Jump to content

User talk:GoldenRing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dicklyon (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 2 September 2019 (→Not uninvolved: don't be spoiling the fun). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

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

Be Bold!

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

Outstanding contributions recognition

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

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

Keep up the great work! :)

Lourdes

email

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

Yo Ho Ho

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

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

ARCA Notice

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

Thanks,

Closing

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

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

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

inquiry about wiki tool for astroturfing investigation

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

Notice of arbitration

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

Your feedback to my edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for guidline

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

Word count

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

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

You've got mail

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

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

ARC: Fram

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

Please fix...

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

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

That redlinked category

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

Question

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

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

ANI thread

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

Talk page access

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

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

The Master 2121

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

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

Feedback request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per the above

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

Here's the timeline:

  • June 30, 22:36, Indigenous girl edits Scouting in Vermont:[1]
  • July 1, 22:45, Buffs then starts in on Scouting in the various States articles with Scouting in Arkansas:[2] then follows Indigenous girl to Vermont.[3] Is warned by El C.[4] Buffs engages and complains but then ignores the warning and follows Indigenous girl to Scouting in Massachusetts anyway.[5]

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

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

Buffs said to you earlier today: that there were "no objections made" to his edits/conduct (along with the strange statement which seemed to indicate he thought WP:HOUNDING is OK if he said he was going to do it right before defying the ban). But on 21:04, July 2, 2019 Indigenous girl posted on El C's talk: The guy is still following me. She has also sought help from other administrators, as far back as March,[6] for his conduct towards her. Buffs is fully aware of this as his talk page is full of his complaints about it, and he has removed many warnings from his talk over these issues. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs and CorbieVreccan: Thanks for bringing this here. I've had a long dig this afternoon and my conclusions are at WP:AN. I won't entertain further discussion of this here. GoldenRing (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

Why was the request shot down so quickly I thought given the success rate at RMT and AFC (which is apparently what was wanted last time) and that I was asking for less than the last time but yet my request failed. However at least I can still hopefully do the bot request although without the ability to move pages and create redirects and DAB pages it will be more difficult. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: I archived the request at the request of the committee. Members of the committee left fairly detailed comments on the request and I think that is likely to be your best resource for discerning why it panned out the way it did, though of course you can always take it up with them directly. GoldenRing (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning you're decision with the request, you closed it in accordance with the consensus however I'm questioning the consensus its self given the fact that I felt that I had addressed the concerns (at least partly) from the last request (and no one appeared to address either the 100% success rate at AFC or the high success rate at RMT) but indeed I should probably discuss it directly with them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

Hello, GoldenRing,

I just noticed that you were solo clerking the Fram case. I guess it won't be as unruly as regular cases since evidence will be submitted via email and there won't be public commenting on the procedures. But this is probably one of the most delicate cases ArbCom has heard and I just wanted to wish you well. I'm sure your fellow clerks will be on-call should you need to confer with them and your ample experience as an admin will help as well. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Well, since you've now been reappointed clerk, you could help out... GoldenRing (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willwal and British PMs

TO be fair, the last edit adding a number was at 11:26, I asked them to stop at 11:39, and went to ANI at 11:45. So they didn't continue after I asked them to stop, nor did they continue after the ANI report was filed. I strongly suspect socking though, just can't recall the details of the earlier cases. DuncanHill (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though they were told not to do it in 2016 here, and the request is still on their talk page. So they had been told before. DuncanHill (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: Yeah, as I've said at ANI, either they're using some undeclared auto-editing tool which doesn't leave edit summaries, or they deliberately lined up several dozen tabs and published them all as fast as they could. Either way, it's not on. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kloc

Hi there! I found numerous new sources on the guy. It would be great if you could check out my five cents here. I really think we should keep him. Just give me the opportunity to edit the article. Cheers, Andek (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andek: I have restored the article to your userspace, at User:Andek/Dave Kloc, for you to work new sources into. GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added the sources. What next? Shall I just restore the article or is there some kind of protocol that has to be followed now? Andek (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andek: No, there's no formal process, but there are probably some things you can do to avoid just having it deleted again. Frankly, it still strikes me as being pretty light on sources that establish notability, but I'm not particularly involved in such questions and others might give you a better opinion on it. You might consider adding {{subst:submit}} at the top of it to get one of our new article reviewers to have a look and give some advice. GoldenRing (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have found out, that he currently works as an illustrator for the Washington Post as well. That should be enough now, I guess. Andek (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spambots

Hi GoldenRing, I noticed your decline here however this is a textbook (or rather, encyclopedic) example of a spambot. There are hundreds of thousands of them across Wikimedia projects creating the same content. Merely removing the offending link doesn't really solve the problem (nor prevent it.) Just a friendly heads up since I also usually report these en-masse. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Oh well, TB got there before I could even think of responding to this. GoldenRing (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TrinaSai911404

Sorry, I blocked without seeing that you'd declined the deletion first, but TrinaSai911404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a spambot. The userpage pattern gives it away. Any user that creates a user page with "Hi, I'm [name], [generic flux text with a list of hobbies] here is a [spam link]" is a computer program and not a person. Luckily we don't deal with too many of them on en.wiki because we have VPNs blocked a bit more thoroughly than stewards have them blocked globally, but some still sneak through. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: No problem. GoldenRing (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this was being discussed right above me -_-. I'm really bad at looking at things today. Anyway, hope all is well with you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Apart from despairing of ever finding a real, live new user who's here to contribute, yes, thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deletion of Draft:Madara Uchiha

Sorry to hear that, it comes under copyright violation. But, the source from which I copied the information belongs to wikipedia. The source: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Naruto_characters#Madara_Uchiha

If you can, please check for reverse copy vio.

Thanking youAbhiMukh97Speak 14:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AbhiMukh97: You are correct that this is a reverse copyvio. However, per WP:CWW, you cannot just copy and paste text within Wikipedia without attribution. See that page for details on what you can do. Basically, feel free to recreate the draft with the text you copied, but make sure it is correctly attributed (eg in an edit summary) this time. GoldenRing (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: Well I just forgot to attribute, my fault though. Thanks for the quick response. AbhiMukh97Speak 14:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore?

I think it's time to restore/close it. I don't agree with the conclusion, but I recognize the will of the community and I'll accept it. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: I agree with you; but it would be grossly improper of me to do so. Someone uninvolved needs to close it. GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think restoring it would be non-controversial and you could ask another admin to close. Buffs (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of accepting the will of the community/others and consensus, I'm going to refrain. I'll leave it in your capable hands. Buffs (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs: Apologies for not reading carefully, I didn't realise it'd been archived. I've restored it & asked for someone to close it. GoldenRing (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Buffs (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saxifrage's close

  • I do not think that Saxifrage's close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Buffs, Indigenous Girl and CorbieVreccan is appropriate. Four uninvolved editors !voted on the IBAN proposal there: yourself, Swarm, GMG, and Mark Ironie. you, Swarm and GMG indicated for two-way, MI indicated one-way (through other comments, their !vote was non-specific). CV and Buffs also !voted, CV for one-way and Buffs opposed. Saxifrage has closed with the statement that consensus is that the conflict is one-way. That does not align with the views expressed. I think that the close should be overturned as a supervote. I'm not gonna lie, it strikes me as very strange that Saxifrage has not edited WP:AN is 13 years[7], but then decides to close this? and with a long, albeit skewed summary. Not only that, but Saxifrage has failed to inform Buffs of this outcome. Oh and has taken on a hostile demeanour to being questioned about their close. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, GoldenRing, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! —Aranya (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo

Hey, GoldenRing. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear GoldenRing,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little thank you for reading through, succinctly summarizing, and closing that long T&LOM thread at WP:AN. creffett (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Saxifrage. Lepricavark (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors!

Just to be sure you don't miss this [8]. EEng 07:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Please explain how the title of this section is not a personal attack for which you should be blocked from editing. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He have posted this on several editors talk pages. These rants are not acceptable any more if you ask me.BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I've changed the title to something more neutral. EEng 14:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples, background?

GR, you wrote, "I'm also not convinced that the mass page moves they have carried out were uncontroversial; several have been reverted en masse and by Dicklyon's own admission, a lot of people complained about them." I'm happy to help you understand the background on this. I don't see what you think I admitted. It is simply untrue that a lot of people have complained about my mass moves. I can think of Sam Sailor re lighthouse, which were 1% of my moves. Is there anyone else? Note that Andy Dingley and Nyttend are sore at me because their anti-MOS positions consistently lose in discussions, and because I took Nyttend to AN/I for his involved close of an MOS move case. These are not about mass moves. I'm happy to help you find background and details if you are interested enough to help us get to the truth. Note that I said I would not respond at WP:AN (responding at the other thread when I was so pissed at BMK for his proposal based on Nyttend's lies didn't do me much good, did it?). Please get back to me here, or by email if you prefer. Dicklyon (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon:- The "by your own admission" bit is in reference to this comment, which reads to me like people objected to your moves and you informed them that the moves were "uncontroversial". But this is what I meant when I said I needed to find time to read up and check details. GoldenRing (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many RM discussions and an RFC preceded those moves; a few editors wanted to keep arguing. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2016 archive#Implementing the "Jr." RfC. I do not admit to making "mass moves" before resolving the issues via discussions. I continued discussion while doing a few at a time. Eventually, we did the last few thousand by approved bot. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, the sub-section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2016 archive#About done shows how we cointinued to remove controversy via numerous RM discussions before doing mass moves. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here in my move log you can see the 1000 or so Jr/Sr moves from May onward, after all this resolution discussion. Click on older 2200 there to see that I did many fewer (perhaps about 150) incrementally over the previous five months (average about 1 per day), all implementing consensus from the many prior discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being willing to look into this. Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the "several have been reverted en masse" is misleading, as was discussed at AN/I. See Randy Kryn's comment on the World Heritage sites for example. Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's moot now, as the "ban", if any, has been lifted. Still, if you have any complaints or questions about my behavior, I'm happy to discuss. Thanks for being "on the fence" at least. Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: If this has been overtaken by events, lets let it lie. I wish you well in your editing. It's always difficult to try to have an administrative opinion on someone whose editing outshines my own by such an enormous margin. GoldenRing (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to take that, but yes this is behind us. Dicklyon (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: FWIW, it was intended as a compliment. GoldenRing (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

another look?

Hey, Golden Ring! Would you be willing to take another look at User:Valereee/ER and see what you think? I made a stab at addressing your feedback, but I'd appreciate advice. --valereee (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa

Hi GoldenRing, as you know, a few of us have put together a mentoring proposal for Elisa.rolle at User:Valereee/ER. Would you be willing to act as an independent admin for that project, in the sense that, if an uninvolved admin is needed to make a block, we could call on you?

The idea is that the community needs to know that, if there is another copyvio, there will be a sanction. It may be that we'll be able to handle things ourselves, or we may feel too involved. It would depend on the scenario. Personally, I don't think there are going to be any problems, because Elisa has said she won't copy anything, but the community nevertheless needs the assurance that violations will be addressed. SarahSV (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: In principle, yes. I'm looking very busy today and tomorrow, both on-wiki and off. I'll have a look at the proposal on Wednesday (if I don't find time beforehand) and get back to you. GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much appreciated. SarahSV (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee and SarahSV: My apologies that it's taken me an extra day to get to this. I like the plan you've put together and I'd be happy to support it at AN; I think it stands a good chance, though these things are always pretty unpredictable. Yes, I'm happy to act as an independent admin to help out from time to time. I don't know quite how you intend to word this, but the obvious pitfall for me is that you should avoid giving the impression that only certain admins are welcome to act in regard to Elisa. But by all means put me down as someone who's prepared to act as an independent third party if needed. GoldenRing (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GoldenRing; I've added this to the plan. I've tried to make sure it's clear that any admin should feel free to act in any appropriate way. If you can make or suggest further improvements, please do! --valereee (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, I'm sorry that I took so long to respond to this. I think Valereee has expressed it well on User:Valereee/ER. We should be able to move forward soon with the proposal. SarahSV (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not univolved

As I probably would explain if I had a greater word limit (extension was denied), I'm not a completely uninvolved editor. I've explained it recently to several folks on my talk page if you'd like to take a look at my extended thoughts. If you want the diffs of my previous statements, please read the Amendment section on the case page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misspelled univalved. Nobody ever thought you were that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the funniest things I've ever read on Wikipedia. I'm going to steal it for future use. EEng 04:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: I have never claimed to be good at spelling. (lol) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I've looked through your case request and all the diffs you link from it again. From what I can tell, your involvement is (a) you brought a request to AE for a TBAN vio you had nothing to do with and which was closed with no action (the comment was removed by a crat and AE admins responded with de minimis non curat lex); (b) a few days later you turned up at a FA Eric wrote, made fairly sweeping claims about a source he'd used which later turned out to be mostly mistaken and got an uncivil response; (c) someone made a baiting remark at Eric's talk page which Eric didn't respond to, you commented at AN to say you had something to say, but then instead of saying it, you filed a request for arbitration. That still looks a lot like you sticking your oar in to administrative situations re Eric in which you are completely uninvolved (and judging by your talk page, it's a habit you have more widely than Eric, too). I comprehend that this might not be how you perceive the situation, but I'm trying to explain how it looks from the outside.
Do you honestly think this forms the basis of a request for arbitration? The remainder of the evidence you provided consists of things he said at Talk:Moors murders. I won't disagree with you that he was uncivil there; I blocked him for it. It's hard the see it forming the basis of a new case, though, when he's already been sanctioned for it in line with the arbitration remedy to which he is subject.
Do you know the biggest reason I'm annoyed at you for bringing this? It is entirely counter-productive to what you are trying to achieve. The only thing you have here that hasn't been completely dealt with through normal administrative processes is a single interaction with you where Eric was moderately uncivil and you were in the wrong on content. The utterly, utterly predictable response to you bringing this request is for Eric to play the persecuted-martyr card. Now, next time some poor sod like me has to deal with an EC AE request, you've helped to feed the narrative that "Eric Corbett faces more scrutiny than any other editor on this project" and made it that much harder to actually do anything about it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you stick your oar in, Eric may return the compliment. EEng 04:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Thank you for the ping] Before I start, this is untrue: "a few days later you turned up at a FA Eric wrote" I showed up at a random article on the site; and when I realized Eric contributed to it, I didn't actually back down. Either way, two months had passed since my original AE request. As I stated elsewhere, that is a quarter of the time I have spent on this project. It also doesn't matter if I am "wrong on content" because I still fundamentally consider Haddon an unreliable source. That is still within my rights to think (unless WP:Consensus turns up otherwise).
The only thing you have here that hasn't been completely dealt with through normal administrative processes is a single interaction with you where Eric was moderately uncivil... You've just conceded to the entire point of my case request. Eric violated his sanctions and normal administrative processes have failed to deal with it.
"Eric Corbett faces more scrutiny than any other editor on this project" I have received more calls to be sanctioned in my own case request than Eric has. This is despite the fact I have never even received a block before nor have I spent even a year on this project.
Now, next time some poor sod like me has to deal with an EC AE request I'm sorry, but this has been the case.[9]
You seem to know just as well as I do that the sanctions aren't working as intended. At AE the burden has been put on both the filer to prove Eric violated his sanction and on the enforcing admin to action the report directly proportional to the amount of disruption it caused.
The sanctions don't say: "Eric can't be uncivil except if he's baited because that's just unfair." They require him to back away and not insult people. He refuses to do that, and this community refuses to require him to and enforce arbcom's previous ruling.
No amount of content work can justify the amount of time this community has wasted on the subject of Eric Corbett. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Apologies on getting the timings wrong. Regarding Eric violated his sanctions and normal administrative processes have failed to deal with it, admins are prevented from taking action on Eric's incivility until a request at AE has been open for 24 hours. Did you bring a request? Obviously not. Now, I think I can understand not wanting to so soon after another request which you thought was valid was closed without action (except by a 'crat), but to complain that the administrative processes are not working because you didn't use them is hardly the basis for arbitration. As I say, I think I understand why you didn't use them (including that there were others advising you not to) but at the same time it's simply not true to say, based on your experience, that those processes are incapable of dealing with the problem. Re the victimisation narrative, I don't claim that Eric faces more scrutiny than other editors, I claim that there is a narrative claiming that he does and that you've fed into it. The time to bring an action is when your evidence is strongest so that the action will stick; you seem to have picked a terrible time to bring an action which will only make future enforcement actions harder. And regarding this community refuses to require him to and enforce arbcom's previous ruling, that is blatantly untrue; the only AE request dealing with Eric breaching his civility restriction this year closed after I blocked him for the amount of time specified in arbcom's previous ruling. What more do you want?
Administrators are expected to enforce arbitration decisions with a reasonable degree of common sense and with the main goal of minimising disruption. You are quite right that the restriction requires Eric to walk away from provocation and not respond to it, and in fact I felt that the recent AE request showed that Eric was provoked and I blocked him anyway; at the same time, I don't think many administrators are going to look at a situation where both sides have behaved badly and give one side a free pass because the other side has a civility restriction from arbcom. To use your AE request against Eric as an illustration, yes, a block would have been well within admin discretion for the clear breach of the TBAN but removing the comment was also a reasonable solution and one that brought with it considerably less disruption. Note also that Eric was blocked for a month shortly after for another topic ban violation. The narrative that Eric is unblockable and that admins who do block him are somehow forced from the project is also a false one. GoldenRing (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is all probably rather irrelevant now since all the active arbs have voted and it's mathematically impossible for it to be accepted. The request is likely to be removed when an uninvolved clerk gets a chance. GoldenRing (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed; it's all good! The real problem with blocking Eric is not that the admins will be forced out or anything: it's that the very notion of blocking Eric has not been viewed properly. Blocks are normally a preventative measure taken; never a punitive one. For whatever reason, this is not the paradigm the community has used for blocking Eric. He stated he didn't care about his topic ban. While even a removal of his comment as an AE action would have been sufficient in my view, a 24 hour block would have been much more effective in preventing disruption to this project. I hold the essential belief that Eric was testing the community to see what he could get away with. He went after the weakest of his restrictions first, after all. A 24 hour block would have made clear that none of his restrictions are allowed to be broken. The way to deal with that is by filing an ARCA; not willful disobedience.
I also don't know why you are saying I didn't file at AE. I made a statement illustrating what had happened to me in the AE thread you closed. The only reason I didn't make a statement sooner is because (1) I don't track Eric's every move and didn't even know about the Moors Murders stuff, (2) I don't watchlist AE or any other administrative pages per the advice previously given to me, and (3) I outlined how I did find out about that AE thread here.
I'll ask you two things:
(A) Do you think that your 72 hour block was the last block Eric would receive? If no, then can you please explain why we should allow further disruption on the project to take place?
(B) Do you believe I should be admonished for filing against Eric? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: (1) rather depends on whether Eric edits again. We could, of course, indef every editor who disrupts the project ever. We don't. I'm on the record as supporting a number of unsuccessful unblock requests at AN as well; I think people should be given considerable latitude to improve themselves (and actually I think Eric's block log shows that he has improved his approach considerably over the years, though still some way from the ideal). (2) An admonishment from arbcom? No. A healthy fish dinner? Probably. I think your case request is counter-productive. GoldenRing (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the ping. If Eric was indeffed and sought an appeal at AN citing what he did wrong to earn a block, I'd be all for it. Eric, to my knowledge, has never apologized to anyone in this community for actions that he has since been sanctioned for. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[10] That was fast.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenring, with the “inactive” Courcelles voting to accept the tally is now 4/3/1. Does that mean the case goes ahead? Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: Sign. Yes, I expect it does. GoldenRing (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sign? EEng 20:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A long, heart-felt, slightly demoralised sign typo sigh. GoldenRing (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh sign (kind of weird as enacted here, actually, almost like it was taken with a fish-eye lens). EEng 23:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldenRing&oldid=913673718"