User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 103

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100 Archive 101 Archive 102 Archive 103 Archive 104 Archive 105 → Archive 110

This Month in GLAM: June 2015



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 00:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Null edit

This is just to make it possible to revdel the previous edit. The system won't let me delete the latest edit. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Pointers for a noob?

Hey HJ Mitchell,

Do you have any pointers for a new admin looking to working in WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RfP and WP:RfPP? Some advice would be great. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sign your talk page edits. MJ94 (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Ceradon, congrats on the new buttons. I didn't vote because I didn't see it early enough and I didn't have chance to make an informed decision, though WSC is a friend of mine and RfA nominators don't come much better. Anyway, I'd start by installing User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper, which is incredibly useful on those boards (it saves a lot of typing because, y'know, I'm lazy). I'd start with the simple requests where the decision is easy and lurk for a while to see what other admins do in more complicated situations. Certainly all of those boards could do with another admin keeping an eye on them. Oh, and you might (or might not, depending on how you like to do things) find some of the other scripts at User:HJ Mitchell/monobook.js useful. If you need anything specifically, feel free to drop a note here or email me. The day job means I don't spend as much on time on WP as I'd like to, but this page is well-watched by helpful people. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for granting my reviewer rights request! GAB (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

PP

I've semied your tp for a few hours and revdel'd dozens of crap edits. When you wake up in your time zone you can check it out or change it if you wish. Chris. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I think I'll leave the semi as it is since it's only got a few hours left. I prefer to keep it unprotected, but obviously when this loony's about (he's been at it for years), the noise is disproportionate to the signal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

lifting protection for Nguyễn Công Phượng

Hi Mr. Mitchell, I am contacting you to lift the lift the recreation protection of Nguyễn Công Phượng since this articles subject did not meet WP:GNG but since has now met Wikipedia's requirements. At this discussion it was suggested for me to contact you on this matter, as the subject already had an article at Công Phượng but since the former is his full name I thought it would be better to move the latter articles content to the former and use the latter as a re-direct. Thank You. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the new version is much more substantial than the deleted version (which was barely a stub), I've removed the protection. You can move or redirect at your leisure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashtul

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashtul. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: your email

Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashtul

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashtul. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

LTA/Cause of death vandal

The IP you just blocked, 70.188.132.66 ‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · ‎#dnsbl RBLs · block user · block log), is very likely a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. Would you please review and see if you agree? General Ization Talk 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I took about 20 seconds, looked at two diffs, and blocked them as an obvious vandal; I didn't asses how likely I thought it was that they were a sock because it was irrelevant at that point—I was going to block them anyway. Having just had a look at the LTA page, I'd say it's unlikely. Your guy seems to frequent the north of England whereas our friend from tonight is in the States (or at least his IP address is) and seems to be interested in American subjects, and the MO is silly vandalism rather than sneakier stuff like changing causes of death. I wouldn't definitively rule it out, but based on the information I wouldn't think it likely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. I will say I see this fellow frequently – I recognize him (or her) because he (or she) has an obvious thing for the names Sean and Elizabeth, and rather frequently inserts the latter as the middle name of a male subject – twice in this series. A number of the IPs at that LTA page do the same. Also note changes to dates of birth (another hallmark) in several of tonight's edits. Thanks. General Ization Talk 00:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like you're more familiar with him than I am (and like the LTA page could do with some more information). Was there a particular reason you asked? I probably would have taken the same action if I'd been convinced it was him—the IP is likely dynamic and he'll either get bored or come back shortly with a new one; if he does stay on that IP address and pick up where he left off when the block expires, we can block it for longer. But a block seems to be all that's necessary, regardless of whether it's him or not. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2015



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 00:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Camilla Gibb

Could you kindly clarify what was so uniquely WP:REDFLAGgy about a properly sourced clarification of Gibb's sexual orientation? Such information is routinely included in the biographies of out LGBT writers when it can be properly sourced, so I'm not too clear on why Gibb would have to meet some higher standard of sourcing than any other out lesbian writer in the entire history of out lesbian writing. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it was especially unique. The only source for the claim was Pink News, which mentioned it in passing. That's hardly rock solid. Added to which I Googled the claim and wasn't able to verify it through any other sources, including several interviews with the subject which are available online. For a claim like that, I'd expect it would be mentioned in something like an interview. Which leaves two possible options: Pink News got it wrong, or all the other sources don't consider it relevant to her notability. If you can find more and better sources, we can certainly revisit the issue, but unless it is a significant part of her notability, I'd question what was gained from its inclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Malaysians by net worth

Hi, HJ Mitchell. A page you recently protected for 1 day had expired, and persistent vandalism happened again. Fyi, there's people who previously vandalized the article, took a screenshot & put it on the social media, which in turn causes the article to suddenly have a surge in page views and also vandalism edits. There's only a little bit of vandalism at the time of writing, because it's midnight here at the moment. But, I'm pretty sure if unprotected, vandalism will happen again once daybreak.

So, if possible, I would like to request for a longer semi protection duration, perhaps 1 or 2 week(s) until it calms down. Thanks. (Edward (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC))

Fyi in case you don't know, this is because the Malaysian PM is currently involved in the 1MDB corruption scandal, which he later announced that the money was actually a donation from someone. That being said, those politically motivated edits still shouldn't be tolerated at all, although I'm siding towards the opposition more.

I see my good friend Kudpung has protected it for a few more days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yup, he did. Thanks anyway. Good day. (Edward (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC))

Editor you once blocked re Korea is back at AN3

Please see WP:AN3#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Ogress (Result: ). This is a guy who engages in very-long-term edit warring about the history of Korea. You blocked him back in February for 72 hours, with the message 'Edit warring: three-month(!) edit war at Template:History of Korea'. If we had any discretionary sanctions for this area, a topic ban might be considered. If the only option is a regular block, perhaps it should be a long one. Would appreciate your opinion on what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The only alternative I can see to a lengthy block is to take it to ANI and aim to get consensus for a topic ban or similar restriction. What do you think, Ed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
ANI is seldom willing to issue topic bans unless the case is very blatant and easy to understand. Occasionally I can persuade the person to accept a voluntary ban. But if Cydevil38 continues on his course without taking the advice on board, I'd consider a one-month block. 22:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
A one-month block was going to be my next suggestion. The problem with it is that I suspect we'll be back to square one in a little over a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston and HJ Mitchell: A topic ban was exactly what I proposed in the ANI complaint I filed against Cydevil38 last year, a few months before HJ Mitchell blocked him for different (but related) reasons. My proposal received support from two other users, but unfortunately no admin took action, and the thread was archived for inactivity. As you can see from the evidence presented in my ANI filing, at least five other users had filed complaints against him on ANI and AN3, and that was before Ogress' most recent AN3 filing. That's an astonishing record for a user with merely a few hundred mainspace edits. And his behaviour has not changed after two blocks (the first time as Cydevil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). -Zanhe (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I filed the recent report, and the users edits are nearly entirely confined to ancient Korea, with forays into closely-related spaces that influenced or were controlled by ancient Korea: Korea, Manchuria, ancient North China. So basically ancient Northeast Asia? Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Template:History of Manchuria (blocked as Cydevil), Korean ethnic nationalism Template: History of Korea (blocked as Cydevil38), Hanbok, Historical revisionism#Goguryeo (no longer extant), Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Shinshi (which I just discovered and nominated for deletion), Goguryeo–Sui War, Eulji Mundeok Hansi, Eulji Mundeok, Japanese history textbook controversies, Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom, Dongmyeong of Goguryeo , Koreans, Dongyi, Foreign relations of South Korea, Paektu Mountain, Sea of Japan, Balhae, Ondol, Koreans, Dangun, Kimchi, Pao cai (to state it is not like kimchi), Chuseok and the identical Chinese Mid-Autumn Festival, Gwanggaeto the Great, Jiaozhi, Korean New Year, List of monarchs of Korea , History of Korea#Gojoseon, Samguk Sagi, Later Silla... that's most of the pages he's edited since 2005 and they are entirely about Korea or tangentially-related.
In addition, the user tried to gaslight me to get me to remove my 3RR complaint by blaming me. I was annoyed by the edit warring, but this is infuriating given his history of edit warring. He also claimed, "It's rather annoying that both Zanhe and Ogress make mockery of me because I'm no as active." He denies wrongdoing, tries to get others to take the blame, and otherwise engages in what is to be extremely troubling interpersonal behavior. I did make two edits a few days ago on the page Gojoseon, which I completely forgot, fessed up to, apologised for, and is out of character for me. I also apologised for not going to talk before filing; I should have. I didn't because Cydevil specifically said in his edit summary he wouldn't talk on the talk page: "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job".
In the current edit war, he rather spectacularly claimed that his refusal to talk on the talk page was due to existing consensus. When pressed, he said this was the consensus: I strongly urge you to read it to get an idea of the workings of his mind.
Additionally, to understand his position, you should perhaps consider his position on the mythical foundation of Korea by the bear-man Dangun 4000+ years ago as akin to that of a devout Christian arguing religious history while pretending to be secular and trying to be "inclusive and equal". I think people have not recognised his position is dogmatic and religious, perhaps not realising this is an ethnic nationalist religious belief promulgated by various religious groups in Korea, both premodern and modern. As a student of Korean religion I recognised this pattern but I think people have no idea it's not just a 10th-century Korean thing. Ogress smash! 14:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

UAA

Someone listed HJ Mitchell (alt) at WP:UAA. Just thought I'd ask you if this is a legit alternate account or yours, or someone else trying to cause trouble for you. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Unprotect

Could you kindly unprotect {{ISO 639 name cel}} ‎which I protected in September 2009. Don't know what I was thinking! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

Of course, Rich. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review request for Susan Gerbic

I have a PR request (links of course at Talk:Susan Gerbic) and given you like biographies, and I'm mainly worried about MoS stuff, you seemed to fit. I'm also looking to learn the peer review process to be able to help out with it myself. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Energy

This article has been semi - protected since 19 January 2011. Please unprotect. 86.160.51.10 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

YGM

Mike V • Talk 20:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

You recently blocked Invincibleimmortalcannotbestopped. They're back at it with Imperialnoobicus. I'll file an SPI, but it's open-and-shut if you want to handle it. ~ RobTalk 15:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've indef'd the latest sock. AIV is the best place to report them if I'm not about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

School block

I was wondering if you would be willing to unblock 192.197.54.136. There's a class OUIT class that will be editing Wikipedia from that IP this semester, and the students won't be able to create accounts while in class. Thanks. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): Given the long history of vandalism from that IP address, I'm not willing to allow anonymous (non-logged-in) editing from it, but I have modified the block to allow account creation. This should mean that students will be able to create an account on that IP address and edit as normal while logged in, but they won't be able to edit without logging in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand the concern. Thanks for making the modification. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Ferociouslettuce

Ferociouslettuce, who you recently blocked for IP sock block evasion, is now socking with a new account "BezosFanBoy". Not only are they carrying on FL's attacking agenda against me, but on their user page, they blatantly list Ferociouslettuce's Facebook page as their own. Could you please bock this new sock? Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, Ponyo CU-blocked them, and their IP. Thanks anyway. BMK (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. Would you mind semi-ing my talk page? Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. Except it seems that Ponyo beat me to that as well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Beating you to anything takes an enormous amount of effort. I believe I have earned myself a Friday afternoon pint.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Enjoy it! You'll have a good eight hours or so to beat me to things in a few minutes as I'm more or less off to bed. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:109.92.104.76

I've reverted the remaining vandal edits of User:109.92.104.76 for you. --JustBerry (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100.
Message added 09:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2015



Headlines


  • UK report: QRpedia AWOL; RSC holds another edit-a-thon
  • Special story: New toolkit on Photo Events documents best practices, strategies and more
  • Open Access report: Wikipedia as an amplyfier; horse face recognition, rhythm perception, fossil rodent teeth
  • Wikidata report: Wikidata this month
  • Calendar: September's GLAM events



Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

For the school block

Why such weird & specific numbers for expiry? Krett12 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's 1001 days but some developer a few years ago decided it would be a good idea to change MediaWiki's definition of a year, so now any block duration of longer than a year looks weird like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

 Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:115.70.228.82

You blocked this IP, but it is back vandalizing pages again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

AE

I noticed your message at Callanecc's talk page and would like ask: what out of this collation of behaviour would suffice for AE? Most of it is editor conduct not related directly to Troubles, but the fourth bullet point especially displays this editor's bias and lack of neutrality on Troubles matters despite their frequent claims of inserting NPOV. Then again I already provided a litany of evidence to AE that resulted in no action in regards to Gob Lofa's behaviour on Troubles articles. There has been plenty of evidence since as well however I no longer bother tracking Gob Lofa's edits unless they appear on my most recent in my watchlist as I don't want to be seen as hounding even if I have just cause. Mabuska (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Treading carefully because I don't want to be accused of being "INVOLVED", but hypothetically (for example if this were Israel-Palestine) I'd want to see diffs of misconduct since the last AE request. GL hadn't been alerted to the discretionary sanctions until then, so anything pre-dating that can't be used as the basis for sanctions. So far, you've demonstrated on Callanecc's talk page what could be a battleground mentality, but I would want more diffs to show that that is his usual way of approaching issues and not just a few isolated incidents. In other words focus less on trying to prove a technical violation of the 1RR and more on establishing a longer-term pattern. If you can successfully do that, you might be able to convince admins that a topic ban is necessary. You should also be aware that your own conduct cold come under scrutiny, so if you have any skeletons in your closet it's best to declare them upfront. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Since my own 24 hr block I've done my best to remain as civil and focused on content in discussions as possible even when I feel like I'm being provoked. Mabuska (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Appeal

Dear HJ. i am informing you that I would duly like to appeal a topic ban imposed by yourself in jan 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Slovenski_Volk

Thanks Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

One edit is not sufficient?

On what planet is a single edit worth 6 months of full protection? You didn't even bother notifying the editor. Lazy. --DHeyward (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Earth. The article has just come off six months of full protection—necessitated by people adding libellous and/or non-public material—ad within days such material has twice had to be oversighted. Evidently the subject's profile is not yet low enough that people don't feel the need to add that sort of crap. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking that vandal earlier

I just wanted to say thanks for blocking Heilsatan666 (talk · contribs) earlier. --Rubbish computer 01:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks re this best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Overprotection of article

According to WP:NAMES my edit didn't improve the article so it was reverted. I agree with decision but I don't agree with full protection of that page. According to WP:PROTECT: "Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors". Since my edit wasn't a vandalism there is no need to full protect the article. Semi-protection was adequate. Please use {{re}} Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 01:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

While your edit was in good faith, it was an egregious BLP violation. I won't repeat the claim here, but if it's true then it's doxxing the subject, and if it's not it's libellous. You were the second editor to add that claim within a few days, prior to which it had been fully protected for six months. Given that, I believe full protection is the only way to prevent this material from being added (and subsequently having to be removed and oversighted). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: According to revision history I was the only editor to add that information since article was semi protected. Can you point to me the second edit you're referring to? Please use {{re}} Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 11:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In the sequence of edits prior to the semi-protection, the same material was added by an established editor and then by an IP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Then you should see that semi protection was adequate because only one editor (myself) added that information. I also agree that it shouldn't belong the article to comply with policies. There is no need for full protection of that article according to WP:PROTECT: "Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors". Please use {{re}} Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 15:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, the semi-protection was inadequate because it allowed any account with ten edits and four days' tenure to make the claim, which is clearly too low a bar. It would stop drive-by vandals, but not established editors—however well-intentioned. That another established editor, also in good faith, added the same claim a day or so earlier only reinforces my opinion that full protection is the only way to prevent the claim from being re-added. This is not just an academic matter of compliance with Wikipedia policy, it's about basic human decency and preventing potentially grave harm from coming to the subject of the article. Our duty as human beings to prevent harm vastly outweighs generic policy snippets that were not written for this sort of situation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: I would agree if your statements were true. I'm asking again for you to point me to said edit from another editor. Please use {{re}} Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 16:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the edit in question. I'm not in the habit of making things up to support my admin actions. Note that the edit has been suppressed, so the content and edit summary will not be accessible; you'll just have to accept my word that it was along the same lines as your edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The series of edits are clearly visible in the article history: the details have been suppressed, which appear as strikethroughs. Your "I would agree if your statements were true" is an assertion of bad faith. Since there has been a rash of such events recently, full protection is warranted. Acroterion (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell and Acroterion: Thank you for providing me with said edit. As I said I was the only editor which added that information since article was semi protected. I was sure of it because I've checked it multiple times so it's not assertion of bad faith.
At the same time even if the article was semi-protected said editor could add that information. Looks like we were both wrong. Semi-protection is not adequate and I was the only editor to add this information after adding that level of protection.
Now I agree that fully protection is adequate but since this conversation was started you increased the level and duration of protection.
I disagree with indefinite full protection of all articles in this category because it doesn't seem to comply with protection policy: "Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors."
If articles in said category will get fully protected for duration of at most one year then our dispute will be resolved. Please use {{re}} Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I increased the duration of protection by only a few hours (six months from the moment I made the modification, rather than six months from ~02:30 this morning when I was dealing with this instead of going to bed), which was necessary to modify the log entry to make the action a discretionary sanction and thus prevent it being reversed on a whim. As for the category you link, I note that there's only one other article in there and neither of them are indefinitely protected. I've added the expiry parameter to both templates to remove them from the category. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: I'm glad we were able to resolve this dispute. Please use {{re}} Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 17:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no! Not another tribble!

Wiki Tribble
 The Special Wikipedian Tribble Award
HJ, you're a very special Wikipedian in my book. Being a mindful, considerate administrator who consistently makes good decisions, or at least tries, is not an easy task, especially considering some of the mine fields one has to navigate when settling a dispute. It's not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips for sure. Thank you for all you do and all you've done to help keep Wikipedia an enjoyable experience for so many of us. Atsme📞📧 18:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Banners available at [1]


Thanks! I despair sometimes, but it's nice to be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_103&oldid=1177429686"