User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 → Archive 70

Topic ban question

Hello HJ Mitchell, I have a quick question relating to an AE decision you were involved in back in December (linked in the heading). I was blocked for six weeks for violating a topic-ban from Troubles-related articles, and several admins, including yourself, recommended that topic-ban be reset when my block ended. However, nothing seemed to have actually been agreed or implemented – are you in a position to let me know as to whether my ban was reset, or should I ask elsewhere? It'd be nice to know. Thanks, JonCTalk 10:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anything was formally enacted. Purely on the grounds that you were decent enough to come and ask instead of trying your luck, I'm going to leave the topic ban at its original expiry date. That said, now that you've shown that level of decency, don't go and blow it—if I were you, I would be going out of my way to show that I was a net positive to the topic area after my ban expired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ryulong

I think over the time that Ryulong has improved. He sometimes does lose his patience, but I think that he has improved since he was desysopped. I was going to consider nominating him but since I have 2 blocks on my block log, more detail can be seen here, I don't think the RfA would go very well. Would you consider nominating him.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you even asked him if he would like to be nominated? Regardless, the answer is no. I respect Ryulong, and I think he does a lot of good work, but I would bet good money that any RfA would go down in flames and do nothing whatsoever to encourage him to continue with what he does. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, thanks, I tried and yes, indirectly, based off of all three of his RfA's and a comment I left on his talk page a while back, gives me a strong impression that he is willing to consider it in the future.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing references

Could you take a look at QuasyBoy?

I reverted him (diff) for removing references from List of Last Man Standing episodes. An IP came along within a few minutes with an identical edit, which I also reverted. QuasyBoy came to my talk page saying that WP:VERIFIABILITY doesn't apply because it's a TV show. My reply was that WP:VERIFIABILITY applies to everything on WP. He said WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and removed some more references (diff) somewhere else.

Could you warn him or block him for disruption? Thanks, Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like he's being deliberately disruptive or anything, so I would suggest engaging with him on the relevant talk page, and perhaps starting an RfC if you disagree with the common practice (or as to what the common practice is). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear HJ Mitchell,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure; contact me by email and we can arrange it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Great! One of our students will be in touch in the next few weeks. Thanks. --Jaobar (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 06:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Niceffects2

Hi, I wanted to drop by regarding a rangeblock you've placed. It looks like you've hardblocked 218.186.0.0/16. Unfortunately, it looks like this will cause a lot of collateral damage. I wanted to drop by to see if you could either a) soften the block to anon. only or b) lift it entirely. I appreciate it. Cheers! TNXMan 15:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Woops! I meant to block talk-page access, not logged-in editors. I've softened it to anon only; thanks for pointing it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

childish

I appreciate your efforts at AE. Not an easy admin area. Nonetheless, I do not appreciate the childish message you left at my talk page: I would imagine that the sanction could be lifted if you remained out of trouble for the next few months and then appealed it. It's possible to reword to be more respectful for future instances. --Shuki (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

HJ was merely pointing out that if you stay away from controversy for a few months, you might be able to have to topic ban lifted. As far as I can see, all he did was offer you some helpful advice. The comment wasn't in any way childish. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The comment wasn't mean to cause offence. Quite the opposite, I was trying to offer the closest thing to friendly advice an AE admin can (and at the same time point out that indef doesn't necessarily mean permanent). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Errrr, I don't see anything "childish" in that phrase... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Kids are told, condescendingly, to stay out of trouble. Adults are advised to avoid conflict. --Shuki (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That seems like a matter of semantics to me, but I can assure you that no offence or condescension was intended, and I apologise if you felt I was belittling you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Another sock

If you are still online, OSUHEY is back as User:118.96.251.230. Marcus Qwertyus 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them. Hut 8.5 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks gents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Ouch, I really didn't want to ever see those quotes again... :(

Oh well, these things we work on and live with.

Anyways, I replied here to your concerns.

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I was going to get this message to you two hours ago, but my internet crashed right after I made the post on Meta.
Sorry. I know the feeling. RfA can be pretty brutal, but it's about the only place where you can guarantee you'll get completely honest feedback (hence WP:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 3), but the down side is people won't pull punches. But we live and learn, and the important thing is not to dwell on the negative aspects, but to take on board the concerns of our critics and use them to make us better editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Help!

I've just noticed User:Eaststreetlover has created John Barton (Emmerdale character) and Katy Armstrong (Coronation Street), when redirects have already been created for the articles at the correct names John Barton (Emmerdale) and Katy Armstrong. Neither of the characters have any real world info or, in the case of Katy, sources. I'm not overly sure what do to, redirect the new articles with the wrong names or put them up for deletion? - JuneGloom Talk 16:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If the character aren't sufficiently notable for a article, redirect them to the appropriate list (and explain why to the user who created them). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I was more worried about the incorrect names, than the lack of sources. I'll redirect them, thank you! - JuneGloom Talk 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems Anemone has sorted it already! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I did, it was a nightmare, because there were page moves involved as well! I kept some of the redirects but deleted others. –anemoneprojectors– 16:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I left an explanation for the user as well. They're not overly keen on communication, so we'll see how it goes. - JuneGloom Talk 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that could be fun! Still, we were all clueless newbies at one point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
True. Though all the newbies seem to have more confidence than me when I first started out. I think I just corrected typos for the first few months and then eventually I learned to add info with sources and create links, etc. I didn't create an article until September 2009. - JuneGloom Talk 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Closure of discussion about Abortion article titles

Hi HJ Mitchell. In the case Abortion, the main remedy established a community discussion to decide which title the associated article should use. The committee decided at that time to appoint three experienced administrators to close the discussion. With the community discussion beginning, we are looking to appoint these three administrators, and you were suggested as one such administrator. Would you be willing to close the discussion, when it has concluded? If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me or another arbitrator on our talk pages (or the mailing list, if you prefer e-mail). Regards, AGK [•] 22:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made something of a point of staying out of the discussions so far, which I suppose puts me in the handy position of being completely uninvolved. Sure, I'll take it on. I'd rather avoid forming an opinion in the meantime, though, so you'll have to let me know when you want me to look at it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, HJ. I'll let the other arbitrators know that you're happy to be named as one of the closers for the discussion. Your intention to stay detached from the page until the time of closure seems very sensible, and we'll certainly let you know when your attention is needed. Regards, AGK [•] 00:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Your question

My apologies for the delay; I have responded to your question. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Last comment, hopefully

Hopefully, this is the last comment I waste my time on in the AE forum over the recent case.[1]
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gatoclass continues his campaign against a single diff in which I restored a blanket removed paragraph. To top it off, I have already fixed his complaint about "supernatural rats" to fit reliable sources. In short, he's non-collaborative, combative, and is still attacking text which is no longer in the article. I honestly, now, think he should be banned from the topic area due to this disruptive conduct.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 07:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Heyo,
I noticed you were one of the admins aware that my edit was basically a revert of a contentious edit done a while ago. Sourcing is now directly to 'Palestinian Media Watch', which was always deemed usable when the RSN conversation was not dominated by prominent antagonists. That source is reliable enough for Hillary Clinton and a throng of mainstream media publications[2] -- and certainly, for wikipedia as well. Considering the accumulated examples of mainstream users, I cannot consider that referencing their translations is improper and the attempt to represent this in any other way is gaming. That said, I rephrased the article to fit the best source available and in doing so, I believe I've shown my ability to respond to concerns when they have merit. The paragraph's existence, though, was always in order due to a high volume of, mostly op-ed, articles calling the rat story a conspiracy theory. No one other than the original report (and Gatoclass) treated it as a legitimate real story (evil settlers trying to push Arabs out by bringing in cages with rats). And the content remained on the page for quite some time before it was blanket removed by Poyani, whom I reverted once I noticed.
I just don't know what to make of T.Caenes position that I can somehow be at fault for mediocre phrasing months after they occur and when I am working in the proper manner. I'd appreciate an explanation.
Best regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 07:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I've done some digging and found the source for my personal confusion regarding the seeming merits of the case -- here.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 13:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Re your notification

Hi. There is an WP:AE request at the moment concerning recent editing around the area of cold fusion. It was pointed on WP:ANI that you had warned an editor recently about discretionary sanctions in this topic area just over 2 weeks ago.[3] Please could you log the entry at the bottom of the arbcom case page? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't see a log of notifications there—is that because nobody else has ever been given one? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. The current case at WP:AE is the first anybody other than Abd has been reported. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: RainbowDash / Futtershy and an unsuccessful ArbCom candidate

I'm not interested in forming a lynch mob; I'm interested in learning the truth. I also don't wish to appear as if I'm signaling any one person out. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's what you'll get if your desire for the truth is realised, and it won't change the status of PBML or any of their other accounts. Nothing good lies at the end of the path you're treading, and nothing worthwhile will come from "learning the truth" (assuming, of course, that a certain banned user isn't just having you on). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You don't believe that learning the truth is an end in itself? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I happen to agree with HJ. When the Truth™ is just going to needlessly increase drama, there is no reason in searching for it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't. There are some things people should be just as happy not knowing. This one of those things. Reaper puts it nicely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a project devoted to making information free and accessible, yet you would rather support a culture of secrecy? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather support a culture of doing something useful, like writing an article, instead of stirring up needless drama and pointlessly upsetting people who are very unwell. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A question

Hello HJ. Sorry to bother you. I just left a message for User:NYyankees51 about your unblock agreement with him, and the later advice you and I gave him (it'll be a year ago this week) when he was causing disruption. Looks like he ignored the advice and was blocked twice shortly afterward and once again in May, and then again a couple of weeks ago, with an ARBCOM ban last month for good measure. I don't know if you'd like to give him any more advice, since he's ignored it in the past… In any case, I noticed that one of the terms of your unblock agreement was "being checkusered regularly". Is that being done? I don't have any suspicions or anything, but it just seems that since it was one of the conditions, it should be done periodically – and perhaps it is. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

He's had the advice. What he does with it is entirely up to him. If he were still a clueless newbie who honestly didn't understand why people objected to his conduct, I might be tempted to force-feed him more advice, but he's been around long enough to keep his own counsel on whether his editing is achieving his aims and whether or not to adjust it accordingly. As to being Checkusered regularly, I honestly have no idea—I did ask a CU to keep an eye on him at the time, but whether any checks are run is between the functionaries and NYyankees51. I imagine the CU logs would remain hidden from public view even if a way were found to mitigate the potential privacy concerns, simply because public knowledge that a check was run would quickly lead some to the (possibly mistaken) conclusion that there's no smoke without fire. For the same reasons, we're better off not knowing so that it doesn't influence our opinions of him, and doesn't impede the work of the CUs if or when they do run checks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiMeet

Evening! Pleasure to meet you today, here's the link if you need it - User:SalopianJames/Sandbox/Central A-class proposal. SalopianJames (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Likewise! It's always good to put a face to name! I'll take another look at that and I'll be in touch at some point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks, that'd be much appreciated! :-) SalopianJames (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
What? Meeting in real-life to embiggen the wiki?
You might be interested in this idea by Maunus. Alarbus (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA notification for user user:Jokkmokks-Goran

This user in my opinion is POV pushing with his edits against Israel/IDF.In this edit [4] He downplays IDF/Israel claims and put Lebanese and HRW sources as a fact. Moreover he deleted sources and deleted from the lead the fact that civilians were released. I think notification is warranted.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, so I've issued a notification. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you please read the last entries on Talk:Operation Sharp and Smooth and then explain to me in what way I have violated WP:NPOV in this article. I think I have made a huge improvement. Shrike's claim that the civilian abductees were "released right away after questioning" is not covered by his source. In fact they where incarcerated for 3 weeks as reported by HRW. Shrike's main point that Human Rights Watch is biased and the IDF is a reliable source. I cannot agree.
Your second point is even more puzzling. I reverted an anonymous change describing the battle in question as "Hezbollah victory" and replaced it with a more neutral sounding "Israel failed to conquer the town". I am not the only editor who has made this point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ayta_ash-Shab&diff=476741637&oldid=476472094
In what way did I violate WP:NPOV in this instance?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said that HRW is not WP:RS I only said that IDF POV should be given the same weight as HRW POV and the reader should decide on his own.I think its important to say that the civilians were realized as currently the lead only tells part of the story I have no objection to say that it was happened after three weeks .I agree that "released right away after questioning" may sound that they were released right away but what I meant to say that they were released after questioning.--Shrike (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
On abductees: please check article and see if you are OK with it. My point is that the IDF (as well as Hezbollah) are NOT WP:RS and could never be in this war. In many instances we only have conflicting info from the parties concerned, and your approach would be OK . In this case we have two serious inquiries by WP:RS sources (as well as media reports) showing that the majority of the fatalities were civilian. In such a situation there can be no comparison. Even if the IDF denies all civilian casualties. But Shrike, if you could use the Talkpage a bit more often we could perhaps get along much better. I'm not impossible.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I could really use some clarification, please. I don't mind if you use deprecated tags like "<s>" on text you originally wrote. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I'd be happy to talk about your RfA with you, because (despite my oppose) I like you, and because I know from experience that an unsuccessful RfA isn't a pleasant thing. But I don't want to argue with you about the merits of my oppose, and trying to prove yourself right (or me wrong) isn't going to result in anything productive. If there is something specifically you don't understand, you're welcome to ask me here, and I will elaborate in whichever venue you prefer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Can you (and/or your talk page stalkers) please help me to understand how my answer to question 7 could be construed as inconsistent with WP:SOCK, and how to construct a better answer? Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, socking is about evading scrutiny. Assuming another identity to pretend to be somebody else (for example, logging in or out to violate the 3RR, using multiple accounts to vote multiple times in an AfD or RfA, using a different account or logging out to evade a topic ban, etc) is socking, whether done with a different account or as an IP. Block evasion is socking when the blocked user pretends to be a different person for the purposes of getting round a block. However, logging out (or into a different account) when your main account is blocked, but not hiding the connection (for example, if my account were blocked and I logged back in under my disclosed alternate account, User:Whisky drinker), is block evasion, but isn't sock-puppetry. There are less obvious forms of block evasion as well, for example continuing a bot task on your main account after your bot account was blocked for performing the task could be construed as block evasion (but not socking, assuming the bot account is disclosed and authorised). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I have incorporated that info into my Problematic editor decision tree, what do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

WT:EF

I think I've done what you requested, and hopefully additions of "My Dick" will slow down. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Reaper! I can't imagine any encyclopaedic use for that phrase! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
   Tsk! I support such fixes, but bemoan your crippled imagination. So far i've thot of "(Peggy, my) Peggy Sue" "(Looking for my) Donna", and looked up My Antonia, My Babu, My Bill, My Boo, "My Sharona" .... (But let's not fully think thru the cases suggested by the result of searching for the Times so wanted Deep Throat to watch it, get Nixon).
--Jerzy•t 08:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Decently done

In studying the years-long history of personal agenda and POV-pushing, I had actually considered performing this action myself, and it would have been the fisrt time I would have done so. Wikiepdia is not for pushing one's personal agenda, and must absolutely respect being neutral and balanced in all veiwpoints. Well done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the less pleasant side to adminship. But at least you get to save your blocking virginity for some nasty vandal or something like that! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#File:Sheetal_Sheth_Cover_of_CHI.jpg

Heh...part of me thought there was an auto-response...force of habit from working at Telstra for so long...my bad. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 03:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you on otrs-en-l? Auto-responders are being talked about on there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Deletions that caused redlinks at Category:Wikipedia disambiguation

   Category:disambiguation was duly moved, after discussion and consensus, to Category:Wikipedia disambiguation (lest someone think the Cat relates to Disambiguation rather than Wikipedia:Disambiguation). I presume the moving admin failed to retarget the 3 Rdrs lk'd by its {{shortcut}} call, but would have intended existing uses of the shortcuts (or new uses inferred from remembering the old Cat) to continue to reach the moved Cat. However, you speedy-deleted them as if the deletion of the Cat were not intended as a move. I assume you'd agree they should continue to exist, and will be glad to undelete and retarget them unless you do so, or say otherwise here within 36 hours. Tnx.
   Hmm. By the same logic, the old Cat should have been replaced by a soft Rdr, i think. Unless you do that as well, or express an opinion, i'll also research whether my logic is right & act accordingly.
--Jerzy•t 07:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's odd. I checked the deletion log entry before I deleted the redirects (because there were loads more of the CAT:XXX redirects the other day), but unlike the others, it didn't say anything about a move, which is why I zapped them instead of correcting them. I'll fix those, but whether the category should be a (soft) redirect or not is a question for the folks at CfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
   The oddness may reflect the fact this one was initially proposed for speedy renaming to :Category:Wikipedia:Disambiguation (rather than the ultimate :Category:Wikipedia disambiguation), and my questioning of that format kicked it over from speedy (where i imagine the others were) to CfD.
   Of course you're right, and this has also been enuf attention to a Cat whose main significance is that editors turbo-add it to Dab's from laziness, or ignorance of {{disambig}}.
   I didn't try to follow the whole discussion, but it's plausible that it was concluded that turning such Cat asg'ments into red links may help discourage that error. To the same end, i think i'll turn those legacy shortcuts into "unpublished" ones, and make that invocation of {{shortcut}} mention CAT:WDAB instead. Thanks for your help.
--Jerzy•t 20:40, 23 & 14:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Paramount Group Wikipedia Page

Dear Harry,

You recently deleted a Wikipedia entry about the Paramount Group due to ‘unambiguous advertising or promotion’ and concerns over a ‘conflict of interest.’ The article had also been edited in recent times by, amongst others, Bell Pottinger staff using undeclared pseudonyms.

We set out with the best intent to make all the content factual, accurate and fully referenced. There are some examples of this below.

Having listened to Wikipedia experts, and taken advice, we understand that there were errors in the way the information about Paramount Group was uploaded as well, as the need for neutrality and impartiality in the copy.

We would like to understand how we can get the article reinstated, in a more appropriate form, and to request your help and advice in achieving this. If we need to start afresh then we will and will ensure we comply with Wikipedia’s five pillars.

As mentioned, we genuinely believed the information on the article was factual, accurate and referenced. For example, it contained the following section on the company history.

Paramount has also sought to consolidate its position within the South African defence industrial landscape. In September 2009, it acquired a 19 per cent stake in Aerosud, making it the largest individual shareholder. Aerosud is an established leader in South Africa’s aviation industry and supplies parts to companies including Boeing and Airbus. This was supported by a 3rd party source http://www.aerosud.co.za/news/digitalmag.htm

Another paragraph reported: In 2010, Paramount announced an agreement with India’s Ashok Leyland, which is the largest supplier of utility vehicles to the Indian Armed Forces, to produce the Stallion MPV in India for the army and other government internal security forces. Again this was referenced with a 3rd party source http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/landwarfareintl-com/south-africa-and-india-lead-the-way-in-protection-for-armed-forces/5501 .

More followed: The establishment of the company’s second manufacturing plant outside of South Africa was an important strategic step in the company’s development. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ashok-leyland-paramount-ink-defence-deal/86663/on Another section on products included the following: In 2009, Paramount finalised an agreement to manufacture its Matador and Marauder MPVs in the capital Baku, with the first vehicles rolling off the production line in May 2010. This was supported by the http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=122139 .

On another occasion, the entry described how Paramount Group’s Marauder vehicle featured in the BBC’s Top Gear programme. Again this was fully documented linked to BBC sources.

Wikipedia is one the world’s most widely read and influential sources of information and reference and Paramount Group is a major South African business. We employ over 1,500 people and make a big contribution to the South African economy. We operate in a high profile sector and do business with governments around the world.

As such, we would like people, whether in South Africa or in our clients’ countries, to be able to search Wikipedia to find out who we are and what we do.

Whilst we understand that there are current issues between Wikipedia and our public relations company, we would like to point out that the Paramount Group Wikipedia article was not originally created or uploaded by Bell Pottinger. We were never consulted about its impending deletion and had we been so then we would have sought your guidance on correction.

We would like, using a clear and transparent editor account with a declared interest, to reinstate the page, subject to editing. Please can you advise on the best steps to achieving this objective – and perhaps even work with us or review our copy before it is posted to ensure we are both meeting the spirit of Wikipedia as well as the etiquette and guidelines. Thanks in advance for giving this your due consideration and we look forward to your response.

If you would like to contact me please contact me on bran@paramounrgroup.biz

Best Regards

Brannigan

OK, I can email you a copy of the code of the deleted page if you want, and you can start the article again. As long as what is written is neutral (that means it's not written like a sales pitch or a press release, but in a dry, purely factual way, and notable criticism is included alongside notable praise) and well sourced,there shouldn't be too much of a problem. I would also need any employees of the company or PR firms retained by the company to register individual accounts (and not edit the article while not logged in), and to explicitly declare their conflict of interest on their userpages, and carefully read the two relevant pieces of guidance, WP:COI and WP:BPCOI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51

Hey HJ Mitchell, this is to notify you that the user has sent you an email; I guess they want to make doubly sure. I have unblocked the user at their request and the agreement of another admin so they can plead their case against a community ban. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Buenos Aires train disaster

Re this edit, which you blocked the IP for, should it be revdel'd? If you C&P the offending text into Google Translate you will see what I mean. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's rude, but I don't think it's "grossly offensive, insulting, or degrading"—I usually save RevDel for the really nasty BLP violations and similar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't 100% sure on this one, which is why I didn't RevDel it myself. I've given all IPs a 3 day holiday from vandalising the article anyway. Maybe the rest of us can now get on with expansion and improvement of the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. It's unfortunate that some people have nothing better to do than to make a nuisance of themselves, because it means those of us who do have something better to do have to clean up behind them! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a good job ClueBotNG is about though. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning

Do you really feel it is fair to warn only me out of everyone involved (Poyani, Gatoclass, more?) in the past year when I am working in a collaborative spirit to address the concerns of other editors? JaakobouChalk Talk 19:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit of a silly question really—do I strike you as the type of guy who would do something he thought was unfair? It happens to be your conduct that is under the microscope at AE. It has already been determined that the report is not frivolous or vexatious, so I couldn't warn Gatoclass even if I wanted to, and Poyani is not the complainant or respondent in an AE report, so their conduct is not being examined. You have managed to interpret my post in the most negative way possible, and completely overlooked that I have determined there is nothing in your conduct that rises to the level where I feel sanctions would be appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I am mostly concerned that any warning towards me would be abused in future cases. Gatoclass managed to open a case based on a single recent edit and spared nothing in his attempt to portray me in bad light. He even went as far as making a soothsayer-type allegations about my alleged intentions to edit war. Is that considered a legitimate type of complaint when the only thing behind it is his WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding the section's existence? JaakobouChalk Talk 20:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

81.159.129.131

Can you extend the block and reblock the user 81.159.129.131 (talk · contribs), he is banned. Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with with CharleJS13. Can you explain why you think the IP is him? Or you're welcome to go and ask another admin more familiar with the case, but I'd appreciate knowing the background in case I come across him in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
His editing is too simple in fact:
  • The most common edit he does is to change genres to his POV (Beautiful, Dirty, Rich).
  • The second thing he does is to attack other people (Practically all the edits made by the IP).
  • The third is to change "Stefani G." to "Lady Gaga" (LoveGame), even when there is a consensus to use BMI/ASCAP sources (WT:GAGA). Charlie never accepted this 1, and in fact reported me many times because of that 2 3, 4.

He is so obvious that as soon as I see the IPs 86.xx and 81.xx, always on the page he edits (Rihanna, Madonna, Lady Gaga, synthpop-related articles), there is a high probability to see him editing. His IPs are always from IP Pools and BT Public, and his behaivour is always to use the undid button. That's Charlie in a nutshell. You can see the "suspected" IPs and you'll see the same pattern. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback again

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Purplewowies's talk page.
Message added 22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User 132.235.129.86

It's only been a couple of minutes, but in case it fell through the cracks: The bot says that you blocked this user but at the moment that is not so: here. I apologize if you were about to get to it! JohnInDC (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's because I blocked the range, 132.235.128.0/22, so it won't show in individual block logs, but it will in Special:BlockList. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, now that's the sort of subtlety that reveals why you're an admin and I'm destined to remain just an editor! Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It's the sort of subtlety that puts an end to an evening of whack-a-mole! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Bjmullan

Just a heads up, as I was the last one to revert the IP, the Troubles 1RR states -

  • Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty

You have basically, in good faith, imposed a block on Bjmullan for staying within the rules.Murry1975 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid the block isn't a mistake. I blocked him for using that exemption (and the AE process) in a combative manner, not for a technical violation of the 1RR. The exemption is there to stop people logging out to avoid the 1RR—it is not a license to freely revert IPs during content disputes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I actually was unaware by the phrasing in the template. What, in case I come across such again, would be the better way to handle it? I have to admit I would have done the same as Bjmullan without considering it a bearch by myself. I will check back in the morning so if you are busy its ok to put it on the long finger.Murry1975 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The same as the 1RR forces you to do with a registered user: stop and discuss. Unless the IP is obviously a registered user trying to avoid sanctions, in which case report to ANI or AE, where they'll probably end up blocked for longer than they would have if they'd violated the 1RR while logged in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Cheers HJ, one more question, if an IP breaks the 1RR or 3RR and gets blocked I am presuming that his edit can not be undone within a the "relevant" time period by an editor who has previously reverted, is that correct? I just dont want to do something stupid and avoid hassle on here.Murry1975 (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a matter of judgement. If the IP edit looks like it was made in good faith and it doesn't introduce serious problems to the article, it's probably best to do the same as you would with a registered account. What would almost certainly get somebody sanctioned, though, is doing exactly the same thing as the IP and then reporting the IP for doing it, while relying on a technicality to avoid sanctions yourself, because Wikipedia is not a battleground and AE is not a courtroom. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means that when we disagree with each other, we stop and discuss, and the 1RR is there encourage, and if necessary, force people to stop and discuss. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarity HJ.Murry1975 (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi HJ, apologies for the delay in posting, I'm not editing much these days. I have to disagree with you on your reasoning on this one and before I outline why, I'm more than happy to agree to differ. I'm coming to this from a long and troubled experience of arbitration/The Troubles. The exemption is there to stop disruptive IP's and blocked and banned editors from disrupting the project. Troubles articles are plagued with them and this article is no exception. Take this edit for example. It is the exact same edit as this one, and this one. Likewise it is also the same as this one, and this one, this one, and this one. I know this edit and its editor. I know two admin's who also know this and the page has been protected because of it. Bjmullan also knows this edit, [5], [6]. Based on this, I knew this edit was disruptive and I reverted. In light of this information, I would be very much obliged if you could revise your posts on this and reconsider the situation on IP's. I hope the information helps, anyway no harm no foul. --Domer48'fenian' 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

PS, Just a heads up on this IP.--Domer48'fenian' 22:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your rationale against my decision. I can see where you're coming from, and I've been doing arbitration enforcement for long enough to know that IPs can be a pain in the arse, but what we so often lose sight of is that there is such a thing as a legitimate content dispute, even in areas covered by discretionary sanctions and 1RRs, and the 1RR would have forced Bjmullan to stop and discuss had the IP been a registered user, because the edit itself was not inherently disruptive—you both reverted based on who made the edit and not the substance of the edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again HJ. I made my edit based on this discussion, and then this discussion which was followed by this discussion which lead to yet another discussion and now this discussion. The edit based on these discussions was in my opinion was disruptive. If you review the linked discussions I think you will agree that it was most definitely the substance of the edit and not who made the edit which prompted my edit. Again, I'm happy to agree to disagree, I just hope we don't allow IP and SPA editors disrupt the project. It is even worse if the are already blocked and banned. --Domer48'fenian' 22:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Beebuk

I tremble as I do this, since I'm a complete novice at all things technical on Wikipedia, but you were kind to me some months ago when I put up a new page (Pierrot lunaire (book)), so I seek again your help now. I've put up another page—Gilles (stock character)—and have self-nominated it (clumsily) for a DYK showing (under February 21), but shortly after I did this a bot sent me this message:

I suspect that it concerns a previous botched attempt to publish the nomination (which I assumed had gotten lost in cyberspace and which I don't know how to track down), but I'm not sure. I don't want to gum up the works for anybody else, so I'd much appreciate it if someone (of your caliber) could find out where the problem is and let me know how to fix it. I've applied to another DYK editor (Anonymous Dissident), but he (or she) hasn't responded. Many thanks for whatever help you can give me. Beebuk 00:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I had much involvement with DYK (except as an admin performing the very last step), but I've posted at WT:DYK. Hopefully someone there will come along and enlighten us! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
What it's referring to is step III of the I, II, III on the Did You Know nominations page, which is "Post at Template talk:Did you know." You've finished I and II; you still need to do III. Follow the instructions there: you need to add the actual template under the date the article was created (in this case, February 21). To do so, find the date, and put the "Template:Did you know nominations/Gilles (stock character)" in doubled braces (without the quote marks I used), at the top of the entries already listed there.
There's a bot that detects when you create the template, but forget to list the template on the DYK page. By listing it there, people know it exists and can review it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think another editor has fixed the problem - [7]. - JuneGloom Talk 00:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Aaaah, looks it was subst'd instead of transcluded. hat would explain why the bot didn't recognise it! Thanks June, and thanks BlueMoonset. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks to you all. Sorry to have been such a goof-up. Beebuk 01:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, we've all goofed up at one time or another. :) - JuneGloom Talk 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ROC -> Taiwan move

Hi; thanks for closing the Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation) discussion, which was really quite messy. In your closing statement you mentioned a possible move to Taiwan (island).. indeed, this has been formally proposed (by me) about a week ago at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Early in that discussion it seemed like it would succeed nicely, but things have changed, and the outcome seems somewhat uncertain (a significant number of editors have come from the Chinese Wikipedia to oppose the proposal; somebody advertised the requested move there..). Just thought you might be interested. Mlm42 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm sure someone will have fun closing that in due course! I best not look at it in much more detail in case that someone ends up being me, but thanks for letting me know. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Although interestingly, you lumped it in with a move request for ROC→Taiwan. I wonder (thinking aloud) whether some participants might be opposing that proposal but not necessarily the move of the island article to "Taiwan (island)"... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are probably right; the ROC -> Taiwan move is the heavily disputed one. A move from Taiwan to "Taiwan (island)" seems pretty uncontroversial, since that's clearly what the article is about. Mlm42 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

NYY51 proposal.

The problem is not wether he is "malicious" or not, but whether he intends to continue disrupting the project. Based on his actions and statements to date, it's pretty obvious that he does intend to. I propose extending the topic bans currently in place into a permanent topic ban on all controversial areas of politics, religion and sexuality, broadly construed. It's clear that the editor does not intend to ever refrain from POV pushing in those areas. Also include a "one strike and you're out" clause. That will steer him into areas in which he will have a chance of being a constructive editor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_66&oldid=1178456941"