User talk:GoldenRing/Archive 2

Email
Noyster (talk),  09:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

31.51.108.192
Oopsie... 31.51.108.192 hasn't edited anything. I reverted two more of the IP's talk page blankings thinking "the IP's back at it again.". I'll rm my AIV post (and yours). Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Re: Antibot009
Actually, the User:Antibot009 account has been blocked since March 12, 2017 which was at the same time as their creation of Russian State Scientific Center for Robotics and Technical Cybernetics according to their talk page, so how does this not qualify for WP:G5? Snickers2686 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that criteria applies whenever a user who is blocked on one account edits via a sock or IP address. The user was blocked after the page was created.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 18:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's an indefinite block either way Snickers2686 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the user wasn't blocked when the page was created, so the CSD wouldn't be correct. WP:G5 says This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block.  (Emphasis and links not mine.)  The page had to have been created while they were banned or blocked on at least one account or IP to qualify for G5 deletion.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 20:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Response to block threat
Oh boy, Wikipedia is becoming a totalitarian regime. And you're just a deletion-obsessed puppet for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvm21 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , please remember to remain WP:CIVIL and assume good faith when interacting with other editors.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 14:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a threat; advice. Ignore it if you wish, but don't say you weren't warned. I'm other news, I see that two more such articles you've created have been PRODed, so I'll reiterate: The community has limited patience for people who waste the time of others in this way. GoldenRing (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi GoldenRing - for info. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Your wikibreak
Don't worry, if you don't start editing after you get back, I'll be sure to mark your page with Deceased Wikipedian.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Still alive. And on the Oodnadatta Track. GoldenRing (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Still alive at Uluru. GoldenRing (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on some of your recent work
I commend you for looking into the diffs that Nishidani provided at the recent AE discussion. However, your (well-meaning) analysis suffers from several serious shortcomings. Please see this. (I was going to write almost the same exact things but user Kingsindian was a little bit faster than me.) Thanks and regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen this but I'm afraid real life has taken over for now; I'll get back to you with a considered response, I hope tomorrow. GoldenRing (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Made a mess of the ping, sorry. GoldenRing (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess we're going to disagree on this. But here's my thinking.  Civility is a requirement on Wikipedia.  Being "hounded by dozens of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and racists" does not give you a free pass to tell other editors that they are somehow mentally deficient.  You are expected to be civil even with trolls and sockpuppets.  That there are worse things happening in other areas doesn't excuse what's happening in this area.  Kingsindian gave the edit summary "facts of life," as though somehow I'm living in some serene cloud-land; in fact my position here is based on not inconsiderable experience of real life, and my experience is that civility is important in every situation.  I don't believe the aphorism that it always takes two to tango; some people are just out to cause trouble.  But I do believe that there is no situation where losing your cool leads to a better result than not losing your cool.  Even with the worst of trolls and sockpuppets, responding in kind always makes the situation worse, not better.  And this is reflected in the standards we expect of editors here.  Civility is both policy and one of the five pillars.  It's not a "sometimes" thing.  It's even more important in fraught topic areas, because the existing tensions in those areas will make situations escalate even more quickly if you act in a way that escalates, rather than defuses, them.
 * To comment on the specifics of Kingsindian's comments:
 * Regarding the Jordan Valley dispute, what I wrote was cut down from a longer earlier draft and I'm sorry that it didn't come across very well. Of course there are other meanings of the term "Jordan Valley".  But to attempt to argue that, in an article about the geographic feature, the definition should end at the river itself, defies belief.  This is to deny the simple everyday meaning of the English word valley.  Of course there may be other meanings connected with political entities, private organisations or in specific technical literature; this article is not about them.  Contrary to the current lead of Jordan Valley (Middle East), it is in fact common to name an area the "X Valley" after the river X but which is not coincident with the exact valley containing the river X (eg Thames Valley, Severn Valley, Humber Valley and so on); but I really struggle to think of one where it might be sensibly argued that the valley includes only one bank of the river.
 * The point regarding Archaeology of Israel is that Nishidani was claiming that his edits are singled out for reversion even when the reversion is "utterly farcical." But this example is far from farcical; there is no way that that content belongs in the lead and, I would argue, not in the body of the article either.  The underlying statistic might well be used in the article, but merely quoting the statistic without any apparent connection to the surrounding context is clearly bad editing.  If it was me, I probably wouldn't have reverted the second time, I would have tried to edit it more neatly into the article, but I don't think the reversion was "utterly farcical" (leaving aside the 1RR violation for the moment).  That someone else was also reverted when they tried to insert the text surely works against the contention that Nishidani's edits are singled out, not for it?
 * Contrary to Kingsindian, the content re Michael Sfard was indeed opposed on the grounds that it was meant to give more positive light to the political activist in question. Hagiography was perhaps unhelpfully hyperbolic in this context but these are the grounds on which it was opposed.
 * The assertion that Nishidani isn't dedicated to collegial editing is, of course, not based on one diff from their own talkpage but from a long list of diffs presented in the evidence; I gave an example that was additional to the evidence presented. Should I have recited all the diffs already presented?  I don't think so.  Although we traditionally give editors more leeway on their user talk, we're not meant to; WP:CIVIL is clear that it applies everywhere.
 * Lastly, I think the indefinite ban from eight years ago (it was rescinded, not enacted, six years ago) is relevant here. It is part of a long pattern of topic bans Nishidani has received from this topic, with civility frequently cited as a reason for them.  His response shows he clearly isn't getting the message - it largely amounts to WP:NOTTHEM.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

If I was advising Nishidani, I would advised them to not bring up the ugly background to the whole matter, because I know how Wikipedia "justice" operates. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Better to say as little as possible in your own defence. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you like me to respond to this? I'm happy to, and (of course) I disagree with you on various points.  But from my point of view it's not achieving anything at this point.  So if you want me to respond, I will, but unless you ask me to, I'll leave it there.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to respond. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fear and worry
Hey there, Did I stop just in time at seismometer? Or will I be blocked too? The garmine  (talk)  13:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of you should have taken it to the talk page. You haven't broken 3RR, but edit warring is edit warring.  However... A brand new account edit-warring promotional links into an article against multiple established editors?  I'm sure not going to block you for it and I doubt other admins will see it differently.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,GoldenRing! The garmine  (talk)  13:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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. Zerotalk 10:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#9821; &#9818; 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)
 * I wasn't aware of the previous AN3 request, thanks for pointing me to it. My reading of WP:ARBPIA 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. Zerotalk 13:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Zerotalk 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: --Neil N  talk to me 05:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If an admin feels they have enough info to act on an enforcement request they are under no obligation to wait for further input or responses. This does not look bad or is bad - it's the same process used in places like WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. We don't have "due process" on Wikipedia. If an admin's sanctions are constantly being overturned then that's something to examine.
 * Page restrictions need to be logged at WP:DSLOG. There is no 1RR logged for Acid throwing.
 * 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: GoldenRing (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11. You'll see admins logging page restrictions at Arbitration_enforcement_log. Editors can't be expected to guess if a non-obvious article is under restrictions. --Neil N  talk to me 06:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * GoldenRing and . Al-Andalusi was reminded of violating 1RR and was asked to self-revert, and he rejected it. Arbitration_enforcement_log 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)
 * When I look at Arbitration_enforcement_log 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 Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11 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. Zerotalk 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, Wikipedia's WP:ARCA ratified a new amendment affecting all articles broadly construed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, making all newly deleted content subject to consensus before it can be restored. But, as you can see by my edit made on 16 June 2017, where the word "illegal" was deleted (see edit), since it did not apply to settlements around Husan, User:Huldra followed in suit by responding in a questionable manner, (see edit), deleting this time valid content, knowing that she can hardly be held accountable in Palestinian-Israeli related articles after the ratification of the new amendment, although, in actuality, what she did is considered WP:Gaming the system. Another edit that can clearly be construed as "Gaming the system" is that of User:nableezy, whose recent edit on the Wikipedia article, Urif, deliberately caused valid sources to be deleted, those sources which showed that, by one account, no Israeli had set fire to a field, and that it had been set ablaze by somebody else, perhaps even unintentionally. See edit. He deleted what was "balanced" reporting, to make Israelis appear as the sole culprits. What disciplinary measures can be taken against this phenomenon, to assure that we maintain a basis of cordial collaborative editing, and without abusing the system?Davidbena (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 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-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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)


 * Yes, I deleted everything in CAT:G13 using Twinkle D-batch. No, I shouldn't have done it.  See the discussion at WP:AN - 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 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957. The user has been informed but it seems they did not respond, so I suspect the soft block is in order now? Also including and. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 talk 10:21, 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)

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. Timothy Joseph Wood 21:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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  and  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&cent; 10:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I mean I do agree that a block was needed, I've just seen a few times where pretty high profile blocks were better left to folks who are more on the crat side of the admin scale, and so it ended up being messy before it was all said and done. Hopefully this doesn't go that route. But... the last block required two reblocks for clarification. So we'll see I guess. Anything involving ArbCom seems to be the only place where NOTBURO categorically doesn't apply.


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


 * 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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&cent; 11:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have to ask:, 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&cent; 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)
 * 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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&cent; 13:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you made the block, you might want to close that discussion and add a line to Arbitration enforcement log/2017. No appeal can start until it is closed.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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&cent; 14:09, 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 ·&#32; t ·&#32; 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)

FreeatlastChitchat
FYI: Village pump (policy)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Debresser Debresser (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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, where it was suggested I inquire regarding your authoritative opinion on the issue. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 26 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 Talk/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  ( talk ) 03:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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) - 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. Zerotalk 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 Talk/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)
 * 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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  ( talk ) 04:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said. GoldenRing (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)