JosephusOfJerusalem (talk | contribs) r2 |
→Surprised: new section |
||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
:::{{re|JosephusOfJerusalem}} You are welcome to email me if you prefer, or to request reconsideration here. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing#top|talk]]) 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
:::{{re|JosephusOfJerusalem}} You are welcome to email me if you prefer, or to request reconsideration here. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing#top|talk]]) 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::: Sure. Will do. [[User:JosephusOfJerusalem|JosephusOfJerusalem]] ([[User talk:JosephusOfJerusalem|talk]]) 10:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
:::: Sure. Will do. [[User:JosephusOfJerusalem|JosephusOfJerusalem]] ([[User talk:JosephusOfJerusalem|talk]]) 10:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Surprised == |
|||
Hy. I am indeed surprised that you gauged everyone with the same tool and T-Banned everyone, including me who didn't even see/participate at the AE. Following comes to my mind: ''"if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".'' Thanks—[[User:TripWire|'''<big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkMagenta">Trip</em></big><big><em style="font-family:Calibri;color:DarkSlateGray">Wire</em></big>''']]<sup>[[User talk:TripWire|________ʞlɐʇ]]</sup> 15:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:42, 15 May 2018
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Here are some links I thought useful:
- Wikipedia:Tutorial
- Wikipedia:Help desk
- M:Foundation issues
- Wikipedia:Policy Library
- Wikipedia:Utilities
- Wikipedia:Cite your sources
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Wikipedia:Wikiquette
- Wikipedia:Civility
- Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
- Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
- Wikipedia:Peer review
- Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
- Wikipedia:Village pump
- Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
- Wikipedia:IRC channel
- Wikipedia:Mailing lists
- Wikipedia:Current polls
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: ~~~~.
Sam [] 01:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Outstanding contributions recognition
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
|
Question
Hi, I wanted to ask you about a recent comment you posted at WP:AE. First off, I don't know a lot about this area (pretty much nothing really) so I apologize if this is in any way out of line. I've never been reported to AE, so it's been an eye-opener, and I'll certainly work on not getting reported again. The report was filed against me and of course I would like to see it dealt with as soon as possible, but you've now asked about the behaviour of a different editor, and I'm wondering if there is any way that you could address that issue separately?. Thanks - theWOLFchild 13:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- See the top notice of WP:ARE. Behavior of the reporting user is also observed and GoldenRing is observing the behavior of involved users. If you have any comments about conduct involved users, you can use your own section for addressing that. Capitals00 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thanks for the info. - theWOLFchild 15:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: Capitals00 has basically nailed it here. Complaints brought to AE can look at the actions of everyone involved. I understand you'd like the complaint dealt with quickly, but everyone here's a volunteer and the time for a complaint to be closed can vary wildly - some are closed in minutes, while another currently open has been there 11 days and is only starting to look like it's winding up. GoldenRing (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I get it. Basically the same as ANI. It's just that, on the one hand, I agree that editor's behaviour should be looked at. He just now, very pov-ishly removed directly related sourced material from that article for the 2nd (3rd?) time. I not posting anything there about it because I said I would avoid that page for a few days. But it's a catch-22; if my report gets wrapped up, then his behaviour doesn't get addressed. On the other hand, if there is a examination of his behaviour, the longer it goes, the longer I have to wait for the report to close. It kinda' sucks, but I get it. Thanks anyways. - theWOLFchild 16:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Violation of topic ban
It appears to me that User:DanaUllman is violating his indefinite topic ban. His recent comments have been noted. That ban is noted on his talk page. I do not know if anything has changed since then. Would you please investigate and see if he should receive some sort of "attention" for violating his ban? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Question about Joefromrandb entry in DSLOG
Hi GoldenRing. Is there a reason why Joefromrandb's entry is at WP:DSLOG/2018? I looked through the logs until 2014 and no other editor's Arbcom case has been singled out in this way. --NeilN talk to me 10:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Bump. --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Thanks for the reminder. I think this might have changed fairly recently. I was following the instructions in the "Enforcement log" section of the case page. I'll ask the question on the clerks' mailing list. GoldenRing (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Following discussion with the arbs, I have removed it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 15:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
My e-mails
Sorry if I'm annoying you, but I would really appreciate a response to what I posted here. I probably should have posted these e-mails sometime yesterday, and I hope it isn't too late for you and other admins to take their contents into account when deciding how I should be sanctioned. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
DS edit notice
Over at AE, you mentioned the recent amendment to the DS procedures that DS like 1/0RR need to be in the edit notice. That's something new to me (though welcome in some fashions), so I was wondering if you had a link handy to that decision? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Kingofaces43: It was enacted at Special:Permalink/820600857#Discretionary_Sanctions:_Motion and codified at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Kingofaces43: Do note though that it only applies to page restrictions imposed by admins under DS, not to remedies like the ARBPIA 1RR restriction that come directly from the committee. GoldenRing (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks all. That's partly what I was curious about too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
First adminship anniversary!
Notifying
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#Anythingyouwant 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, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Bad 'law' makes for piss poor decisions
And circling the wagons to defend a sub-standard action taken in defence of the poorly written 'law' doesn't help clarify or improve anything. It's a ridiculously counter-productive decision that will only appease the IB warriors, stalkers and trolls. – SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @SchroCat: You may well be right, but trying to reopen a discussion on the AE board is only ever going to cause more heat than light as closing them is itself an AE; undoing it is therefore sanctionable. I agree there's ambiguity in the wording of the remedy and I've requested clarification from the committee at ARCA. Let's see what they say. GoldenRing (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Refactoring
Hi, GoldenRing, greetings:) I hope you didn't mind my refactoring of your post at AE, for easier accessibility at hand-held devices.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 13:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: Not at all, thanks. I'll admit I never use mobile view - even when I'm using a mobile device I use desktop mode - so I'm less aware of the accessibility issues. GoldenRing (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Glad to know that:) It' s too difficult and cumbersome to smoothly maneuver the desktop-site, with a flurry of scripts and all, in small screens.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 18:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Me neither. But for what it's worth, at the very bottom of each editing page is Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia etc., and then Mobile view, which allows a preview as it is seen by others. Particularly helpful for placing images, etc., even when working on desktop. Happy holidays, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 18:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
ARCA motion
The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion in response to the ARCA requested you submitted. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Civility in infobox discussions: Motion
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 1.1 of the Civility in infobox discussions case is amended to replace dot point 3:
*making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.with the following:* making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is primarily about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Civility in infobox discussions: Motion
Interaction Timeline V1.1
Hello GoldenRing, I’m following up with you because you previously showed an interest in the Interaction Timeline. The Anti-Harassment Tools team has completed V1.1 and the tool is ready for use. The Interaction Timeline shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits.
The purpose of the tool is to better understand the sequence of edits between two users in order to make a decision about the best way to resolve a user conduct dispute. Here are some test cases that show the results and also some known limitations of the tool. We would like to hear your experience using the tool in real cases. You can leave public feedback on talk page or contact us by email if the case needs discretion or you would prefer to comment privately. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Feedback
Hi GoldenRing. Would you happen to have the time to continue the conversation we had at the end of this section on my talk page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Appeal process
I read up the appeal process. Is this a step by step process or do I choose whichever method from the three? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @JosephusOfJerusalem: It is not a step by step process. You can select any of the three you want. I would encourage you to go WP:ARCA since WP:ARE has been already seen by enough admins. Capitals00 (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @JosephusOfJerusalem: You may appeal at whichever venue you think most appropriate. But once you've appealed at AE or AN, you can't appeal here. And appeals to ARCA are final; you can't then appeal to AE or AN. I will tell you for free that unless you have something distinctly different to what you presented at AE, any appeal here will be wasting your time. I would also advise that, given the general agreement of administrators at AE, your chances of success at the other venues are not high, though of course you are free to pursue them. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Okay. So if I select option 1, will it be conducted on this TP or is there another method available such as email? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @JosephusOfJerusalem: You are welcome to email me if you prefer, or to request reconsideration here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sure. Will do. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @JosephusOfJerusalem: You are welcome to email me if you prefer, or to request reconsideration here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Okay. So if I select option 1, will it be conducted on this TP or is there another method available such as email? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Surprised
Hy. I am indeed surprised that you gauged everyone with the same tool and T-Banned everyone, including me who didn't even see/participate at the AE. Following comes to my mind: "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Thanks—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 15:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)