User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 98

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 Archive 98 Archive 99 Archive 100 → Archive 105

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Gamergate

Not sure if you're still patrolling around Gamergate, and I don't have a whole lot of time to set up an AE request so I'm just dropping a line about this [1]. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: Do you have a problem with the “anonymous” poster (who clearly has a lot of knowledge of the topic and its history here, though only a handful of edits, and who might reasonably arouse suspicion of sock-puppetry or block evasion) or with @NorthBySouthBaranof:’s reversion? If so, he’s simply anticipating housecleaning I have every right to do myself, and I believe a recent trek to AE agreed that he’s well within his rights to do so. Or have I misunderstood? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: Yes, you have misunderstood. NBSB's latest "trek" to AE only agreed that obvious BLP violations are covered by BANEX. "Anticipatory housecleaning" appears nowhere in either BANEX or the recent AE proceedings. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Starke hathaway and Kyohyi: if you feel this is deserving take it to WP:AE. HJ Mitchell is on wiki break so discussing other editors here is going to be unproductive. Personally I think if MarkBernstein has no problem with the removal and the IP user hasn't complained I see no need to further the dispute. — Strongjam (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam: I certainly never suggested taking anyone to AE. MarkBernstein asked if he was mistaken and I answered. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


This isn't a violation worth discussing and any sanction to NBSB does nothing that affects GG articles. --DHeyward (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still having computer issues, which I hope will be resolved later today. NBSB needs to leave the topic alone. If he doesn't, he's likely to find himself in deeper trouble. I'm not sure there's much to be gained from blocking him for that edit.As DH says, it would have no effect on the mainspace. And as much as I wish somebody else had made that edit, we really don't want to encourage anonymous trolling. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 10:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: Sigh, I presume at this point I am not welcome at your talk page, and others seem to be clamoring for an explanation, so I'll have to speak my piece here.
I am not anyone's alt and am not logged out from an account. I have no account on Wikipedia, never have, and at this rate certainly never will. (Mr. Mitchell, please feel free to run Checkuser etc. You will find nothing, because there is nothing to find.)
I wrote what I did in that diff as a call-out of your behaviour in this matter, because I simply couldn't believe what I was reading. Having discovered that there was an actual AN action, I moved my commentary there. I am not "trolling"; I am legitimately disappointed.
I absolutely agree that you are within your rights to clean up your own talk page. However, if you feel you have every right to do the housecleaning yourself, and intended to do so, I genuinely don't understand why I've now had three separate people who are not you (but all of whom I recognize as tending to take your side in these discussions) remove it, while you did not do so yourself. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerks

Harry, please tell me we actually have clerks assigned to RfAs. Irondome (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Don't think so. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh G d. Irondome (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No. Its good. I've had my WP reality moment. Its finally sunk in. After 3 years Harry. How odd. Irondome (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep, we're all being watched and we're all the watchmen, and we all watch the watchmen. It doesn't always work, but there's no such thing as a perfect system. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input on AE page regarding GG editor you once blocked

Hope your computer issues are resolved soon. --DHeyward (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Argh, wait, keep meaning to add my statement there. — Strongjam (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I've added my 2 cents. — Strongjam (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Computer issues mostly resolved. I'll look at AE when I've caught up on all the other stuff I've missed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for AE work

From my own, very limited, experience at doing anything at AE, I know it can be very difficult and consume an obscene amount of time to review the matters brought there. Thank you for your recent efforts in that regard. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not the most enjoyable of admin tasks, but it needs to be done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User Page Protection

Thanks for accepting my permission request. Can you drop my user page protection to full protection and create it with User:PhantomTech/userpage.css transcluded on it? I've set it up to redirect to my talk page like you suggested. PhantomTech (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, done, but I don't think the redirect works with the transclusion. You might want to just replace it with #REDIRECT[[Use tlak:PhantomTech]]. Let me know if you want it protected or anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you're right, I've changed it to a soft redirect and will probably look for a better way to present it later. Please set full protection on it when you have time. Thanks :) PhantomTech (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm back on AE :(

Hi HJ Mitchell,

I would like to ask you for an input on the new case against me.

As you probably noticed on your talk page, Nishidani and I had a lengthy conversation (20-30k) regarding Community settlement (Israel) after he followed me there fully aware of your request of me to keep respectful distance from him. After that, I took over an hour to make some changes. Nishidani rolled back all of them except for some minor changes. I have waited 24 hours (which unfortunately were miscalculated by 2 hours due to time change. I change my preferences after waters) and made different changes on the part he added and took out some duplicates and outdated info. A request was opened against me by another editor b/c an old part which Nishidani didn't add and everyone agree should be out (or at least nobody argue differently in 5 days) was deleted twice.

This is a spiteful attempt to eliminate me. Since you lifted the ban I have opened an RfD (which concluded with consensus in a few days and effected tens of articles) and RfC to avoid any type of WP:WAR.

I know this is time consuming but I ask you to look into the matter. I will accept your judgement on this case but I believe banning me for an edit which isn't a content dispute and part of a series of edits in which I have invested much time to be reasonable, seems to me unjust. Nishidani rollback was excessive and obviously he didn't even look at many of the changes I have made, particularity, the one in question.

Thank you, Ashtul (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I might not be able to get you a substantive response tonight, I've been travelling all day and I'm tired, but I will look into it and I'll get back to you over the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem and thank you. I'm just really frustrated as I've done so much to not get into this and then, to charge me with old content which doesn't belong and was returned by Nishidani mistakenly is a low blow.
I have mention this request on the AEB and asked other admins to wait for your input. Ashtul (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No-one is buying this line that Ashtul's 1RR violation is somehow okay. What's especially troubling is that Ashtul does seem to think it was okay. It doesn't help that he (allegedly) thought he was doing the second revert just outside the 24-hour window... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Wow, that was quick! Nomoskedasticity, it is an honor you are sitting on my tail. There are more than 22 hours between the edits which is the time difference between Israel and Greenwich Mean Time. You weren't even part of the debate about the article. Why would you get involved if not to eliminate me? Ashtul (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


I have just figured it out. I wondered all along how I mixed up the time and just figured it was the time difference. I was litterally shocked when I saw Nomoskedasticity complaint. As it turned out, I worked on the article in two sessions. The first until 12:00 where I have made numerous changes to the content Nishidani added and a second session from 14:01 none of which was sections Nishidani wrote. In between I edited several other articles (TaxiBot, ‎Palestinian stone-throwing, Bil'in, Wikipedia:Third opinion). There are more then 24 hours between the edits I have made on Nishidani's edits and the revert in question is material that Nishidani doesn't even claim is content dispute, basically admitting him putting in back in place was a mistake.
I truly believe I have done everything to keep the rules. Nomoskedasticity have filed the 3RR request within 1 hour of this uncontested 2nd revert and took the time to post on this request of mine in a short time as well. Obviously he is trying to eliminate me as an editor. Ashtul (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding an AE case

Hello HJ Mitchell,

Regarding a recent AE case concerning Parishan: should AE's really be closed on the basis of the results of a SPI report? Also, what do you mean by no prejudice against a future report? Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The SPI result was not the sole, or even the primary reason, for the closure (though we really don't want to encourage sockpuppets to file AE requests). The thread had died a natural death and hadn't been edited for several days so there didn't seem to be any pressing need for action. If there are any new issues, they can be raised in a new AE request—that's what "no prejudice" means. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request archived

Hi HJ Mitchell, an arbitration amendment request you were listed as a party to has been archived to the Wifione case talk page. A motion was proposed but did not gain enough support among arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New Jajadelera sock

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Jajadelera (talk · contribs) is back again with their new sock Jajanewplus (talk · contribs).--Jetstreamer Talk 12:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your plans for PC2 on Gamergate

The PC2 protection you placed on the Gamergate controversy page expired yesterday, do you have any plans to renew it or do you believe that it's no longer necessary? Bosstopher (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed. I'm inclined to leave it as it is for the moment and see how we get on. There weren't many serious problems, which might mean that semi-protection is sufficient or it might mean the PC2 was having a deterrent effect, so I think it's safe to leave it with just the semi for the time being and only restore the PC2 if there are problems with vandalism or BLP violations from autoconfirmed accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level. Thanks. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 13:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Self blocks

As your name appears on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, you may sign at the newly revamped Wikipedia:Block on demand page, along with comments and a link to your requirements page, if any. I hope I did not err in sort of reviving that page. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Labeling Hamas as "terrorists"

Hi. Rms125a@hotmail.com insists on labeling Hamas "a terrorist group" on Hebrew University bombing while showing little interesting in discussing it and more so in keeping such POV language. As WP:TERRORIST says, you should be careful about such wording. Main articles about groups like Hamas and Hizbollah don't describe them as such. So I think it's a big violation of NPOV and as he insists on keeping this while showing no interest in discussing it (his edit commentary "too bad, you do not decide; seek talk page consensus" tells much), what can I do? Because such POV language shouldn't be there for even a minute. Wikipedia can't take sides. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(tpw) Well, as I pointed oht over there just now, community norms are not overridden by local consensus. Though there have been spats over the years, the articles on hamas, Hezbollah, etc...generally go along the lines of "X is a militant organization, and X is considered a terrorist group by A, B, and C." That seemed to make everyone other than the most strident POV-pushers (of both sides) content back in the day, but it has been quite awhile since I have been involved in the I-P topic area. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You are correct. It's a good wording. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't comment on the content. Among the perks of being an admin is that I have to keep out of content issues, even though I'd love to do some article work in this topic area (though not on Hamas specifically); so the books on my shelf are purely for my own interest. What I can say is that the word "terrorist" is not absolutely prohibited, and there can be legitimate uses for it, though we should be very careful about using it in Wikipedia's voice whether this is such a legitimate use is not my decision and not something I can comment on, but is a legitimate subject for discussion on the talk page. I'd also advise you to watch your reverts, and @Rms125a@hotmail.com: be aware that Israel-Palstine articles are subject to a blanket 1RR (same as the Troubles); you've violated that this evening, but I'm going to assume you weren't aware and I'm not going to take any action. Just watch your reverts, please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand. Quis separabit? 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, HJ Mitchell and you others. I agree "terrorist" can be used as this attack is correctly described as such but generalizing groups and peoples as such is a much more complex thing and "militants" is often used instead to adress those POV concerns.
I am aware of the restrictions but no one have violated them as far I can see. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments

Please note the nominations have been posted, and there are standard questions to be answered. Members of the community may also ask questions, so please monitor your nomination(s) until the comment period is concluded on the 18th. Those who are running for both flags have two sections, and two copies of the standard questions -- the first two, at least, are likely to have different answers, so this isn't redundant. (The third one, well, it does.) Thanks for your willingness to serve. Courcelles (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with TheRedPenOfDoom?!?!

Are you familiar with the user: TheRedPenOfDoom? Because if you are I will let you know that he/she is being very unreasonable! I have been editing Michiel Huisman's wiki page for quite some time now, and he has been consistently removing info that I add. Everything that I add is completely legit and is sourced. But he/she is still removing and altering stuff. Like for example removing the fact that Michiel was cast opposite Blake Lively in The Age of Adaline, because he/she said that fact that he was going to be co-starring opposite Blake Lively had and I quote "nothing to do with him being named for the role". He/she has been deleting at least around 5 full sentences or more in the last like 3 days from that page. I have worked hard with that page, and when he/she is deleting the FACTS that I add I get mad and uppset. I know you are a admin, im not asking you to necessarily ban him/her but at least make him/her stop. Sebahed (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)sebahed

@Sebahed and TheRedPenOfDoom: It sounds lie you two need to have a chat on the article's talk page. I'm not going to say one party is right and one is wrong, that's not my place, but the only way these things ever get resolved is through discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Premier League players with 100 or more goals

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, upgraded to indef. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Is it appropriate to write a specific admin that wrote on my AE case?

Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If there's something specific you need to ask them about, it shouldn't be a problem. But be careful that it's not seen as canvassing by asking them to take your 'side'. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje's wiki page

There is something wrong with Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje's wiki page where you can't see his template. Can you take a quick look? Sebahed (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sebahed:: Nothing major, just a missing pair of brackets! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting advice

This is an unfortunately somewhat delayed cross-post to an earlier comment at Drmies's talk page.

Please see the following exchange on my user talk page here. I also believe it might be valuable to review the subsequent edits of this newly created account to other articles since then. In a number of ways, this seems to me to be a rather obvious sockpuppet, in a number of ways, of Tgeairn, but I think, under the circumstances, it would be best if someone other than me reviewed the matter and filed either the SPI or the AE request. John Carter (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously John? Although I must admit to laughing wholeheartedly at the mess you find yourself in, to try to blame me is complete BS. False flag went out of fashion with GamerGate. Harry, now I owe you two - call it payment for the mess. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Well it's obviously somebody's sock, and I've blocked it as such. I doubt it's Tgeairn—to sock immediately after an AE request against you was closed with a warning would be like suicide by admin. @Callanecc: fancy taking a look to see who the master is? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, based on the available evidence, including this new editor almost immediately going to the List of new religious movements, which is, admittedly, not necessarily one of the most obvious articles and certainly one I haven't edited for some time, I think anyway, as well as the new editor at least in my eyes showing what I see as the same rather simplistic grasp of basic policies and guidelines, as well as it coming almost immediately upon my indicating on the Landmark article talk page that Landmark is apparently significantly discussed in a new book about "cults" by a sometimes somewhat sensationalist but not disreputable author, it very, very much seems to me that the puppetmaster is almost certainly a person concerned about Landmark's reputation and also, honestly, someone who may be perhaps "uncomplicated" enough to believe such a transparently laughable attack would work. To summarize, it shows a bit of arrogance on the behalf of the sockpuppeteer, a rather simplistic grasp of things, and very likely being instigated by someone who cannot abide any sort of criticism, in this case of Landmark. To my eyes, the person who unfortunately seems to me to most nearly possess those characteristics in sufficient strength to be a match is, most likely, Tgeairn. Even DaveApter, who may perhaps show the same level of what some might call uncritical fanaticism about the topic, has also from what I've seen shown a slightly better grasp of conduct and content guidelines than Tgeairn himself. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
With respect, John, that comment could be interpreted as a personal attack. Speculating about the person responsible for that account isn't going to yield any action here because there's not enough evidence to draw any concrete conclusions. I'm afraid you have two options as things stand: file an SPI or drop the issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Premier League

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that one's better off on long-term semi. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

I mentioned your block of Cwobeel at BLPN Cwobeel blocked. Please feel free to comment. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Pixie Lott

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. That seems to be a case where PC is doing a decent job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Double standards

I would really appreciate if you could explain to me your warning vs. indefinite ban train of thought. It seems you have some misconceptions about the sandbox and other things. --Steverci (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen your question at AE, and I'll reply there to keep everything in one place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Permissions for edit notice editing

Hello, a proposal to change the permissions required for editing edit notices is taking place at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposed_permissions_change:_Edit_Notices; as you have edited recent pages related to this topic your feedback is welcome. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The fellow who vandalized the Mazda article...

Just hit Jeep. [[2]] Anmccaff (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've renewed the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Jaja.Delera

G'day, it's a measure of how tired I am that I opened an SPI for Jaja.Delera01 and then posted the Notification message to the Talk page of User:Jaja.Delera03 without even realising they were different accounts. I simply must go to bed now, could you deal with this please? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course. :) It's still mid-morning Sunday here! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1RR clarification

I am bringing this to your talk page as opposed to AE because I don't care for sanctions to be levied on someone based on a question that even I don't know the answer to, but are ArbCom 1RR sanctions only applied to the article, or does it count on the talk page as well? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about gamergate, the 1RR only applies to the article because it was a specific discretionary sanction on the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review comments about other editors

Again. Here. [3] --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

CU Candidacy question

Hello there, I have left you a question on the candidacy page. Thought I'd ping you here since it might not be easy to spot. Risker (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

AE-related

Binksternet who is in the BLPN dispute as an involved party has also now restored the offending text at Steven Emerson, and the entire "Islamophobia criticism" sourced to weak self-reinforcing accusations. I'm not sure if Binksternet is aware of the AC/DS, but he is an involved party and I removed the offending text citing the BLPN and AC/DS. I don't care what version you restore, protect or something because it is not a top-tier BLP issue, but it this has gone on for months now. Nomo's attempt to call it a "gambit" shows the battleground atmosphere surrounding this page and I frankly think I should take it off my watchlist because this page is probably screwed for NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet has changed the text, while I disagree with the material in its current form - this is not about winning or losing, so I've moved for a resolution section at BLPN. I've asked for clarification and citation of examples - not name-calling on Emerson. If any of the other editors can provide a citation of a single case, I'll switch to supporting the claim because it won't be sourced to "Islamophobe[s] like Steven Emerson" which only verify the existence of the accusation and not of its substance. A WP:UNDUE matter in a sense. I'd still like 1RR on that article, but if this resolves quickly - it may not be needed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Note - Xenophrenic has resolved the issue with there edits so I think the BLPN matter should be coming to a close soon. All that is left is for Atsme to agree or disagree to the changes before a (hopefully) unanimous resolution to the matter. I think the improvement and context results in a NPOV in this matter. I'd still like 1RR on the article to be safe, but this is wrapping up well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure a 1RR is possible. Yes, there are discretionary sanctions on BLPs, but they're there to prevent BLP violations rather than edit-warring. I'll try to keep an eye on things, anyway, and see how we go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Need help with an IP vandal

Hello, Harry! I am looking for help with a vandalism-only IP with changing IP addresses. You have actually had previous interactions with several of them - when you blocked them for various lengths of time. I am wondering if a range block is possible. In particular User:Jon the VGN3rd is begging for help since his talk page has been under repeated attack. I have semiprotected his talk page while we sort this out.

These are all almost certainly the same person:

  • 108.25.73.174 (used Feb. 7-10, blocked 3 times, latest block expired Feb. 24)
  • 108.25.61.171 (started Feb. 18, blocked Feb. 19, block expires March 19)
  • 108.11.63.56 (used March 2-3, never blocked)
  • 108.25.60.172 (started March 8, blocked by me March 8, block expires March 11)
  • 108.25.71.44 (used March 9, blocked by you March 9, block expires March 10)

Possibly also the same person (edited one of the same articles but a different form of vandalism from the other accounts):

  • 108.35.201.23 (Feb. 9, made only 2 edits, never blocked)

Probably the same person (because 108.25.73.174 created their talk page):

  • 49.204.247.64 (Feb. 10, made only one edit, never blocked; different form of vandalism from the other accounts)

I know these IP vandals can be very hard to deal with, but please do what you can. Thanks a bunch. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melanie. I've had a look, and I've blocked 108.25.0.0/17 for 72 hours (that might need to be extended, but we'll see how we go). That'll take care of all the 108.25.*s; the rest might be whack-a-mole territory. A range that includes all the 108.*s would be far too big—the software wouldn't allow you to block it, and even if it would, the collateral damage would be enormous. That /17 is still quite big, but almost every edit from it this year has been vandalism (you'll have to tick "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms" in preferences → gadgets → advanced for that link to work). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Harry. This stuff is Greek to me but I'm very glad I have a friend who understands it! If we get vandalism from what appears to be the same person, but not in that IP range, we'll just deal with it individually as you suggest. And if we start getting 108.25's again after three days, I'll let you know. --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. If you get more of it coming from lots of very similar IP addresss, let me know. I can't promise anything (rangeblocking is something of a last resort because it blocks potentially thousands of people), but I'll look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi HJ Mitchell,

I apologize for the mistake once again on the use of reverting on BLP username abuse. I didn't notice until after right away. Another round of diff/comment removals. DivineAlpha (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's not as bad as the other one zzuuzz was working on... DivineAlpha (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Not to worry, no harm done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you remember

... promising me that you'd do an unbiased closure of a discussion for me sometime? Well, I'd be grateful if you look at the closure of Talk:Frédéric Chopin #Discuss infobox yes or no and see if you find whether: (1) the closer, who has a history of removing infoboxes and conflict with Gerda, is a suitable choice to be closing the debate; (2) the result was an accurate reflection of the strength of the arguments for and against including infoboxes - particularly the interpretation that the closer can ignore arguments that he decides are general (he states "infoboxes are an editorial choice meaning that by definition general arguments balance out against each other" which could only be true if the strengths of the arguments were equal.)

This should be seen in the light of the clear canvassing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers #Infobox for Frédéric Chopin - a selective notification of a single project known to be hostile to infoboxes, per WP:CANVASS #Inappropriate notification Vote-stacking.

This has been compounded by the closer's current meritless request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Gerda Arendt - one of the clearest pieces of harassment I've seen.

I trust your judgement on this as I know you are neutral on these issues. --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'm not exactly neutral on this, especially after my participation on the recent review; I have no strong feelings about infoboxes, but I very much doubt the "anti" side would see me as neutral. Anyway, for what it's worth, I probably would have closed that as no consensus (as in no consensus at all—no consensus for, no consensus against) and recommended further discussion. I'm not sure if Francis meant "no consensus" as in the proposal had failed to gain consensus or as in "no consensus at all", and his closing remarks don't shed any light on it. Frankly, the closing remarks read like a supervote. Certainly it would have been better left to an entirely uninvolved editor. The canvassing, if indeed that's what it was, might have affected the outcome, but there's not much a closer can do but recommend further discussion; out of interest, were any other wikiprojects notified of the discussion? As for the AE request, I'll have a look, but I don't think it would be proper for me to comment as an uninvolved admin—I think I'm uninvolved, but I've recused on all previous infobox-related AE requests (because they've all been brought against Andy). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough if don't feel you can be neutral. But in answer to your question, no, no other Wikiprojects were notified. It seems that canvassing can be committed free from any repercussions at all. --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

AE appeal notification

Hello, I have copied Cwobeel's appeal from his talk page to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Cwobeel. The instructions say it's on me to notify you, so I am doing so. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it, but thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Brief Inquiry

Hello! We have't really talked, but I believe you'd be the best person to consult about things like this, given similar successful inquiries made on your talk page. This[4] edit (summary included) would probably be a breach of Retartists's Gamergate topic ban, yeah? I'm curious if this is at all actionable. Thank you for your time. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but ... it was on their own userpage and they say they're taking an extended wikibreak. Do you see anything to be gained from blocking them for it? Of course, if they don't take their break and continue to make comments like that (some editors have been known to do that while escaping sanctions by claiming to be leaving, but hopefully Retartist won't be one of those), then a block would be in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
There might be an issue if such incivil remarks remain on their user page when other users have been banned for even mentioning that other editors exist. I wouldn't want to have to watch the users contributions to check that their wikibreak was in fact honestly declared or if it was an excuse to insult others. Surely calling other users 'faggots' is worthy of sanction, if only that this is noted in the block log in case the user appeals their topic ban in the future? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Where did anyone call others 'faggots' on Wikipedia? Dreadstar ☥ 23:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The edit summary is "bye faggots" Bosstopher (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've redacted the personal attack on the userpage; I'm not really inclined to do anything else, partly because sanctions would be punitive if they're taking an extended break and partly because it would only draw more attention to the remark (at present, it's unlikely that many people will see it, whereas an AE request gives it a much bigger audience; though thinking about it so does discussing it here, since 500-odd people watch this page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Restraining Nomoskedasticity

Hi HJ,

Please warn user Nomoskedasticity against hounding me. The latest is this where I have an active discussion with other editors on the talk page in which he doesn't even bother to participate. This is the second second time he does so, after giving ridicules explanation the first time around.

He have no shame of even warning me of war edit when he ignores discussion on talk page clear mentioned in edit summaries. Not to mention he little participated in the AE request he opened. Obviously, getting me tied with it is 'mission accomplished'.

I am tired of him and Nishidani harassing me. The latest from Nishidani can be found here.

Have a great weekend,

Ariel

I'll speak only for myself, but Ashtul's edit went against consensus that there is an unresolved problem there. I explained to Ashtul what, in my view, the error he made consisted of here. This could have been easily resolved if Richard Silverstein's blog (like it or not he documents closely what the Hebrew press writes) were accepted as pertinent to the issue, since his reading of the original text is almost identical to the one Roland made. Unfortunately, Silverstein is (wrongly) regarded as hostile to Israel (as opposed to his being a Jew writing for his idea of a democratic state detached from a policy of occupation). The solution is simple:

'Drucker 'apologized', though one critic has interpreted the remark in which his apology was expressed as ironical.'

And, Ashtul, I am not hounding you. I edited that page first in early January, and, proper to your admission that you follow me, you went there to edit three weeks later, with a particularly bad revert because it expunged evidence (I added) in defense of the integrity of Naphtali Bennett, which Drucker had questioned. After undertaking to keep a distance on 16 February, you came back to it a mere 9 days later.
To regard me as hounding you, when I have added material on several occasions in support of your POV since early January, and even given the reason why material you entered, which was subject to a revert, should be retained, is improper. We all make mistakes at times, and I'm certainly no exception. You make mistakes or bad calls of judgement, repeatedly, basically because you still can't grasp policy and method. That is the difference. Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, I didn't say you hounding me, but Nomoskedasticity. You just use language which is improper between editors. You blamed me of misconduct when a quick search on WP:RSN will show you are wrong. As per Bennett, why bring it here? Ashtul (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Please warn user Nomoskedasticity against hounding me

I am tired of him and Nishidani harassing me.

Nishidani, I didn't say you hounding me, but Nomoskedasticity

At Wikipedia:Harassment, harassment and hounding are interchangeable terms. On that I rest my case that you don't understand policy, and that it is impossible to negotiate with you because you write a lot, but ignore logic and the crucial niceties of language.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
In light of that talk page thread, I've topic-banned Ashtul. @Nishidani and Nomoskedasticity: I strongly suggest you leave him alone. And by "suggest", I mean that if a gentlemen's agreement proves insufficient, I'll upgrade the suggestion to a formal interaction ban. If you come across him in the future and his conduct gives cause for concern, bring it to me or AE (or any other appropriate board if it's not covered by ARBPIA) rather than engaging in lengthy and unproductive arguments. I think al three o you mean well, but nothing good is going to come from further interaction between you two and Ashtul, and Ashtul clearly feels aggrieved at your conduct towards him, so parting company would be best for everyone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell:, I haven't heard back so I wondered whether you still consider lifting the topic ban or should I use the official route of an appeal. If it is an appeal, should I discuss the recent case or should I focus on Qana and Bennett.
Regards, Ashtul (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You have an exemption to file an AE request against Nishidani should you so desire, but otherwise I'm not willing to lift the topic ban a second time, so you'll have to go through the procedure at WP:ACDS#Appeals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Understood! As for my question, should I focus on Bennett or on the revert of the undisputed content Nishidani removed by mistake? Ashtul (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I would focus on whatever best shows that you can edit in that topic area without incident. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Landmark AE

Hi, the AE request on Tgeairn needed to be handled by one or more functionaries. That should have been made clear but it wasn't. Non-functionary admins should have been asked to step back since they didn't have the requisite evidence.

The COI is unequivocal and the POV-pushing through sockpuppeting is unequivocal, among other issues. Callanecc said the sockpuppeting is obvious. That's not something to be ignored.

The AE request needs to be evaluated on the evidence. The non-functionary admins who took part didn't have the necessary evidence and formed their conclusions without it. Would you please reopen the case and ask that it be handled by functionaries? Regards, Manul ~ talk 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No. You've conflated several different issues. First, AE is run by admins; functionaries who participate there do so in their capacity as regular admins, so the functionary corps has no mandate to take over AE requests. Second, the functionary corps has no mandate to investigate editors' off-wiki activities; if that's within anybody's mandate, it's ArbCom's. But all the arbitrators are subscribed to the functionaries list, and as it happens I spoke informally to two arbitrators and a functionary before I closed the AE request,none of whom suggested that ArbCom was inclined to take it over. Now, much more importantly, having a conflict of interest is not against policy, especially if it doesn't manifest itself in problematic editing. None of the admins who commented at AE saw Tgeairn's edits as problematic. You need to start focusing on content, not the contributor, and stop casting aspersions, stop alluding to private emails, and stop this unhealthy focus on Tgeairn. Otherwise you'll be sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again HJ. I know that you have a lot on your plate, and I'm frankly tired of bothering people. BUT... Would you be so kind as to take a look at one or both of this ANI thread and this SPI filing? These guys are just not letting up. I could provide dozens of diffs of more personal attacks, accusations, and general mud-slinging - but I think you've probably seen enough. I'm coming to you as you're most recently familiar with this, and I'm going to ping @Cailil: as well since he is familiar too (but hasn't edited in days). I don't care at this point if the result is to block anyone who even mentions new religious movements, I just want the incessant harassment and outright attacks to stop. Thanks for considering a look, and double-thank you in advance for looking. No need to even reply here unless you like. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping in and commenting on the SPI request. I appreciate your getting the commentary there to (nearly) stop. As an FYI, I have created a temporary partial list of diffs of the various accusations based on non-existent CU data, and you are mentioned in the list (only in passing, but let me know if you object). Thanks again for your enormous patience and contribution. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I've seen it, and I have no objection to being mentioned. I've also seen two people state that no check was run. And I've seen he IP edits that are alleged to be you. Of course, I have no opinion on any of these things (I find myself having no opinion on a great many things ... perk of being an admin!). I'm awaiting the outcome of the SPI before deciding what, if anything, I'm going to do to put a lid on this dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
That must be nice... I find that I apparently have too many opinions these days! Thank you for maintaining an interest, and hopefully the SPI will get resolved shortly. If I could self-endorse for a CU, I would gladly do so - but that wouldn't resolve that the whole thing is based on supposed info from a supposed prior CU that never actually happened (and yet three independent editors all somehow think it did). As always, thank you. Tgeairn (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, there is a difference, albeit only a slight one, between someone maybe initially saying that a "CU checked" (which is true, as Callanecc is a CU) and "a CU check," and I think it not unreasoanble in some cases that the two could create some confusion. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be wise to use an unambiguous frame of words, for the benefit of all concerned. Or to refer to editors by their names rather than by a position they hold which wouldn't seem to be relevant now that we know no checks have been run. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Magyarcsaba is back

The editor Magyarcsaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that you indef. blocked here, has returned.

His new sock IPs are the following:

The location of the IPs resembles the location of 2 older confirmed IP socks (195.89.201.254 and 92.238.171.3) and the behaviour is also the same (adding Hungarian names to the same articles: [5] / [6], the reference to the Trianon Diktat: [7] / [8])

He edited an older comment of himself on Talk:Cluj-Napoca and made identical edits at Mureș River: [9] / [10] 94.228.85.85 (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked both IP addresses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Coldplay

Extend PC time or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Long-term semi for that one, I think. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 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 23:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

AE pings not working

FYI, re your comment, neither ping worked because neither was a correctly formatted ping added in the same edit as a signature. In such situations the solution is an edit adding another ping with another signature. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guessed it would be something like that. Just seemed odd that two different admins would do it wrong in the same thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Tweak to GG 1RR Notification

Would you be amenable to having the 1RR warning on Talk:Gamergate controversy updated to include "Violations of 1RR maybe reported to WP:3RRN"? ForbiddenRocky was looking for where to report a potential violation and felt that taking it directly to WP:AE was be too harsh given the circumstances. — Strongjam (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest AE is probably the best place as admins there are familiar with the issues (for our sins) and you're likely to get a quicker response. I don't think you'd get any more or less leniency at the edit warring board, but there's a god chance of getting an admin who isn't familiar with GG or discretionary sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Questionable edits from Caerphilly, UK ISP: BT

Hi HJ, hate to bug ya, but I'm going to! You recently blocked 86.160.229.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They recently reverted me without explanation, however they content I removed contained a lot of grammar errors, including what looks to me like pure gibberish. [11] Amelia "Amy" Jones (Ariel Winter)- the smart girl city of frank elementary school and Ozzy and Leah's 10 year old daughter, greatly her ingénues brainstorming ideas lead her into and out of trouble but in the end Amy is forgiven by both her mom and her dad and always gets what she asks for nicely. I also don't see Ariel Winter included at IMDB, which I would never use as a source, only as a BS detector. I also don't see the character Amelia, so I'm thinking possible vandalism. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No idea, but given the IP's history, I'd say it's more likely vandalism than not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_98&oldid=1146769294"