User talk:HJ Mitchell

Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Pixie Lott

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The fellow who vandalized the Mazda article...

Just hit Jeep. [[1]] Anmccaff (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review comments about other editors

Again. Here. [2] --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where did anyone call others 'faggots' on Wikipedia? Dreadstar ☥ 23:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary is "bye faggots" Bosstopher (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unless it's not as bad as the other one zzuuzz was working on... DivineAlpha (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, no harm done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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