User talk:GoldenRing/Archive 3

Casting aspersions and "other side"
Since you posted at the Debresser AE about people posting about the "other side" I want to point you to this edit, specifically the last sentence. This is typical of Nishidani where he continues to cast aspersions on those with whom he disagrees and of course, "his side" is the angelic NPOV side. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph. That arguably is, itself, a personal attack. Now, without me having to continually interrupt my article construction here (yes. 3 articles today, which would have been 5 had I not to write up the details of how the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif shootings were reported for editors' consideration) by glancing over my shoulder every other minute to see if someone has fine-combed one of my rare comments on an IP talk page to see if it can be spun as 'aggressive' and 'typical' or as 'casting aspersions', could I suggest that while twilling the antennae to the point that they thrill at every sub-atomic vibrato in distant galaxia and yield evidence, constantly poring over every word I write and notifying arbitrators of my 'typical' bad behavior is not quite constructive. If anything, it can look like nitpicking to 'stir' things. As to the case, yes. I worry when I see virtually every other minor edit I make to a page reverted, and I worry when I see lockstep agreement, and not close-reasoning. Or course, I may be wrong. But note that no one is answering the evidence, and note too that a slur cast my way, which I asked to be retracted, wasn't. You read that: and it passed under the radar. You construed my request for independent, unpredictable, third party, neutral input as an aspersion? It's an honest request, accompanied by an express request that editors associated with the Palestinian aspect don't vote with their feet. I find habitual rejoinders unproductive to problem solving. Now, I've had a long day, and I hope we can let this rest. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You just continue to not get it. I urge you to read twice your edits before pressing submit. Think about how often your posts are viewed as attacks or uncivil and try to change the way you edit. The number one complaint about you is not necessarily about what you're editing, but how. I did not see the insult that someone posted about you so please don't say that it passed under my radar. And also don't try to say that people are poring over your words, I imagine most people skip your verbiage because it's far too long. You're editing in a highly visible area so your posts will be highly visible. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A word of advice: if you are correct in your notion that it is characteristic of me to cast aspersions you'll have your field day in duke horse, simply by presenting the evidence you accumulate. Repeating ad nauseam a subjective 'concern', without acting on it, has only one semantic function, to create a vague impression that 'there's no smoke without fire', for future use to lend support to the usual fragile suit. Actually, that reminds me: time for a morning gasper, and a cuppa. I won't be replying, SJ. Let's not overstay our hospitality.Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem you have is that Wikipedia has a search function and editors can see for themselves the number of times you have referred to editors being pro-Israeli over the years, which suggests it is characteristic; (where you also refer to "pro-Jewish editors", which is a little unfair given the apparent prohibition on referring to editors with the opposite stance)  (where ironically you threaten to report someone for calling you anti-Israel and call them pro-Israel in the next sentence!). This was only a brief selection; the search results threw up many more. I have no problems with the labels being used if done so correctly, but to effectively deny that you do it is a bit insulting to people's intelligence.  Number   5  7  11:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked every single one of  those diffs, and couldn't find a single one where Nishidani called anyone for "pro-Jewish editors", what am I missing?  Huldra (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The diff before where this is pointed out (this): "which is the handiwork of editors identified usually as seeing things from a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish perspective". Number   5  7  23:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that one diff......from 2014. But you should have quoted more of the sentence: "which (aside from Palestinian rabbis, a page I for one have never edited, and which is the handiwork of editors identified usually as seeing things from a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish perspective)". Now, looking at the main editors who worked on  Palestinian rabbis up to 2014, does anyone think they would mind being told that they are  "seeing things from a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish perspective"?  Huldra (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A trip down memory lane, the 'distant bell' falling 'out of the blue'. Thanks. You've got me yodeling with Frank Ifield I only looked at the first two, since I am scheduled to write 3 articles today, and this game of trying to get at an editor with big diff lists, each of which must be parsed correctly is time-wasting and unfocused. I've been hauled to AE and AN/I endlessly, and save for a few instances, this kind of montage has been thrown out. I see nothing but commonsense there, and going the extra mile on a talk page to try and get some reasonable edit accepted. If you, or anyone else, wants me to walk them through each, I'd be happy to construe the historical context, the number of sockpuppets (permabanned), meatpuppets and the like those historic diffs reflect my dealings with. Many years ago, I wrote the David Dean Shulman page to honour primarily one of the great scholars of the world, and also because I don't believe anything I might say on the I/P realities hasn't been put more eloquently by him. I'm just small fry, in this sad nook of a universe, but I console myself that the endless vendettas to brand me as someone with a problem with Israel, or Jews, reflect a profound refusal to look straight in the face facts that men like Shulman write about every day, and which they see at first hand, because, after writing for 6 days, people like Amiel Vardi and Shulman join Ezra Nawi (another two articles I wrote) and do their Sabbath work helping the poorest hardscrabble pastoralists of the world, and the West Bank, resist the savage beatings, poisoning of their flocks and wells, and stoning of their schoolchildren, which is, as Shulman authoritatively testifies, is an hourly reality in much of those territories. My attitude is identical to theirs:-they are Israelis, Jews, whatever, and their example gives me heart in the pittance of editing I do tithing my time to see Palestinians are not just terrorists, but people like everyone else, trying to have a decent life. People who get so upset about what I edit in, can't see that I'm just a dull spokesman of analyses that are all over the Israeli and diaspora anguish at what is going on in that area. I don't mind taking the rap, but  people should remind themselves that Nishidani is not the problem: Israeli and diaspora scholarship is. It bears testimony to what many editors here don't want to be heard.


 * Last night I read the following two articles:15:34, 28 May 2017
 * David Dean Shulman, 'Israel’s Irrational Rationality,' New York Review of Books 22 June 2017 pp.44-47. This is a review of 5 books, many by authoritative Israeli experts, are saying, none of which can get into articles without endless edit-warring.
 * David Dean Shulman 'Palestine: The End of the Bedouins?,' NYR Daily, December 7, 2016. (this is about the Jordan Valley) where my expostulativee remarks earned me a month's suspension. Compare what Shulman states, with what editors there were arguing in trying to rid the article of a few remarks about the indigenous pastoralists (sorry invading pastoral encampments into nature reserves and military training zones there. I've a low boredom threshold, and, according to doctors, a dangerous tolerance of pain, so I'll end this little note here, unless I'm asked to clarify those dusty diffs you've dredged up.I'm not in the business of persuasion. But since my bona fides is under perennial assault, I will defend myself against the imputation that my ethics are suspect. Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to "get" you and I am not interested in ANI or AE relating to this matter as I personally don't see a problem with calling out bias where appropriate (there are many reasons why Debresser could have been banned, but this shouldn't have been one of them). What I was pointing out is that you do "cast aspersions" despite your apparent claim not to. I'm not sure why you needed to produce the wall of text in response, unless it is a distraction/bludgeoning technique? All joking aside, you seriously need to cut down on the size of your replies as they're verging on being unreadable. Number   5  7  14:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (a)Well, I think you should document where I have cast aspersions since my return to Wikipedia after a month in porridge. For, to say it is 'typical' of me to do so is to assert I have this as a character trait, which persists in the face of a sanction. SJ interpreted my remark above (everyone here has bias, everyone has a POV, everyone in the I/P area is, willy nilly, seen to side predominantly with one of the two parts of the equation, and all this is acceptable, as long as those editors hew closely to policy) as aspersive. I thought it a statement of the obvious. If you agree with his charge, then articulate/construe my remarks to show me why they could be read as a personal attack. Above all, calling out bias is fine, if it is generic. It is dubious if a single editor in a field is marked out as prejudiced, the implication being contrafactual, since that editor is not alone, but by being singled out, is being contested as unacceptably biased. As to WP:TLDR, there are 4 reasons for this. (a)I read about 150 pages a day, and don't believe we are better informed if we adopt the stringency of twitter - that reduces everything to an opinion, reasons requiring articulacy; (b) Since I am so frequently dragged in conversations that I think tedious, I can only motivate myself to reply by playing with language; (c) no one is obliged to read me, or anyone else - so it is not an imposition; (d) I was once scorned by a banned editor, for insisting on 'honourable' behavior (rather than bickering). I think honour is important, and if it is disparaged (not in your case- we disagree and I believe you dislike me (that too is acceptable), but our conflicts are conducted rationally) then I will defend mine at length, and that of anyone else who displays scruple and care, and gets arraigned as just a biased editor.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Second, anyone who edits in the I/P area can see that there do exist "camps", if only in a statistical sense. I would guess that if you do a simple regression analysis based on the usernames, you could predict the votes in RfCs and AfDs probably 90% of the time. The reasons for this state of affairs are many and I don't want to go into them here. I do not agree that it is productive to "call out" the behavior wherever one finds it: such things often serve only to inflame and divert the discussion, though a comment here and there is probably inevitable. Overall, one should focus on content and not argue about editors too much. If the POV-pushing behaviour is egregious, one can report people to AE, otherwise I suggest people just let it go. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a note, WP:ASPERSIONS has evolved quite markedly during the last few years. I have seen several blocked for violating it in the IP area, but up until now it has always been for hinting/saying that some "new" editor is a sock, outside the CU pages.  Huldra (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What KingsIndian said. I don't want to hear any more of this here.
 * The problem here is treating wikipedia as a battleground - the first step in the battle is defining who's on which side. GoldenRing (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Thanks for AE ping
I would have used the thank you function, but revdel seems to remove that button. Cheers, Samsara 04:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not exactly clear why those revisions have been oversighted - I didn't think there was anything terribly outrageous in them, just a malformed request, which was reverted, and then a better formed request, which I closed.  Any ideas?  (Without spilling the beans, of course).  GoldenRing (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea, but it looks like would be the person to ask. Samsara 10:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The filer did not realize how much info would be revealed with his IP address and asked for it to be suppressed. Katietalk 11:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Friendly criticism
Hi GoldenRing. You've been doing great work. This comment strikes me as unnecessary, though. All editors are welcome to try appealing, and this is hardly the most egregious topic ban violation around. I don't think the tone of your comment was particularly helpful in fostering a more positive interaction between this editor and the community going forward. You may wish to avoid that tone in the future. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call. I let frustration at what increasingly appears to be a minor case of suicide-by-admin get the better of me.  I don't like blocking productive editors; when they explicitly ask whether an edit is okay, then make it anyway, what are you supposed to do?  GoldenRing (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The block was good. It's best just not to let the frustration show, because it tends to lead to escalation. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. Sorry for the buggered up ping, too.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted clerk action
Thought you'd want to see this:  ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Rubin
I assume you'll be informing Rubin of his restrictions? Only you closed that thread a short while ago and no warning to him? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, all right, I'm getting there. I've logged it first, m'kay? GoldenRing (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bah, buggered up ping and  as well.  GoldenRing (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, just checking - I've forgotten to do it myself in the past! Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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

I would allow that edit. The restriction was specifically phrased to exclude "edits" related to the Arbitration case request, broadly construed, not pages, and the discussion covered the case of edits to user talk pages related to the case request in some detail; the phrasing of the restriction was intended to cover this sort of thing. That said, why AR is asking people to copy stuff to ANI for him is rather a puzzle, since the restriction allows him to edit there freely (now that I think of it - a restriction a that encourages ANI participation? Was that wise?) GoldenRing (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pure gaming since he can edit ANI himself. The CBAN is a waste of time if these infractions are dealt with appropriately.  I suggest it's removed entirely as it's not worth the "paper it's written on", and it appears that "broadly construed" can mean anything to anyone, so the restriction is actually utterly ineffectual.  Rubin had already, somewhat arrogantly, made a dozen or more content related edits rather than fixing the damage he'd done with his NPAs, after his recovery from his fever.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest his asking to have someone copy and paste something to ANI is the same as the "illness". It's dodging the issue. His actions warrant a block in my opinion, but it's an opinion that isn't seen by many. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He's canvassing, and trying to reinforce that "I can't edit from my mobile phone" thing, despite claiming to be a high-tech engineer with a super-duper high-skilled background. The block was overwhelmingly supported at ANI, as was desysop, but bureaucracy got in the way, and now it's an Arbcom toy, the result is inevitably heavily weighted in favour of the highly skilled maths genius versus the rogue, desysoped, shamed minion. Expect him to be "admonished" and me to be "sanctioned further" for antagonising a genius or some such fabrication. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, the terms of the restriction are what they are. If you don't like how I closed the discussion, take it to AN for review. But IMO his edits so far today fall within the restriction. Is claiming he doesn't know how select text on his phone ridiculous? Yes. Is it a violation of the ban? I don't think so. So go add the diff to the evidence at arbcom and get on with something useful (in my case, sleep - goodnight). GoldenRing (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No point, thanks anyway. The only way this case had legs was if the community had the balls to do something about it.  Arbcom will just steam roller it and divert it to being about TRM.  Oh well, sleep well.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, and my apologies for misreading your intentions. GoldenRing (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I'm sure this can be sorted without too much drama. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:AE
It looks like you blocked the reporting editor instead of the topic-banned user.  Sandstein  16:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. I buggered that one up.  Fixed now, except the poor user's otherwise-clean block log.  GoldenRing (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Sigh. User:MPants at work / User:MjolnirPants, you know better than this.  What gives?  GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Check the section Thuc linked to, above. We never interacted in that section (and indeed, !voted the same way). This is, in fact, quite telling because of the name of the section Thuc linked to.
 * In fact, we interacted in the section above it, where I stated that I believed Assange's denial should be removed from the lead. Thuc replied to a comment in which I specifically said I wasn't contending that all mention of Wikileaks should be removed from the lede by arguing against the position I'd explicitly denied taking (see the name of the section Thuc linked to, above). I later explained again that I wasn't taking the position he was so vociferously arguing against. Then, after my second explanation, he persisted in making a much, much worse argument against the position he refused to accept I didn't hold. At that point I made a value judgement on the qualities of his argument, and added explicitly that I was not applying that judgement to Thuc personally. I then went on to reinforce that position in a further explanatory comment. Yet here we are, with Thuc still not understanding either the nature of my argument in that thread, nor understand that I meant what I literally said, not what they seem to have read into it.
 * As I said to MelanieN, if someone takes issue with my choice of loaded words, that's a fair criticism. Indeed, in retrospect, I would have to agree with it. But the notion that I insulted Thuc is rather ridiculous, when I was going out of my way to explain that I found their arguments to be utterly beneath them and not just believed, but knew them to be capable of better.
 * This is, in fact, a repeating pattern with Thuc. They've previously argued with me when I was agreeing with them because they assume that I'm disagreeing with them. I've seen them do it to others, as well. There's also an element of bludgeoning: I've barely been able to participate in a discussion on that talk page without Thuc voicing their vociferous disagreement with whatever they think I said since I first started editing the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As to the pattern of Thucydides411's behavior, I agree with Mpants that there's a long history of battleground, uncivil and other disruptive behavior on these American Politics articles. Thucidides has been given Arbcom Enforcement blocks at least twice.  He characteristically denies the validity of the blocks, and resumes his behavior. He responds to Admin guidance with rationalizations and attacks. GoldenRing, I acknowledge you're under no obligation to sort through all this, and I think that it would be much better process for Thucydides (if he still wishes to pursue the matter) to take his concern to AE where there can be an orderly discussion without any burden on a single Admin.  Nevertheless, in case you choose to handle Thucydides complaint here I am giving a few links that demonstrate the pattern of his behavior over an extended period.


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


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


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


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


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thucydides411&oldid=756975796#Your_comment


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


 * All this from SPECIFICO and MPants, who spent most of yesterday trying to convince me that the September 11 terrorist attacks, which murdered 3,000 people with hijacked airplanes, could or should be reasonably compared with email and speech leaks. I find SPECIFICO's contributions to the page over the last 8 months to be almost universally inflammatory, often incomprehensible, and biased in the extreme. They've also turned my talk page into an unprecedented war zone and twice accused me of misogyny - behavior I'd never encountered before in my six years here - after I brought up their block record for "creating an unappealing editing environment" in response to another one of their accusations on my talk page. If SPECIFICO finds MPants to be "thoughtful" and "openminded," "with no ideological or personal biases," given their behavior bordering on harassment this compliment looks to me like a smear. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All this from SPECIFICO and MPants, who spent most of yesterday trying to convince me that the September 11 terrorist attacks, which murdered 3,000 people with hijacked airplanes, could or should be reasonably compared with email and speech leaks. Speaking of untrue... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well can come to their own conclusion based on the discussion here. I am still amazed you both struggled to defend such an absurd analogy, intended to show how Wikileaks' publication of leaked documents is a minor detail in this story. -Darouet (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still amazed that you would continue to accuse the guy who first argued against the analogy of "struggling to defend" it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's how you (reasonably) began that thread, but not how you ended it, weirdly. And as to SPECIFICO's behavior at my page and elsewhere, I think this is a fair summary. How are we supposed to maintain a collegial editing environment in this context? After months of this kind of behavior it's more difficult than threading a camel through a needle. -Darouet (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, in fact I ended the thread by stating that I had "shot down" the analogy. here's the diff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my God, go away, the lot of you. User:MPants at work, I'm not the first admin to object to the comments that ended here. So tone it down. The rest of you, take this somewhere else if you think it's got legs. I'm not handing out sanctions for this sort of bickering. GoldenRing (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL Gotcha. I will ensure that I maintain an appropriate level of political correctness with Thucydides in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

Bot Shut Down
Hey GoldenRing, I think User:Filedelinkerbot might need an emergency shutoff. I saw you were active, it was removing things from the commons issues. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this the Daphne Lantier thing? It looks like the bot hasn't done anything for half an hour - is there some particular concern you have?  GoldenRing (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't sure how the bot worked, if it worked in waves or if it was instant. So wasn't sure if it was going to start removing images again. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * TBH, neither am I. I've blocked and will drop a note at the bot's talk page.  GoldenRing (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Twitbookspacetube 12:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Re your comment at RFaR
There is Sydney, Nova Scotia :) Martinp (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Get Ye Back With Thy Low Wit :)
Heh :) thanks very much for this GoldenRing. But I just wanted to check you were joking (again). Wisdom indeed! I'd like to see that seconded. Wot I said about templates previously was just a throw-away comment about ANI notifications, you know, fucntionary tools, not the same as abuse of templates as we saw in the recent case. Even so your 'low-witted' reply cracked me up. Brilliantly understated! Anyway, just saying that you don't need to feel you had done anything wrong in the second case as it was completely different to the first. And it was, I think the correct and- even- a restrained response. Cheers! &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  06:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you enjoyed it. 😀 GoldenRing (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona)
They're all news reports about ongoing events, as far as I could see. Was one of them purely retrospective? Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, so far as I know they are all news reports. BLPPRIMARY doesn't discuss the use of current news reports.  I'm also not clear exactly what BLP concerns you have; the text as I added it doesn't identify anyone involved (previous versions were very clear BLP violations).  I'm not going to re-insert it (I don't care that much), but I think you're being over-cautious.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely. News reports are primary sources for the events in question.  Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Closed means closed
Yeah, I said as much once after my nac was ignored. I was heckled into retreat, and I didn't see you or anybody else there defending my position. It is not the bright line that you claim it is. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which previous situation you're referring to; I'm sorry I wasn't there. There is a difference between reverting a close and editing a closed discussion and Flyer22 is becoming frankly disruptive, even just in the context of that discussion, ignoring whatever you think of the BLP discussion.  GoldenRing (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you weren't there too. Other admins were obviously there. As for Flayer22, what I was about to say before you closed was this: Anybody is free to propose something, in a separate subsection, whether it's a sanction or just some kind of censure. I would oppose. Any other such comments are a waste of space and are themselves disruptive. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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


 * I'll have a look tomorrow. It's been a good night...  GoldenRing (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies that this has taken me another day to get back to - I got caught up in other matters yesterday. On a simple nose-count, I make it 10-7 in favour of the broadly construed topic ban, with one editor supporting a ban but expressing no opinion on which version.  There were also a number of editors who supported going further, with some supporting a site ban and some an extension of the topic ban and I think it's reasonable to count at least the 'site ban' supports as supporting a broad topic ban if the site ban proposal failed.  But what really swayed me was the evident change in some editors' thinking through the discussion.  S. Marshall in particular struck his early comments and changed his !vote, but even Ian Thomson went from his proposal to "If you are not willing to (or worse, cannot) consider what any other member of the community has to say except when it's backing you up, you do not belong on a collaborative project" in the course of that discussion.  Some other editors changed from supporting a topic ban to supporting a site ban.
 * That's my thinking behind my assessment of consensus there. I don't object at all to you querying this and I'd be happy, if you have further thoughts, to hear them.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, nothing further. My thanks for taking the time to go through the close again and explaining your thinking to me.  As you lay it out, your close seems quite reasonable - in particular, I wan't taking into account the change of heart by S.Marshall and Ian.Thomson, so my subjective feeling about the trend of the discussion never got altered. Thanks again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

MRV close
Thanks for your work on these: they get chronically backlogged so I appreciate your taking the time. On Talk:Damn (Kendrick Lamar album) would you consider wording the result similar to your close: since they main question was whether to endorse or overturn to no consensus, a simple "no consensus" banner might be a bit confusing. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done - it's a fair point! FWIW, I personally agree with your original close, but can't close the MRV discussion on that basis.  GoldenRing (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. I wouldn't expect anything otherwise. I'm not sure if you've ever dealt with RMs before, but the previous close actually tends to be taken into account more than at other discussion forums (for better or worse). I zero opinion on this article title myself (hence why I closed it). I just want to make things clearer for the inevitable 2nd RM and those participants/the next closer. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Perfectly ordinary?
Hi GoldenRing. I hope you're having a good week. Regarding this comment, I believe your suggestion that it was "a perfectly ordinary discretionary sanctions notice" may indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "perfectly ordinary". If you meant that it fit a longstanding pattern, then you're quite right. However, I don't think that the normalization of such behavior is wise; it should be anything but ordinary. I have no way of knowing how deeply you probed before making the comment, but there is a lengthy history of threats involving the administrator and the editor in question, following content disputes. In the context of the totality of that history, I believe that the administrator's "warnings", while perhaps within the letter of policy, were ill-advised and did not conform to the community's expectations for optimal administrator conduct. I therefore also believe that the editor's remarks at ANI were completely understandable and actually quite reasonable. Context is important. In the unlikely event that an editor as experienced and diligent as the one in question needs reminding about a particular policy, there are hundreds of uninvolved, active administrators on the project who are capable of issuing a friendly reminder. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   14:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see how it might look that way. However, in controversial topic areas, these alerts are absolutely perfectly ordinary and policy deliberately protects the right of any editor, no matter how involved, to give them. They imply no wrongdoing and the only weight they have is that discretionary sanctions cannot be applied to an editor who has not received one (with some exceptions). I was frankly surprised to see that Flyer22 had not already received an alert to BLP DS.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this when I wrote the above (though I was pinged in the discussion, somehow it got lost) but what prompted User:John to issue the notifications he did is in fact perfectly clear - he was told to do so by a sitting arb. GoldenRing (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that before I posted the above. You read it as "he was told to do so". I read it as he was reminded of the proper sequence of events in discretionary sanction enforcement. I wasn't aware that arbs were in the habit of issuing orders to admins on the talk pages of third parties—I can't imagine someone as conscientious as that arb doing such a thing, at any rate—but many aspects of the world have become unrecognizable to me of late, and I guess Wikipedia isn't immune from it. In any event, I already conceded that the warnings were within the letter of policy. But expecting an admin merely to meet the letter of policy is setting the bar too low, in my opinion. Good adminship means being sensitive to context, taking care to avoid the appearance of involvement, and avoiding dumping fuel on a fire. People skills, in other words. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   05:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

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

→== False accusations ==

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

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

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

For anyone who comes here looking for me, I'll be offline for the next approx ten hours. GoldenRing (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Typical abusive admin behavior. Screw something up. Refuse to back down. Go run and hide while the wronged party suffers. This is horrible behavior from an admin. How about fixing the mess you made first?  Volunteer Marek   21:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Reply
In regard to this comment you made at the Administrators' noticeboard. I've come to the understanding that the community (who participated there at least) wants more than what is specifically enumerated in WP:IBAN, they want, as someone bluntly put it, me to "leave [the individual I'm banned from interacting with] alone" mega-broadly. Whether or not that is fair is beside the point. I plan to do that, whether that manifests in me editing in different area(s), ceasing editing altogether, or requesting relief from the arbitration committee (either of the first two is very likely, while the latter is very unlikely unless the additional proposal is closed as having consensus) is yet to be seen. I wanted to say this informally here, slightly more privately, and so it likely will not be quoted in the closure of that discussion. I also do not care to address the mischaracterizations or falsehoods in the extended content of the proposal. I hope that dissuades you from supporting a site ban. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying that. It alleviates many of my concerns.  I get the impression you would rather this wasn't referred to at AN, but I'm not sure how to modify what I've said there without referring to it in some way.  Actually, I think saying exactly what you've said above would win over a lot of editors at AN, so I'm not exactly sure why you don't want to say it there?  GoldenRing (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Highly offensive comments
This is one of the few times I've ever actually thought this (maybe only 1 or 2 other thimgs) since I'm much more generous than most other editors. You should not be an admin. Anyone who will completely ignore what someone actually said and make such highly offensive comments should never be. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologised unreservedly at ANI and I will do so again here. That was very careless of me.  I was trying to think through some ideas you'd brought up and shouldn't have characterised them as I did.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI
Please see User_talk:GorillaWarfare. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The Hidden Tempo closure.
Thanks for having the courage to tackle that, but I'm a little puzzled. I'm not sure how there can be no consensus to unblock, yet "Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add that the whole point of appealing to AN was that the "Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted" route was failing, the unblock request had been open for a month, and I took it to the comnunity to make the decision. What we need is clear answers to "Unblock, yes or no?" and "Topic ban yes or no?", and if you can't discern both of those answers I think you should revert your close and let someone else try - over at User talk:MjolnirPants, User:RickinBaltimore is talking of getting together a three-admin panel to work on it together, and I honestly think that woud be a better idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be around right now, and we need a quick resolution before people go off in all directions. So I am sorry, but I've reverted your close and I hope you aren't too miffed with me. I've explained at Administrators' noticeboard. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To add to Boing's comment above, Primefac and I are willing to work on a closure, and if you'd like to join that would be fine too. We want a definite answer though, one that wouldn't leave the door open for another month of this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) I have no problem with the revert of my closure and won't object to you taking it as a panel, though I don't think I'll be around at the right times to participate.  But if you want my thinking to go into it, here it is:  The difficulty with the no-consensus-to-unblock / any-admin-is-free business is that consensus that Hidden Tempo should not be unblocked would, in my view, amount to a site ban, which would then require another discussion at AN to appeal whenever it happens. My reading of the discussion there is that the community is not - quite - at that point with Hidden Tempo yet, and that if they had a change of heart tomorrow and actually accepted there are problems and that they should work on them away from AP2 then most people would be fine with them being unblocked on that basis; on the other hand, that understanding is clearly not there at present and so the community is not happy with him being unblocked as things stand. I realise it's a subtle line to draw. There is also the consideration that the topic ban be given a(nother) chance to work. GoldenRing (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you're saying, and I really do applaud your attempt to get a solution - and I appreciate your willingness for these other two suckers to have a go ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I'll be off to a ballroom dancing lesson shortly, which I shall enjoy a good deal more than you likely will digging through all this (sorry). I'll likely not be around until tomorrow morning UTC.  GoldenRing (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like you're dancing already around this :) I kid, I kid. At the least, if there was a topic ban imposed for a on HT, it would be in effect for at least a year. The community felt the block some remain, so I would say HT would not be able to appeal this decision for a year based on these two factors. We would be right back to this next week if we kept the status quo to be honest. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a great evening. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Abided by it?
As someone who has taken a side, I don't think I should comment in the uninvolved admin thread at User talk:Primefac... I imagine you all don't want the discussion to revive there too. So I'll comment here, because I saw you say and I can't just let that go. Are you sure you read the whole thing? HT evaded the topic ban with a sockpuppet, for which they were blocked; and they were given a warning for violating it again on their user page, which resulted in the deletion of their user page. "Abided by it"?? I have other things I want to say about whether this is a community ban or not, but I will bite my tongue and keep them to myself. But HT simply did not "abide by" the topic ban by any stretch of the definition. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides the socking during the T-ban, HT also failed to abide by the topic ban as late as 25 May. FT2 protested that episode was a trifle until I explained it in excruciating detail, and persuaded him, FT2, to use his admin X-ray vision to look at the deleted userpage which was the crux of the ban violation. Not sure people were still reading his posts, ot mine, when FT2 eventually acknowledged I was right, though — it was getting complicated by then. (It's all in the AN thread, I can't face digging it out the diffs again, sorry. The search function should help for the back-and-forth between FT2 and myself.) Bishonen &#124; talk 00:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Quite right - I meant to say abided by it for four months since their block in March. The comment was based on FT2's commentary regarding "several months of apparently clean editing" at HT's TP and I forgot to add the qualification he made there.  I've edited my comments at Primefac's TP accordingly.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "For four months since their block in March"..? You ping me and say I'm right, GoldenRing, but did you read my post? It's about a ban violation in late May. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC).

Cool-off Block on User:Tillman appears to have been ineffective
Unfortunately, now that the 1-week cooling-off block has expired on, the first thing he has done is to complain about the process, including his original ban; and to again, violate that topic-ban on discussing climate change. Although the notice has been linked for the past two years, he apparently is unclear that the topic ban also includes making claims about climate change on his own talkpage:
 * "This was part of a largely-successful effort to drive out editors skeptical of the manufactured "97% consensus" on climate change."
 * "Well, fuck that. Life is too short. I know of no other editors in the Wiki Climate Wars who got such a drastic penalty."
 * "Far too maddening & time-consuming to battle the religious intensity of the climate activists here."
 * "I'm technically qualified to speak on a number of aspects of climate change."
 * "So I can assure non-scientists that you can't get 97% of any bunch of real scientists to agree on anything more controversial than whether the sun will come up tomorrow."
 * "I had the temerity to revert an obvious smear on the BLP of respected Canadian academic Ross McKitrick, by yet another vexatious "climate-activist" editor, who was far more interested in labeling Prof. McKitrick as a "Climate Denier" than making any substantial contributions to the project."
 * He ends his tirade by referring to himself as "advanced-amateur paleoclimatologist."

This is all very troubling, as he doesn't appear to understand or acknowledge why he was topic-banned in the first place, nor is he done making claims that do not align with reality. He likewise seems to consider his ban/block as part of a "battle" in "the Wiki Climate Wars" -- an indication of a siege mentality. Should another Enforcement request be (re)opened-- or some other avenue (if there is one) to guide Mr. Tillman towards editing in a more productive fashion?--HidariMigi (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Golden Ring: I have absolutely no plans to edit climate-related topics on the project, now or in the future. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As pointed out, it's not an issue of editing climate-related articles, which Mr. Tillman has already breached, yet still denies doing; a topic ban also means a prohibition on posting discussions-- even on one's own talk page-- on the banned subject matter. It seems that he is unable to wrap his head around that, or being especially intransigent. --HidariMigi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * while the topic ban does apply everywhere on Wikipedia and another admin might take a different view, I'm generally in favour of allowing a bit of leeway for people venting about the sanction itself (as opposed to other edits about the topic on their talk page). Trying to police this sort of thing is usually more disruptive than the violation. As Tillman has indicated above that he intends to otherwise abide by the ban, I'm inclined to let this slide. GoldenRing (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. Within limits I think a little venting on one's talk page is permissible. That said, user pages are not intended for use as blogs or similar venues for soapboxing. Discretion and a little good judgement are needed when determining where the line between the two is drawn. On a side note; I'd steer clear of the term "cool off block." That is not an acceptable rational for blocking a user. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, that was not my term for the block; it was an arbitration enforcement block for topic ban violations. GoldenRing (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As I clearly noted in my talk-page "rant", I'm unhappy about the intense politicization of the science of climate-change, here and elsewhere. Editor HidariMigi seems upset that I would claim technical competence in this area. So be it. This editor (and others) seem more interested in pressing their political views on Wikipedia users, than presenting an accurate account of the actual science. I'm retired, and have health issues. I really don't have the energy and thick skin to go on with this here. I don't plan to contest  the topic ban, and will abide by its terms. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)