Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 97

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100

Topic ban clarification

Do you think Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film) would come under my topic ban? I'd rather not create a whole clarification request for that simple question. Tutelary (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you. You might be there a long time and none the wiser at the end. I wouldn't consider that to be covered by "gender-related dispute or controversy"; what dispute there is is not so much about gender or sexuality in its own right but about the pros and cons of showing a film about sex. I'd say proceed, but tread lightly—it's possible that content that would be covered by your topic ban could be in the article or could be added in the future (an obvious example that comes to mind would be the response of feminist groups). As long as you stay clear of that, I don't envisage there being a problem with your editing the article in general. Seem reasonable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey and thanks for the advice. Kudpung's advice was good and I learnt my lessons from the RFA. Thanks again! --The one that forgot (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimi Lewis is back as Delgada1975

Jimi Lewis has new account Special:Contributions/Delgada1975, which is possibly same pattern with previous sock Special:Contributions/Cal 505. 183.171.180.164 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom & Admins

Your contribution to this case was largely resonsible for, and vital to, its conclusion by the arbitrators. I've already said how much I appreciate you having gone well beyond the bounds of duty to research your material, but I would like to illustrate how this particular case is important in more ways than one.

I particularly liked the admin in question and had absolutely no previous inkling of what came to be exposed at Arbcom. I somehow missed out on voting on their RfA, you supported it but no one can criticise you for that. Even the adherents of the anti-admin brigade were unable to to sway it to a non-promotion although it was a fairly close call.

The message the recent disclosure sends to us all therefore, is that anyone who is thinking of starting yet another perennial motion to lower the bar at RfA had better think again. We can't be careful enough when (s)electing our admins and we have a duty (including me of all people) to do more research before placing our !votes in the upstairs lobby. I already made the mistake of supporting one candidate who later turned into an unpleasant adversary and was finally desysoped for acting in a way totally unbecoming for the role we invest in our admins. See you for a beer as soon as possible. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you in principle. The trouble is we need more admins. We're short-handed here at the coalface. We have nominally ~1400 admins, but as I just said to Andreas, the number who know the difference between a bored schoolkid and genuine malice—and how to effectively respond to the latter (hint: it's not with "Welcome to Wikipedia, perhaps you didn't mean to threaten to blow Harry's head off with a shotgun")—is tiny. I'd wager closer to 14 than 140. So how do we get more good admins while keeping the bad apples out? More to the point, where do we find people who are comfortable doing this sort of thing in the first place? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, 14 seems a fairly accurate estimate of those in the trenches - that makes you, me, and 12 others. We are recognisable from the scars we bear from stuff thrown at us at ANI and other places by the peanut gallery for just doing our job, and even I am not around 24/7 but fortunately I'm on another, far-away continent (not Alaska, although there are some brave people there) where I'm active while most other admins are sleeping. I think there are two kinds of admins (or potential candidates of the right calibre): jury admins who do the backroom work closing AfDs, deleting CSDs, doing histmerges, etc., and judge admins who hand out sentences. The first group are like the desk pilots in the armed forces (it takes 9 admin/technical soldiers to maintain one soldier in full battledress with his assault rifle in the front line ). They are symbiotic and their roles are all essential.
Most aspiring admins are too nice. Some of us are very nice sometimes and pretty scathing at others, though with measured responsibility and effect I've turned many a belligerent youth into a good contributor with words such as 'instead of being a toady and turning our work into trash, why don't you pull your socks up, your finger out, and help us combat some of that vandalism. I'll help you learn how to do it - just say the word.' But there's also the 'Thanks awfully for your valued contributions, but would you mind perhaps considering - if you have a moment of course - not using AWB to change all references to John Lennon, David Beckham, and Kudpung to God? Because I use a Mac and therefore can't use AWB I have to revert all those edits by hand, and it takes me away from from beating the children here with a big stick. Thanks in advance for being such a decent fellow.' While I admit some (fortunately few) admins are nauseous - and more often to each other than anyone else - people who complain about them being bitey are usually people who will look for any excuse to complain about something or other. There is of course the anti-admin brigade, but we are usually able, sooner or later, to get Arbcom to place them under special measures. But to your original question, I don't know the answer, except perhaps dragging them kicking and screaming to RfA ... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the work you do here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Cullen, do you kick and scream by any chance? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I second that "thanks" having a basic understanding of the issues our admins are facing. I enjoy expanding articles for GA review with hopes of future promotion to FA. The most troublesome argument I've heard is "not all articles were meant to be GAs or FAs." The latter speaks volumes, and I hope admins who happen to read such a statement during a dispute will up the volume on their investigation. I doubt you will find many articles (if any) that have been promoted to FA that are fundamentally noncompliant with BLP or NPOV. IMO, some of the issues plaguing our admins could be eliminated if more attention was focused on adherence to policy and less on behavioral issues, the latter of which is a circular reference. Based on my observations, several good editors have been blocked while trying to adhere to policy, such as reverting contentious (or overly promotional) material, the latter of which is usually the handy work of advocacy (cabals or tag teams), and likely tied to paid editing or SP, and the like. 5 editors against 1 doesn't always indicate the 1 editor is causing the disruption but I've seen it play out unfairly on more than one occasion, and we're losing good editors as a result. Just look at the stats. The 3RR noticeboard is also lacking in its effectiveness because of admin time constraints. Instead of investigating a dispute, some admins will do a quick scan of the argument and make a judgement call which more often than not ignores the policy violations that created the reverts. In order to correct the imbalance, I think we need more admins who are experienced writers of quality prose like the teams of editors who review FA nominations. Perhaps having at least one FA to an editor's credit should be a requirement for RfA, or it may be necessary to create a subset of policy enforcement admins who review disputes for just that purpose. It will bring more qualified editors into the admin pool who understand what goes into creating and/or expanding articles that are policy compliant and meet the stringent requirements of FA or even the lesser GA, particularly in the area of BLPs. In the interim, our admins will remain bogged down treating the symptoms without ever curing the disease. My perspective is based on a 30+ year career as a publisher/writer which includes substantial experience in copyvio and defamation litigation - but never as a defendant. I hope to keep it that way. Atsme☯Consult 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of candidates get turned down (or at least votes against) because of lack of mainspace experience. What I tell prospective candidates is to gain experience in all kind of areas, and content writing and article creation is the most important of them, if only so they can feel what it's like to have one's work deleted, and will thus think carefully before pressing that button in a speedy deletion case. Many of the FA writers (the big shots) already are admins, by the way--that's not a big pool to fish from. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

IPv6 user requesting unblock

Hello HJ. Please see User talk:2600:1014:B068:55DE:706E:37E:D003:CF41. He appears to be suffering from a range block you imposed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I'm tempted to say no. It's only a fairly small range (albeit of a mobile phone network) and a soft and fairly short one at that, the range was being used to harass another editor, and there's no history of contributions from that address. I think I'd rather get them an account or let them sit the block out (it expires Friday night/Saturday morning). What do you think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
As much as anything else, surely that's not a valid unblock request? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Assuming they're not the intended target of the block, it's fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I would decline the unblock. If the person has no history then we should limit the amount of investigation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've declined and recommended ACC. I want to assume good faith, but we don't have anything to go on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

Hi HJ Mitchell, I've closed and archived this arbitration clarification request that you are listed as a party to to the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Wearethemoos

I see this account got blocked for vandalising Haim (band). I think it would be worth dropping a {{uw-vblock}} note on their talk page explaining this. If I had to take a guess from their user page, I would assume the parents tried editing once, got tired of it, a teenage son spotted the account and thought "a-ha". I'd do it myself but non-admins posting block messages are generally frowned upon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest I thought I'd leave it because the account might be compromised and either way it's probably abandoned and a talk page message would just bring them back (because it generates an email if they have an address set in their preferences) and give us the headache of trying to work out why a long-dormant, dozen-edit account suddenly joined in a vandalism spree. If the account wasn't autoconfirmed, I probably wouldn't even have bothered blocking. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In case you missed it...

There's someone who you recently blocked evading their block. You blocked User:XiroZiro while I was sleeping (I saw on my watchlist) and then this new user, User:HJ Mitchel appears. Note that he is impersonating you (but he missed the double "L"). He also made the same page The Japanese Island Girl. It looks like a duck to me. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 01:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged the page The Japanese Island Girl for speedy deletion, under G3 (vandalism) and G5 (blocked user). TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 01:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Doppelganger blocked and article deleted. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Much obliged! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

An account you have blocked

I was fixing some of OJOM edits and found you had blocked a very similar account OJOM11 and thought you might want to know. I started a sock investigation (P.S. this user has made many edits, cleanup will not be easy :P ). Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks good Sir for you attention to detail. Thank you. (OJOM (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)).
@Mlpearc: I blocked OJOM11 for harassment/impersonation of OJOM. I hope you don't mind, bit I deleted the SPI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, no problem but, now OJOM is a problem. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Harry, I would very much for you, and maybe some of your stalkers, to look at that account. As far as I'm concerned, OJOM exhibits the hallmark traits of incompetence and POV that coupled with a pretty blatant disregard for RS all lead to a very unladylike NOTHERE. OJOM, if you're watching this, don't ever refer to me as a "gentleman". I live in the post-19th century. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Some radio announcers in my area sometimes refer to convicted violent criminals as "gentlemen" without a hint of sarcasm. That is taking civility way too far. You deserve the title, Drmies, but since I now know you don't like it, I won't use it about you. Harry is a gentleman, though. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Gentleman" is still fairly common this side of the pond (for example, we have ladies' and gents' public conveniences conveniences, come to think of it, is a very British euphemism!) and it's still used quite a lot to refer to a man whose name you don't know, though rarely as a form of address. Even we Brits don't live in a Jane Austen novel! ;) But thank you for the compliment, Jim; perhaps you'll allow me to repay it with an RfA nomination? The list of people who have offered must be getting quite long by now! ;) Drmies, I've blocked Mr OJOM for a week. The Austen-esque vocabulary is certainly interesting, but it does seem that he has some problems with original research and the purpose of an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I just don't like it, haha. I don't like the assumption of masculinity (note how he seems to add "ladies" as an afterthought in one of the early edits), and I don't like the term because it is classist. (True, I'm speaking like someone with a US degree in the liberal arts.) Plus, this enormous presumption, and the blinders in regards to POV. And yes, I think I signed that Jim-list a long time ago. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI - and apologies if you have already seen it - OJOM has made a botched attempt at an unblock request on his/her Talk page. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi , This request is not to the administrator but to the peer review volunteer who prefer biographies . It will be nice to know your views and suggestion for improving the nominated article. Thanks One life to live (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

GG arbcom amendment request involving Mark Bernstein and your earlier block of him

You might want to check out WP:ARCA#Amendment Request: GamerGate. Doesn't look like it'll go anywhere, but it may be of interest to you. Cheers. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 12:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Is it true that Administrators work for Darth Vader, and Oversighters are hand-picked by the emperor, in order to rule the galaxy with an iron fist and prevent any free speech? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarJarBinksLikesStarWars (talk • contribs)

You don't know the power of the Dark Side! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback right/Igloo help

I imported the igloo script on my script page, but "Launch Igloo" is not showing up. Can you please help me? Yoshi24517Chat Online 17:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yoshi24517: you need to add importScript('Wikipedia:Igloo/gloo.js'); // [[WP:Igloo]] to Special:MyPage/skin.js. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: I did, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yoshi24517/vector.js.

IP: 86.139.75.234

Hello HJM, It looks as if the above IP has re-surfaced as IP: 81.157.11.87. They have reverted my edit on Conservative Party (UK) to the same unsourced PoV edit that the original (now blocked) IP inserted. Having looked-up their location, they appear to be in the same southern area of the United Kingdom. Can I leave this with you please? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Does this solve the problem? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Harry, Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Worthy of deletion?

Based on your recent deletion, would you care to comment on [1]? Hipocrite (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at that, and it's a huge screed, but it's mostly about how biased Wikipedia is for going with the reliable sources instead of somebody's "evidence" based on screenshots that purportedly show somebody who might somebody else saying something that's not quite consistent with something somebody else once said. The other one repeatedly called the subject a liar, among other claims. I'm inclined to leave it; I doubt anyone will read it, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Could you please move User:JuneGloom07/Paige to Paige Smith for me? - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, done. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Troll account

Special:Contributions/TheGreenPenOfHope, editing Streisand effect, an article frequented by TheRedPenofDoom. Tarc (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)There's something about the "Streisand effect" that rings a bell of a past encounter with a troll. They used that term a few times, but I can't place when/where. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, Acroterion's indef'd. The username alone suggests the account was made for trolling TRPoD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Report

I think you did a great job with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-18/Arbitration report this week. Very thoughtful and considered weighing of whether the process worked with the Wifone case.
I just wanted to add that after this case was settled, I looked into reports on Wifone on ARBCOM and noticeboards and these claims of biased or even paid editing emerged regularly, even as she/he was becoming an admin. There was an effort to bring this case to ARBCOM before so there have been red flags for years. I mention this because you wrote that editors might think that RfA process wasn't thorough enough when I can't think of another admin who has regularly faced these kinds of claims. But for some reason, admins and editors were willing to look past or dismiss the suspicions other editors were bringing up. But this case didn't come out of the blue and I imagine that was mentioned during the workshop or evidence phase. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for the compliment. Yes, you're right that it had been raised in multiple places before, although I'm not sure it's so much a case of editors wilfully looking the other way, more that the processes we have are almost incapable of getting to the bottom of complex, long-term issues. Personally, I think the problem is that it's very easy to derail an ANI thread—especially one about a prominent editor—and that the bar to participation is so low, meaning that inexperienced editors offer drive-by opinions or turn the thread into a vote, which means that analysis from editors who have taken the time to look deeply either gets lost in the fray or is dismissed as "tl;dr". Anyway, I've added something to the arb report to show that these issues didn't come out of the blue. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, there is a great editorial piece in this week's Signpost about how to retain admins. But I've noticed that any time an editor comes to ANI to criticize an admin, it inevitably boomerangs back on him/her. Not always, but usually. I think it's fairly easy for an editor or admin to deflect most criticism unless it is really egregious conduct. Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've not read the rest of the Signpost yet. But I don't think it's entirely fair to suggest that complaints about admins usually boomerang on the filer. A lot of complaints are frivolous (but I would say that, I suppose), are often made by tendentious editors (look at the GamerGate case—every admin for a country mile was named as a party and accused of being involved; none were sanctioned, and only one was so much as named in the proposed decision), and some are made by socks (I know of at least a handful of long-term sockmasters who like to make frivolous accusations against admins). Contrary to popular opinion, most admins are honest but fallible people doing their best to keep the wheels turning; serious abuse on the scale of Wifione is rare. It can be difficult to get proper scrutiny of a pattern of problematic editing, especially by a well-regarded editor, and that's a problem. But in my experience the same is true of any issue that requires attention to detail and is raised in a forum the values "looks fine to me based on 30 seconds' skimming of the thread" equally with a well-thought-out comment based on several hours' research. There are a handful of venues that are capable of getting to the bottom of things (AE, SPI, arbitration) and the one thing they all have in common is a more restrictive format that gives little weight to drive-by comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Liz that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-18/Arbitration report was well-written. From now on, maybe I should just read your reports and save the time it takes to read the Arbcom decisions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean to give the impression that admins were immune from attacks, I know that just becoming an admin makes one a target of frivolous accusations. I just meant that when a complaint is brought to ANI the default position of many is to give the admin in question the benefit of the doubt while a regular editor can not expect this. This isn't really a surprise since ANI and AN are administrators' noticeboards and so admins frequent them and are more likely to understand admin actions that might seen as questionable by the editor who has been affected by them. It was just an observation and I intended no slight, I recognize that admins are under a higher level of scrutiny than regular editors. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

AnsFenrisulfr

qq: how common is it that we topic ban someone merely for participating in discussions about a single topic just because that is all they do, when there is no evidence of disruption or other misbehavior? I gotta say I'm quite surprised by this, but that you and other admins – including at least one with what seems to me a history of quite remarkable and thoughtful leniency – support this action makes me wonder if my thinking is way off here. Is this a normal kind of thing, in your experience? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Excellent article on the Wifione case, very thorough! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Signpost mention of C&S Workshop

Hi Harry - my posting there was really more of a return to earlier practice, something I think we should be doing for transparency's sake and to let the parties have an idea of what we are going to propose so it doesn't come as a surprise to them. It's something we discussed and I hope we continue to do it. The remedies were (I hope obviously) those that at least some editors might see as supported by the evidence. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting, Doug. I've seen a few cases where arbs have drafted principles and FoFs on the workshop, but I can't recall a case of an arb drafting remedies in the workshop. I agree with you, it's a good thing and something I'd like to see more of (that's why I explicitly mentioned it in the arb report). Btw, while I have you, would you be interested in giving a few thoughts for the Signpost? I'm running with NYB's interview next week, so you'd have a few weeks to write something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass. Maybe someday when I've got more experience. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

TheGreenPenOfHope

Could you look in at User talk:GreenPeasAndPotatoes? It's the account that User:TheGreenPenOfHope made after I blocked that account. Having been blocked by me at the new account for block evasion, they're asking to be unblocked, and have somewhat grudgingly expressed regret for their choice of tactics and username. However, they keep circling back to a focus on TheRedPenOfDoom, apparently as an exemplar of what they feel is wrong with Wikipedia. I think they could safely be unblocked, since it would be simple to deal with them if they veer into personal attacks, but I'm not going to be available much in the coming week to check, and I'd appreciate your views. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Will you please lift the topic ban? Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ashtul: If you agree to keep a respectful distance from Nishidani, and preferably stick to articles rather than enforcement requests etc, yes I'll lift the topic ban. I'd also suggest you're very careful about sticking to the 1RR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. Ashtul (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Then we have a deal. I'll update the log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Just saw this. Here Ashtul complains about @Nishidani: removing a communal settlement (note: it is a redirection to communal settlement (Israel) from an Israeli settlement on the West Bank. (As I´m sure you know: the international community consider the Israeli settlements on the West Bank as illegal, while it does not consider settlements in pre-1967 Israel as illegal.)
The first thing Ashtul then does (after his ban) is to add the same redir to communal settlement (Israel) to a lot of other Israeli settlement on the West Bank, here and here on Avnei Hefetz, same on Beit Hagai and Alon Shvut. What can I say; it seems to me that Ashtuls editing is very much, eh, "inspired" by Nishidani. That is: doing exactly the opposite of what Nishidani is doing. Huldra (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I have invited them to a discussion here which they have failed to actively participate in and changed the lead in include "and the west bank". IMHO, I'm very accommodating and trying to find middle ground. Ashtul (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't going to make an issue of this. For one, due to the poor content of the Community Settlement page, citing it as related to Israel, I made the wrong call. I examined the sources (the page was unsourced), rewrote that page, and adjusted my views to reflect what sources say. Alon Shvut is defined as such a community (though it didn't begin as one), and on this Ashtul was correct, as was User:Number57. This is how we do things.
However, Ashtul hasn't changed or learnt anything. Take two examples.
(1) massive revert of sourced information
That took more than an hour to write up, after reading through dozens of pages, and providing links to the academic works. With a simple press of the button, Ashtul cancelled eminently reliable sources commenting specifically on the topic. It's tantamount to vandalism.
(2) the same edit removed all the [citation needed] tags, on a page which had been drafted off the top of someone's head, and which still has large sections unsourced. There is no congruent justification for either the removal of high quality sources, nor the citation tags on the talk page.
(3). He is canvassing.
Editors are supposed to build pages, not pick round to defend a POV, using reverts, empty edit summaries based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and probing for tagteam allies (Cptono of course is not at fault here).Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Nishidani have followed me to Community settlement (Israel) page and to Barkan Industrial Park, not the other way around.

A problem was raised the definition doesn't mention the West Bank (though the article itself does) and I accommodated it by adding the text. Then a consensus was built pretty quickly over the exact phrasing.

As per my revert, I explained it in length. I started to edit out material that was connect explicitly to West-Bank-Settlements rather that Community-Settlements (in both israel and west bank) which are the topic of the article. Once I figured it is basically impossible since the sources were written mainly about the West Bank and the word Settlement serve in both meaning, but mainly the West Bank one, so I reverted it. At Barkan Industrial Park I mainly shifted around material regardless of whether I liked it or not.

It must be a joke that Nishidani blames me for ganging on him. I asked Cptnono to look at the page since he seems to get some respect from other editors and I wanted an opinion of someone else instead of going to war. On Skunk (weapon) after I have argued for weeks over it not being WP:NPOV, a third was cut by Cptnono with not a single sound from Nishidani. Ashtul (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said you were following me. The gravamen of my point is that you still fail to grasp elementary rules on editing Wikipedia and (b) when you edit this area, you do so in a style that looks provocative of edit-warring, and, in edit-summaries and on the talk page, do not give reasons that have any bearing on policy.
I was away for some days. On returning I noted on opening the computer that I was pinged to visit this page, which I hadn't bookmarked. Noticing the controversies, I then checked to see what was going on. I never follow anyone. I follow issues raised as problematical on I/P pages, certainly. There is no excuse for Ashtul's removal: the three books I cited, and the page numbers I used, embrace specifically the issue of community settlements. Reading them, I was enlightened, and went to add the material to the relevant page. What Ashtul appears to be saying is that (a) West Bank settlements is the major class (A); community settlements are (B) a subclass of A. He thinks he can remove sources dealing with (A) in connection with (B) because the sources should deal only with (B). Frankly in logic that is absurd. This is not a content dispute. He removes content with edit summaries and arguments that fail to justify the removal in terms intelligible in terms of WP policies and practices. Essentially, on Jewish settlement articles, his apparent intention is to downcase, elide or remove as much as possible any textual reference to Palestinians affected by them.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You prove my point of not understanding the difference between the two. A & B are different major classes that share some entities thus writing info in regard of class A as if it is general info for class B is wrong. Ashtul (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I give up. If you can't understand the simplest theory of class and subclass, the latter being included in the former, it's pointless arguing with you. This is my last attempt: think of a Venn diagram, with two classes (A) and (B) intersecting. The shared space consists of an overlap between West Bank settlements and Community Settlements. You are arguing that, when academic works analyse the shared qualities of the intersective space (A ∩ B), you can rid them from the text if they deal mostly with A, even if the section quoted deals with B. That's fucking nonsense.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
not sure why we have the discussion here but regardless, what you said now isn't what you said earlier. Before you said B is included in A, now you say they partially overlap. The sources you introduced as general info about ALL members of group B talk about the members of group A some of which overlap with B and some don't. This is a logic (since we speak about classes) failure. Ashtul (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
(Make the sign of the cross, even if a pagan, take a deep breath and. . .) Listen, you cannot split hairs on RS. If any academic book discusses Community Settlements (Israel), you cannot erase that source from the article because elsewhere the book deals with West Bank settlements. It's like saying you cannot use a physics book to source the article on the quantum, because the physics treatise has 95% of its pages on other issues, despite the section on quantum theory. Tell me, where in Wikipedia policy on RS is that kind of deviousness justified? Please think before you come back on this. Either you can justify your elision in policy terms, or you can't. So give the policy for cancelling those references. Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we even reading the same books? I can't copy paste from Google books but in Palestinian Labour Migration to Israel: Labour, Land and Occupation source for example, the pages you noted are super clearly explicitly about the West Bank. Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation paragraph about Community settlement starts with "The settlements in the West Bank..." then next paragraph "Land annexed..." and throughout the pages you pointed at the two 'settlement' intertwine. I am sorry you spend an hour compiling this info but you decided to work with material that is relevant to only part of the article but presented it as if it is general info as you added 50% of the existing text. Part of it can probably be used in a section about the west bank but you added so much text in all parts it is impossible to simply do it like I had done at Barkan Industrial Park.
explanation
Ashtul (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The file is meaningless and deceptive.
Exzcuse me, you are dodging the question. I'll repeat it. On what section of WP:RS did you base your decision to remove these academic sources dealing with the topic at hand? In anticipation. Please don't blow smoke my way. Be specific. This is a policy matter. Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

At no point I even hinted it wasn't WP:RS. You keep on changing the arguements. My access to PC is limited on Shabbat, I apologize. 79.180.49.131 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. The page and topic is Community settlement Let's examine what you erased in one edit. This removed in one fell swoop, 4 academic sources introduced to a wiki page that was wholly unsourced piece of free composition, a situation that goes counter to the way the encyclopedia is built. Your edit restored the page's WP:OR status of blank sourcing. This is what you removed.
(1)*Aharon Kellerman, Society and Settlement: Jewish Land of Israel in the Twentieth Century, SUNY Press 2012 pp.94-102.
This refers to a specific section title: Community settlement, 8 pages on that topic.
(2)* Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation, Verso Books, 2012 pp.125-130
This refers to a specific section title: Community settlement and deals over 6 pages with that topic.
(3)* Elisha Efrat, The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement, Routledge 2006 pp.31,37-8, pp95-6.
This book passim, but over the several pages cited refers to the topic of the article Community settlement
(4)* Leila Farsakh, Palestinian Labour Migration to Israel: Labour, Land and Occupation, Routledge 2005 pp.48-51
This text has 4 pages on the Community settlement concept, specifying its origins in a State Plan, not mentioned by the preceding sources, promulgated in 1978.
Thus, all 4 texts bear directly on the subject of the article. All 4 texts are by area specialist scholars. All four texts are issued by highly reputed publishing houses.
No experienced editor in Wikipedia goes about wiping out excellent sources, as you did here. That could only be done if there is a serious conflict between the use of those sources and some specific wiki policy.
This is one of many examples of why editing in your company is so futile. You don't observe the rules, you edit to render historical data you dislike for the negative impression you think it might convey and then harangue the talk pages when the principles of editing are raised.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, let's continue this conversation on the relevant talk page. It really has nothing to do with HJ. I will have the time to write either later tonight or tomorrow.

HJ Mitchell, what I want to highlight is the fact is the fact admittedly(I noted on opening the computer that I was pinged), Nishidani saw HJ request for me to keep a respectful distance from Nishidani and his next instinct in blitzkrieg mode is to go to Barkan Industrial Park article (which he has never edited before), double up the content and well source negativity and eliminate again the sourced sentence At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians coexist and work side by side in many of the factories. It was the 3rd time it was eliminated after Nomoskedasticity and Huldra have done it earlier.

Blaming me of WP:CANVASSing is ridicules as looking at history of Barkan Industrial Park you'll find Nomoskedasticity, Huldra, Zero0000 and Nishidani. None of them edited it before.

This enterprise works if one obeys the rules, based on an understanding of policy. An editor cannot just talk through or around the rules. Mitchell io an experienced admin, we use such ppages to avoid the nastiness of sanctions and admin oversight proceedings, and I prefer to use this space to thrash out outstanding misunderstandings with you, misunderstandings that lead to the kind of edit I have mentioned, which wipes out hard constructive work. I think I have a right to ask this here because I for one have never pressed for punitive actions against you, or challenged lenient dispositions when you've crossed the redline. You've come back and must show you understand the basic rules. Therefore I repeat, do me at least the courtesy to tell me on what policy grounds do you justify such violent erasures of highly quality academic material?Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
HJM. I see Ashful is continuing this on the other page. I have asked your offices here to mediate, not on the content. Just as I asked Ed Johnston, I think, elsewhere, I'm asking for administrative assistance in getting some help to clarify what policy governs the mass removal of academic sources specific to an article's subject matter. Now, there may be some policy ground for the excision of RS of high quality, but I am unfamiliar with it, and Ashtul either doesn't have such a policy reason, or is convinced he can exercise an editorial decision about the utility of area specialist articles and books, and excise or retain according to vague personal opinions. If this is unclarified, then it is highly problem that a conflictual state in our editorial relationship over I/P articles will drag out in extenuating talk page debates and revert practices. I wish to avoid this, as I exercise a discretion in not wishing now or in the future that administrative sanctions be sought. I'd appreciate therefore a brief, non-partisan, comment on the issue of policy regarding RS excisions, if only so both of us can refer to an authoritative view on this. Sorry for the trouble. Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote before, I am not sure why an article specific debate will take place here. The new thread is here. In summery, the many issues mentioned in the different threads fall under Wikipedia:Content removal#Inaccurate information. Longer explanation here. Ashtul (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Your link on content removal starts with a principle.

When removing content from an article, whether it be a whole section or even just a single word, if the removal is likely to be opposed by one or more other editors, it is important to make sure there is clearly a consensus to remove the content. When in doubt, discuss prior to removal.

You made a unilateral erasure without consultation
(2)As to the rest, none of the sources removed fit any of the grounds for removal, since they are specialized academic texts directly bearing on the article topic. Got that? Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, you have made a WP:BOLD edit which is great and your sources are also WP:RS. The problem arises from the fact you confused WBS and CS and don't understand CS is a specific form of locality NOT a category. For this kind of edit there should be a principle called WP:MISINTERPRETED but I guess nobody ever thought there will be a need for that. I explained multiple times why you are wrong about many of the facts and now showed you the WP principle which allows for these deletions. My edit summaries clearly state the reason behind each and every change or removal.
And since you care so much about the rules, would you care to explain on what ground you deleted the statement At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians coexist and work side by side in many of the factories beyond the obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Where was the discussion there? Ashtul (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I follow exactly what sources commenting specifically on Community Settlements write of those settlements. You are making off-the-top-of-the head judgements, which, see presently, affect what you want in the text, and wantr out.- There is no textual warrant for this. Your edit summaries falsify the sources.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You keep on avoiding explaining your Barkan edit. Ashtul (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You haven't answered any of my queries, but protest I ignore just one from you. I look at most I/P articles dealing with the West Bank when I note them being discussed on any page I have bookmarked. I haven't the time to rewrite them all. Most need extensive expansion and rewriting. I don't sit on one or two articles, revert, bicker and edit-war except when I am dragged into futile time-wasting arguments by people unfamiliar with policy. I read up on the articles, and expand them. At a workplace workers don't 'coexist'. The source says both Palestinians and Israelis work at Barkan. The technical literature explains the angles to this. (a)Palestinian industrial development is systematically blocked by Israel (see my expansion of the Rawabi article yesterday) (b)Israel's work market is basically denied to most Palestinians (c) to feed their families they take what jobs they can get, even in settlements (d) in settlements their work conditions differ from factory to factory, from slave wages to Israel's minimum wage. The UN reports that in such areas, numerous complaints have been made by hired Palestinians (e)Israel uses industrial plants in West Bank areas to produce industrial products with a high toxic output, which is dumped in the West Bank, frequently on village agricultural land, etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
With all the rewrites the sources got mixed up a bit but this is from the Ynet source Fortunately, so far these boycotts have been nothing but PR maneuvers, and we are sure that Jews and Arabs will continue to work together and strengthen our prosperous industry and live in coexistence. All the opinions in the world won't change it. The conflict is complex, yes but it doesn't change the fact there is coexitance there. You hate that fact, fine but deleting it is the definition of POVPUSH.
On CS you confuse WBS and CS, or probably, the way the sources are written, the two intertwine. I gave you examples, reiterated this and you just don't seem to get it. I wrote to you before you are an excellent editor and it is easy to see you have tons of experience. I have a lot of respect for you and in a way but this ridicules thread make that respect diminish with each and every new reply of yours (not that you would care). Ashtul (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Which only shows that you cannot yet distinguish between an opinion and a statement of facts. You cited an opinion as a state of fact. Take Case 3 of Palestinian women sacked from the Royalife bedding factory in Barkan. They worked, until fired against Israeli court orders, a 10.5 hour day, often 7 days a week, for 6 shekels (average Israeli wage 20). There are numerous reports of such abuses, and you cherrypicked one source to get a lead statement that Palestinians and Israelis work harmoniously. That is trying to misrepresent one way a very complex reality. Coexistence to a native English speaker means hostile parties making arrangements to live side by side, which is not the nuance the source places on the term (prosperous conviviality). When I saw it, I laughed at its awkwardness. Your distinction between WBS and CS is yours: I have the statistical breakdown. Most WBS are CS. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Your edit now proves this. You open with a statement that work at Barkan for Palestinians is one of coexistence and prosperity with Israelis. Then you showcase this with the local head of the settler council's remark, which is an opinion that says anyone contradicting the opening statement is playing politics. And then we have the fact noted that numerous labour organizations say Palestinian labour is exploited. I.e., textual dissonance. One cannot write (1)things are great (2) cite an interested party's views as a fact, and then follow it with what I put in (3) a statement that labour conditions for Palestinians are reportedly not good according to Israeli union sources. That is cognitive dissonance, patching in POVs, without balancing them with facts from both perspectives.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This is truly ridicules. In these high conflict area, of course you will have different opinions from both sides. You brought a lot of the Palestinian side and this merely brings it to WP:DUE status. “I can bring a million people who want to work here, boasted Ahmed Nasser”.
I hope this article will give you the tip of the ice for the coexistence. And no, I am not saying there isn't a conflict. Just a few days ago, Adele Biton from nearby Yakir passed away and I am sure you can give me a few names of Palestinians who were injured or killed. It doesn't mean it is all blood and fire. Obviously you don't have to answer but just out of curiousity, have you ever been here? Ashtul (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
One of the conditions of your return, if memory serves me correct, was that you would desist from following me around I/P articles. You have now decided to reverse that decision as is evident from this. Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Simple answer. Ashtul (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1RR violation

HJMitchell, you might be interested in this, 1RR report re Ashtul. Since it's already at a noticeboard, please consider this as nothing more than a courtesy notification, rather than a request that you do anything in particular. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a childish low blow on an edit which I can assure even Nishidani (who actually have edited the page, not just checked it to eliminate an editor) will reject as a base to anything. I explained it on the noticeboard.
I also adjusted the clock on my wiki account to prevent future doubts like that as I am at GMT +2 and account was set to GMT 0. One can see the changes were made over 22 hours apart. Ashtul (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I gather JHM is taking a wikibreak, and I hope we're not responsible. In any case I regret my remonstrances here and apologize. While I am convinced Ashtul has notable problems, I should have had more sense than to give him a cause for grievance by editing two pages (not edited but watched) where he returned to be active. I didn't have a restraint order on me against interaction, as he did with me, but in editing the pages he edited I made a hasty mistake at 'community settlement', since corrected, though I think fixing the abuse of sources at Barkan Industrial Park would have eventually been necessary, had no one else noticed it. In order to relieve HJM of the embarrassment, I think it fair to ask him to feel free, on return, to ignore us if things come to arbitration, and leave it to others.Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted.
Just in case you wonder about the second revert on Karmei Tzur (which were over 24 hrs apart), it is explained in my edit summery. deleted pic related to content eliminated by Nableezy.
It is time to leave me be and move on. Ashtul (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor you unbanned is now back at AN3

Please see WP:AN3#User:Ashtul reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). The two articles mentioned are in the I/P area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, those edits are completely insignificant as I explained. For more controversial edits I have opened in the last few days and RfD, RfC or left content as is after conversation. Ashtul (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aethiopia

Not sure if you realised it, but that was Til Eulenspiegel. He often edits from 71.246.144.0/20, 71.127.128.0/21 and 71.127.132.0/22. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you mentioned about three weeks ago. Has he been back since then? Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 11:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin stats

Hi Harry. Admin stats are available here. You can select for any time period you wish to investigate. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. That's really helpful. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 11:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nostradamus talkpage troll again!

Dear HJ

Absolute chaos is once again being caused by anonymous trolls on the Nostradamus Talk Page (most of it consisting of gratuitous abuse against me (as 'Lemesurier', 'Lemonhead' etc. etc.) that has nothing to do with the article as the rules require. The main culprit now seems to be posting from 76.79.202.210. Could you investigate, please, and remove anyone doing this for a good long time?

Thanks --PL (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm having computer problems. You'd be better off asking another admin until i can get it working again. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 11:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_97&oldid=1146519365"