User talk:GoldenRing/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Ah ha! We have you now, minion of Sauron!

So, you boldly admit you are an 'engineer' in a somewhat 'controversial' field of endeavor... and your username is 'GoldenRing'....

Talk about WP:COI violations -- I know who you are.

One ring to rule them all,
One ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them.

You are the blacksmith producing more Rings Of Power! All your edits on wikipedia clearly are pushing this evil POV! You must be stopped! Elbereth!

(please note this *entire* post is in jest. I do not really believe you are a minion of The Great Red Eye. You just commented on WP:COI over in one of the threads about paid-advocacy, and mentioned usernames as an indicator, and, well, see above. If you have not read the books, or at least seen the movie, none of the above may make any sense whatsoever... if so please disregard. Thank you for your time  :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• That's where you're wrong. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Well, we must not have you now, then, dern it. Go on about your wiki-business, minion of sauron, we may have you yet. Wait, which part exactly was wrong? Oh, nevermind.  :-)   Anyways, I appreciate you taking my odd sense of humour in stride, and more importantly, for your sensible position on WP:COI. See you around; thanks for improving wikipedia. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, since when did any minion of Sauron know so much about rugby union... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Martinevans123, everyone, even the balrogs, need to put their feet up with a beer every now and then. GoldenRing (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, even Brian is ... here!! Martinevans123 (talk)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#LA Clippers owner banned for life

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#LA Clippers owner banned for life. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

ITN

Hi, thanks for paying attention.

I wanted to explain that I try to avoid chiming in with everyone else. If there are twelve supports and I support I won't comment. When I do comment, I like to make people think, rather than just going with the current. And you also need to look at context. On the Bob Hoskins nomination, one the opposes had been on the basis that he was being posted, while more worthy nominations were being kept off. I could have gotten in an argument with that editor. I thought pointing out the absurdity in another way would be less confrontational and more effective, at least for those not on autopilot. Same thing with the Tornado Outbreak nom. As usual, we got a bunch of "the usual suspects" complaining about American bias and how this happens all the time. Rather than saying, "You, MistookEditor" are mistaken", I thought a little irony would lighten the situation.

I prefer Cash's theorem to Poe's law.

μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone (2nd nomination). Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your ITN proposal

Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a rational argument

A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity. Nothing I've said is remotely a personal attack. On Wikipedia we are free to critique contributions rather than contributors. Arguments could be "not rational" because they are based on wrong facts, they are conclusory or they involve logical fallacies. There's no reason to mince words when explaining why an argument is defective. For instance "This is not ITN/R" is not a rational argument, because we don't require ITN items to be listed on ITNR. "This is something of only lilliputian interest, and a purely parochial matter" is conclusory and contradicts the obvious fact that the election is making headlines around the world. "POTUS may not be the only office that matters, but we generally only post the result of an election that determines who occupies the highest seat in the government" is a reasonable oppose. We can look at more, but I think three examples suffice for the moment. At the time I posted there were 12 supports and 7 opposes, so even if you want to accord full weight to all the votes, when in fact about half of them were irrational, it's still within admin discretion to post the item. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't buy that. Engaging with arguments as you've done above is not a personal attack; dismissing all the opposing opinion as not rational is at best a base insult. To take issue with point in particular, "This is not ITN/R" is a perfectly rational argument when the nominator has tagged the item ITN/R and the editor is explaining why they've removed that tag.

But my concern is not whether the item should have been posted; I supported the nomination. My concern is that ITN is already a pretty toxic place to operate. You've exercised 'admin discretion' to find consensus where there is plainly deep division. You've posted a US-centric item very quickly where there is already a fairly strong feeling that US-centric items get an easy ride. You've labelled the numerous opposes as 'not rational'. Do you think that's helped make ITN a less toxic place to operate, or more toxic? I know what I think. GoldenRing (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is now closed, so I think we should move on. Please see some of the other comments on my own talk page. I don't want to bore you by repeating them here. Thank you for taking an interest in this and for your suggestions. Of course I will try to learn something from the experience. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit

2014 G-20 Brisbane summit, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

ThaddeusB (talk

Here are the templates: Template:Constituencies of Balochistan Assembly, Template:Constituencies of Sindh Assembly, Template:Constituencies of Punjab Assembly. THere are the stubs created by the same user. You may consider nominating them for deletion too, or associating them with the current AfD. Faizan 06:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing, an arbitration amendment request that you were listed as a party to has been closed and archived to

Hi GoldenRing,

I know that you have been around for a long time. I saw that you were undoing a lot of vandalism edits and warning users manually; have you tried

I made changes to the Three 6 Mafia page because it's a new group. Dj Paul himself even said it's a new group. Another thing is why would Juicy J be a past member of a brand in which he owns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetaylor (talk • contribs)

@Tetaylor: A very brief search indicates it's not a new group - the group's own website [1] indicates they've been together since at least 1997. It's unreferenced, but our article on Juicy J says he was part of the group from 1991 to 2009, making him now a former member. At any rate, blanking big sections of the article, removing the infobox etc doesn't really help. GoldenRing (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@

wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. GoldenRing (talk

) 02:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude Three 6 has existed since 1991 but Da Mafia 6ix has existed since 2013. THREE 6 MAFIA is signed to Sony and that's the reason they formed a new group minus Juicy J. DJ himself even said it a new group and not Three 6 Mafia. If Juicy J is a past member then why a user upload a picture of him(Juicy J) in which DJ Paul himself is not seen? Users are blending two separate groups into one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetaylor (talk • contribs)

Is there a way that we can create a Da Mafia 6ix page or would everything have to be mentioned on the Three 6 Mafia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetaylor (talk • contribs) 15:20, April 15, 2015‎ (UTC)

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/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Is WRCP down? I can't seem to get it to do anything (in either Firefox or Safari)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thanks for the note. Now fixed. GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm utterly shocked and disgusted by your misleading and in some cases factually wrong rant about me at ANI. Why should an editor be given free rein to include disputed material not just without consensus, but against it? Your take on this matter is astounding. AusLondonder (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Calm down. It's at ANI, let's leave it there. GoldenRing (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

hey Dude im really sorry i didnt bothered to read how to edit wiki properly and started edditing im really very sorry for this and thank you for telling me how to send messages. :) Brahm gian (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brahm gian: No worries. I hope you have a productive wiki career. GoldenRing (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Is shifting the topic. The problem itself, is on the validity on YouTube urls to be added to the articles of songs by artists, and if they violate the rules or not in Wikipedia.

Now about the «null editions», no user has asked me "to stop several times", is only a dynamic IP which has touched me the subject. Or is maybe you are behind those IPs.? --186.84.46.227 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@

thataway. Without evidence, that's a personal attack. I suggest you reconsider it. GoldenRing (talk

) 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

thinking of cultural context
Thank you for service on multiple Wikipedias with the Wiki Recent Change Patrol tool, for copy-editing and involvement in the news and deletions, for quality improvements based on "local knowledge", for thinking of cultural context, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1276 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have attributed my statement about being bedridden from surgery to User:Boing! said Zebedee, who is now confused as to where your statement concerning them is coming from. I'm replying here because I fear if I post in my Arbcom section that neither of you may see it; it's a rather awkward format for responding to others. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I will apologize profusely in the appropriate forum. GoldenRing (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I don't believe any profusion is necessary. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Profusion entirely unnecessary, indeed ;-) M. A. Bruhn, you have my best wishes for a speedy recovery. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Glad we've got that sorted out. But reading back through all this again, I'm still staggered that this has ended up where it has. You "unblocked with a suitable block log reason when a consensus was developing that a block was excessive" but then thought maybe a trip to arbcom for a quick de-sysopping was a good next step? How is that de-escalating from a block? GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood the sequence of events. My ArbCom report was not the next step in the sequence, but came after further escalation by the other party. Anyway, I'm not going to discuss it in multiple forums - the ArbCom case page is the appropriate venue for your comments if you think my action in requesting a case was unwarranted (though the overwhelming consensus from Arbs to accept the case would suggest they feel otherwise). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, aware there's other stuff in the middle there. But bear in mind that those same arbs recently found that an admin edit warring an ANI about himself closed was not worthy of more than admonishment; in my view, Michael Hardy had reasonable grounds for complaint and was told that the other editor was doing him a favour. I'd have opened a second section, too. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"[H]auled in front of arbcom to have his mop snapped in half..." Wanted to let you know I was thinking of this phrase a lot at work yesterday. Well put! 71.36.112.176 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on 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/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

Hello, GoldenRing. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GoldenRing. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've tweaked the CSD tag to a G3. It was Welsh vandalism, and the fact that said person was said to be a descendant of John Cadbury speaks volumes. The Welsh translates to "but you came second in that, yes?" and "OK, yes". So, yes, I've tagged it as vandalism. Have a good day, Patient Zero^talk 13:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: No problem. Looks like someone's done the job now anyway. GoldenRing (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello GoldenRing. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@

Caleb Walker? GoldenRing (talk

) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, they still needed to be deleted immediately. It's probably an test. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81: Hence the tagging of Pirateperfection, five minutes after it was created? GoldenRing (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus strictly applies to A1 and A3 only and I think your incorrect about it. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81: Well, I guess I thought that with a page that had already been speedied three times, twice in the last two weeks, such niceties were probably not necessary, especially where other CSD criteria equally applied. With that history, it seems unlikely to be just a test - especially since one of the previous deletions was under G5. Still, thanks for the reminder. GoldenRing (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I was training at the session today where new editors were working on a version of the Hertha Ayrton page - thanks for checking that they were being supported and for being so welcoming, it was a lovely illustration of the wiki-community at work when they got your message! Zeromonk (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at

I've given it a try, though admittedly, there isn't much available. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: Brilliant, thank you. Given the scarcity of sources, what are your thoughts on the notability of the subject? GoldenRing (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think his military/revolutionary leadership, plus his invention that was immediately useful, plus his membership of a noble family, all taken together, probably put him over the top, albeit barely. As for sources, apparently, he's profiled in the 2012 book Moții și luptele lor la 1848-1849, but I don't have access to it at present. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, the section on your user page titled 'My Username' is quite creative and I must admit that I do like it lol. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks. It's actually quite uncomfortable for me - I created my account before my first marriage ended, and the name was a reference to my wedding ring. I've thought seriously about changing it, but decided to make light of it instead. I'm glad you enjoyed it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome! I can understand why that would be uncomfortable. First off, I am sorry to hear that you marriage ended. Secondly, that is a good approach - to make light of it rather than let it be a grim reminder. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing. The answer you gave to Q5 in your ongoing RfA has generated an enormous amount of enthusiasm amongst some of the most respected members of the community. I would suggest you expand upon it, as it would make an ideal essay. Regards, Simon.

talk

) 00:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:No editor is indispensable. GoldenRing (talk

) 11:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Irondome is right, very good answer! I wish you the best of luck in your application, you have my support. I like you and think you have the know-how and character that would make a good admin, better than someone coming in with an unnecessarily "big stick" as you said (per your quote - I realize I am taking it partially out of context but do intend it as a compliment on your style). Please note that I am not accusing any admin of anything in that last sentence, just stating the fact that the big stick approach can easily be overused and result in more bad than good in some instances. --TheSandDoctor (talk

) 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: See User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators. As I've said elsewhere, I've struggled a bit to find the right voice and the result is a bit rambly. Comments, criticism and suggestions for a good title are welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I read it though and must admit that I liked the content of it a lot. I will see if I can think of a title and will get back to you shortly, how does that sound? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

When I see what you've done, I'm reminded of the pioneers. Congratulations for a positive outcome!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Well, there's no barnstar for "Getting the mop in the most difficult situations" otherwise that would have described you best. When you're done with all the burgers and cakes you received, you can pin this to your new shirt! Congratulations and all the best! Yashovardhan (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your RfA got off to a shaky start, but it still succeeded! Congratulations! Good luck with the mop! —MRD2014 📞 contribs 16:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that despite the fact that I'm opposing your RfA because you failed certain performative measures, I am generally impressed with your answers to questions, as I gather most editors are. You are certainly clueful and an asset to Wikipedia. I don't know how your RfA will shake out in the end but you certainly have the makings of a good admin and I have hopes that you'll continue to contribute regardless of outcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. It was good of you to drop by and take the time to make that clear. Lots of small such gestures make Wikipedia a nicer place to be, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to echo what Chris said; although it would be hard for me to deny that I think your best quality- just right now- is being a

^{velut luna...}

04:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: None taken. It's been a pretty surreal ride, really. Barring a last-24-hours pile-on one way or the other, it's looking like it'll be up to the 'crats. GoldenRing (talk

) 11:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it'll be a crat decision, yes. I'm hoping they'll support, I think you should have the bit. A positive outcome would also show that the RfA process isn't as broken as we usually think it is. Fingers crossed. Yintan  07:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes; it would be good if they could overcome their somewhat inherent conservatism. But —

^{velut luna...}

08:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hoping for a positive outcome! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my compliments for the way you handled the RfA process. I supported you early on, and your decorum throughout the process reinforced my decision. I'm reminded of how I've always endeavored to hire people who are careful, thoughtful, and mature in my professional life, even if they lacked ideal levels of experience. Such people can be brought up to speed easily. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey hey! You succeeded! Cheers! Yintan  17:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how the weekend was for you, but watching the crat chat unfold was a bit of a nail biter for me. I'm glad it turned out the way it did, as I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. Congratulations! Schwede66 18:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I just learned about your successful RfA and wanted to come over and congratulate you on it! From moment I read through your answers to the questions etc I had a feeling it would be successful and I am glad that it was. Best wishes to you in the future and hopefully we shall meet again (on good terms of course ) TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to congratulate you on your RFA, harrowing as it was, and for giving me an opportunity to emerge from my lurking ways. Now, time to step back and disappear once again... bibliomaniac15 23:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bibliomaniac15: It is fun to talk to people but I agree, lurking around helping out where I can is what I do as well haha. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Might need some of this given the crazy RFA developments. :) Hang in there and don't give up! ZettaComposer (talk ) 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@

ZettaComposer: I... what is bubble tea? <looks> Oh, I see. Probably not my thing, but thanks! GoldenRing (talk

) 09:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing, I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with the new tools and don't hesitate to ask questions. Maxim_(talk) 04:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Congrats GR, that was quite the ordeal! I look forward to working with you out in the field. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Well done and good luck, mate :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Maxim: @Juliancolton: @Elmidae: Thanks! I'll do my best not to trash the place. GoldenRing (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on maintaining your positive attitude through a contentious process and on getting the mop. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Mmmm, cake. Thanks! Better go put the kettle on (again). GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

- CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• @
  ^{velut luna}
  11:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @
    Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Never mind. I'm assuming the intent was friendly. GoldenRing (talk
    ) 09:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Congratulations on your successful RFA. Though it dipped even lower than my RFA (which worried me a bit) you didn't withdraw and kept yourself together -- an applaudable trait, I must say. Now that you are a member of the mop corps, have a cup of coffee before you begin honing your mop-fu skills. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@

^{velut luna}

16:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It's been the best of spring weekends in Somerset, so... CHEAP CIDER! But this morning, the coffee is definitely appreciated. GoldenRing (talk

) 09:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well done. Now get to work! ERRORS is always looking for keen admins... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Alright, alright, alright dammit, can't a man go and have a few drinks after an RfA? Speaking of which, when are you coming down our way so I can buy you the beer you've been long promised?

And, if it's okay with you, I think I might make my first admin one that doesn't risk breaking the main page. Just the first one or two. GoldenRing (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright then,

CAT:CSD is thataway - see how many CSDs you can decline. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

12:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

I just saw the 'crat chat came out as successful! Congratulations! Have a cheeseburger on me! — Gestrid (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gestrid: Thanks! It's a bit early in the day for it here, I'll pop it on the radiator to keep it warm. What? It's one way of getting rid of admins... GoldenRing (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

True. Then they'll have to lower the threshold again so I can have a small chance at becoming an admin in 20 years instead of 30! Also, any time is a good time for a cheeseburger, even 12:40am EST (that's the timezone for the US East Coast)! — Gestrid (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I was pretty convinced that your run would be succesful about 48 hours in. Just a feeling. I think this is in many ways a groundbreaking RfA, in the sense that !voters began to base their judgements on the candidates' (you :)) actual answers to challenging questions, and your ego-avoidance which I found refreshing and striking. Your offer to serve the community in that sense was a breath of fresh air. I hope this precedent redefines the way we go about selecting our admins, in a positive way. Less preoccupation with stats, more analysis and concentration on what a candidate has to say during the process. A unique RfA. As I said in my original !vote comment "whatever the outcome, good for you!". I repeat, Good for you mate! A cracking result which will make RfA a less daunting prospect for many other good candidates out there. Now, down in one! Cheers! Simon talk ) 01:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Irondome: Thanks, Simon. Though it's cider season here, I think I can make an exception. Any thoughts on User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators? GoldenRing (talk

) 09:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I support the beer (or cider) ;) - The ramblings should be renamed "on Content Creators", no? Mine are shorter and were deleted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, it's good to see you're already getting your hands dirty with admin work. :) I just wanted to thank you for your ping at Talk:Roberta Tirrito, and to let you know I have, in fact, deleted it again, this time as CSD G5; I'm not sure if you got the chance to see Chrissymad's explanation, but the creator of the article has been globally locked as the sock of a cross-wiki spammer. If you still have questions/doubts, I'll be happy to provide some links and backstory. Best, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As the one who originally proposed the lowered discretionary range back in 2015, I would like to personally congratulate you on your RfA's success. I'm glad to see that my proposal finally helped someone pass their RfA. Even more satisfying is the fact that the bureaucrats finally rejected the arbitrary quantity-based arguments often used at RfA, and instead made their decision based on the quality of the candidate. Unfortunately, the bureaucrat chat was already underway when I saw the RfA, so I was unable to vote on it. Had I seen it earlier, however, you could have counted on my support.

@Mduvekot: Thanks for the explanation and sorry for being slow to spot the link. I've now speedied it as G12. GoldenRing (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm such a boor sometimes. I'd like to add my best wishes upon your successful RfA. Good luck.

talk

) 16:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping I could get you to reverse your decision regarding the speedy deletion of this article. The claim that Hopkins has played in the NASL is inaccurate. San Francisco have played two matches since Hopkins joined them at the beginning of the season, and he didn't play in either of them (see match reports here and here). Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:NFOOTBALL. However, to be deleted under G4 the article has to be substantially identical to the deleted version, which in my view it isn't. Feel free to discuss further, though. GoldenRing (talk

) 16:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I've gone ahead and nominated this at AfD. GoldenRing (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, newest admin! I noticed you replying to a report at

@

There's a lot to take in. I notice you already use twinkle, you've got some new buttons in there too, and it's almost always easier to use twinkle when blocking or adding page protection. I know, since it didn't have these functions back in the day when I frst became an admin, but this old timer does ramble on...

talk

) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And I am too old to want to use them :). All handiwork here. Oh, and btw, welcome

Young Jedi. Lectonar (talk

) 19:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA has caused a stir at the secondary chat but you may very well pass regardless. Many of the oppose votes (mine included) were concerned about how just 500+ can be analyzed thoroughly to determine if you have the proficiency of a qualified editor. What I want you to consider is this: withdrawal your RfA, come back in six months with more mainspace experience, and pass without controversy. Experienced editors and admins are afraid if you pass the adminship will be worth less, and create a lower standing for future RfAs. I know this is asking a lot but you would be doing the community a huge service and ease people's minds with such a move. If, of course, you continue with this I will accept consensus, whether I think it is correct or not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

He has passed RFA. --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I just saw it too Marvellous Spider-Man. A little disappointing but consensus is consensus no matter how it is achieved.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind TheGracefulSlick is that the vast majority of actual admins passed during the 2003-2008 years when the standards were not as high today. As an experienced editor and admin, it is good see adminship being "worth less" because it was not meant to be worth much to begin with ((

WP:NOBIGDEAL). Sadly, it has morphed into a status symbol. I always felt it was unfair that newer editors or older editors requesting adminship in recent times have a much steeper mountain to climb than current admins who mostly do a good job. Hopefully this successful RfA (congrats GoldenRing!) is one step back towards how these tools were treated in the Wikipedia boom days. Gizza ^(t)(c

) 07:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think many of the admins promoted in that era ought to be desysopped. Lowering the standards to make our less impressive admins comfortable does not make me, as a mere editor, place any trust in the admin corps. I'm not criticizing your adminship specifically but I have my share of problems with admins, generally. Wikipedia is different now and I think we ought to demand better from the leadership, not replicate mistakes made early on. That seems to be a real philosophical divide within the community. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see your message before the 'crat chat concluded. However, I'd thought seriously about withdrawing from about halfway through the RfA. In the end, I had some (such as yourself) urging me to withdraw and others urging me to stick it out. My reasons for considering it were not the reasons you give though; my reasons were that it was causing serious division in the community and was bringing out quite a lot of bad spirit, especially in the opposition (though I'm not pointing at you here). Concerning your reasons, what do you mean that "adminship will be worth less"? This seems a hat-collecting attitude to me — equivalent to, "We shouldn't let this guy have the mop because we went through hell to get it and he should have to too." Adminship is worth what you use it for. And "create a lower standing for future RfAs" is fairly routine

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each RfA should be considered on its merits. The attitude that This guy might be alright but if we give him the bit then think who else might get it is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I'm sorry if that comes across as fairly trenchant criticism but it's how I see it. GoldenRing (talk

) 09:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My opinions on this issue are now irrelevant so there is no point dragging this on. I should not really be putting any criticism on you, just the voters. Now that you are an admin, you have my complete support because I'd rather see you succeed than fail.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I was wondering what your rationale was for suggesting at

It's fairly standard advice for accounts with problematic usernames; see eg Template:uw-softerblock. It's only a sock problem if they create a new account but don't abandon the old one. In this case, the user had not made any promotional edits, only asked for help in how to create an article. To my mind, that shows considerable good faith and is not at all typical of the promotional users we typically see, so wanted to engage with them a bit and not just template them to death (or block them immediately). GoldenRing (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to ping you in my response: @TheDragonFire:. GoldenRing (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I wasn't aware that the standard templates included that advice. It's certainly not something I would suggest to users that had already added promotional content, as this would disconnect their previous contributions and make it harder to get a block a

WP:AIV, but seeing as that was the users only edit it's not really a problem. Have a great day! TheDragonFire (talk

) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA- the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia. Under normal circumstances it is incredibly stressful. Looking at yours I can only wonder if you have any fingernails left. In any event you have earned your own little spot in Wiki history with this one. People will be talking about your RfA for years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I'm not sure people talking about it for years is a positive. I didn't find the actual process stressful. In fact I was rather moved by quite a lot of what people had to say about me - including a number of the opposers. But I'll admit that while I started out not really caring one way or another and if it'd ended up at 30% or 95% I think I would have stayed that way, by the Thursday evening, with it floating in the discretionary range, I was glued to it. Then the 'crats were split in exactly the same proportion as the community. My wife was not particularly impressed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations Sorry for forgetting, but congrats on making it to adminship! L3X1 (distant write) 22:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• If anybody told me a week ago that it was possible to pass RfA with less than 3000 edits, I would have called them crazy. It was heartening to see a candidate so well-versed in Wikipedia culture despite their low edit count. If you mop this encyclopedia's dusty corners with the same insight you put into your RfA answers, I have no doubt you will do excellently as an admin. Don't be afraid to ask others for a second opinion. You now know hundreds of experienced editors and admins whom I'm sure will be more than happy to give feedback. Congratulations! Altamel (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Altamel: There were quite a few who were happy to "give feedback" during the RfA! Maybe I was a little crazy to try - now to get on with and make sure the community doesn't come to regret it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Congrats. Well done. Thank you for defying the odds and laying the groundwork for dismantling the plague that has been RfA for the last few years.--v/r - TP 17:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @TParis: I'm not sure I'm that hopeful. I have to say I've found RfA not quite the hellish experience it's usually described as, and I'm not quite sure why - I don't know whether people were just randomly kinder to me than average, or if lots of candidates just conduct themselves poorly. While there was some trenchant opposition, a lot of the opposition was also very kind and heartening. GoldenRing (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    • The plague isn't just the increasingly hostile environment. It's also the introduction of newer extremist points of view regarding what makes up an admin. For instance, opposition over 0 file uploads. Or opposition because someone commits to recall. Or opposition because someone won't commit to recall. Opposition because someone doesn't have 10 years and 150,000 edits. It's all silly.--v/r - TP 12:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yo

^{velut luna}

12:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations. I did not have the opportunity to support you because I was offline for the entire period of your run. I am absent for a week or more only a few times per year but this was one such time. I am glad you made it through. I was a supporter of lowering the discretionary zone so I am glad that the bureaucrats found a deserved consensus within the new zone. Good luck. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Donner60: Thanks. I don't particularly want to rehash any of the discussion, but it did seem to me that some of the opposition at the 'crat chat basically amounted to, "The discretionary zone gives 'crats the discretion to assess whether consensus exists. Since 67% is obviously no consensus, they should close this as no consensus." While I agree that more people should be passing RfA, I'm not actually sure that lowering the 'discretionary' bar is the best way to do it, despite having benefited from ti personally. It seems very likely to produce admins who come ready-made with a largish section of the community who don't think they're fit for the mop. I think it's left me with a lot of people — some of them quite active and influential — who still need convincing. There still seems to be a certain amount of nervousness in some sections that I'm actually an elaborate hoax, or possibly a sock of some long-established user. I'm not sure what it says about people that they honestly think someone would spend thirteen years of preparation just to hoax the community into giving them the bit. GoldenRing (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Congrats from me too, and an invite, if you are ever in London on a second Sunday I'm sure the Oak does cider. Allow me to buy you one to mark a most unusual RFA. I love the idea of thirteen year sock plots started before Wikipedia had even reached dominant state. BTW when you get bored scrabbling down the back of the sofa to find the right block template, some kind person put some very useful code in my monobook.js. ϢereSpielChequers 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
      • What they said. Congrats! Best wishes to you as you take the mop. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @WereSpielChequers: Thanks for the invite and I'll bear it in mind, but being more-or-less allergic to London, it might be a while before I take you up on it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Just back online after a few days. It's often a busy time of year for me and this year is no different. I did not try to look it up but as I recall I mentioned that I thought that lowering the zone to 67% (basically two-thirds), although only 3 percentage points, might have a good effect. I supported 65% in the end because 67% was not accepted as the final proposal. That percentage could have allowed a few good candidates in the past year or two to be considered. Also, I thought that at least two who were rejected at the bottom end of the 70s might have had a better chance. The other positive effect that I thought might occur would be that potential candidates might perceive that the hurdle would not be so high. However, it would only be a matter of 3 or 4 out of 100 votes. I don't think it would not have opened the floodgates. I do realize that much below that percentage could produce a few unready or unfit candidates. I think on balance the current discretionary zone is good and perhaps the crats will still reject some candidates in the zone, especially at the lower end. I trust their judgment and trust you to show that we are still at about the right point on the scale. The objections are a bit weak and unduly negative in your case. This isn't meant to be some sort of dissertation so I will end by wishing you the best. Donner60 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Most incredible RfA I've ever seen. Unprecedented. I presume you must have the lowest edit count in any successful RfA since the early/mid 2000s when it was actually not a big deal. AFAIK every editor with your edit count has been denied at RfA since then. This was a nail biter for sure but you willed yourself over what most would have considered impossible odds. Welcome to the team. Let me know if you ever need anything. One piece of advice: honest mistakes will happen, and valid criticisms will come your way, take them humbly and in stride, as they are opportunities to become a better admin and member of the community. But stay confident in your judgment, as it has been endorsed by the community. As a new administrator, you may try to do the right thing only to experience a newfound level of vitriol, even from highly established members of the community who are in good standing. Remain steadfast during these experiences and do not give into intimidation. They will not go away, even with years of experience as an administrator. It just comes with the territory. However, as long as you stay on the right side of relevant written policies, the community will always have your back, and unreasonable editors, however established, will rarely prevail in the end. Best of luck, now get to work! ;) Swarm ♠ 01:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Congrats on Adminship! You probably wont know me, since I was not involved in the RfA in any way, but congrats nonetheless! I would've loved to support you if I had just paid a bit more attention to the RfA's when there was still time for the votes. Its safe to say that you are an inspiration at this point, to all editors old and new that you dont need to have 100,000 edits or 10 years of day in and day out service to be well-versed in the whereabouts of Wikipedia. I strive to learn more about this site as I grow as an editor, and I can truly say that your knowledge, temperament and modesty is a milestone I'd like to achieve. Speaking from the perspective of an editor who doesnt even have 1000 edits yet, when looking up at the admins and people who get hundreds of edits a day, you cant help but stare at the awe at their dedication. And to see someone who isnt of the ranks of those get handed the mop, its truly remarkable. I say this with utmost respect; you are, as is proven, capable of everything they are.
  talk • contributions
   • 21:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, great name! Huge fan of Lord of the Rings here ;)

talk • contributions

 • 21:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Jiten Dhandha:: Thankyou. If I might be permitted a moment or two of philosophy, IMO temperament and modesty don't come from editing Wikipedia, they come from life. In a way, editing Wikipedia can be the worst preparation for adminship as it tends to bring out the worst in people and make people less patient, calm and modest. I think the current RfA is an example of this. I generally don't participate in RfA and don't think I'll make an exception for this one, but a lot of the opposition seems to be because he got into a slight shouting match. I don't think there's anything surprising about someone who's made more than 10,000 edits in six months (!) getting into a shouting match; anyone who spends that much time doing anything is probably going to get burnt out and be unpleasant to be around at least some of the time. It's like work/life balance only without the pay. GoldenRing (talk

) 09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)