Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 94

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 92Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96→Archive 100

OTRS

Just FYI, I copied your reply on ticket:2015012710015931 and made otrswiki:Response:En-GamerGate Sanction‎. — Revi 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. Good to know that it was helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider topic ban

Dear HJ Mitchell,

I believe you misunderstood my intentions.

I am a newbie on Wikipedia and like most I learn as I go. Except for Nishidani I had no serious problems with other editor including much more 'explosive' pages such as Al-Aqsa Mosque, UNRWA or Israeli-occupied territories. A request for mediation was sinply diclined by him so a system like AE seemed to me as a reasonable last resort. I understand now it was a mistake.

I would like to ask you to reconsider the topic ban you have put and convert it into a warning.

Regards,

Ashtul (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll think about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ashtul (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi, Harry. I have made a ROPE unblock of an editor you blocked, at User talk:Bobbytettegani123. For most admins I would have consulted them first, but in your case I took your message at the top of this page as giving me the go-ahead to unblock without consulting you, even though it perhaps debatable whether it applies. You certainly haven't have erred in one of your admin actions, but I am inclined to take an editor admitting that he or she was being silly and promising not to do the same again as changing the situation, so that your "rationale for the action no longer applies". In such cases I am a great believer in giving a second chance. I find that surprisingly often the result is that we get another good editor, and if the vandalism does continue, it is easy enough to re-block. Do let me know if you disagree, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I completely agree. My rationale no longer applies, and there's no harm in unblocking if they've seen the error of their ways. The worst-case scenario is they're swiftly re-blocked (somebody ought to create WP:FOOLMEONCE...). Thanks for the note. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy#Cherrypicking

The discussion in this section seems to have broken down, as neither side agrees to the application of WP:NOR, and there are accusations of WP:KETTLE. I've asked Rhoark if he would prefer to move to a dispute resolution process, but I would also appreciate the input of an admin who would be more intimately familiar with the application of NOR. Either way, I feel like I am getting close to argumentative, and I have no desire to be sanctioned -- what would be the best way to get this question answered by someone knowledgeable while also removing myself from the "battleground"?192.249.47.186 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Himitsu_Sentai_Gorenger

You protected the Himitsu_Sentai_Gorenger page, and I'm curious as to why. I'm new so was rather confused as all heck, looked at it and it was recent. I don't see much vandalism requiring it, especially since it was reverted by a third party rather quickly. I've already made an edit request but there's a lot more to fix. How do I know when it expires and is it stuck that way till then? I don't know how to check that and think it's probably staring me in the face but missed it. FlossumPossum (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


HJM, Have you considered that perhaps we need ArbCom to provide further guidance as to how to deal with accounts that won't let Ryulong depart gracefully? Hipocrite (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
My edit has absolutely 100% nothing to do with Ryulong and was actually trying to fix a poor edit made by another completely unrelated editor. Do you mean me or the three people who were having it out over the spelling(which seems to be in question looking at the edit history of that page, it's Gorenger btw, not Goranger.). FlossumPossum (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You'll certainly understand if I use a healthy does of skepticism with respect to an account that, over the course of it's 26 edits has edited only this user talk page, and arbiter regarding GamerGate, and that of one of the blocked GamerGate parties, right? It's a shame you couldn't have proposed your edits before a series of GamerGate sockpuppets started harassing banned users who were merely trying to depart gracefully. Detail your proposed changes on the talk page, with sources, and I'll consider them. Hipocrite (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you're not entirely wrong, the arbcom case DID get me interested in editing Wikipedia. Enough to actually make an account finally and try to make edits! It was things like beeblebrox making the unblockables essay and the know it all/I have the final say attitudes of some editors in areas I find interesting(anime/video games/Programming) that kept me away. I was merely making conversation with him because I followed links all the way to his page. Someone else mentions the essay and I f ollowed up as an IP, then said 'screw it, lets go for it' and made an accout! I'll let my edit request and future edits stand as my proof that I'm here to contribute. FlossumPossum (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@FlossumPossum: Welcome. My apologies for the protection. As Hipocrite says, some people are deliberately targeting Ryulong's articles in light of his involuntary departure, so I've protected several of them while they're a this vulnerable stage. My suggestion, if your intention is to improve articles, is to do something a little less controversial for a week or two, and then come back to these articles. They will of course need new people to maintain them and keep them updated, so perhaps that's something you could help with once the dust has settled. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to be blunt, but a question about what you just said, "Ryulong's articles", is that not against WP:OWN? Sorry i'm new and not sure exactly how this all works.
No apology necessary. WP:OWN applies to a situation where one editor (or a group of editors) dominate an article and refuse to allow any edits they don't approve of. That's not the rationale behind my protections. The protections are necessary because Ryulong has been heavily associated with those articles, and certain parties have taken Ryulong's banning as an opportunity to cause disruption on those articles. If you'd like to contribute them, you can register an account; you'll have to make ten edits elsewhere and wait four days, though. You can also make an edit request on the talk page and put {{editsemiprotected}} at the top of your request. I don't want to deter good-faith edits, just trolls who want to cause trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and fair enough, I'll test that out. I've been wanting to help edit on wiki for a while now, but the fact that I could get banned instantly for one mistake kept me away.
Is there any specific reason that two editors of multiple years that seemed very interested in the topic at hand, User:DarknessSavior and User:Fidsah were indef'd without any sort of explanation, one of them even denied an unblock request?
Are you going to protect his articles and ban any editor that tries making any changes indefinitely into the future assuming bad faith? What aspect of the conduct of Wikipedia were these bans handed out on?
You realize that the same reason Ryulong was penalized in the ArbCom case for applies to other articles? Some editors, including User:Digifiend have been waiting years for his grip over said articles to lighten. 79.247.112.157 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow, so a bunch of people are coming in to talk on this section now. To the helpful editor van! I decided to do a little legwork now and I found DarknessSavior's edit to be in line with what the talk page stated in september 2011, including Ryulong agreeing "Well, whaddya know. That's definitely a good source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)". So it appears DarknessSavior was erroniously banned while making good faith edits. If anything it might be worth discussing on the talk page again, but it's clear DarknessSavior likes related material by other edits as well. Fidsah seems to be piling on but DarknessSavior does indeed seem to have an interest in the area even if not extremely active.FlossumPossum (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The protections are necessary because Ryulong has been heavily associated with those articles, and certain parties have taken Ryulong's banning as an opportunity to cause disruption on those articles. But that's the thing: it's not disruption - it's making changes that were constantly reverted by Ryulong, where he had been enforcing his version literally for years, which literally nobody else agreed with. This is evident to anyone who takes a look at the talk page history. Seriously, people are implementing the community consensus and getting sanctioned for it. It's almost as absurd as the notion that people are somehow "taking revenge" on a banned editor by doing something that involves no interaction with that editor. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@HJMitchell, it appears that quite possibly there is an issue with one of the editors on that page being a mere proxy for the banned editor on the Kamen Rider OOO characte rpage . I'm walking away from it, look into it as you will. I could write why the assertions are wrong all day, but honestly, I don't care about that show and have a WoW article I really wanna work on waiting for me! FlossumPossum (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea who's right or wrong, and proxying for banned editors isn't against the rules per se, as long as the proxy accepts full responsibility for the edits, including any negative consequences. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." From WP:PROXYING is what I was referring to. I know the answer to the debate, it's not up for debate, there is actually an answer one way or another based on how the language works but again, WoW > Kamen Rider! You might want to keep an eye out on it though. I'm new, so not exactly sure how to apply the rules, it was just super obvious that someone was merely relaying information from a banned editor. Thanks man! FlossumPossum (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

hey

I was wondering if you would please reconsider your block of Protonk. I know it's a really hot topic that you've been dealing with, but I don't think there's enough there for a block. I'm not taking any sides in the whole thing, and I really respect all your efforts in this area; I'm just asking you to reconsider lifting the block and having a discussion with him/her instead. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ignocrates block

The post that Ignocrates made on my user talk page [1] that was cited by Cailil in the AE [2], was neither stalking John Carter, nor "poking the bear."

His post was a response to a post that I had made in the Historicity of Jesus arbitration [3] -- not, as Cailil had suggested, to the posts that John Carter had made to me in his [4] and my [5] talk pages.

In his post, Ignocrates responded, not to anything having to do with John Carter, but to an issue I'd raised, about my "actual identity." It was obvious to me that it was written the way it was because Ignocrates had read past posts I'd made, where I described why I chose the username "Fearofreprisal," how I had been outed by a group of cyberattackers, and Hijiri88's attempt to out me earlier in the arbitration. Its essence was that my concerns about my real-world identity had merit, and I should consider a "fresh start" at some point in the future. It was a thoughtful and helpful message, clearly directed exclusively to me, from an editor with whom I'd had previous positive interactions.

I hope you'll reconsider the block against Ignocrates. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the block wasn't based on that comment or on any individual comment, but on my impression that Ignocrates has been unduly focused on John Carter to the point of following him around and scrutinising his contributions for perceived violations of the interaction ban, and on the fact they haven't contributed to an article for over three months, and is therefore not respecting the spirit of the interaction ban even if they've been careful to abide by the letter of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've read both Arbitration policy and Banning policy, and I can't find any support for the notion that an "impression" is enough for an administrator to site ban someone. The "care and judgment" requirement for administrators [6] would suggest that an impression is not enough.
  • Regarding Ignocrates following John Carter around: I ran an interaction analysis for the last 3 months [7], and I can find no evidence that Ignocrates was stalking John Carter. (In any event, he wouldn't need to follow John Carter around to notice violations of the interaction ban -- it would be pretty obvious to him in the normal course of following conversations in which he'd been involved.) If you can find evidence that Ignocrates was stalking John Carter, please provide diffs.
  • Regarding Ignocrates not contributing to an article in 3 months: This is factually wrong. Going back to October 26 (if that's close enough to 3 months), Ignocrates made 21 edits on articles [8] -- and each of these edits was a "contribution," intended to improve the article. (By contrast, you've made far more article edits in the last 3 months, but nearly all of them appear to be reverts or page protections. While I don't discount the value of your edits, an argument can be made that Ignocrates "contributed" more to building the encyclopedia over the last 3 months than you did.) But... by what standard does this have anything to do with "not respecting the spirit of the interaction ban?" Unless there is some unwritten policy that supersedes the Wikipedia terms of use [9], this seems entirely irrelevant.
Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether you respond to my points above. The damage is done: Your ban was the final straw for Ignocrates. While I don't question your good intentions, as an administrator you have a responsibility to get the facts straight. This time, you didn't. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Kamen Rider OOO

I can't see any evidence of the "persistent vandalism" on this page that you cited as a reason for protecting it. There has been some minor edit-warring, with less than a dozen total edits in the month before your action, and nothing at all for several months before that; most of the activity has been from registered users anyway; and there is new talk page discussion. Please explain? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Page protection is warranted for any page than 4channers plan to edit; in this case, to dance on Ryulong's grave. https://boards.4chan.org/m/thread/12027677/so-uh-remember-the-neoheisei-trash-guy-ryulong#p12033337 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The concept of "grave-dancing" - also mentioned further up the page by @Hipocrite: - strikes me as patently absurd. We're going to sanction people now for being happy that they can finally undo changes that would, over a period of years, get instantly reverted by one specific editor, against community consensus? Even though they officially don't need a reason anyway? Do people need to repeat years-old discussions on the talk page before they're finally taken at their word that this isn't some kind of revenge? And then just who gets to participate in this process? Please. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There will be a clear different between a gamergater dancing on Ryulong's grave and a good faith anime fan who cares about L vs R. Hipocrite (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
In that one of them changes Ls to Rs (or vice-versa), and the other one... ? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
That's...not what BANREVERT says. You're allowed to instantly revert Ryulong's edits if he makes them now, in violation of his ban. You're not allowed to just burn everything he's ever done from the site, that would be insane.192.249.47.186 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
What's more, the discussion on the talk page had absolutely nothing to do with the changes Darkness made. His changes have literally never been discussed before, they're just...kinda bad, since they violate the animanga project's standards.192.249.47.186 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like I had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamen_Rider_OOO confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamen_Rider_OOO_%28character%29 . The discussion of the spelling "Condol" vs. "Condor" goes back to at least 2011 on the latter page. And seriously, how could changing "Condol" (which is utter nonsense) to "Condor" (an actual name of an actual animal in English, in the context of other animal names like Lion and Cheetah) be "kinda bad"? As for the animanga project, neither page is templated as being within its scope. They are in the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, you're correct on wikiproject templating, but I'm still fairly certain ENGVAR applies. Still, Darkness's reverted edit was based on other topics, and as I've stated many times in the talk page, the issue is whether the name is official or note. Both Condol and Condor are official, so we treat Condor as preferred because it also makes more sense. Regarding the names Darkness changed -- those were not the official romanizations. For context, the rule Darkness edited under would be akin to changing the character's name from Kamen Rider to Mask Rider. We're not supposed to automatically insert our own translations -- we use the official names, and then can note what they're obviously supposed to mean. But a company being bad at spelling does not negate that the name it gave its creation is, indeed, the name of that creation.192.249.47.186 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

History of Israel

Question/request: Could you verify the statement from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Israel&action=edit&section=22 in chapter "First years 1920 - 1929" as quote: "fleeing antisemitism in Poland and Hungary"

My remarks: There was no antisemitism in Poland at the time. It was before 1920 and re-emerged after the death of Józef Piłsudski in 1935. Marcus19771107 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is an article discussing antisemitism in Poland in Interwar period, including the 1920s. Even if you are correct, there was a pogrom in 1918, which alone is a reasonable reason for people to flee even a few years after it happened. “WarKosign” 15:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Marcus19771107: The best place for this question is probably the talk page. Because I'm an active administrator in the topic area, I can't get involved with content issues. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It has sense what you are saying, however, the antisemitism in Poland was not widespread as it seems from this remark (contrary to the time after 1935), and for sure does not differ from other countries in the Europe, but of course I will not fight over one sentence. Sorry, for not putting the issue in a proper place!Marcus19771107 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is there a Wikipedia version of Uncyclopedia:Ban Patrol or do I just wait for an admin to ban a vandal/blanker? --DSA510 Pls No AndN 00:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:R Van should outline it. Sort version, revert, warn at appropriate level, escalate to WP:AIV. Wikipedia:Twinkle is also a big help for templating the warnings and reporting to WP:AIV — Strongjam (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@DungeonSiegeAddict510: Basically what Strongjam said; it's normally expected that you give them some sort of warning (Twinkle can do that for you), and if they ignore that, report them to AIV and an admin will normally take care o it pretty swiftly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is a category list sometimes not up to date?

I hope you can help me with this. It is a question I put elsewhere on Wikipedia last month but it hasn't been answered yet: Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Categories#Why might a category list not be up to date?

This is what I had written there (I have modified my question now, hopefully making it clearer): I read through this FAQ but it is still not clear. WHY should there "sometimes" be a delay of several weeks even?? Surely there is something that can be done about it? Is it some bot that only runs every few weeks? In my case I have found that articles that I have tagged sometimes takes week to appear in this lists (let alone in the overview table which also seems to not work too well): Wikipedia:WikiProject Sanitation#Lists

Thanks for your help. EvM-Susana (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the list of articles/pages in a given category? I honestly don't know, but I would imagine it has something to do with the servers. @Pigsonthewing, RexxS, and Redrose64: You're my techy go-to people; can you shed any light on this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a bot (although if Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs) went through every single page on the entire wiki on a periodic basis, it would all get sorted out), it's the job queue. This used to work just fine, and if a template was altered in such a way that there was a change to categorisation of pages transcluding that template, the category would be fully up to date inside the day, often in an hour or two. But around about the time that VisualEditor went live for all users (mid 2013), the job queue software was altered and is no longer as thorough as it used to be. Sometimes it can be months before a cat is properly shaken out. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Duck

Since you blocked JimMacAllistair (talk · contribs), it would appear a new sock has emerged [10] -- Calidum 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Is it me or does that guy not like America? The talk page trolling is pretty obviously him; indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Calidum 20:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hipocrite

I came to find this User talk:Ryulong#e's not dead, e's just restin'

Which looks like a clear case of WP:MEAT and editing by proxy for an indefinetely banned editor. They both right out admit to emailing each other in case the editor needs something done. In particular, Hipocrite seems to be patrolling toku articles reverting everyone as if they owned the pages. This is against reaching a consensus. As for my block, I accepted it no problems, but know that I only read on a forum that "maybe they could finally see again Buddyloids changed to the correct Buddyroid", I looked around to see the problem, I read the Talk page and saw the official name shown on the actual show is Buddyroid, I googled and saw Buddyroid is the WP:COMMONNAME used by most English fans. My edit was one in WP:GOODFAITH, my specific worry here is that Ryulong used to edit a lot of articles on video games, it looks like I would be limited in how much I can change there.

If you could please point me to the specific board where I could raise this Hipocrite issue it would be appreaciated, thanks! Loganmac (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should view all things Ryulong as part of your topic ban, considering that this specific issue is the current cause célèbre among gamergate forums. — Strongjam (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The forum that I saw this was a Toku/Anime one I frequent, nothing to do with GG. The problem is with Hipocrite editing Toku articles, again nothing to do with GG in my opinion Loganmac (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Given this toku forum were celebrating the fall of Ryulong (for reasons completely unrelated to GG admittedly) and that you and Ryulong have been engaged in a feud for months now, how did you not notice that this would have been viewed as an incredibly untasteful action? Bosstopher (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Loganmac: your mysterious doppelganger on Reddit who says and believes all the same things you do and obsessively knows all of your current actions as they happen has posted a thread on /r/kotakuinaction about Hipocrite accusing him of being a meatpuppet for Ryulong, giving the impression that as a part of Gamergate you are still following Ryulong around. Just letting you know, since, of course, you couldn't have known that since that account is not you. --PresN 16:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any doubt that Hipocrite is being a meatpuppet for Ryulong... there's enough on-wiki evidence for that on Ryulong's talk page alone. Loganmac, however, would be well advised to disengage from this area, at least for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not a meatpuppet. Per WP:MEAT, meatpuppets are like-minded editors recruited offsite. I have edited wikipedia since 2004. I became aware of this dispute because I am a regular editor of wikipedia. I asked Ruylong for a list of articles he watched to prevent them from being vandalized. I told him that if there were changes that needed to be made to articles, I would accept his emails. I believe that a caring outlet for possible frustration would help Ryulong separate gracefully from Wikipedia. I find your insinuations offensive, and ask that you retract them immediately. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That is one definition of meatpuppet, yes. It is also far from the only one. If you would rather be called a "proxy for a banned user", then fine, I can use that term instead; they are, at the end of the day, exactly the same sort of thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Not really the same at all. WP:PROXYING can be fine. As long as the edits are verifiable and productive then there is no issue. — Strongjam (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:PROXYING, "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." I state here that I have independently verified, or determined that all of my edits were productive, and I had independent reason for making such edits. What reason to you have to doubt my statement? Hipocrite (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So when you wrote "I don't think there's any doubt that Hipocrite is being a meatpuppet for Ryulong," you didn't actually mean that I had actually done any meatpuppeting, which is a violation of policy, is that correct? Would you say given that, that my request that you retract was reasonable, and would you get about your retractions now? I make it a policy to never ask for apologies until it's well past the time when I'd accept one, so I guess I'd like an apology as well. Hipocrite (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You are acting as a proxy for a banned user or as a meatpuppet. That doesn't mean your edits themselves are necessarily bad automatically, as HJ Mitchell says below, but that is still a statement of fact. I haven't looked into any of your edits, bar the one place we interacted, so I can't come to any "good/bad" conclusion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Gentlemen, please, has GamerGate not put enough money in the pockets of headache tablet manufacturers without you starting rows on unrelated articles? Proxying for a banned editor is not, in and of itself, a problem. As long as Hipocrite understands that he is as responsible for the edits as if he'd made them completely unsolicited (that is, if it turns out, for example, that the edits are BLP violations, the responsibility for the edits fall on him and not the editor for whom he is proxying), there isn't a problem. If the edits are disruptive, that's something you need to take up with Hipocrite in the first instance and then follow the normal channels if that doesn't work (which would presumably be ANI); if they're not, thee isn't a problem. If you disagree with them, then as with any other edit, you should try to discuss the issue with him, and failing that follow normal dispute resolution steps like asking for outside opinions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the protection.

I think its the right choice but I don't think leaving a bunch of support messages but removing any people that may have not supported that editor is a fair approach. Any editor has people that often agree with them and that disagree with them but to whitewash their page is not reasonable. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's nice but to be frank, no one cares. Editors are given wide, wide latitude with what is and what is not allowed on one's own user pages. There have been many times when people have come to my talk page grousing about something or another, and I have slapped that "revert" link faster than they could blink. Your post was jerkish, and if Ryulong was still around, would've blown it away in a heartbeat. Unwatch his page and find something better to do. That's my Buttinsky Two Cents. Tarc (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ironically I don't give a flying fuck about your opinion Tarc. If Ryulong held to his values he would have deleted all the "supports" for encouraging a banned editor. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong being banned does not excuse editors from WP:NPA. Frankly I'm appalled you re-added a comment I removed (the original poster received a block for said comment.) — Strongjam (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
User talk pages do not have to conform to NPOV, and are not a forum for editors to express their delight at sanctions against their owner. Ryulong is banned, (a decision I personally agree with albeit slightly reluctantly and one he largely brought on himself); that's all there is to say about it. I suggest you find something more useful to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk. It looks like you were pinged, but that's fluky enough that a notice is probably a good idea too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Risker just concluded that, but in the interests of fair justice...
Do / did you have additional backstory or examples of Protonk doing abusive stuff in the GG arena? Although the sanctions technically cover that for a one-instance comment, it seemed more what someone would issue for an ongoing problem than for a first occurrence.
I checked for Protonk on the GG evidence page and found nothing. Without spending a while diving his contributions, was he previously problematic in the area?...
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Harry, not to pile on, but I would also appreciate an explanation. Was the reason for the sanction that Adam violated the BLP policy by not providing a source for his talk page post, or was there some issue with the statement actually being false or libelous? I haven't followed the whole situation that closely, but from a preliminary read, the statement appears to be decently supported by content within the article and outside reliable sources. I imagine that I am probably just missing something, as the topic area is new to me. Ping me when you're able to reply please? Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam, Georgewilliamherbert, NuclearWarfare, and Ched: Apologies all, my Internet connection suddenly cut out shortly after midnight UTC and between that and visiting a great aunt in hospital, I haven't been able to get back to Wikipedia until now. Risker's remarks articulately sum up the problems that I saw with the edit. As I saw it, Protonk made a flippant, throwaway remark about various living people, including discussing one's sex life and accusing another (incorrectly, I believe) of making accusations about that person's sex life. For that alone, I probably wouldn't have sanctioned him, but the flippancy of the remark showed little regard for BLP or the people involved, and was accompanied by a suggestion that BLP should be ignored, in a thread discussing how to approach the subject tactfully (indeed, I'd gone to the talk page to offer guidance on the matter as an admin, but edit-conflicted with Protonk's comment, which is how it came to my attention so quickly). It was also clear that comment was not in any way directed at improving the article, contrary to the very prominent editnotice I put up recently. All of that combined to the point where I felt that it was necessary to remove and delete the comment, and the flippancy of the language and the comment about policy being "perverse" convinced me that words of advice would not have had the desired effect (the desired effect being that he didn't reinstate the comment or post anything like it again) and that admin action was necessary. Had any of those factors been different, my approach probably would have been. I've been happy to take a softly-softly approach with words of advice, warnings, or short blocks (without accompanying topic bans) where I've thought it would solve the problem—I've offered lots of people informal advice (ranging from a few friendly words to a bollocking depending on the circumstances) and I've given several logged cautions and warnings. I haven't regretted that approach, even in cases where formal sanctions have later been necessary, but I simply didn't believe that it would have had the desired effect in this case, which is the reason for the apparently heavy-handed approach.

I don't begrudge the unblock—I would have done it myself had I been about and had I received sufficient assurances (in fact I almost always lift short blocks, especially first blocks, if the blocked editor says something like "I won't do it again")—and maybe I was a little heavy-handed, but the community and ArbCom seem to want admins to get proactive, or at least prefer slightly OTT interventions to leaving BLP violations unchallenged, and I think words of advice or warnings would have led to a rapidly deteriorating conversation about interpretations of BLP and probably the reinstatement of the comment, so I do believe that some sort of action was necessary. I always loathe sanctioning established editors, especially those with long and mostly unblemished track records, so trust me when I say I don't do it if I think a different approach will work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the ping. I always appreciate knowing what's going on.
    Resolved
    ? — Ched :  ?  19:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks also for the name-check. I am a bit relieved to read that I'd correctly interpreted your actions and remarks, and I hope you feel reassured that your concern about the edit was shared by almost all who commented in the appeal. Risker (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • HJ, it's possible to be proactive without being heavy-handed. In the wake of GamerGate, there appears to be an emerging pattern of significantly disproportionate sanctions, issued for questionable infractions, by a handful of administrators. It's not reflecting well on Wikipedia. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think any of my GamerGate-related sanctions have been "significantly disproportionate", much less a pattern of them. As I said above, I'm more than happy to take the softly-softly approach when I think it will work. I would note that several sanctions I've imposed have been appealed and this is the first one that has been overturned, one appeal didn't reach a conclusion before the 48-hour block expired, and the rest all upheld the sanction. Indeed several admin have commented to me, publicly and privately, that I've been relatively lenient with the sanctions I've imposed. As for "a handful of administrators", I think only four ever enforced the community sanctions, and only Gamaliel and I did so regularly. The topic area would greatly benefit if all the admins who commented on this appeal would come to help out at the coalface, but the small number of admins active in an area should not be seen as a reflection on those admin or their actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:BMB says "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors." So far as I know, this is still the community consensus.
  • I don't mean to single you out as having done something wrong. The only outcome I'm hoping for from this conversation is that you, and other editors involved in sanctioning users, will find ways to deal with disruption without causing collateral damage -- either to other good-faith contributors, or to the reputation of Wikipedia. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what a policy subsection about good edits by sitebanned editors has to do with a short block and topic ban or with the discretionary sanctions on GamerGate in general. It's very rare that a sanctioned editor says something like "mea culpa, I shouldn't have done that", and much more common that they are very unhappy about it, sometimes to the extent that they feel the need to vent elsewhere on the Internet, but that's not the same as the sanction being improper or unjust. My only interest is in preventing disruption to Wikipedia. If I can do that without swinging the banhammer, I will, but sometimes there isn't another option. Where, precisely, that line is is a judgement call and one I like to think I normally get right, but I'm certainly not immune from cocking things up from time to time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the feedback and info. No worries. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is it acceptable to ask you to delete one of my own contributions, so that it is no longer part of the public record? Or is this only done when a violation has occurred?192.249.47.186 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There would have to be a good reason for it, but without context I can't give you a yes or no. You can email me (hjmitchell at ymail dot com) if you want to discuss it privately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Year In Review Awards

The Original Barnstar
For your contributions to the Featured Articles Operation Flavius and Death on the Rock you are hereby awarded this Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The Epic Barnstar
For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tom! Glad to see we decided to do these in the end. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
How could we not? I like to think of the project as a Meritocracy, so if you have earned something I will make sure you get it to the best of my ability. More over, there is the joy for the editors of seeing their hard work rewarded. I've been thanked 8-9 times over the last 24 hours by people who got awards, some of them were not even expecting awards and one was surprised that it was milihist who bestowed the first award he's gotten here. Its tedious and time consuming, but moments like that make it all worth while for everyone, wouldn't you say? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Definitely, it's always nice when we can show a little appreciation. I'm sure most Wikipedians would say they don't do what they do to be recognised, but knowing that somebody somewhere appreciated their hard work certainly helps and probably contributes to editor retention. Well done for being the postman. :) Oh, and apologies for the delay, Tom, I missed your reply at first—this talk page is rather busy at the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

False accusations

Please don't accuse me of edit warring when I'm doing no such thing. As per the template documentation, that spot on the infobox is for main cast only, and the reliable source on the article specifically states that those certain actors are only joining in a recurring role. I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong. I'm reverting IPs that are not aware of how things are supposed to be done, as well as other edits that are very obviously not constructive. If you don't want to actually look into the situation by looking at the sources and each edit that's been reverted, then fine, another admin could have and would've seen the right action there was to protect the page. But it's alright, I'll just leave the article alone.. wouldn't want to edit war anymore!! Gloss 20:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is edit-warring. It's textbook edit-warring. You've made multiple reverts of the same content; the content is not a copyright violation, BLP violation, vandalism, illegal, or added by a sockpuppet. The edits being "wrong" or contrary to template documentation does not exempt you from policy. And really, does it matter in the scheme of things whether a certain actor is listed as being in the main cast? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to reconsider PC2 level protection to Gamergate controversy

As this protection was added as a "Arbitration enforcement" action (see [11]) and therefore cannot be removed by any other admin acting alone I decided to start by asking for you to reconsider (rather then the usual Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). The protection level PC2 is currently in the status of "No consensus for use on the English Wikipedia." While I suspected what this meant, I asked for confirmation from another admin and Arbitrator GorillaWarfare happened to respond (you can see his response here). I request that you raise the protection level to Full protection or lower it to Semi-protection (although clearly PC1 or no protection would be fine as well if that is what you decide). --Obsidi (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

PC2 has been used for multiple things before, despite the series of RfCs. WP:IAR applies. If a perfectly good tool is available for use, and an ArbCom sanctions regime gives an administrator the power to do whatever he needs to do to halt disruption, there is no reason for him not to use it, old RfC be damned. RGloucester — ☎ 04:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
"Ignore all rules" does not prevent the enforcement of certain policies. This was a policy decision by the community to not use PC2 as it was "would create/add to stratification among editors." Policy decisions by the community are actually above even ArbCom. Is there any reason why PC2 is really needed more then Semi-protection or full protection? --Obsidi (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason why it shouldn't be used? That's the better question. Why should this particularly policy be enforced in this particular instance? If it is just for policy's sake, that's bureaucracy hindering the encylopaedia's improvement, and a waste of time. RGloucester — ☎ 04:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It shouldn't be used because it adds to stratification among editors. It says that those with the reviewer right are first class wikipedians who get to decide what the content of the article is and everyone else just makes suggestions. --Obsidi (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with this particular instance of the use of pending changes. That's a broad schematic question which has no relevance. Think about the narrow view of the Gamergate problem itself, and think of why PC2 might be useful. Be pragmatic. Regardless, I feel that such concerns are a bit absurd, given that only administrators can edit fully protected pages, seemingly raising the same concern. Anyone can apply for the reviewer tool. RGloucester — ☎ 05:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Its not that admins can edit the article as they like when it is fully protected (that will lead to an admin getting desysoped if it continues, and an admin that gets desysopped is probably not getting the bit back). Even an admin needs to get consensus for any change in content (other then removing policy violations). Full protection is full protection for everyone. --Obsidi (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It is very easy to strip someone of the reviewer tool if they are abusing it. Much easier, in fact, than desysoping anyone. Regardless, none of that matters here. In this particular situation, this action makes sense. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the slightest look at GW's userpage would tell you that GW is in fact a "she". As to the issue at hand, I'm keeping the situation under review, but I consider this to be a legitimate invocation of IAR—"if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". That's policy. There are very few legitimate invocations of IAR (I can count on one hand the number of times I've invoked it to justify an admin action, out of some 40,000 logged actions), but where we have unusual situations, it can be applied to slightly unorthodox solutions. In this case, the intention of PC2 is to keep BLP violations and other crap out of the article, and reviewers are under instructions to let everything through that isn't grossly inappropriate, even if they decide to revert it afterwards. Semi-protection alone would be insufficient given the sheer number of good-faith but inexperienced editors and bad-faith editors with sufficient determination to make ten edits and sit out for four days who are and have been active in the topic area, and I suspect the very application of PC2 will act as a deterrent to the latter. Especially given the high-profile nature of the article, I think concerns for the real lives of real people discussed in the article far outweigh our internal policy wonkery. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Just pointing out in passing that the biggest problem with PC2 is that it gives a false sense of safety. The edits of anyone with reviewer privileges or higher goes straight through without stopping at pending chnages; however, there are a LOT of people with reviewer right (i.e., almost anyone who was editing at the time PC was first released) who could blithely show up, approve a change in the queue or make a change that doesn't go in the review queue at all without being aware of all the special provisions related to this article. Full protection will prevent that; semi-protection is pretty much useless in this situation (almost everyone is autoconfirmed) and thus so is PC1. Risker (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Reviewer permissions have been given out rather liberally, yes, but most are established editors with at least some track record. More importantly, you don't get it automatically by making a handful of edits and waiting a few days—you have to actually convince an admin you're trustworthy, so the bar is much higher for those with nefarious intent. Good-faith or subtle violations getting through is still a worry, but PC2 comes with the smallest risk of that short of full protection, and there are admins and experienced reviewers watching so I'm hopeful that that sort of thing would be caught quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I've wanted to use PC2 a few times on BLPs, where it was the thing that made most sense. It would be good to have a "BLP editor" protection level for articles likely to be edited poorly that contain material about living persons. Editors could be given the right if they have a reasonable track record of BLP editing or where for other reasons it's safe to assume they'll be policy-compliant. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am notifying you that I am appealing this to WP:AE. --Obsidi (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Protection

You have fully protected Punjabi people, it had to be semi protected. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't do semi-protection in content disputes between IPs and established editors; that would be taking sides. We fully protect it so that you can work your differences out on the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unblock

FYI, I unblocked User:Isis.is.evil, whom you blocked for having an inappropriate username, as they have agreed to change it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks for the note. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

UFC 183

Could you please add protection to UFC 183? The vandalism is persistent and is very disruptive. Thanks. WWE Batman131 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see MelanieN has done just that with her newly minted admin bit. :) I knew I wouldn't regret that co-nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Another unblock

Unblock request vs. five-year-old VOA block at Niemasd. Good request, and details match personal information given in deleted materials. Objections to rolling the dice? Kuru (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

None at all. In fact I've done it myself. If I'm asleep next time you get a request like that, it's safe to assume I don't object. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Si - understood. Kuru (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ban of Mark Bernstein

You're banning Bernstein for him participating in a user talk page which discussed a blog post by him? Andjam (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No. He's not banned, he's blocked. And he's blocked because another admin imposed a topic ban on him, prohibiting from discussing GamerGate. He breached the topic ban (for the second time), so he got blocked. I just happened to be the first admin to see it. And all this happened before I even know he had a block. Personally think life is far too short to be petty or vindictive enough to go round blocking people in Wikipedia for saying things I only partially disagree with on their own blog. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Random categorization

Hi HJ, Can you take a look at User:Richard C. Stone? They appear to be a new user that has added 100+ categories to a variety of articles using HotCat. They all seem to be totally irrelevant. They seem to have finished for the day by adding themselves to various admin categories on their user page... Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Just when you think you've seen it all! I can honestly say I've never seen that before. Since they seem to have finished for the moment, we should see what they do if/when they come back. They might have just been experimenting, in which case it's a bit of a nuisance but not long-term damage was done. It might be worth leaving a hand-written note on their talk page asking them nicely to, er, not do that. But if they come back and start again, I don't see much choice but to block them. If I'm not about, take it to AIV or ANI and explain the situation there (though the problem should quickly be apparent to any passing admin). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Weird isn't it? Looks like a combination of random page and random category... Having discovered Twinkle I've reverted them all, but will leave a note on their talk page and keep an eye out. Robevans123 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

If an article contains misleading or probably false information about a wikipedian, is that a BLP violation? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 22:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians are assumed to be alive, yes. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair. HJ Mitchell can I special:mailuser you about this? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 15:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Go for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Admin's Barnstar
You are doing outstanding work in defense of the encyclopedia these days. It is noticed and appreciated. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. This talk page is finally quietening down, which hopefully means that sanity is beginning to prevail and I can get back to doing the things that go mostly unnoticed! I don't suppose you've considered picking up a mop of your own? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That is a long term goal, Harry. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_94&oldid=1257748989"