User talk:GoldenRing: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:12, 13 August 2019

Archives (index)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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.

Re: time limited TBANs

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

Indefinite T-bans in contentious areas are nearly impossible to appeal. Personally I'm supportive of time limited ones before something so drastic as an indef. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you’ve unblocked Huldra, do you also intend to remove the sanction on Sir Joseph? Both sanctions came from a less than productive discussion, and it’s not exactly fair that one editor should get a pass while the other doesn’t. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I've personally stopped doing time-limited TBANs is that it was happening too frequently, especially with caste warriors and in ARBIPA generally, that the user simply left Wikipedia for the duration of the ban, and then turned up and started right in on the topic again. I don't like that, because it means they've learned nothing about editing Wikipedia in the meantime. I like to see a ban appeal that shows constructive editing on other topics during the ban, and/or constructive editing of the sister projects. Anything that shows a learning curve. It's certainly not my impression that they're "impossible to appeal", on the contrary, just as long as there has been some editing. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

GoldenRing, I support your position for timed t-bans, especially when it's a first t-ban ever for an editor. Indef anything is not the best way - it's an incentive killer, especially when veteran editors are involved - and it really doesn't stop disruption in conflicted topic areas (probably in some cases, it was because the wrong editor was t-banned), and it may well be considered punitive. Worse yet, it leaves open the possibility of POV t-banning, intentional or otherwise, when it's actually a content issue rather than a behavioral issue. If there is no question about behavioral disruption - such as legal threats, unrelenting use of profanity, PAs, and the like, and the editor is known for such behavior, then an indef block may be in order rather than a t-ban. That's the kind of behavior that typically carries over to all topics. We're giving actual vandals across the project more consideration than what our veteran editors are being given, and that's just plain wrong and a potential abuse of the tools if it's POV motivated. Just my 5¢ worth - and I'm pretty sure there are quite a few others who believe as I do. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

marchordie

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

To add this is not isolated [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. I have no idea if these were valid removals or not, but it is clear the Tommy Robinson business was not isolated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I didn't mean to imply that he was right, but to comment even if he was right. Per the banner on my userpage, I'm not up to thinking about complex questions today. Ask again tomorrow. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did not see it, I tend to just go straight to users talk pages. I apologize.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: No problem. GoldenRing (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well they appear to have stormed off in a huff (I assume form your removal of the tag that you are now in a better place? If not delete this).Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: blocked for a week for repeated PAs, IIRC. GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry they seem to have posted a retired tag. I assumed that they meant it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Ah yes, I see. Not that unusual in the circs. GoldenRing (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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

ARCA Notice

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

Thanks,

Welcome to OTRS!

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

Hmph

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

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

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

Wow, the interaction ended on 12 May, Roy McCoy complained 9 days later on 21 May, and then this on 22 May. Ridiculous. No interaction ban is sensible when interaction has stopped. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This guy's pulling the same crap on User:Ealdgyth's talkpage now. It'll probably play out differently if they go to a noticeboard. Primergrey (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone shoot me an e-mail if something develops, please. I've learned the hard way it is utterly fruitless to try to appeal anything AE does unless circumstances change significantly to overwhelmingly prove the problem lies elsewhere. It clearly does, but it's going to take another dramaboard action of some kind to demonstrate it, apparently. In the interim, I decline to volunteer my time to a project that sticks punitive and unjustifiable sanctions on me when I was the one being harassed. F that. I have a lot of other things I can do with my time, without being treated like some kind of criminal for my efforts. I'll say the same thing here that I said at my own talk page: when AE and other admins allow a NOTHERE party to bully their way into sanctioning someone else (over a dispute that was already over, and was one-sided the entire time, and which involved the same party repeatedly causing tendentious drama at a user talk page they were banned from other than for encyclopedia-constructive messages), then all those admins are doing is teaching people how to game the system and get away with it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I smell sock

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

Norman Bay

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

Request for deletion

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

Arbitration Amendment Request archived

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

Closing

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

@Sitush: The text comes from a template. I think 'watched' is correct - it's a notice that new messages may not get anyone's attention. GoldenRing (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had posted the same question. I removed it when I saw Sitush's same query. I do not think you are correct. I suggest you check previous cases - as I did. If a case cannot be watched - and they can be - then any dodgy amendments could not be capable of revert. Which would be silly, wouldn't it? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand both rationales. GoldenRing knows about it and can do whatever they think is correct. I'm not that fussed and it has just struck me that I think the case pages end up being protected anyway. It's a while since a followed a case right through, so I'm probably out of touch. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

inquiry about wiki tool for astroturfing investigation

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

Notice of arbitration

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

Your feedback to my edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

@GoldenRing: Thanks for this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for guidline

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

Word count

Could you re-calculate and let me know where I stand after my changes? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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]

@Starship.paint: Thanks for pointing this out. I fixed it as I archived the request. GoldenRing (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, regarding the Signpost case, this ping to Oshwah didn't send due to a username typo. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:30, 2 July 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:[4]
July 1, 22:45, Buffs then starts in on Scouting in the various States articles with Scouting in Arkansas:[5] then follows Indigenous girl to Vermont.[6] Is warned by El C.[7] Buffs engages and complains but then ignores the warning and follows Indigenous girl to Scouting in Massachusetts anyway.[8]

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,[9] 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

--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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Naruto_characters#Madara_Uchiha

If you can, please check for reverse copy vio.

Thanking youAbhiMukh97^Speak 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. AbhiMukh97^Speak 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[10], 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]

@Mr rnddude: Thanks for the notification. I've commented at AN. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 6 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]

A cookie for you!

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

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 [11]. E Eng 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. E Eng 14:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 375: / Line 375: @@
 [[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&nbsp;The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Saxifrage|Saxifrage]]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 18:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
-== Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs! ==
+== Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators <del>exposed as poseurs</del> <ins>have feet of clay just like other editors</ins>! ==
 Just to be sure you don't miss this [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=910610700&oldid=910597586]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 :{{re|EEng}} Please explain how the title of this section is not a personal attack for which you should be blocked from editing.  [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing#top|talk]]) 08:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
-:: He have posted this on several editors talk pages. These rants are not acceptable any more if you ask me.[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 13:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+::: He have posted this on several editors talk pages. These rants are not acceptable any more if you ask me.[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 13:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
+::I apologize. I've changed the title to something more neutral. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 14:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)