give reasons when you say something like this that are based in policies and it should serve some consensus building purpose. WP:NPA doesn't say you can never call someone racist or anti-semitic, it says that you better have evidence and a good reason for it, if you do. Seraphim System 04:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Well said. GoldenRing (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you. You go around making this place a little bit nicer, bit by bit. Thank you. GoldenRing (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonplussed

I'm nonplussed here, GoldenRing. This is neither a personal attack nor casting aspersions in any manner; it's a simple statement that the source itself says the chain of evidence used to support a highly-contentious claim about a living person (that the person supports a terrorist group) is at best tenuous; as the source said, Bloggers and conservative websites also circulated a picture of her at a convention of Muslim civic leaders, standing with a group of people that included a Milwaukee activist whose brother was arrested in Israel in 1998 and convicted of giving $40,000 to a Hamas leader. The photo, they said, was proof of “ties” to Hamas. Standing in a group photo with someone whose brother was arrested for giving money to Hamas is so patently absurd a grounds for claiming "ties" to Hamas that the Associated Press straight-up called it out as ridiculous, and obviously if that's the only grounds, it's not a claim worth including in a short encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I did not accuse you of personal attacks or casting aspersions in that diff. I did not even say that your criticism is unjustified; only that when personal attacks are (apparently) directed at those with whom you disagree, and someone calls them out, you immediately focus on that person's content argument and ignore the personal attacks, but when personal attacks are aimed at yourself or those you agree with, you're the first to insist they are "strictly prohibited." This is supposed to be a collegiate, collaborative environment and you're supposed to be the experienced, calm, reasonable editor here; you don't come across that way on that talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I did not initially notice the apparent personal attack that you called out, but now I do see how that comes off from that person's post. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please inform me

Please read User_talk:Debresser#Notes_for_after_end_of_topic_ban, where it was suggested I inquire regarding your authoritative opinion on the issue. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

Though you don't know it, you've been a big help in developing the new XTools, not just because you've identified bugs, but because your account is an excellent one for testing. You're an admin (belated congrats) so we can test admin-related features, your account is fairly old, so we can test features surrounding account age, and finally you don't have a bajillion edits, which means we don't have to wait forever when loading the tool. In short, you are a testament that edit counts are merely a number. Quality over quantity! Thanks for all you do :) — MusikAnimal 20:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Ha, well, at least my low edit count is good for something. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Casting aspersions and "other side"

Since you posted at the Debresser AE about people posting about the "other side" I want to point you to this edit, specifically the last sentence. This is typical of Nishidani where he continues to cast aspersions on those with whom he disagrees and of course, "his side" is the angelic NPOV side. Sir Joseph 18:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph. That arguably is, itself, a personal attack. Now, without me having to continually interrupt my article construction here (yes. 3 articles today, which would have been 5 had I not to write up the details of how the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif shootings were reported for editors' consideration) by glancing over my shoulder every other minute to see if someone has fine-combed one of my rare comments on an IP talk page to see if it can be spun as 'aggressive' and 'typical' or as 'casting aspersions', could I suggest that while twilling the antennae to the point that they thrill at every sub-atomic vibrato in distant galaxia and yield evidence, constantly poring over every word I write and notifying arbitrators of my 'typical' bad behavior is not quite constructive. If anything, it can look like nitpicking to 'stir' things. As to the case, yes. I worry when I see virtually every other minor edit I make to a page reverted, and I worry when I see lockstep agreement, and not close-reasoning. Or course, I may be wrong. But note that no one is answering the evidence, and note too that a slur cast my way, which I asked to be retracted, wasn't. You read that: and it passed under the radar. You construed my request for independent, unpredictable, third party, neutral input as an aspersion? It's an honest request, accompanied by an express request that editors associated with the Palestinian aspect don't vote with their feet. I find habitual rejoinders unproductive to problem solving. Now, I've had a long day, and I hope we can let this rest. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You just continue to not get it. I urge you to read twice your edits before pressing submit. Think about how often your posts are viewed as attacks or uncivil and try to change the way you edit. The number one complaint about you is not necessarily about what you're editing, but how. I did not see the insult that someone posted about you so please don't say that it passed under my radar. And also don't try to say that people are poring over your words, I imagine most people skip your verbiage because it's far too long. You're editing in a highly visible area so your posts will be highly visible. Sir Joseph 20:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A word of advice: if you are correct in your notion that it is characteristic of me to cast aspersions you'll have your field day in duke horse, simply by presenting the evidence you accumulate. Repeating ad nauseam a subjective 'concern', without acting on it, has only one semantic function, to create a vague impression that 'there's no smoke without fire', for future use to lend support to the usual fragile suit. Actually, that reminds me: time for a morning gasper, and a cuppa. I won't be replying, SJ. Let's not overstay our hospitality.Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem you have is that Misplaced Pages has a search function and editors can see for themselves the number of times you have referred to editors being pro-Israeli over the years, which suggests it is characteristic; (where you also refer to "pro-Jewish editors", which is a little unfair given the apparent prohibition on referring to editors with the opposite stance) (where ironically you threaten to report someone for calling you anti-Israel and call them pro-Israel in the next sentence!). This was only a brief selection; the search results threw up many more. I have no problems with the labels being used if done so correctly, but to effectively deny that you do it is a bit insulting to people's intelligence. Number 5 7 11:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked every single one of those diffs, and couldn't find a single one where Nishidani called anyone for "pro-Jewish editors", what am I missing? Huldra (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The diff before where this is pointed out (this): "which is the handiwork of editors identified usually as seeing things from a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish perspective". Number 5 7 23:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that one diff......from 2014. But you should have quoted more of the sentence: "which (aside from Palestinian rabbis, a page I for one have never edited, and which is the handiwork of editors identified usually as seeing things from a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish perspective)". Now, looking at the main editors who worked on Palestinian rabbis up to 2014, does anyone think they would mind being told that they are "seeing things from a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish perspective"? Huldra (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A trip down memory lane, the 'distant bell' falling 'out of the blue'. Thanks. You've got me yodeling with Frank Ifield I only looked at the first two, since I am scheduled to write 3 articles today, and this game of trying to get at an editor with big diff lists, each of which must be parsed correctly is time-wasting and unfocused. I've been hauled to AE and AN/I endlessly, and save for a few instances, this kind of montage has been thrown out. I see nothing but commonsense there, and going the extra mile on a talk page to try and get some reasonable edit accepted. If you, or anyone else, wants me to walk them through each, I'd be happy to construe the historical context, the number of sockpuppets (permabanned), meatpuppets and the like those historic diffs reflect my dealings with. Many years ago, I wrote the David Dean Shulman page to honour primarily one of the great scholars of the world, and also because I don't believe anything I might say on the I/P realities hasn't been put more eloquently by him. I'm just small fry, in this sad nook of a universe, but I console myself that the endless vendettas to brand me as someone with a problem with Israel, or Jews, reflect a profound refusal to look straight in the face facts that men like Shulman write about every day, and which they see at first hand, because, after writing for 6 days, people like Amiel Vardi and Shulman join Ezra Nawi (another two articles I wrote) and do their Sabbath work helping the poorest hardscrabble pastoralists of the world, and the West Bank, resist the savage beatings, poisoning of their flocks and wells, and stoning of their schoolchildren, which is, as Shulman authoritatively testifies, is an hourly reality in much of those territories. My attitude is identical to theirs:-they are Israelis, Jews, whatever, and their example gives me heart in the pittance of editing I do tithing my time to see Palestinians are not just terrorists, but people like everyone else, trying to have a decent life. People who get so upset about what I edit in, can't see that I'm just a dull spokesman of analyses that are all over the Israeli and diaspora anguish at what is going on in that area. I don't mind taking the rap, but people should remind themselves that Nishidani is not the problem: Israeli and diaspora scholarship is. It bears testimony to what many editors here don't want to be heard.

Last night I read the following two articles:15:34, 28 May 2017

David Dean Shulman, 'Israel’s Irrational Rationality,' New York Review of Books 22 June 2017 pp.44-47. This is a review of 5 books, many by authoritative Israeli experts, are saying, none of which can get into articles without endless edit-warring.

David Dean Shulman 'Palestine: The End of the Bedouins?,' NYR Daily, December 7, 2016. (this is about the Jordan Valley) where my expostulativee remarks earned me a month's suspension. Compare what Shulman states, with what editors there were arguing in trying to rid the article of a few remarks about the indigenous pastoralists (sorry invading pastoral encampments into nature reserves and military training zones there. I've a low boredom threshold, and, according to doctors, a dangerous tolerance of pain, so I'll end this little note here, unless I'm asked to clarify those dusty diffs you've dredged up.I'm not in the business of persuasion. But since my bona fides is under perennial assault, I will defend myself against the imputation that my ethics are suspect. Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not trying to "get" you and I am not interested in ANI or AE relating to this matter as I personally don't see a problem with calling out bias where appropriate (there are many reasons why Debresser could have been banned, but this shouldn't have been one of them). What I was pointing out is that you do "cast aspersions" despite your apparent claim not to. I'm not sure why you needed to produce the wall of text in response, unless it is a distraction/bludgeoning technique? All joking aside, you seriously need to cut down on the size of your replies as they're verging on being unreadable. Number 5 7 14:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

(a)Well, I think you should document where I have cast aspersions since my return to Misplaced Pages after a month in porridge. For, to say it is 'typical' of me to do so is to assert I have this as a character trait, which persists in the face of a sanction. SJ interpreted my remark above (everyone here has bias, everyone has a POV, everyone in the I/P area is, willy nilly, seen to side predominantly with one of the two parts of the equation, and all this is acceptable, as long as those editors hew closely to policy) as aspersive. I thought it a statement of the obvious. If you agree with his charge, then articulate/construe my remarks to show me why they could be read as a personal attack. Above all, calling out bias is fine, if it is generic. It is dubious if a single editor in a field is marked out as prejudiced, the implication being contrafactual, since that editor is not alone, but by being singled out, is being contested as unacceptably biased. As to WP:TLDR, there are 4 reasons for this. (a)I read about 150 pages a day, and don't believe we are better informed if we adopt the stringency of twitter - that reduces everything to an opinion, reasons requiring articulacy; (b) Since I am so frequently dragged in conversations that I think tedious, I can only motivate myself to reply by playing with language; (c) no one is obliged to read me, or anyone else - so it is not an imposition; (d) I was once scorned by a banned editor, for insisting on 'honourable' behavior (rather than bickering). I think honour is important, and if it is disparaged (not in your case- we disagree and I believe you dislike me (that too is acceptable), but our conflicts are conducted rationally) then I will defend mine at length, and that of anyone else who displays scruple and care, and gets arraigned as just a biased editor.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

First, this is not the forum to complain about editor behaviour: use WP:AE for complaints. By the same token, Nishidani should stop defending themselves against charges made in an inappropriate forum.

Second, anyone who edits in the I/P area can see that there do exist "camps", if only in a statistical sense. I would guess that if you do a simple regression analysis based on the usernames, you could predict the votes in RfCs and AfDs probably 90% of the time. The reasons for this state of affairs are many and I don't want to go into them here. I do not agree that it is productive to "call out" the behavior wherever one finds it: such things often serve only to inflame and divert the discussion, though a comment here and there is probably inevitable. Overall, one should focus on content and not argue about editors too much. If the POV-pushing behaviour is egregious, one can report people to AE, otherwise I suggest people just let it go. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, WP:ASPERSIONS has evolved quite markedly during the last few years. I have seen several blocked for violating it in the IP area, but up until now it has always been for hinting/saying that some "new" editor is a sock, outside the CU pages. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What KingsIndian said. I don't want to hear any more of this here.

@Huldra: The problem here is treating[REDACTED] as a battleground - the first step in the battle is defining who's on which side. GoldenRing (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for AE ping

I would have used the thank you function, but revdel seems to remove that button. Cheers, Samsara 04:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: Thanks. I'm not exactly clear why those revisions have been oversighted - I didn't think there was anything terribly outrageous in them, just a malformed request, which was reverted, and then a better formed request, which I closed. Any ideas? (Without spilling the beans, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No idea, but it looks like KrakatoaKatie would be the person to ask. Samsara 10:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The filer did not realize how much info would be revealed with his IP address and asked for it to be suppressed. Katie 11:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. GoldenRing (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Friendly criticism

Hi GoldenRing. You've been doing great work. This comment strikes me as unnecessary, though. All editors are welcome to try appealing, and this is hardly the most egregious topic ban violation around. I don't think the tone of your comment was particularly helpful in fostering a more positive interaction between this editor and the community going forward. You may wish to avoid that tone in the future. ~ Rob₁₃ 03:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@BY Rob13: Good call. I let frustration at what increasingly appears to be a minor case of suicide-by-admin get the better of me. I don't like blocking productive editors; when they explicitly ask whether an edit is okay, then make it anyway, what are you supposed to do? GoldenRing (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The block was good. It's best just not to let the frustration show, because it tends to lead to escalation. ~ Rob₁₃ 13:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Sorry for the buggered up ping, too. GoldenRing (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted clerk action

Thought you'd want to see this: ~ Rob₁₃ 15:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Um, I'm sure he's watching the ANI discussion, but wouldn't it be a good idea to formalise his restriction on his talk page? Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Rubin

I assume you'll be informing Rubin of his restrictions? Only you closed that thread a short while ago and no warning to him? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling man: All right, all right, I'm getting there. I've logged it first, m'kay? GoldenRing (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Bah, buggered up ping @The Rambling Man: and @Black Kite: as well. GoldenRing (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, just checking - I've forgotten to do it myself in the past! Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Rubin again

Thoughts on his recent edits, including this one: ? It's gaming the system to me, and honestly it's skirting the ban that was set down at AN/I. Wanted your $.02 on it though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I would allow that edit. The restriction was specifically phrased to exclude "edits" related to the Arbitration case request, broadly construed, not pages, and the discussion covered the case of edits to user talk pages related to the case request in some detail; the phrasing of the restriction was intended to cover this sort of thing. That said, why AR is asking people to copy stuff to ANI for him is rather a puzzle, since the restriction allows him to edit there freely (now that I think of it - a restriction a that encourages ANI participation? Was that wise?) GoldenRing (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's pure gaming since he can edit ANI himself. The CBAN is a waste of time if these infractions are dealt with appropriately. I suggest it's removed entirely as it's not worth the "paper it's written on", and it appears that "broadly construed" can mean anything to anyone, so the restriction is actually utterly ineffectual. Rubin had already, somewhat arrogantly, made a dozen or more content related edits rather than fixing the damage he'd done with his NPAs, after his recovery from his fever. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

To be honest his asking to have someone copy and paste something to ANI is the same as the "illness". It's dodging the issue. His actions warrant a block in my opinion, but it's an opinion that isn't seen by many. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

He's canvassing, and trying to reinforce that "I can't edit from my mobile phone" thing, despite claiming to be a high-tech engineer with a super-duper high-skilled background. The block was overwhelmingly supported at ANI, as was desysop, but bureaucracy got in the way, and now it's an Arbcom toy, the result is inevitably heavily weighted in favour of the highly skilled maths genius versus the rogue, desysoped, shamed minion. Expect him to be "admonished" and me to be "sanctioned further" for antagonising a genius or some such fabrication. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, the terms of the restriction are what they are. If you don't like how I closed the discussion, take it to AN for review. But IMO his edits so far today fall within the restriction. Is claiming he doesn't know how select text on his phone ridiculous? Yes. Is it a violation of the ban? I don't think so. So go add the diff to the evidence at arbcom and get on with something useful (in my case, sleep - goodnight). GoldenRing (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No point, thanks anyway. The only way this case had legs was if the community had the balls to do something about it. Arbcom will just steam roller it and divert it to being about TRM. Oh well, sleep well. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 13 years ago...

Hey, GoldenRing. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Thanks for the notification, and my apologies for misreading your intentions. GoldenRing (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That's OK, I'm sure this can be sorted without too much drama. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on Russian Interference Talk Page

I said I'm not going to hand out sanctions for this sort of bickering. Take this somewhere else, if you think it's got legs. If you need a hint, arbitration enforcement is thataway. GoldenRing (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi GoldenRing. This is an issue I brought to NeilN, but it appears that they're on vacation. Here's what I wrote to NeilN: MPants_at_work has been making an escalating series of personal attacks at Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Remove_all_mention_of_wikileaks_from_the_lead. After being admonished by MelanieN, MPants even threw in this little ditty. As you know, this article is under discretionary sanctions. I don't feel that as an editor there, I should have to put up with this sort of abuse, and am requesting some sort of sanction, as you see appropriate, against MPants. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Sigh. User:MPants at work / User:MjolnirPants, you know better than this. What gives? GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Check the section Thuc linked to, above. We never interacted in that section (and indeed, !voted the same way). This is, in fact, quite telling because of the name of the section Thuc linked to. In fact, we interacted in the section above it, where I stated that I believed Assange's denial should be removed from the lead. Thuc replied to a comment in which I specifically said I wasn't contending that all mention of Wikileaks should be removed from the lede by arguing against the position I'd explicitly denied taking (see the name of the section Thuc linked to, above). I later explained again that I wasn't taking the position he was so vociferously arguing against. Then, after my second explanation, he persisted in making a much, much worse argument against the position he refused to accept I didn't hold. At that point I made a value judgement on the qualities of his argument, and added explicitly that I was not applying that judgement to Thuc personally. I then went on to reinforce that position in a further explanatory comment. Yet here we are, with Thuc still not understanding either the nature of my argument in that thread, nor understand that I meant what I literally said, not what they seem to have read into it. As I said to MelanieN, if someone takes issue with my choice of loaded words, that's a fair criticism. Indeed, in retrospect, I would have to agree with it. But the notion that I insulted Thuc is rather ridiculous, when I was going out of my way to explain that I found their arguments to be utterly beneath them and not just believed, but knew them to be capable of better. This is, in fact, a repeating pattern with Thuc. They've previously argued with me when I was agreeing with them because they assume that I'm disagreeing with them. I've seen them do it to others, as well. There's also an element of bludgeoning: I've barely been able to participate in a discussion on that talk page without Thuc voicing their vociferous disagreement with whatever they think I said since I first started editing the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC) As to the pattern of Thucydides411's behavior, I agree with Mpants that there's a long history of battleground, uncivil and other disruptive behavior on these American Politics articles. Thucidides has been given Arbcom Enforcement blocks at least twice. He characteristically denies the validity of the blocks, and resumes his behavior. He responds to Admin guidance with rationalizations and attacks. GoldenRing, I acknowledge you're under no obligation to sort through all this, and I think that it would be much better process for Thucydides (if he still wishes to pursue the matter) to take his concern to AE where there can be an orderly discussion without any burden on a single Admin. Nevertheless, in case you choose to handle Thucydides complaint here I am giving a few links that demonstrate the pattern of his behavior over an extended period. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NeilN/Archive_38#AE_Question https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Neutrality#Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NeilN#AE_again https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Thucydides411#3RR_applies_to_talk_pages_too https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Thucydides411&oldid=756975796#Your_comment As to MPants, I find him thoughtful, openminded, occasionally quirky, but always tirelessly collaborative with no ideological or personal biases. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC) All this from SPECIFICO and MPants, who spent most of yesterday trying to convince me that the September 11 terrorist attacks, which murdered 3,000 people with hijacked airplanes, could or should be reasonably compared with email and speech leaks. I find SPECIFICO's contributions to the page over the last 8 months to be almost universally inflammatory, often incomprehensible, and biased in the extreme. They've also turned my talk page into an unprecedented war zone and twice accused me of misogyny - behavior I'd never encountered before in my six years here - after I brought up their block record for "creating an unappealing editing environment" in response to another one of their accusations on my talk page. If SPECIFICO finds MPants to be "thoughtful" and "openminded," "with no ideological or personal biases," given their behavior bordering on harassment this compliment looks to me like a smear. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC) All this from SPECIFICO and MPants, who spent most of yesterday trying to convince me that the September 11 terrorist attacks, which murdered 3,000 people with hijacked airplanes, could or should be reasonably compared with email and speech leaks. Speaking of untrue... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Well GoldenRing can come to their own conclusion based on the discussion here. I am still amazed you both struggled to defend such an absurd analogy, intended to show how Wikileaks' publication of leaked documents is a minor detail in this story. -Darouet (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I'm still amazed that you would continue to accuse the guy who first argued against the analogy of "struggling to defend" it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC) That's how you (reasonably) began that thread, but not how you ended it, weirdly. And as to SPECIFICO's behavior at my page and elsewhere, I think this is a fair summary. How are we supposed to maintain a collegial editing environment in this context? After months of this kind of behavior it's more difficult than threading a camel through a needle. -Darouet (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC) No, in fact I ended the thread by stating that I had "shot down" the analogy. here's the diff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Oh, my God, go away, the lot of you. User:MPants at work, I'm not the first admin to object to the comments that ended here. So tone it down. The rest of you, take this somewhere else if you think it's got legs. I'm not handing out sanctions for this sort of bickering. GoldenRing (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC) LOL Gotcha. I will ensure that I maintain an appropriate level of political correctness with Thucydides in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I expected there to be a lot of bickering whenever a complaint is made against another editor, but that doesn't justify looking the other way. MPants made a number of very offensive personal attacks, and even escalated after being told by MelanieN not to do so. I think that deserves a sanction, rather than a "Sigh ... what gives"? As an editor, I shouldn't be subjected to these sorts of personal attacks, and letting them just go by sends out a message that it's perfectly okay. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I said I'm not going to hand out sanctions for this sort of bickering. Take this somewhere else, if you think it's got legs. If you need a hint, arbitration enforcement is thataway. GoldenRing (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi GoldenRing. This is an issue I brought to NeilN, but it appears that they're on vacation. Here's what I wrote to NeilN: MPants_at_work has been making an escalating series of personal attacks at Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Remove_all_mention_of_wikileaks_from_the_lead. After being admonished by MelanieN, MPants even threw in this little ditty. As you know, this article is under discretionary sanctions. I don't feel that as an editor there, I should have to put up with this sort of abuse, and am requesting some sort of sanction, as you see appropriate, against MPants. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. User:MPants at work / User:MjolnirPants, you know better than this. What gives? GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Check the section Thuc linked to, above. We never interacted in that section (and indeed, !voted the same way). This is, in fact, quite telling because of the name of the section Thuc linked to.

In fact, we interacted in the section above it, where I stated that I believed Assange's denial should be removed from the lead. Thuc replied to a comment in which I specifically said I wasn't contending that all mention of Wikileaks should be removed from the lede by arguing against the position I'd explicitly denied taking (see the name of the section Thuc linked to, above). I later explained again that I wasn't taking the position he was so vociferously arguing against. Then, after my second explanation, he persisted in making a much, much worse argument against the position he refused to accept I didn't hold. At that point I made a value judgement on the qualities of his argument, and added explicitly that I was not applying that judgement to Thuc personally. I then went on to reinforce that position in a further explanatory comment. Yet here we are, with Thuc still not understanding either the nature of my argument in that thread, nor understand that I meant what I literally said, not what they seem to have read into it.

As I said to MelanieN, if someone takes issue with my choice of loaded words, that's a fair criticism. Indeed, in retrospect, I would have to agree with it. But the notion that I insulted Thuc is rather ridiculous, when I was going out of my way to explain that I found their arguments to be utterly beneath them and not just believed, but knew them to be capable of better.

This is, in fact, a repeating pattern with Thuc. They've previously argued with me when I was agreeing with them because they assume that I'm disagreeing with them. I've seen them do it to others, as well. There's also an element of bludgeoning: I've barely been able to participate in a discussion on that talk page without Thuc voicing their vociferous disagreement with whatever they think I said since I first started editing the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As to the pattern of Thucydides411's behavior, I agree with Mpants that there's a long history of battleground, uncivil and other disruptive behavior on these American Politics articles. Thucidides has been given Arbcom Enforcement blocks at least twice. He characteristically denies the validity of the blocks, and resumes his behavior. He responds to Admin guidance with rationalizations and attacks. GoldenRing, I acknowledge you're under no obligation to sort through all this, and I think that it would be much better process for Thucydides (if he still wishes to pursue the matter) to take his concern to AE where there can be an orderly discussion without any burden on a single Admin. Nevertheless, in case you choose to handle Thucydides complaint here I am giving a few links that demonstrate the pattern of his behavior over an extended period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NeilN/Archive_38#AE_Question

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Neutrality#Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NeilN#AE_again

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Thucydides411#3RR_applies_to_talk_pages_too

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Thucydides411&oldid=756975796#Your_comment

As to MPants, I find him thoughtful, openminded, occasionally quirky, but always tirelessly collaborative with no ideological or personal biases. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

All this from SPECIFICO and MPants, who spent most of yesterday trying to convince me that the September 11 terrorist attacks, which murdered 3,000 people with hijacked airplanes, could or should be reasonably compared with email and speech leaks. I find SPECIFICO's contributions to the page over the last 8 months to be almost universally inflammatory, often incomprehensible, and biased in the extreme. They've also turned my talk page into an unprecedented war zone and twice accused me of misogyny - behavior I'd never encountered before in my six years here - after I brought up their block record for "creating an unappealing editing environment" in response to another one of their accusations on my talk page. If SPECIFICO finds MPants to be "thoughtful" and "openminded," "with no ideological or personal biases," given their behavior bordering on harassment this compliment looks to me like a smear. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

All this from SPECIFICO and MPants, who spent most of yesterday trying to convince me that the September 11 terrorist attacks, which murdered 3,000 people with hijacked airplanes, could or should be reasonably compared with email and speech leaks. Speaking of untrue... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Well GoldenRing can come to their own conclusion based on the discussion here. I am still amazed you both struggled to defend such an absurd analogy, intended to show how Wikileaks' publication of leaked documents is a minor detail in this story. -Darouet (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still amazed that you would continue to accuse the guy who first argued against the analogy of "struggling to defend" it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That's how you (reasonably) began that thread, but not how you ended it, weirdly. And as to SPECIFICO's behavior at my page and elsewhere, I think this is a fair summary. How are we supposed to maintain a collegial editing environment in this context? After months of this kind of behavior it's more difficult than threading a camel through a needle. -Darouet (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No, in fact I ended the thread by stating that I had "shot down" the analogy. here's the diff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my God, go away, the lot of you. User:MPants at work, I'm not the first admin to object to the comments that ended here. So tone it down. The rest of you, take this somewhere else if you think it's got legs. I'm not handing out sanctions for this sort of bickering. GoldenRing (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

LOL Gotcha. I will ensure that I maintain an appropriate level of political correctness with Thucydides in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I expected there to be a lot of bickering whenever a complaint is made against another editor, but that doesn't justify looking the other way. MPants made a number of very offensive personal attacks, and even escalated after being told by MelanieN not to do so. I think that deserves a sanction, rather than a "Sigh ... what gives"? As an editor, I shouldn't be subjected to these sorts of personal attacks, and letting them just go by sends out a message that it's perfectly okay. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You know, I'm actually pretty offended by the way you've handled this. MPants was pretty blatantly offensive on the talk page, in a way that goes beyond normal "bickering." The message, which MPants themselves seems to have gotten loud and clear ("LOL Gotcha"), is that it's fine for them to personally attack me. I frankly don't want to go to the AE kangaroo court, where everyone who differs with me on content questions will come give their 2 cents, and admins will again throw up their hands and ask for an end to the "bickering." -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Then let me spell it out: In my opinion, what MPants wrote is below what we expect of editors here but did not rise to the level of sanctions. If you don't like my opinion on that, ask another admin. GoldenRing (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It's good to know that calling another editor a "moron" and an "idiot" doesn't rise to the level of a sanctionable personal attack. I'm sure that standard will be consistently applied to editors from across the political spectrum. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, GoldenRing. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is IRC?.
Message added 15:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 15:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:AE#Wickey-nl

It looks like you blocked the reporting editor instead of the topic-banned user. Sandstein 16:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Yep. I buggered that one up. Fixed now, except the poor user's otherwise-clean block log. GoldenRing (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Bot Shut Down

Hey GoldenRing, I think User:Filedelinkerbot might need an emergency shutoff. I saw you were active, it was removing things from the commons issues. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 06:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Is this the Daphne Lantier thing? It looks like the bot hasn't done anything for half an hour - is there some particular concern you have? GoldenRing (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't sure how the bot worked, if it worked in waves or if it was instant. So wasn't sure if it was going to start removing images again. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 06:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: TBH, neither am I. I've blocked and will drop a note at the bot's talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for the great work in general. Alex Shih 07:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GoldenRing reported by User:Twitbookspacetube (Result: ). Thank you. Twitbook space tube 12:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Re your comment at RFaR

There is Sydney, Nova Scotia :) Martinp (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Get Ye Back With Thy Low Wit :)

Heh :) thanks very much for this GoldenRing. But I just wanted to check you were joking (again). Wisdom indeed! I'd like to see that seconded. Wot I said about templates previously was just a throw-away comment about ANI notifications, you know, fucntionary tools, not the same as abuse of templates as we saw in the recent case. Even so your 'low-witted' reply cracked me up. Brilliantly understated! Anyway, just saying that you don't need to feel you had done anything wrong in the second case as it was completely different to the first. And it was, I think the correct and- even- a restrained response. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 06:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. 😀 GoldenRing (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a suggestion...

...but you might want to take a second look at your close of the QuackGuru topic ban. I think there was more support for Ian.thomson's narrowing than you you indicated. No worries if I'm wrong, but it won't hurt for you to confirm that the "broadly construed" version was the most supported version.

Thanks for your very good work patrolling the noticeboards, it is appreciated. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I'll have a look tomorrow. It's been a good night... GoldenRing (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: My apologies that this has taken me another day to get back to - I got caught up in other matters yesterday. On a simple nose-count, I make it 10-7 in favour of the broadly construed topic ban, with one editor supporting a ban but expressing no opinion on which version. There were also a number of editors who supported going further, with some supporting a site ban and some an extension of the topic ban and I think it's reasonable to count at least the 'site ban' supports as supporting a broad topic ban if the site ban proposal failed. But what really swayed me was the evident change in some editors' thinking through the discussion. S. Marshall in particular struck his early comments and changed his !vote, but even Ian Thomson went from his proposal to "If you are not willing to (or worse, cannot) consider what any other member of the community has to say except when it's backing you up, you do not belong on a collaborative project" in the course of that discussion. Some other editors changed from supporting a topic ban to supporting a site ban.

That's my thinking behind my assessment of consensus there. I don't object at all to you querying this and I'd be happy, if you have further thoughts, to hear them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No, nothing further. My thanks for taking the time to go through the close again and explaining your thinking to me. As you lay it out, your close seems quite reasonable - in particular, I wan't taking into account the change of heart by S.Marshall and Ian.Thomson, so my subjective feeling about the trend of the discussion never got altered. Thanks again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Word count at both cases

It seems that multiple users are transgressing the 500-word limit, and aren't even being advised/warned. Two of them, at least, are admins. Is there a reason they're not being notified that they're in violation of the rules applied stringently to one or two of the rest of us? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: We're reasonably tolerant of going slightly over the limit; even {{ArbCom evidence length header}} doesn't complain up to 10% over, and we generally start prodding people at 20% over. I've asked Snow Rise to trim their statement but otherwise I don't have any immediate concerns. I see in the page history that you have had to trim responses from your statement; since you're named as a party, you could have requested that the limit be relaxed and this would normally be granted. Would you like me to take that up with the committee? GoldenRing (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, there's no point, the committee have aleady made it clear that they are more than satisfied with the current state of affairs and that threads of conversations can be post-edited, or even removed. To limit the ability of anyone to respond to pinged comments seems completely unreasonable, but I suppose it's worse than ever on this case since it's been quorate for weeks now with no sign of any progress in the case. And unless I'm wrong, at least one of those admins has gone beyond 500 words by nearly 200. But hey ho, no such thing as a level playing field. And, for what it's worth, the "August" and "Wikimania" excuses are running far too thin now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I'm recused from the Arthur Rubin case, so won't do anything there on-wiki, but I'll prod the clerks privately to do something about AR's statement (I make it 632 words - I don't count timestamps). I note that your statement there is still over the 500 limit, though not by enough for anyone to do anything about it. On the Winhunter case, I see BU Rob13's statement at 578 words and Ivanvector's at 521 - neither enough to normally trigger clerk action. Snow Rise's is 630 and, as I said above, I've asked them to trim it. Is there anything else that I'm missing? GoldenRing (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No it's fine. When my statement was merely templated, I wasn't aware of all the various allowances that were being made to various people. I'll happily delete sentences (every other one perhaps) from my statement, it's all a little academic really since we reached the required number of accepting Arbs a couple of weeks ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona)

They're all news reports about ongoing events, as far as I could see. Was one of them purely retrospective? Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: No, so far as I know they are all news reports. BLPPRIMARY doesn't discuss the use of current news reports. I'm also not clear exactly what BLP concerns you have; the text as I added it doesn't identify anyone involved (previous versions were very clear BLP violations). I'm not going to re-insert it (I don't care that much), but I think you're being over-cautious. GoldenRing (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. News reports are primary sources for the events in question. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Closed means closed

Yeah, I said as much once after my nac was ignored. I was heckled into retreat, and I didn't see you or anybody else there defending my position. It is not the bright line that you claim it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which previous situation you're referring to; I'm sorry I wasn't there. There is a difference between reverting a close and editing a closed discussion and Flyer22 is becoming frankly disruptive, even just in the context of that discussion, ignoring whatever you think of the BLP discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you weren't there too. Other admins were obviously there. As for Flayer22, what I was about to say before you closed was this: Anybody is free to propose something, in a separate subsection, whether it's a sanction or just some kind of censure. I would oppose. Any other such comments are a waste of space and are themselves disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly ordinary?

Hi GoldenRing. I hope you're having a good week. Regarding this comment, I believe your suggestion that it was "a perfectly ordinary discretionary sanctions notice" may indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "perfectly ordinary". If you meant that it fit a longstanding pattern, then you're quite right. However, I don't think that the normalization of such behavior is wise; it should be anything but ordinary. I have no way of knowing how deeply you probed before making the comment, but there is a lengthy history of threats involving the administrator and the editor in question, following content disputes. In the context of the totality of that history, I believe that the administrator's "warnings", while perhaps within the letter of policy, were ill-advised and did not conform to the community's expectations for optimal administrator conduct. I therefore also believe that the editor's remarks at ANI were completely understandable and actually quite reasonable. Context is important. In the unlikely event that an editor as experienced and diligent as the one in question needs reminding about a particular policy, there are hundreds of uninvolved, active administrators on the project who are capable of issuing a friendly reminder. Rivertorch_WATER 14:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I can see how it might look that way. However, in controversial topic areas, these alerts are absolutely perfectly ordinary and policy deliberately protects the right of any editor, no matter how involved, to give them. They imply no wrongdoing and the only weight they have is that discretionary sanctions cannot be applied to an editor who has not received one (with some exceptions). I was frankly surprised to see that Flyer22 had not already received an alert to BLP DS. GoldenRing (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I was not aware of this when I wrote the above (though I was pinged in the discussion, somehow it got lost) but what prompted User:John to issue the notifications he did is in fact perfectly clear - he was told to do so by a sitting arb. GoldenRing (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that before I posted the above. You read it as "he was told to do so". I read it as he was reminded of the proper sequence of events in discretionary sanction enforcement. I wasn't aware that arbs were in the habit of issuing orders to admins on the talk pages of third parties—I can't imagine someone as conscientious as that arb doing such a thing, at any rate—but many aspects of the world have become unrecognizable to me of late, and I guess Misplaced Pages isn't immune from it. In any event, I already conceded that the warnings were within the letter of policy. But expecting an admin merely to meet the letter of policy is setting the bar too low, in my opinion. Good adminship means being sensitive to context, taking care to avoid the appearance of involvement, and avoiding dumping fuel on a fire. People skills, in other words. Rivertorch_WATER 05:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

MRV close

Thanks for your work on these: they get chronically backlogged so I appreciate your taking the time. On Talk:Damn (Kendrick Lamar album) would you consider wording the result similar to your close: since they main question was whether to endorse or overturn to no consensus, a simple "no consensus" banner might be a bit confusing. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Done - it's a fair point! FWIW, I personally agree with your original close, but can't close the MRV discussion on that basis. GoldenRing (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, of course. I wouldn't expect anything otherwise. I'm not sure if you've ever dealt with RMs before, but the previous close actually tends to be taken into account more than at other discussion forums (for better or worse). I zero opinion on this article title myself (hence why I closed it). I just want to make things clearer for the inevitable 2nd RM and those participants/the next closer. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Minorca

Hey GoldenRing. Just wanted to give you a heads up that I refactored a couple of your edits/comments on Talk:Minorca. The placement of your comments broke the way User:RMCD bot posts move discussions on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. For the bot, {{relisting}} must go immediately after the timestamp left by the nominator in their nomination statement. Also, the nomination statement must go directly after the {{requested move/dated}}; otherwise, the nomination statement will appear as whatever is the top-most comment with a timestamp after it. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

MD KD

Thank you for declining the A7, my eyes must have played a trick on me and I somehow missed the "... topped in Northern India" claim when I read the article. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

→== False accusations ==

This comment contains numerous false accusations. You have not provided diffs to support ANY of the accusations you make. As an admin you should know better than to cast WP:ASPERSIONS on others, since that constitutes personal attacks. Please strike all the nonsense about "outright falsehoods" and calling IPs vandals or "gaming protection levels".

Honestly, I find your comment to be extremely ... I'm just gonna say "wrong" here. Volunteer Marek 21:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I have responded at ANI. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

For anyone who comes here looking for me, I'll be offline for the next approx ten hours. GoldenRing (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Right. Typical abusive admin behavior. Screw something up. Refuse to back down. Go run and hide while the wronged party suffers. This is horrible behavior from an admin. How about fixing the mess you made first? Volunteer Marek 21:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

AN/I closure

Thank you for your close of this AN/I discussion. Without that action, I suspect the initiator and the 3 like-minded editors would be re-re-repeating their accusations and bumping that thread every 71 hours until they achieved a successful lynching. I cannot claim to know what exact considerations and evaluations led you to conclude, "No-one has suggested any action that has any hope of gaining consensus, so I am closing this", but needless to say I came to the same conclusion for several reasons.

What brings me to your Talk page, however, is this warning you added to your closing statement: User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you think you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them. I am asking you to please consider striking that part of your statement. Why? Because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened, and that AN/I discussion (and your closure of it) is going to be referenced in other proceedings. To be sure, several other editors and even Admins did argue on my behalf that my edits were "right", and "correct" and had "the moral high ground", so perhaps that is what prompted your warning? Please understand that I never spoke those words (even if I agree with them), nor did I ever claim that reasoning as a justification for edit warring. And I certainly didn't claim any "exemption from the edit warring policy" for my edits. Your remark strongly implies I took that position, which I never did. The message in your warning that "being right isn't justification" is 100% accurate, I don't dispute that at all, but the warning itself is inapplicable in this situation, and sends what I feel is the wrong message to readers of your closing statement. I hope you will consider my request.

Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't catch this earlier, but your little editorial insertion: "and even less for when you think you are right (italics emphasis yours)", strikes me as unnecessarily provocative -- it goes beyond what our EW policy states, and instead appears intended to convey an unsubstantiated personal judgement of yours. You didn't think that might be just a little bit offensive? Anyway, I'll take your silence in this matter as your response to my request. I'll pursue this elsewhere and won't bother you further. Thank you for your time, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: My apologies for not responding sooner. I'm happy to at least discuss this. Perhaps, without re-litigating the whole ANI thread, you could state why you were edit-warring? GoldenRing (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday new violation

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Hillbillyholiday_Editing_Restriction_Violation_.28again.29

You seem to have previous experience with this situation, so could you give your opinions on this new violation of the editing restrictions? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:04, 10 September 2017 editXenophrenic (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits +cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:10, 10 September 2017 edit undoGoldenRing (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,924 edits →AN/I closure Next edit →
Line 515:		Line 515:

	I didn't catch this earlier, but your little editorial insertion: "{{xt\|and even less for when you ''think'' you are right}} (italics emphasis yours)", strikes me as unnecessarily provocative -- it goes beyond what our ] states, and instead appears intended to ] of yours. You didn't think that might be just a little bit offensive? Anyway, I'll take your silence in this matter as your response to my request. I'll pursue this elsewhere and won't bother you further. Thank you for your time, ] (]) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)		I didn't catch this earlier, but your little editorial insertion: "{{xt\|and even less for when you ''think'' you are right}} (italics emphasis yours)", strikes me as unnecessarily provocative -- it goes beyond what our ] states, and instead appears intended to ] of yours. You didn't think that might be just a little bit offensive? Anyway, I'll take your silence in this matter as your response to my request. I'll pursue this elsewhere and won't bother you further. Thank you for your time, ] (]) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

			{{re\|Xenophrenic}} My apologies for not responding sooner. I'm happy to at least discuss this. Perhaps, without re-litigating the whole ANI thread, you could state why you were edit-warring? ] (]) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

	== Hillbillyholiday new violation ==		== Hillbillyholiday new violation ==