User talk:GoldenRing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Question regarding what you said in AE

If for example I have asked the user not to use this term and they refused.Does it sanctionable conduct in your opinion?--Shrike (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: It depends a lot on the discussion, I think. Have you? GoldenRing (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No I didn't I already explained my line of thought that such experienced editor should understand those basics.Do you think its would be suitable to do it now or after AE ends?--Shrike (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: IMO your best course is to withdraw the complaint at AE (I've not looked at it in a few hours, but I'd guess there's not a lot of appetite for sanctions anyway) and take this matter up with Huldra elsewhere. After all, what do you care about more, getting the content into NPOV shape or getting sanctions against Huldra?

There are some things that are brought to AE that are cut and dried; violations of 0RR, 1RR, 3RR or whatever applies on a page, personal attacks, violation of a 'consensus required' restriction and so on are all things which I'd usually be in favour of sanctioning straight away (though it still depends on the severity & circumstances). The choice of one term over another on NPOV grounds is not one of those 'bright line' situations and it would have to be pretty egregious for me to support sanctions the first time around. It's not something you can write a hard-and-fast rule on; if an editor is changing a neutral term for a POV one en masse, that probably merits sanctions. If the term has been discussed and there is a clear consensus not to use it, that the editor was clearly aware of, that probably merits sanctions. If an editor is using the term in the course of content creation and no-one's even mentioned to them it might be a problem, I don't think sanctions are the answer. The point of discretionary sanctions is to reduce drama and conflict in the topic area, not to use as a game of 'gotcha' to remove opponents from the topic. These edits were not causing disruption, so the first step should have been to discuss it with them; for all you know, they might have just said, "Oh, yeah, good point, I'll go and change it." No drama there, and this is what we like. GoldenRing (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The user:Huldra seems to refusing using neutral terms[1] in ARBPIA area.What should I do?Thanks--Shrike (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Follow up: Verb Surgical Draft Deletion

Hi GoldenRing,

This is Bgrimsl, new Wikipedia user. I work for Shattles Communications, whose client is Verb Surgical. I am working on a Wikipedia page entry for Verb Surgical. I have been helping CWash, and I noticed that the previous Verb Surgical draft entry from CWash had been deleted in June 2017. I was curious if you could provide me feedback on how the entry could be improved for me to create and submit a new entry? I appreciate your help in advance. Thanks so much! Bgrimsl (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bgrimsl: Could you link to the (deleted) draft, please? I'm having some trouble finding it. Depending on why it was deleted, I may be able to restore it into your userspace.

GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2017(UTC)

Can I revert?

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs) reverted my edits on Template:Palestinian territory development. I made these edits before you made me aware that I wasn't allowed to edit subjects regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict yet. My edits were accepted and enforced by Wikimedia admin Hedwig in Washington (talk · contribs). Since I'm not allowed to revert to my edits, I argued my case on the talk pages of the template and Oceinawhile and I still haven't gotten an answer yet. So my question is: am I allowed to revert to my edits on the template?
Dank Chicken (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dank Chicken: My apologies this has taken me some time to get back to - it has not been as high on my priority list as it ought to have been. No, you should not make edits to that template directly until you are extended-confirmed. My advice is to go find something else to edit until you reach EC status and then come back to it. GoldenRing (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. If you'd be willing to read trough the discussion and determine my proposed edits, it would be very much appreciated. Dank Chicken (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Interaction ban clarification

An editor you banned me from interacting with made his first edit to the article Gab five minutes after I mentioned I had edited and was interested in the article here. Is that a not violation of our interaction ban? James J. Lambden (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: No. WP:IBAN spells out in some detail what an IBAN restricts. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GoldenRing. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban

You recently banned me from "all edits and articles related to Donald Trump." I made this edit which was related to Roy Moore but in justifying my edit on the talk page I absentmindedly quoted sentences from the sources that included the phrase "pro-Trump." These were the only sentences in the sources that established relevance to the article subject (One America News Network.) I have removed the phrase "pro-Trump" from my talk page comment. Questions:

• Was my article edit a topic-ban violation?
• Was my initial talk page comment a topic-ban violation and if so was removing the phrase sufficient?

James J. Lambden (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: IMO, the answers are no, yes and yes. The ban from everything Trump-related isn't intended to be a ban from all current US politics, so I wouldn't consider Roy Moore covered by it (so long as the edits aren't Trump-related). Mentioning Trump on a talk page is a violation though I recognise that you weren't making a Trump-related point and the Trumpishness came from quoting a source; removing the Trump phrase as you have done is good, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 1 December

• @GoldenRing: JJL's topic ban re: Trump was for a month. Now that he's violated it, and been blocked because of it, should the clock be reset back to 1 month? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why editing the talk page of Patriot Prayer[[2] is a violation of your topic ban but edits to Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations are not? Both articles make reference to Trump and recent allegations mention Trump[3]. I admitted to a 1RR vio but it seems odd to have two completely different outcomes. I would hate to think others are enforcing your topic ban for reasons other than the plain meaning. I'd suggest removing them if it's being abused to punish editors on an ideological basis. --DHeyward (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• @DHeyward: Basically, Patriot Prayer is an organisation that started to organise pro-Trump rallies. They're trying to broaden their purpose now, but that page is clearly fairly closely related to Trump and his politics. Roy Moore is a politician organising his own senate campaign and with his own political problems; so while Trump is mentioned on that page and some edits to Roy Moore may well be infringements of the ban, the ban doesn't (in my view) extend to every edit on that page. GoldenRing (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

RE: Follow up: Verb Surgical Draft Deletion

Thanks GoldenRing for your help! Below is a link and information that may help in finding the deleted Verb Surgical page or why it was deleted.

19:16, 18 June 2017 GoldenRing (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Verb Surgical (G13 (TW))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Verb_Surgical

Let me know if this helps and how I can improve the draft. If you cannot locate it, that is OK. I can always submit a new, revised draft, and you or another editor can provide feedback and suggestions then. I appreciate your help in advance! Thanks! Bgrimsl (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bgrimsl: The draft was deleted as a declined AFC submission that had not been modified for six months. The draft was declined because it did not establish notability. I'd have no problem restoring the draft into your userspace if that would be useful to you. GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

RE: Follow up: Verb Surgical Draft Deletion

Thanks GoldenRing! Yes, restoring the deleted Verb Surgical draft to my user space would be very helpful! Also, I will review the Notability guidelines for Wikipedia, but I was curious if you could provide any additional feedback pertaining to the deleted Verb Surgical draft on how I could make it more notable? Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help! Bgrimsl (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

A bit of clarity, please....

Ok - this "broadly construed" designation is confusing. So if someone is TB from Donald Trump, broadly construed, does that include articles about every conservative in Congress, or just the ones who hate him? Seriously - would that include congressional candidates who support Trump? How about Sean Hannity - would that be included? The NRA? Clint Eastwood? James Woods? How do we know the boundaries? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: The basic message is to go and find something else to do. Skirting the edges of sanctions is not welcome. For a ban from Trump, I don't seem to interpret it as widely as some; I don't think a ban from Trump is effectively a ban from post-2015 American politics. It's worth noting the phrasing of the ban, too - "articles and edits" - which is meant to say that some articles may not themselves be about Trump but individual edits on those articles may still be - so the ban is not from Sean Hannity but any edits made to that article that could be reasonably construed to concern Trump would be violations. GoldenRing (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, GoldenRing. So my next question to you regarding "broadly construed" is whether or not the following edits would fall under the TB, and I'm not including all of them, just the ones that show the connection:

1. Response to this comment?
2. This revert which I reverted because I was still adding material, but was reverted again by this revert, apparently by those editors who have demonstrated WP:OWN behavior. They can edit and add, and revert all they want, but I have to get consensus? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I reverted you because your edit appears to be a DS violation. And if you want to accuse me of OWN or anything else, ping me. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, really? And how was it a violation of DS, pray tell? What you're doing now is casting aspersions. *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

…must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article. And no, I’m not casting aspersions. I politely pointed this out in the edit summary and reverted the apparent violation as opposed to going to article talk or AE or an admin’s talk. An example of casting aspersions would be your OWN comment above about a page which I have rarely edited. I don’t know why you are wasting editor time with these accusations; but I find them unhelpful. O3000 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "challenged" by anyone other than an editor subject to a TB who shouldn't be editing there in the first place is the intent. I did not revert your edit. I presume a "challenged" edit is one that is believed to violate BLP or other policy, and not just an IDONTLIKEIT revert with a maybe it belongs somewhere else kind of edit summary. That would be gaming the system beyond comprehension. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, enough already. GoldenRing (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(edit conflict) Adding that I now see on the TP the "obtain consensus" requirement but considering the revert was made by an editor under a TB, it should not be considered a violation of DS on my part. I did not revert/and will not revert a legitimate challenge. Having said that, I think the recent actions demonstrate the flaws in that restriction. When editors who are trying to get as much work done as they can during a session, it is simply not feasible to expect them to read all the TP notices. I look at the notices in Edit View and request that all DS notices be added to the edit view for the sake of GF editors who are simply trying to get their work done. Atsme📞📧 20:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC) The editor is under a T-ban for violating the same requirement you're insinuating is untenable. I'll echo O300 below: your tendency to discuss people without bringing said discussion to their attention is troubling. I count 4 pages in your recent history where this is the case. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Challenged means challenged. Reverting a serious BLP vio wouldn’t be sanctioned. I believe the above attacks an editor who may not be watching this page and am not comfortable continuing here. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Um, that's exactly right. I was not aware of this conversation nor was I aware that Atsme was attacking me and engaging in shameless block shopping until I was recently notified. And since this came up before, Atmse knows damn well that I am NOT topic banned from Roy Moore, so the excuses made here are specious. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Believe what you will, but there was no "attack" - I simply pointed to the offending edits and by doing so, expected to get some backlash, but facts are facts. I'm here to build an encyclopedia which means doing what I can to maintain NPOV and improve the quality of our articles where needed. It is not unusual for any GF editor to grow weary when their edits are constantly reverted and the reasons are rooted in double standards and tendentious editing. The removal of factual material that is RS and widely reported, and that is relevant/important to the article and our readers is what's at issue equally as much as the POV behavior to keep it out. I commend the administrators charged with trying to keep POV warriors in-check and I also believe, for the most part, that their decisions are made after careful consideration. Granted, there is as much ambiguity to the decision-making process as there is to our PAGs, so all we can do is hope common sense prevails. Atsme📞📧 20:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC) These were most certainly attacks as they made false accusation. Worse, you didn't even notify me of this conversation but rather chose to talk behind my back. And here you repeat the personal attacks again. Newsflash Atmse - look in the freakin' mirror. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Your comments are not surprising and neither is your behavior which may explain why editors choose to understand a situation prior to involving you. Oh, and don't feel like you're the only one who has been part of a discussion without being pinged - the same has happened to me over the years - but of course, you already know what you did and what you're doing, so trying to convince anyone that you don't follow this TP is...well...bullchit. Put your big girl/boy panties on and stop the whining. I'm weary of your POV reverts and UNDUE weight you defend in various articles. It is what it is, and attempts to deny your tendentious editing is laughable. Atsme📞📧 21:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC) " choose to understand a situation prior to involving you" - translation: "I'm gonna talk about you behind your back and try to get you sanctioned on a false pretext". And I see you see it fit to double down on the personal attacks. Volunteer Marek  21:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC) You know, normally I'd let this slide, but since you insist on making personal attacks and false accusations against me, here we go again. Volunteer Marek  21:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Follow up on AE

Hi,You didn't seem to notice but I have posted some follow up could you please respond to it [4].Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

If you don't intend answering that OK too but at least give a courtesy saying so.--Shrike (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I am extremely busy at present. If you have a complaint about another editor in areas covered by Arab-Israeli Conflict DS then AE is the appropriate venue to lodge a complaint. GoldenRing (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Hi, isn't this page supposed to be under Extended Confirmed? I was just surprised when I saw the edit notice but no padlock. Opencooper (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

1RR

Is it possible to exempt a new major ARBPIA article from 1RR while it is heavy development? Not all of the recent edits have been constructive and at this point basic cleanup of things like the LEDE and source checking for opinion pieces etc. is being slowed down. It was protected after RFPP once IPs started editing but a period of 3RR would help with getting the article updated - of course 1RR could be reimposed if it becomes a problem but so far there is no signs of major edit warring. The article is United States Recognition of Jerusalem Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bazzinga! And another year passed by...

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme📞📧 13:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little HappyHolidayCheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Enjoy the Holidays and have a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Aspersions RE: Volunteer Marek

Hello Golden Ring. I'm visiting here because you were the one who closed a case involving various aspersions about @Volunteer Marek:. Shortly afterward, an IP began posting the same stuff on various pages. These have generally been reverted by a number of users -- recently @Geogene: -- and some talk pages have been protected. However in one case recently, a user restored these smears to his talk page after they'd been removed by a third party. Could you have a look at this? The AE thread is here: [5] The recent talk page reinsertion of the smear are here: [6] and (after @NeilN: protected the page), here: [7] SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

1RR Question

User:Oranjelo100 is making a lot of edits without edit summaries to both United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.22 and United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital. I was trying to make some consecutive edits on both pages, but on both pages he started editing when I do. The edits are generally of poor quality, using sources like NYPost, with typos, and adding unsourced information. I have already asked him to use edit summaries. Looking at his talk page shows these problems have been ongoing for a long time, and many editors have complained about his editing style (i.e. dozens of rapid poor quality edits, CIR, etc). It is an even bigger problem on 1RR articles where editors are restricted in cleaning up the edits. On both articles as soon as I started editing, I got an edit conflict. In a case like this when the edits are still continuous (As in one is made at 1:22 and one is made at 1:36) could I fairly consider these one revert, even though there are intervening edits? I will do the edits all at once from now on to avoid it, but the problems with sourcing and not using edit summaries are ongoing. Please advise. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't added unsourced information so stop making this false claim. One sentence about Turkey was not fully correct but I fixed it in the resolution ES-10/L.22 article after you deleted everything in the recognition of Jerusalem article. I don't understand your objection to NYPost in particular. Nowhere in Wikipedia's policies does it say NYPost is a banned site but I added other sources, too. Anyway what's you aim? I added cited quotations with reactions of important politicians involved in this issue. Do you want want to remove all this information and if so why? Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Right now I am hoping an admin will take your full editing history and past interactions with numerous established editors into consideration, and offer me advice on how to proceed. Yes, you did add unsourced information, you falsified a quote from Erdogan. Literally inserted material into a direct quote that is not in the source, and you are still saying you it was "not fully correct but I fixed it." I posted the diff on your talk page. Given the problems have been ongoing for years with not using edit summaries, rapid fire edits, not being responsive to requests from other editors, machine translation, etc. my aim is to seek admin assistance about how to handle an editor who is non-responsive to requests and has had a long history of CIR-type problems with many editors.Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't falsify any quote (ridiculous accusation) and I'm responsive otherwise I wouldn't discuss with you here. There were multiple sources and another user changed the whole sentence about Erdogan which confused me for a moment but neither version was fully correct at that moment. I fixed that immdiately on the ES-10/L.22 article (actually had to twice) and the current version of that article has fully correct Erdogan's quote now. You're grasping at straws now to demonize me and find any hook to attack me. Seems a bit like wikipedia:GAME.

You mentioned one revert limit as if you want revert it. Anyway, User:Lihaas also edited that page and recently modified my edits so maybe he can tell us what he thinks so we can reach consensus about content. I personally am content with the current state of the article. I don't think anything more needs to be cleaned. Unless of course you prefer to focus on attacking me instead or have some kind of agenda.

BTW, Merry Christmas everyone here.

Yes and so were Jytdog, and EdJohnston, Dsimic who said "the style and language you are providing are unfortunately not good enough for Wikipedia. Here it's all about providing verifiable content in an academic style of writing" and "I've just spent three hours cleaning up the mess you've left behind in many articles" "please don't use bare URLs when adding references" -back in 2013. It is now 2017, I have been running Refill after your edits. An editor asked you in 2013 to be mindful about linking to DAB pages, you responded by adding a dozen more. czar warned you about adding unsourced content, you responded: "All I added is correct sice I played it already." This account should be indeff'd until the response is "I understand why so many other editors are upset and what I need to do to improve my editing." Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

>Jytdog, and EdJohnston, Dsimic Oh so you belong to this apparently highly influential clique of users. Good to know. That explains hostility towards me and wanting to get me banned. I get now it it wasn't about content but about banning me. I'm not perfect but it's sad that you people hold grudges for years. I generally avoid linking to disambiguation pages now, although not always and I'm careful to not add unsourced material. That Rain World thing was a mistake though all I added was indeed correct and I added citions a few days later when the game came out. After that I was very careful to not add anything unsourced but of course it turns out>Jytdog, and EdJohnston, Dsimic Oh so you belong to this apparently highly influential clique of users. Good to know. That explains hostility towards me and the intent to get me banned. I get now it it wasn't about content but about banning me. I generally avoid linking to disambiguation pages now, although I admit not always and I'm careful to not add unsourced material. That Rain World thing was a mistake though I added citions a few days later when the game came out. After that I was very careful to not add anything unsourced but of course it turned out to not be enough because you are still looking for any reason you can get to get me banned. I'm not perfect but it's sad that you people hold grudges for years permanently. Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Certainly an account whose early edits received complaints that they were making a large number of edits with very small substantial changes to the articles who is now extended confirmed and editing in the conflict area without edit summaries fits a common pattern in this topic area. did you add these sources: vestnikkavkaza.net, Kashmir Observer, Kashmir Reader, kaumudi.com, nypost, fars news? Even PressTV is likely to be challenged. You reverted the falsified quote only after I posted here, that should not be necessary. The talk page is full of complaints from other editors for things that have not imrpoved, including adding bare links as references for news articles that will eventually need to be archived. You were notified about this issue nearly 5 years ago. Your only response to editors good faith concerns is to deny wrongdoing and blame them. I don't think you will be indeff'd just because I think so, but I am posting here for advice because it looks like a long term pattern to CIR type issues, battleground behavior and not improving based on feedback from many other editors. Not a "clique" but all editors who make high quality contributions.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Lovely yar

Lovely yar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.97.207 (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO: Thank you. That is very kind. GoldenRing (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Anmolbhat breaking ARBIPA sanctions

Regents park placed a good faith sanction on all Kashmir conflict related topics, breaking which results in an immediate block. Unfortunately one editor, who goes by the username of Anmolbhat, has broken it by casting aspersions against other editors on a talkpage which comes under these sanctions.[8] His comment is this ″I also doubt the credibility of your account as well as Dilpa kaur. Registered during 18-25 October 2017 and engaging in same POV pushing on same days.″ Another editor had to strike off part of his bad comment [9] (though not all). He has removed part of his bad comment but not fully.[10] This part (″ I also doubt the credibility of your account as well as Dilpa kaur″) remains.

This user is aware of ARBIPA sanctions [11] and has even been blocked for introducing copyright violations[12] despite being warned several times for their copyright violations.[13][14][15][16]

I don't think this user is willing to learn or abide by our policies and since their editing is generally tendentious and unconstructive[17][18][19] they should be blocked. But final decision belongs to the administrators. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@JosephusOfJerusalem: My apologies, but I am not very familiar with sanctions in this area and will not have time to look into this today. I suggest you try another admin or AE. GoldenRing (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

objecting to closure phrasing

January 4 special:diff/818580130 in your summary of discussion you include:

his views on how much detail is appropriate in an article are out of step with community expectations

You taking the roll to summarize the discussion seems wrong to me given that you were involved with it, and seem to be pushing aspects of your own comments in the discussion on January 3 to the forefront:

• 13:49 special:diff/818426601 paraphrase: "I didn't mention every possible detail so the stupid amount of detail I did mention can't be a problem"
• 16:47 special:diff/818449038

  if you can't see that the sorts of detail you're pushing aren't part of a "summary of accepted knowledge" then you're going to keep on running into trouble, whatever topic you choose to edit.

  You should be able to see that, because the sort of detail you're pushing has been rejected repeatedly over a period of months.

You are conflating the rejection by specific editors as if that reflects what policy actually is. Editors wanting to obscure the details of a case and keep them out of articles despite reliable coverage does not mean there is a policy against including those details.

Mentioning car brands / colors is not a "stupid amount of detail". If it were stupid, why would reliable sources mention them?

A "summary of useful information" would naturally include these. Brands are useful for verbal reference, color is useful for video/photo understanding.

Where I can see "summary" discussions happening is:

• is it necessary to mention the YEAR model of Dodge Challenger? We have the information it is 2010 but this isn't necessary for disambiguation.
• is it necessary to mention that the "red" of the minivan is described as "maroon"? While we have this information, it would probably just confuse people and isn't necessary to tell apart from any other reds.
• is it necessary to mention the "Challenger" aspect of the Dodge since there are no other Dodge vehicles discussed?
• is it necessary to mention the "Camry" aspect of the Toyota since there are no other Toyota vehicles discussed?

Given the alliterative overlap of Challenger/Camry I am open to the idea that we might simply refer to them as Dodge and Toyota, which is more distinctive. In that case, we can still cite sources which mention the specific models without needing to use them in the case. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: You seem to have misunderstood how arbitration enforcement works. All arbitration enforcement actions are unilateral actions by a single administrator and the purpose of any discussion at AE (which is not itself necessary to the process) is to informally gauge the views of others, not to form consensus which has to be judged by someone previously uninvolved in the discussion. This is very different to how things work everywhere else on Wikipedia, but it is how arbitration enforcement works. I am not inclined to change my close of that discussion. If you wish to appeal it, you can do so either by filing an appeal at WP:AE or at WP:AN, or by requesting the committee to review the close at WP:ARCA. My advice is that any such attempt will be seen as time-wasting, since the discussion was closed without any sanction.

Regarding the rest of your points, I am tempted to just tell you to go away but I'll make one more attempt to explain this to you. We do not list all detail given by reliable sources, we aim for a summary of accepted knowledge about a subject. A fact being mentioned by a reliable source (verifiability) is necessary for that fact to be mentioned, but it is not sufficient, otherwise we would have to include every fact ever mentioned by any reliable source anywhere. There is even debate in the community about whether verifiability is any reason at all for inclusion, or merely a requirement for inclusion. Your argument Mentioning car brands / colors is not a "stupid amount of detail". If it were stupid, why would reliable sources mention them? is therefore irrelevant.

Fundamentally, what is and is not included in an article is a matter for debate and consensus-forming. There are boundaries around what may or may not be included (verifiability, BLP etc) but within those boundaries, it is a matter for editorial judgement and consensus. When you have raised at least half a dozen of these similar issues at an article talk page and each time the consensus is (to paraphrase), "That level of detail is not appropriate to the article," then it is time to drop the stick. Continuing to start these discussions becomes disruptive and if you keep doing it then sanctions will follow pretty shortly. GoldenRing (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting to the closure, just the summary you used during the closure. It was phrased in a way that favors your viewpoint and ignores the other views expressed that I didn't do anything wrong at all. You seem to be seeding this as something to bite me later the next time I add reliably sourced information to an article and someone wants to sanction me for doing so.

I again object to what amounts to a straw man argument. I was not listing "ALL" detail. I was summarizing it. This is not ALL v SUMMARY but rather, our discussing different degrees of summarizing and what details ought to be left in or out of a summary.

RE necessary v. sufficient / requirement v. reason these are good adjectives and nouns. I would like them to be associated with some kind of impartial criteria so that it's a bit less "I know it when I see it" type input from people who hold different opinions on it.

I do think my point about sources mentioning details as argument against those details being 'stupid' is relevant. I believe it was inappropriate to use a rude word like 'stupid' which insults both me and the reliable reporters who I cited. There is surely a more polite adjective you could find for describing a reliably sourced detail which you agree with me fulfills tier 1 requirement/necessity but upon which we have a difference of viewpoint over it fulfilling tier 2 sufficiency/reason for inclusion.

I understand the value of consensus and editorial judgment, but I also observe the consensus can be misrepresented. Most of the time, these discussions were buried before any sort of large input. The "general agreement" by which we define consensus was sometimes 1 person objecting (in which case 1v1 is neither consensus for or against) or maybe 2 people objecting. A consensus of 2v1 is too narrow a field of input for important issues. If this were something like 19:1 it would be easier to accept.

When wider input beyond 2 or 3 persons total is allowed, I have observed support for inclusion or neutrality. The supporting/impartial parties appear to be ignored in summaries regarding consensus, which only appear to acknowledge objections. The neutral/impartial is also often situational, where it can involve partial support of an idea but wanting to modify it.

I believe you are wrong, and pushing a personal agenda, by prohibiting me from starting discussions regarding adding new details. You are conveying the false impression that I am just bringing up old details over and over again, which is untrue. It is not disruptive to start new discussions on new details.

Furthermore, I do not agree it is disruptive to bring back buried discussions when they had very little input. In articles with high activity, bots often archive talk page sections after a couple weeks to a month, so not enough people get to read it and convey opinions. There is too small a sample.

Perhaps my mistake is the choice to use article talk pages rather than some other approach. Would you suggest 'request for comment' or WikiProjects to reach a wider audience than those who happen upon (or who are following) an article talk page?

I want to know if you would allow those in good faith for my desire to pursue consensus from a broader number (perhaps double-digit?) of Wikipedians, when it comes to important and controversial articles, or if you will simply push to sanction me for bringing it up again, as if one meager and brief harumph from a small few means discussion of a detail's relevance must be buried forever. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What I said at your RFA

Damn, you really know how to make someone want to eat crow. I have to say you've really amazed me with your administrative work here since you got the bit. I was highly suspicious at first, but now I've come to realize that was perhaps the dumbest prejudice I could have had. You've been a great addition to the team, and thank you so much for helping out in the extremely contentious AE arena. Holy hell that area needs people like you. I'm truly glad to call you my colleague now. And I hope you can forgive my early assumptions way back when you requested adminship. I take literally everything I said back. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		In the short time since you were given the sysop right, you have shown a very steady hand and an incredibly good judgement in matters of the site's administration. I am very, very impressed and I think you more than deserve recognition for your actions. As such I award you this Barnstar as a token of the hopefully grand working relationship we can continue to have in the future. I will definitely be coming to you for advice, in my own actions, because I see that your mind has a great degree of clarity! (or is it the power of Sauron finally pulling me in...??!?!) :P — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: I'm a bit taken aback by this and don't know what to say. I'll start with: thank you. That's very kind. I wish I had more time to get involved in more aspects of the encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment at AN/I

I didn't want to extend a closed discussion much, but there's no issue with the flag on a user talk page. (After all, look at mine). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I closed it as one of the more ridiculous "incidents." --DHeyward (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore and DHeyward: Thanks. I'll go and apologise to the editor in question. GoldenRing (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, not to prolong this, I do share your concern somewhat with adding graphics that cover up "default" wiki links. My flag goes under, I think, the logo and it doesn't block the hyperlinking. I have seen images and userpages where it's very difficult to navigate to core wiki functions without paging down to move the image out of the way. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The question arose... elsewhere too... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

asking an administrator about IBAN violation or for clarification

User:James J. Lambden returned to editing the Stephen Miller article. My question is, are these two reverts [20] [21] of my edits a violation of his IBAN with me? The first one is a revert of this edit of mine - basically Lambden is resuming an old edit war against me, which had died out in his absence. The second one is a revert of these edits of mine [22], [23], [24]. Again, restarting an old dispute. Since both of these disputes involved myself and Lambden, this looks like a willful violation of the interaction ban rather than just forgetfulness.

Asking here per WP:IBAN instructions rather than heading straight to WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Thanks for bringing this here. Yes, technically those are violations of the IBAN but I'm reluctant to take action since the material was inserted four or five months ago and Lambden made a series of edits that removed this material but also made other changes; I think it's not at all obvious that he was aware that he was violating the IBAN. I've left a warning at his TP. GoldenRing (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

ARBCOM

Remove my name once again please: I will not be taking part, and just because one editor with a grudge against me has tried to shoehorn my name into this case does not mean I am in any way involved, particularly given the number of false statements it contained. Re: your note on my talk page: there was absolutely no personal attack in my edit summary. If I accuse an editor of being a liar, that is a personal attack. If I say that a statement contains lies, that is not a personal attack. I would, of course, have to be able to prove that there were lies in there, but that is some ease, given how much untrue information that particular statement contains. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Saying that someone has lied (or, if you want to be very precious about it, that something they said is a lie) without evidencing it is a personal attack and if you repeat it (without evidence) at this point, it is going to lead to sanctions.

Whether you end up a party to the case (if there is one) is up to the arbs, not you or me. GoldenRing (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

As I have stated above, the statement contains lies and if one of the Arbs would like further details, I will provide them, complete with a full list of diffs. Only one editor has raised my name, and they have a long-held grudge against me. I will not lower myself to having to interact with him, and (as you can see from the most recent thread on my talk page) I am considering asking for an IBAN with that individual. I have pointed out to them directly where they have spread false information about me, and yet they continue to do so. Just to ensure you undertake no action against me for making unsubstantiated accusations, two of the lies are fairly easily dealt with, just to give you an indication. I can shred the rest of his statement relating to me too, but as I say, if an Arb wants to ask me on my talk page or contact me directly, I'll be happy to provide diffs of the rest.

• "SchroCat (also with multiple civility blocks)": lie. One only (and that was seen by two other Admins as being problematic).
• "he likes to dare people to do anything about him" lie. HE removed a talk page post. When I reverted him, he threatened "If this is restored again, I will make a noticeboard matter of it." On the basis of his threat, I advised him to go to go ahead if he thought it was a problem. That's not even close to "daring" people to go to ANI.

As you have removed entire posts for not including diffs (quite rightly), I will invite you to read through the posting mcandlish has made and remove one of the lies he has added which include no diffs at all. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: If the Committee accepts the case request, the drafting arbitrator will review the list of parties and remove any that the drafting arbitrator considers outside the scope of the case. In the meantime, please don't remove your name from the list of parties. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• And what steps are going to be taken against the OP for his canvassing ([25], [26], [27], [28])? It seems odd to "invite" comments from people with whom Cassianto has disagreed: the comments from those canvassed should, of course, be struck and disregarded, but I doubt such a step would be taken (although if Cassianto went round asking people to defend him, I guarantee a knee-jerk revert would follow). I also invite you to remove the post by Coffee, containing aspersions and accusations without a single diff as evidence. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb arbitration

Hi GoldenRing. Is there some reason that the Joefromrandb arbitration case has not been opened yet?- MrX 🖋 16:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's waiting for clerking. I've just lost a village quiz night & am suffering the consequent overdose of intoxicants, so am not about to speed it on. GoldenRing (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Come on, that's the best time to clerk an arbcom case. Be bold! - MrX 🖋 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of discomfort with this case. I nearly always agree with MrX. And that would include some sanction in this filing as there is reason for such. But, I’ve also had good interaction with Joe. I think some are hoping for a non-arb solution. But then, in addition to being out of my element – I also had an overdose of intoxicants with my Bolognese tonight. O3000 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The case will be opened at some point in the next 48 hours; we are still discussing the logistics of the case. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

KrampusC

Is someone going to block KrampusC? I'd do it but, you know, that'd be "abuse". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I understand a CU has it on their list. GoldenRing (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Re: You missed one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Ta. GoldenRing (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please fix your block

I don't have any particular opinion on the appropriateness of blocking people for participating at Arbcom cases. But why, oh why, are you adding autoblock? That's just sloppy. Please lift the autoblock. Risker (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Risker (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have an opinion: that block for someone unfamiliar with arbcom speak (what arbcom calls "evidence" is not what is normally called evidence) was not a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: edit warring with a clerk despite being warned was not a good idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I know it wasn't a good idea, and regret that I didn't tell Ceoil, as I just explained on his talk. I saw it coming but went to bed instead of warning him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Stumped

Hi, GR - I'm trying out a couple of your scripts, but I'm stumped over how to use the generate diffs script. I've added it to common.js and I get the checkbox, copy to clipboard and input bar. What I'm not understanding is what to do with diff once it's generated. I tried putting it in the search bar but get nothing. I've attached an image of how it looks in Safari on my user contributions page - I'm assuming that's the only page it works on? It doesn't show-up on any other pages that I can tell.

As you can see by the image, the little box shows-up beside the diff with a checkmark, the copy diffs to clipboard is above the timeline, and when I click on copy diffs it automatically adds the diff in the input bar. I can check several diffs and it adds them all. I just don't know what to do with them after that. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: The purpose of this is to generate a list of diffs that can be pasted as wikitext into another page. So when I'm commenting on something at AE or ANI or something, it's very tedious to copy the link for each diff that I want to refer to. The script means I can select some diffs, click the 'Copy diffs to clipboard' button, then paste them into a project or talk page. The result should look like [[Special:Diff/1234567]], [[Special:Diff/12345678]]. It should work on user contribution pages and page history pages. It's particularly useful with Writ Keeper's commonHistory script which lets you inspect diffs within a user contribs or page history list. GoldenRing (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

💡💡💡⚡️ Duh...🤓 The light just went on. Awesome!! The Writ Keeper commonHistory is, too! It took me a while to figure out how to get to the short version for common.js but I got 'er done. Thank you, thank you!!! What a great tool. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Bit confused there

TRM drops in to the Women in Red wikiproject, demands they help him immediately, tells them they're not interested in supporting women on Wikipedia when they turn him down, and that's not a violation of his prohibition? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, nope, you're wrong yet again. Try it like this: I dropped a courtesy note requesting help to get 8 women hooks at WiR, the note was soundly rejected, I suggested it was a shame, but we'd carry on regardless. Yet somehow, you, an "admin", managed to try to get an AE case out of it? And it's just a coincidence that you've been in direct conflict with me over edit summaries? You should consider your position. A lot of us already are. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No. I think your characterization of the incident is reading into it a lot that isn't there. GoldenRing (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, it was just an opportunity to promote women in general. I understand if you're no longer interested in that. Sorry I mentioned it.

No, the fact that no-one here is interested in getting eight women hooks onto the main page for the whole day is clear, regardless of process. There's always an opportunity to rise above such things, yet clearly not on this occasion.

That's a bit of a stretch to characterize that as "suggested it was a shame". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you need some help here? The first note was to say that I was hoping the WiR would help DYK get 8 hooks onto the main page, and those who responded said they weren't interested in DYK. The second note was a statement of fact, and was an attempt to encourage people to ignore the process of DYK about which issues had been noted in previous comments, but a confirmation that no-one was going to go beyond those issues. What is your problem with this? Why are you complaining when no-one else is complaining? Why are you (a demonstrably involved admin) going to such ridiculous lengths (i.e. AE) to get at me? You are one step away from Arbcom yourself, so continue, if you wish, to pursue this empty vessel, but I'd strongly advise against it if you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia the way you currently do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: just leave it alone. Let's not turn an obviously-rotten AE report into a circus you end up sanctioned for, eh? GoldenRing (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shame on you, Golden Ring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Boo, shame on you "admin" Floquenbeam, time to start dealing out the "fuck you"s, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC) No, once was enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Certainly should have been enough to see you removed from your position. And now you're jumping on this like a tramp on chips. What a coincidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Moxy's final comment

Re. Your clerking action, Moxy's final comment in his section was a response to me (made in my section), rather than part of the interaction with Ceoil. Could you put back just that final comment? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat:  Done Good catch, thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That's great - much appreciated. Sorry if I came across as a bit terse in the thread further up your talk page: it's not nice to be dragged into something on a flimsy basis, but I certainly shouldn't have 'vented' at you. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Re this, I thought the end of the phase meant no further postings should be allowed? Am I correct in that? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: It's not absolutely forbidden to comment at the evidence talk page once the evidence phase is over, but I've asked the committee how they'd like to handle this particular one. GoldenRing (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. This looks less like a "comment" in the usual sense of a talk page, and more of an attempt to put in evidence by the back door. Thanks for picking up on it. – SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Further to this as I notice you are listed as a clerk: Gerda Arendt has just added more to her submission on the workshop talk page. The decision is, I believe, due to have been posted shortly and is already beyond the initial deadline? I have not commented nor been involved in this case and, if anyone takes the time to check the article where I reverted, it has a prominent 'page notice' regarding IBs as soon as the edit window is opened. In my edit summary, I also directed the editor concerned to the FAQ, which has been included on the talk page. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed it myself. - When I was a new editor, Sagaciousphil, I didn't know what "FAQ" and "TP" mean, nor where to find a "talk page" even if spelled out as you did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FAQ is a standard abbreviation; the page notice can hardly be missed. No doubt, if it had remained, then shortly someone would claim a silent consensus for the inclusion. Please do not attempt to lecture me. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please note that Gerda Arendt has removed part of one of her comments above (against TP guidelines as it had already been replied to so leaving a [deliberately?] false impression). She has also chosen to remove a further comment she made. Anyway, I'm done here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)