Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

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

Be Bold!

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

Outstanding contributions recognition

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

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

Keep up the great work! :)

Lourdes

email

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

Yo Ho Ho

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave closed

I have just closed the above AE appeal [1]. With all respect for your opinion and you administrative actions, I believe consensus goes in the other direction, and I will now restore the page you deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I've just come back from a week on holiday to find this. Can I ask how you came to this decision? On my reading of the comments at AE, there were two admins who favoured declining this portion of the appeal (regentspark and MastCell) one who couldn't make up her mind (Bishonen) and one who suggested deferring to the consensus at DRV (Floq). The only admin who supported overturning on the merits was DGG, on the basis that the deletion was out of process; you and EdJohnston supported overturning "based on the apparent consensus of admins in this thread" (to quote Ed). Since when does one admin make a consensus? Additionally, that one admin has been proved wrong; the motions at ARCA that would have made the deletion out of process have failed and the motion that clarifies that the DRV was out of process (as I always said it was) has a majority and will be enacted tomorrow morning (assuming support votes are not changed before then). So I think your close is wrong, both on the its assessment of consensus and on questions of policy & procedure. Can I ask you please to reconsider? GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. I read MastCell and Regentspark as no strong opinion, Bishonen as overturn (but she is involved), Floquenbeam, DGG, and EdJohnston as overturn. But I also count the DRV votes as support of restoration (the deletion review has not been implemented only because of the potential conflict with the arbitration enforcement). To be honest, even if I unclose it, I do not see it being deleted as a result (and ArbCom is still debating what one can do at all). I think if you want the page deleted, MfD is a much better option.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Arbcom are not still debating what is allowed; two motions that would have forbidden or restricted AE deletion are at absolute majorities against and one that forbids review of AE deletion at DRV is at an absolute majority in support. If you want to wait the 24 hours for the motion to be enacted and the request archived then fine, but I still don't see how you're comfortable with overturning the action on the basis of the DRV and one admin's opinion that AE deletion is forbidden. As for your reading of admins' comments, Bishonen says, "I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind." How on earth do you count that as a vote to overturn? That, to my mind, is a "no strong opinion." regentspark explicitly said that it was "within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part" - that is the normal form of words for endorsing an action in AE appeals so how do you count it as "no strong opinion"? MastCell uses a similar form of words. And lastly, the standard of review at AE is "the clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE" - how do the opinions of editors at an out-of-process DRV come into it? GoldenRing (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will unclose it and let another admin dealing with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question re RfC & userspace etc.

Hi GoldenRing, much appreciated your comment[2] at ANI re the recent RfC on alt-med and COI. Could you tell me what made you say "Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly ... if their user page is at all indicative of their approach to sourcing regarding acupuncture, I'd say they were on thin ice"? Thanks, Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC); ce 21:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC); chg header, fmt 22:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: made a usertalk edit for clarity, fwiw: [3] --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 22:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Middle 8: On your userpage, you source the statement "At the same time, some patients with chronic pain get some benefit from acupuncture, so it's used in certain settings, including major academic medical centers," to two studies, neither of which say anything about patients benefiting from acupuncture and one of which says in its abstract, "a close examination of the methodologies indicates that, from a standpoint of basic science, the vast majority of 'integrative' treatments are supported by little, if any, scientific evidence." The sources do not support the statement. You go on to say, "In fact, the National Academy of Medicine -- you don't get better than them as a source -- says acupuncture is a "powerful tool" in pain management." But the source you are citing is a National Academy of Medicine text on opioid use and over-use in pain management which - as far as I can tell - makes a single off-hand remark that lumps acupuncture in with a wide range of other alternative therapies. If these are the types of sources that back your position on acupuncture, I'm not surprised that it "has tended to make [you] unpopular among editors who are convinced that acupuncture is useless quackery and cannot tolerate an article that suggests it's not" because I would absolutely agree with them. I haven't looked through your acupuncture edits in detail so I don't know if this is representative of your editing in this area, which is why I qualified my statement at ANI and leave it qualified here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to comment. A clarification and a correction:
  • Since it's userspace, I'm not citing every statement, including the one about chronic pain. Rather, those first two sources are for the assertion that acu is used in academic medical centers (which is what the article cites them for). That said, the assertion that acu treatment is helpful compared to no-acu-treatment is well-supported, from e.g. Mayo Clinic's blurbsee § Results to an IPD meta analysis.see § Interpretation As a matter of general interest, regarding acu in practice, User:WhatamIdoing made a great comment[4] at the RfC, part of an illustrative exchange with User:JzG-aka-Guy under my "ask the US National Academies" comment.
  • The National Academy of Medicine statement is not offhand: what I quoted was only from a summary introduction. Detailed discussion is in Chapter Two, the very first sentence of which says the chapter has two purposes, the second of which is "the effectiveness of pharmacologic (both opioid and nonopioid) and nonpharmacologic treatments".[5] Seven non-pharm treatments (both conventional and alt-med, including acu) are discussed in a section[6] that follows, with acu having its own short subsection (with an overview of its +'s, -'s and ?'s efficacy-wise), and then a conclusion/summary. It's not offhand, but at the same time I certainly don't claim it's a slam-dunk endorsement: their "powerful tool" characterization is significantly qualified, but it does weigh with regard to acu's mainstream support.
-- Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 13:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC); minor clarification & wl 14:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC); clarify 15:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC) & 17:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC); tighten 15:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC) & 20:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Might as well include above sources, so.... [7]. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 15:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Middle 8: That does sort of reassure me. I do ask you to see it from an uninvolved admin's perspective, though: When a complaint is made, what we're basically trying to figure out is, is this person here to make the encyclopaedia better, or are they here to push a POV on acupuncture? When I load your userpage and find your statement of your position on acupuncture backed up by what look like very misleading sources, it immediately puts me in the mindset of dealing with a POV-pusher, not someone who's here to improve the encyclopaedia. Even the NAM source, you have linked to a page which says something very different to what you claim it says, even if some digging would have found something more reassuring elsewhere in the text.
Go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good advice, and I've improved the text. (Sorry for the overlong earlier reply that I blanked and replaced with this... wikistress and all.)
I do believe I deserve an answer to this. I'm not meaning to rush you; normally I would've waited for your reply here, but I didn't want the ANI thread to archive without at least my objection/question being included. Thanks. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 10:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...or was the rest of your comment due to the same concerns duscussed above? Sorry if I seem dense, but I can't address these concerns without grokking 'em. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 23:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck: again too voluble under wikistress. Onward w/ care. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 14:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications (April 2019)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:

All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

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

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

Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

I noticed a disagreement at User talk:Huldra#AE where Huldra asked who can place ARBPIA 1RR notices (is it admin only?). Checking led me to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction which you recently updated.

I'm wondering whether that update is complete. From permalink the motion seemed to also include the following:

The community is encouraged to place the ((ARBPIA 1RR editnotice)) on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

That is a key point with assertions that only admins can place the notice being made at Huldra's talk. Is that qualifier part of the motion and should be recorded in the index? Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question of great interest to me, and to indeed anyone who edits in the I/P area. Up until now, more than 90% of ((ARBPIA)) notices have been placed by non−admins. If we have to ask an admin to do this every time we see a need, then this will seriously increase the level of bureaucracy on Wikipedia. This can hardly be a good thing? Huldra (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a technical limitation in that edit notices may only be placed by template editors and admins. The decision at ARCA, per my understanding, was not to require admins to place this - this is simply a technical limitation regarding edit notices.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: I hadn't included this text because it's not part of the remedy. But since this is clearly a source of confusion, I've now added the extra text to the index. GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joefromrandb

Greetings, I am pretty sure that the ((banned user)) template is no longer necessary there as the ban lapsed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How comes it's invisible though? ——SerialNumber54129 08:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - thanks for the prod. GoldenRing (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Deliberate decision, communicated by Opabinia regalis Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JJE, that's rather clever. Thanks for the info. ——SerialNumber54129 09:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 fallout

FYI R2 (bleep) 22:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahrtoodeetoo: Could you explain to me, please, who am admittedly dull of brain and slow of learning, how calling another editor's actions a "cancer" (diff) is helpful? GoldenRing (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme battlegrounding and fostering an "us-versus-them" mentality, treating every dispute in AP as a partisan dispute, is terrible and widely recognized problem that spreads when not addressed. I suspect that's something you'd agree with and I needn't explain further. In this instance, I was simply calling out a good example of that problem and asking that the community do something about it--in the face of multiple editors who have been asking me why this is important. It was not meant as a personal attack against anyone, nor was it meant to demean cancer patients or survivors. The use of the word "cancer" in the non-medical sense is widely accepted and I believe appears in every major dictionary. For example, Merriam-Webster defines "cancer" in the non-medical context as "something evil or malignant that spreads destructively." I think it's appropriate and necessary to address such battlegrounding, and identifying it and the threat it poses to the project is an important part of that. R2 (bleep) 16:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahrtoodeetoo: Thank you for your kind explanation of the English language, that really was thoughtful. I did not ask why you did it, or what you meant by it, but how it was helpful. Now, let me explain to you: You are expected to work collaboratively and collegially with everyone. Carry on describing other editors as "something evil or malignant that spreads destructively" and I will ban you from AP2 myself. Consider this a formal warning. GoldenRing (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's listening, reasonable, fair, or consistent with the goals of the project. Like I said, I didn't call any editor a cancer, just specific behavior. If the community doesn't agree with me on that, then I'll be a monkey's uncle. And between the sarcasm laden snark, it would be nice if you could at least recognize my desire to make this a more collaborative environment. I guess that's pressing my luck. R2 (bleep) 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your follow-up edit, did I not explain how it was helpful? R2 (bleep) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You did not. GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To identify extreme battlegrounding behavior and to explain to other editors why addressing it is important. Did I not already mention that? R2 (bleep) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And do you think that helps you to edit collaboratively and collegially with Rusf10? Even supposing that identifying extreme battlegrounding behaviour and explaining to other editors why addressing it is important is a legitimate goal, calling it "cancer" is needlessly battlegrounding yourself. GoldenRing (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can the community not have a full and robust debate about battlegrounding? The "cancer" comment wasn't directed at Rusf10. I didn't say to them, "Your editing behavior is a cancer." I suspect we agree that would have been unduly provocative and counterproductive. I was responding to El_C by explaining that the "'us-versus-them' mentality" was a cancer. This was in direct response to El_C's comment that it was okay to compromise on such matters. I disagreed since I believe that what El_C was calling a "compromise" was not good for the project. My "cancer" comment was simply in aid of that, to say effectively, this is a serous problem that we as a community shoudn't be compromising on.
So to answer your question directly, do I think that my comment helped me edit collaboratively with Rusf10? No, but neither did it hurt it. Rusf10 has, in my view, consistently shown an inability to accept any sort of input from any editor unless it hews 100% to their political views, which is exactly the sort of attitude the community should try (and for the most part, is trying) to address. If they can be rehabilitated, then that would be great, and I support any and all efforts to do that. But that shouldn't prevent us from identifying a problem where it exists, nor from openly discussing such matters. R2 (bleep) 18:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way GoldenRing, I suspect that if you were to canvas participants in AP2 you'd find that most editors would say I'm one of the more collaboration-focused editors in the place, and that banning me for being intolerant of battlegrounging would be counterproductive. But of course that's just speculation, and you wouldn't know that yourself. Just something to think about. R2 (bleep) 17:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will sit on this for a day or so, but I'm considering taking this to ANI to assess whether your formal warning is consistent with community consensus. My concern is as follows. Should admins such as yourself be taking steps to prevent good faith efforts to combat battlegrounding? R2 (bleep) 17:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@R2, Please don't. I happen to think you're right about the "us-vs-them" mentality being bad for Wikipedia, but going to AN/I for something as insignificant as a warning isn't going to be a good use of anybody's time. It would be better if you just prove GoldenRing wrong about the BATTLEGROUND business by choosing not to fight the warning and moving on with normal editing. ~Awilley (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, I haven't decided, but I'd feel much better about not bringing it up with the community if I felt some reassurance that I won't be sanctioned the next time I call partisan battlegrounding a cancer or something similar. And an AP2 topic ban no less. Geesh. R2 (bleep) 19:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you really think GoldenRing's warning was insignificant? If you were sharing some political view in public and a police officer came up to you and said, "If you say that again, I'll arrest you," would you consider that insignificant? R2 (bleep) 21:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
R2, I think you're editing is refreshingly congenial on difficult pages. Realize that this isn't true of all editors. But, those that are destructive eventually get culled from the herd. That's the purpose of playing out WP:ROPE. Patience will out. O3000 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rope has a purpose, but keep in mind that the only difference between a halo and a noose is a few inches. R2's choice to sit on it was a good one. Atsme Talk 📧 02:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that GoldenRing will reconsider the warning now that the dust has settled, but I won't be taking the matter to ANI. Happy editing, everyone. R2 (bleep) 19:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thread on britishfinance.

Thanks for the ping. I hadn't been in the discussion for about a week, so just checked when I got the notification. I realise its wrong to do that without evidence. I had been building evidence of bias in the articles with the hopes of someone reviewing it later, but realise it may not be possible. I hadn't opened that discussion and just felt pressure to respond once it started, which was a mistake. Then, I wasn't sure the correct process to close it off. Just to confirm that I don't think there was any paid editing either and agree with the consensus. Anyway, thanks for closing it off. Renmap0o (talk 05:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Right-wing conspiracy" at RFAR

Have a look at the diff in my evidence. Edit: why don't I just put it here? [8] Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Winged Blades of Godric

Hello, GoldenRing. You have new messages at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.
Message added 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Failed ping :-( ∯WBGconverse 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83[reply]

A

request for the clerks over Rama/Evidence/(t/p). I have requested culling of certain evidence (since they are not under the ambit of case request) and that I am (for the first time) seeing graphs being submitted, choose to believe that sans the underlying data-set(which equates diffs) they shall not be allowed. Let me know about whether I am right or wrong:-) ∯WBGconverse 15:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: We're discussing it off-wiki. I'll be signing off shortly so I'm not sure exactly when it'll be dealt with, but I wouldn't put a lot of time into rebutting them yet. GoldenRing (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, your advice is appreciated :-) ∯WBGconverse 16:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: time limited TBANs

Not commenting on the current one, but to your general question, I think the reason we’ve stopped doing them is that once a TBAN expires, it usually takes double the disruption for a new sanction to be considered, and reimposing one for the same behaviour will lead to calls of admin abuse and the significant possibility of the sanction being overturned. It shouldn’t be that way, but that is the reality of the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite T-bans in contentious areas are nearly impossible to appeal. Personally I'm supportive of time limited ones before something so drastic as an indef. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you’ve unblocked Huldra, do you also intend to remove the sanction on Sir Joseph? Both sanctions came from a less than productive discussion, and it’s not exactly fair that one editor should get a pass while the other doesn’t. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I've personally stopped doing time-limited TBANs is that it was happening too frequently, especially with caste warriors and in ARBIPA generally, that the user simply left Wikipedia for the duration of the ban, and then turned up and started right in on the topic again. I don't like that, because it means they've learned nothing about editing Wikipedia in the meantime. I like to see a ban appeal that shows constructive editing on other topics during the ban, and/or constructive editing of the sister projects. Anything that shows a learning curve. It's certainly not my impression that they're "impossible to appeal", on the contrary, just as long as there has been some editing. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
GoldenRing, I support your position for timed t-bans, especially when it's a first t-ban ever for an editor. Indef anything is not the best way - it's an incentive killer, especially when veteran editors are involved - and it really doesn't stop disruption in conflicted topic areas (probably in some cases, it was because the wrong editor was t-banned), and it may well be considered punitive. Worse yet, it leaves open the possibility of POV t-banning, intentional or otherwise, when it's actually a content issue rather than a behavioral issue. If there is no question about behavioral disruption - such as legal threats, unrelenting use of profanity, PAs, and the like, and the editor is known for such behavior, then an indef block may be in order rather than a t-ban. That's the kind of behavior that typically carries over to all topics. We're giving actual vandals across the project more consideration than what our veteran editors are being given, and that's just plain wrong and a potential abuse of the tools if it's POV motivated. Just my 5¢ worth - and I'm pretty sure there are quite a few others who believe as I do. Atsme Talk 📧 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor annoyance

At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence one of the sections has an unnecessary subsection. This shouldn't matter, but I find it annoying -- sort of like how your tongue keeps going to where you are missing a tooth. I will leave it up to you decide whether it is worthwhile to format all of the sections the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

marchordie

Was he right? If he was OK I will drop it, but you are the first users to imply he was (about 6 editors (excluding me) said he was not). I am concerned (as I said at BLPN) that this is more then just about one source at Tommy Robinson and is about setting a precedent. I suspect this will not in fact be the last of this, maybe at the Tommy Robinson page, but not elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add this is not isolated [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]. I have no idea if these were valid removals or not, but it is clear the Tommy Robinson business was not isolated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I didn't mean to imply that he was right, but to comment even if he was right. Per the banner on my userpage, I'm not up to thinking about complex questions today. Ask again tomorrow. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry did not see it, I tend to just go straight to users talk pages. I apologize.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: No problem. GoldenRing (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well they appear to have stormed off in a huff (I assume form your removal of the tag that you are now in a better place? If not delete this).Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: blocked for a week for repeated PAs, IIRC. GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry they seem to have posted a retired tag. I assumed that they meant it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Ah yes, I see. Not that unusual in the circs. GoldenRing (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my error on the discussion page, I was not aware that I should not be replying there. Always learning on here! Jesswade88 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#:Reopening_Closed_AE_Actions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

Welcome to OTRS!

AKA small rag-tag team of email responders. (Trade secret: If you solve more than 10 tickets in a week, S. Philbrick gives you a homely welcome on the mailing list) Hope you'll enjoy your stay. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph

I don't really think this was justifiable. I was not doing anything whatsoever to interact with that person any more than seemed genuinely necessary (i.e. to respond to ill-advised demands to change the MoS – of which I'm one of the primary shepherds – to suit this person's whims, and to deal with this editor's hounding of me in user talk, after being asked repeatedly to stop). Should have been a one-way i-ban, since only one of us is being a problem. I'm traveling right now and don't have time to deal with this much further other than to register my objection to this in absentia and "just punish everyone rather than actually look into the problem" action being taken.

Frankly, that should have been an open-and-shut BOOMERANG given the unclean-hands nature of the report, the excessive and ranty length, and the fact that the user in question was encouraged to just drop the matter instead of "dwelling" – by me, by EEng, and by others, and observations by others even in the AE itself that the behavior was getting harass-ish. I did everything I could to just stop this LAME DRAMA crap in its tracks, but the other editor persisted, even after I just took my leave from the site entirely for a while. I don't appreciate being spammed with ranting from someone I effectively banned from my talk page already (twice) unless they have something to say that relates to improving the encyclopedia. No way this should have been treated by AE as an ongoing dispute in need of two-way "preventative" medicine. Making this a mutual i-ban has all the hallmarks of punitive action, along the "It's been a while since we've gotten to stick it to SMcCandlish" lines. Not cool.

I logged back in today hoping that this stupid and annoying drama had dissipated, only to find you and other AE admins unwisely allowed it to escalate in my absence, with a wicker effigy erected in my place. Exact opposite of what was needed, or what would have inspired me to take time out for this project right now.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the interaction ended on 12 May, Roy McCoy complained 9 days later on 21 May, and then this on 22 May. Ridiculous. No interaction ban is sensible when interaction has stopped. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This guy's pulling the same crap on User:Ealdgyth's talkpage now. It'll probably play out differently if they go to a noticeboard. Primergrey (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone shoot me an e-mail if something develops, please. I've learned the hard way it is utterly fruitless to try to appeal anything AE does unless circumstances change significantly to overwhelmingly prove the problem lies elsewhere. It clearly does, but it's going to take another dramaboard action of some kind to demonstrate it, apparently. In the interim, I decline to volunteer my time to a project that sticks punitive and unjustifiable sanctions on me when I was the one being harassed. F that. I have a lot of other things I can do with my time, without being treated like some kind of criminal for my efforts. I'll say the same thing here that I said at my own talk page: when AE and other admins allow a NOTHERE party to bully their way into sanctioning someone else (over a dispute that was already over, and was one-sided the entire time, and which involved the same party repeatedly causing tendentious drama at a user talk page they were banned from other than for encyclopedia-constructive messages), then all those admins are doing is teaching people how to game the system and get away with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I smell sock

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_of_two&diff=898822542&oldid=896540941 – attention on the author of 896540941. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Bay

If you have the time or inclination, I would appreciate you taking a look at Norman Bay. The article has had a lot of strange seeming edits in the past few months and I'm having trouble parsing through what makes sense to keep. Marquardtika (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion

I formally request that the derogatory references to me delineated in my recent email to you be deleted – not because they are derogatory, but because they are in violation of the recently instated IBAN. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Amendment Request archived

This is a courtesy notice that "Reopening Closed AE Actions" at ARCA has been archived. You may view the final discussion here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

Hi, I think you may mean "no longer edited", not "no longer watched" here. Or have I misread it? - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: The text comes from a template. I think 'watched' is correct - it's a notice that new messages may not get anyone's attention. GoldenRing (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had posted the same question. I removed it when I saw Sitush's same query. I do not think you are correct. I suggest you check previous cases - as I did. If a case cannot be watched - and they can be - then any dodgy amendments could not be capable of revert. Which would be silly, wouldn't it? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand both rationales. GoldenRing knows about it and can do whatever they think is correct. I'm not that fussed and it has just struck me that I think the case pages end up being protected anyway. It's a while since a followed a case right through, so I'm probably out of touch. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They obviously can be watched but it is possible that they may not be watched by anyone. I don't see the confusion here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

inquiry about wiki tool for astroturfing investigation

i was told you may have some wisdom in regards to an idea i have. i would like to crossreference public relations client lists with wikipedia. is there a tool that lets you search multiple articles for a shared editor? thanks and sorry for posting this in the wrong place originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of arbitration

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback to my edits

Thanks for contacting me regarding the edits I made on Norman Bay's page. I'm very interested in your feedback. However, to help us work effectively together, I would like clarity on the following two issues:

1. You have been deleting meaningful and factual information from sources including but not limited to Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, Politico and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Why are you doing that? Aren't those all well-known and reliable sources? When responding, it would be helpful if you were able to cite sections of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

2. I do not understand the claim that the material I'm adding is contentious. Can you tell me which specific content you believe can be described this way?

Finally, you questioned the goal of my additions. It's simply to add more factual context to Bay's career to make his entry more robust and meaningful. Please note the additional links below were not used.

https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/6/sen-murkowski-opposes-nomination-of-norman-bay-to-lead-ferc https://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/7/post-20568331-a43d-ba1e-1cd3-4a681664860a https://governorswindenergycoalition.org/reid-eyes-confirmation-vote-in-july-as-opposition-looms-2/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-reids-personal-prosecutor-1403477322 https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/uncategorized/follow-questions-fercs-norman-bay/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenState 1298 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenState 1298: Thanks for getting back to me and sorry it's taken a week for me to respond. The content that I reverted still had references to youtube.com, ferclitigation.com, the American Gas Association (www.aga.org) and Sen. Barasso's press releases. None of these are "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). Most egregiously, citing ferclitigation.com in a section about FERC enforcement actions when the site was set up by the subject of one of those actions is just not acceptable.
The wider concern I have is that the article is becoming a laundry list of broadly negative information about the subject. I don't see how a firm under investigation creating a website is important to include in this article; nor what a list of the sources (many of them misattributed) covering that launch adds. Why is it important that "Domenici was from Bay's home state of New Mexico"? This fact is dropped as though it ought to be significant but no indication is given of why (and it is unsourced). The article gives the opinions of companies that were investigated by FERC ("absurd", "preposterous"), without giving any weight to anyone on the other side of that debate or even any indication of what the companies were alleged to have done, creating an obvious problem of balance.
I think these concerns would be best addressed by constructing a more nuanced discussion of FERC during Bay's tenure there, relying only on reliable sources. If I get an hour some time I'll have a crack at it myself, though don't hold your breath. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: Thanks for this.

I'm trying to understand why press releases/speeches from certain U.S. Senators are inappropriate whereas others are appropriate. Of course, you maintained the video of former Senator Domenici as a source. Furthermore, I note (1) President Trump's Wiki entry sources a press release made by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and (2) President Obama's Wiki entry sources a press release made by Commission on Presidential Debates.

FERCLitigation.com offers statements about FERC's Enforcement practices from Senator Casey, a Berkeley Professor with an expertise in this area, a firm that was under investigation by FERC Office of Enforcement, and another industry professional about FERC's Enforcement practices. I note you maintained the statements from Professor Hogan from Harvard.

Can you provide any more insight why you believe certain statements you have highlighted (e.g. Sen Casey, Sen Murkowski, Berkeley Prof, etc.) are unacceptable whereas you deem the statements that I highlighted (e.g. Prof Hogan, and Sen Domeneci) as being acceptable? Specifics would be helpful!

The current entry references two defendants which settled allegations made by FERC Enforcement - JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank. If it is acceptable to quote these two firms, why not also quote ETRACOM or Powhatan Energy Fund? Again specifics would be helpful!

Right now, I'm guessing your concern may just be the sheer number of reliable sources used to highlight the thoughts of these firms? Among other things, I'm trying to see if we could reach common ground if we trimmed up the list of media sources describing the launch of Powhatan's website. Perhaps we should just provide one link to, say, a WSJ article, instead of the longer list? Regardless, I believe the statements offered by these four defendants are all meaningful, including the word "absurd." Among other things, they provide counterbalance to the statement from Reuters in 2012 that is currently in the entry you maintained.

Finally, I believe it's important to note that former Senator Domenici was from Bay's home state because it highlights an obvious bias. I believe this common geography was sourced properly since former Senator Domenici's Wiki entry was noted.

I look forward to hearing from you. I can try to do the heavy lifting on getting this to a better spot if you are busy. It's important, and we need to get it right.  ;) GoldenState 1298 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for guidline

I've created the userpage as per your guidline thanks. PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Word count

Could you re-calculate and let me know where I stand after my changes? ~ Rob13Talk 19:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13:  Done GoldenRing (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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

Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARC: Fram

You closed that case while it stated Arbs were <0/6/0>. Isn't it <0/7/0>? (1. Worm, 2. Silk, 3. Opabinia, 4. PMC, 5. Katie, 6. Gorilla, 7. Joe) starship.paint (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix...

I almost choked on my coffe when I saw the blocked user formatting on User:Oswah in the Clerk notes for the Signpost case request. Could you fix it before someone else has a heart attack? The way things are the last few weeks it wouldn't be unthinkable for that to be more than just a typo. :-| --Xover (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the exact same thing. If this had been a case I hadn't commented on (increasingly rare these days, wtf's wrong with me?), I'd just IAR and fix it. —Cryptic 13:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover and Cryptic: fixed, thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That redlinked category

You're certainly not the only one who's edited much less. Since 11 June, I've made ~55 edits here. That's hundreds short of my usual: hundreds of typo fixes, welcomes to new users, references filled in/formatted, warnings to problem users, awkward sentences fixed, and instances of vandalism cleaned up. I've spent a little time at Simple English Wikipedia. It's a small, quiet place, and they've been very welcoming. The language can be a challenge, but I look at it as an interesting puzzle. You might enjoy it if you're in the mood to put down the mop for a bit. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey, GR - what is IRC? Is it a mailing list that's offered on WP? Atsme Talk 📧 04:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: IRC is Internet Relay Chat. Once upon a time it was a server-client chat room system, but these days it's largely carried on through webchat.freenode.net. Access is free. It is not Wikimedia-specific; you will find channels for almost anything there. But there are some Wikimedia-specific channels. You can find a lot more information and a list of useful channels at WP:IRC. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. Atsme Talk 📧 11:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

Hi GoldenRing. Hope you are well. For info, I've mentioned you in this thread at ANI. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

Looks like you might have to revoke talk page access for Adirapratama. Continues to add garbage non-talk content there. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310: Thanks for the heads-up. GoldenRing (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Master 2121

Hi GoldenRing, just a heads up that I've reblocked The Master 2121. I would have talked to you first, but given your message at the top of this page, I wasn't sure when you'd be available again. Take care and I hope you feel better.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Pfft, no objection from me. One of the clearer suicide-by-admins I've seen in a while. GoldenRing (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request

(Uninvolved 3rd opinion request...others are welcome to view, but I respectfully request others not butt into the conversation...this is a request, not a demand) Thanks for your message. It is duly noted and I'm doing my best.

I would appreciate some feedback as I'm not getting much feedback other than "you're guilty" from El C. During a heated discussion on the Order of the Arrow, I was advised to work on other things. Boy Scouts changed to Scouts BSA in February and I figured lots of related articles probably needed updating (they did), so, I went to start work on cleaning up scouting articles. Specifically, I started on articles in the infoboxes at the bottom of Boy Scouts of America. Highly trafficked articles seemed updated, so the first ones with any significant edits were in the first yellow box. I picked a few at random in the Scouting by State box at the bottom for Boy Scout->Scouts BSA and general cleanup (some hadn't been updated in 10+ years). I also found/corrected a WP:BLP; that’s where the trouble really started.

One of the people in the Order of the Arrow discussion, User:Indigenous girl (IG), was the editor who made the BLP edit and I was accused of WP:FOLLOWING her/warned not to do "that". I explained what I was doing, and that correcting WP:BLP violations are specifically excluded from WP:FOLLOWING. I also recognize the appearance of impropriety, so I also explained I would be finishing those changes the following day; there was no objection. The next day I edited and fixed in the same manner handling the rest of the pages alphabetically.

By her own admission (later), IG stated she saw what I was doing and intentionally edited an article she knew I’d be editing. She then reported to El_C that I was "following" her around once I edited the page. At that point, El_C blocked me for following her (appears to be based entirely on timestamps, not content/context; I didn’t touch her edits). I was told "you tried to follow her in a clever way". Unless I'm unaware that I'm clairvoyant, I have NO idea how I can plot to "follow" someone by announcing I'm going to work on a series of pages (and commencing the work) on an article she has never edited BEFORE she edits it.

Could you please review that situation and just give me some feedback? Buffs (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question as well: should my block and retraction under AP2 be noted/struck on the AP2 sanctions? Buffs (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above

Golden Ring, I think you should be aware that Buffs statements about his conduct for which he was blocked, specifically the timeline, and his statement that "no one complained" about his hounding of Indigenous girl, are not correct.

Here's the timeline:

You can also check editor interaction tool, which shows Indigenous girl's name in blue as the first editor on Vermont and Massachusetts.

I also thought Buffs' page ban from Order of the Arrow was because he was reconfiguring and hiding her comments on that talk page, right after he came off a block for hounding and trying to intimidate her, and had nothing to do with the political sanctions issue. It was due to his user conduct - a totally separate issue.

Buffs said to you earlier today: that there were "no objections made" to his edits/conduct (along with the strange statement which seemed to indicate he thought WP:HOUNDING is OK if he said he was going to do it right before defying the ban). But on 21:04, July 2, 2019 Indigenous girl posted on El C's talk: The guy is still following me. She has also sought help from other administrators, as far back as March,[17] for his conduct towards her. Buffs is fully aware of this as his talk page is full of his complaints about it, and he has removed many warnings from his talk over these issues. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More