User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 80

User:The Banner
I don't see disruptive conduct. Did you block this guy for having a dissenting opinion? I'd like to request a block review on WP:AN. I find this highly inappropriate, and contrary to open discussion and the way we develop a WP:CONSENSUS. A consensus formed by blocking editors who oppose is not a consensus at all. The worst you've got is that he's been a bit snarky. That's not blockable.--v/r - TP 05:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've spent some more time looking into this. The 'consensus' on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland is not as explicit as I'd have expected for this block.  Besides Mr. Blofelf and The Banner, the other editors seem to find a mixture of the two opinions to be optimal.  In fact, the argument that received the most support is that articles about Parishes and Villages should be combined or not based on geography.  However, even setting that aside and assuming Dr. Blofeld gained consensus, this edit that you blocked The Banner for is actually enforcing that consensus against The Banner's own opinion.  He included information about the parish in the article about the village.  That was the so-called consensus by Dr. Blofeld.  And yet, Dr. Blofeld reverted him blindly anyway.  If anyone earned a block, it was Dr. Blofeld.  Am I reading something wrong here?--v/r - TP 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're probably having a busy Sunday morning and haven't had the chance to respond yet, but I don't believe that to be fair to The Banner that he remain blocked when I believe it to be unjustified. So I've addressed the matter at WP:AN, the link is below.  Thanks.--v/r - TP 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec, I was typing this as you were running to AN) I certainly did not block him for having a dissenting opinion, and I'd thank you not to suggest that I aim to be anything other than even-handed in my admin actions. As I see it, there's an interpersonal dispute between Blofeld and Banner; the consensus at the wikiproject talk page favours an approach somewhere between the two extremes. Blofeld seems to have accepted this t some extent, but Banner seems to have continued edit-warring. If he was edit-warring against Blofeld, I'd have given them both a bollocking and perhaps protected the article, but when he's edit-warring against several editors, and several more are telling him on a talk page that he's wrong (and he's continuing to edit-war, rather than calling a moratorium on reverting while the discussion progresses), I tend to think it's a conduct issue and not a content one. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it highly ironic that somebody who on his talk page professes " And I absolutely hate arrogance to the level that no respect is shown for an opponent's ideas because of a self-righteous belief in being the only correct point of view" thinks I'm the one who should be blocked here. It's precisely that which is causing all of the problems. Banner simply cannot accept consensus. I'm happy to discuss the issue and try to move forward constructively, it's Banner who won't.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The thought of blocking both of you crossed my mind, but you gave ground, whereas he wouldn't give an inch. I hope the two of you can resolve the issues through discussion, I really do, but I stand by my decision to block them (and equally my decision not to block you but to ask you stop reverting). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Narendra Modi
Have a look at my request. Decision is pretty much essential, at the earliest please. Shriram Talk 09:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure
Sorry, but I find your summary of this RfC about YYYY-MM unhelpful. You wrote "No consensus to change anything." But there have been changes in the guideline while the discussion was in progress, so it would be much more helpful to have an unambiguous summary: is YYYY-MM an acceptable date format, or not? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion doesn't, to me, look like like it reached a consensus. So, at least on the basis of that discussion, there's no consensus that YYYY-MM is acceptable and no consensus that it's unacceptable. I know it's not much help, but that's all I can do as the closer—I can't just pick the sick I find convincing, I can only tell you what the consensus is. If you think I got the close wrong, feel free to ask for a second opinion at WP:ANRFC. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A person who just wants to know the outcome might look at the beginning of the discussion, which states, as of the beginning of the discussion, that the guideline said YYYY-MM was unacceptable. They could look at your closure, which says there is no consensus for a change. That adds up to YYYY-MM being unacceptable, or at least it could be interpreted that way. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Does this address your concerns? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Formula One season RFPP
Hi. I was scrolling through WP:RFPP when I noticed a user has requested you extend your protection of the page 2014 Formula One season. Thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look; I was meaning to go and clear out RfPP anyway. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't fancy sticking an oar into the 2014 F1 season discussion, do you? I don't know if you've had the fortitude to follow it closely, but there's never going to be any resolution there. There is previous history of this kind of problem (four or five editors against one or two) and stalemate can literally continue for weeks/months. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As a Formula 1 fan, I'd love to. Alas, since I've acted in an admin capacity, I have to keep my distance. Though if I might offer a suggestion: if it's the same old people having the same old arguments, an RfC might be a good way of attracting outside opinions. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks, I appreciate it :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey
Hi, hope you're well. I was wondering if you could take care of the speedy deletion tag I added to Josh Willis (Neighbours)? - 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey! Long time no speak. How are you doing? Anyway, always happy to mash a button to help a friend. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm doing okay. Been busy creating articles as usual. Thank you! :) - JuneGloom    Talk  00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Warning spammers
Well, actually STiki doesn't have a separate warning option for spammers, it only provides us with two choices: "revert vandalism" or "revert good-faith edit". Therefore the tool doesn't understand the final warning others gave for spammers. The message you saw was automatically sent by the program when I hit "revert". ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * fair enough; I'll mention it the STiki folks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for approving my rollback request.

I'm well aware of what Spider Man said - "With great power comes great responsibility" - so I know that this isn't something to dork around with.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not that big a deal, but you'll be fine as long as you apply common sense. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible edit war
Can you consider my request for protection as soon as possible. Possible PUSH, WP:Soapboxing and WP:crystalball also.
 * I've seen the request. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I seriously need your help.,  Shriram Talk 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks for Rollback
Hi. Many thanks for granting me Rollback. Have to say that I keep reverting with Twinkle sometimes by mistake. But nonetheless Rollback is very useful so thanks again.--good888 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad you find it useful! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please remove protection for Space Elevator
Hello,

We've been having problems with IP 68.228.67.228 on Space Elevator. However, I don't think it would be anywhere near as big a problem without the uncivil antagonism of Tarlneustaedter. In this go-around, Tarlneustaedter essentially baited 68.228.67.228 with 1) reversions based on the editor not based on the edit content (ad hominem), 2) Uncivil commentary toward 68.228.67.228 in edit summaries. IP 68.228.67.228 has a checkered past, but in this cycle he started out with good good-faith editing and only "went rogue" after abusive treatment by Tarlneustaedter.

Please review Tarlneustaedter's edits and see if you agree. If you do, please consider removing the protection you put on Space Elevator a few minutes ago.

Skyway (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis of the situation, but leaving it open just because the IP started out in good faith isn't a realistic option, especially when they've used proxies to evade blocks in the past. Perhaps you could encourage them to engage in conversation and make suggestions on the talk page, then we can think about lifting the protection. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll buy that. It's a difficult situation. We need the contributions of IPs to give us vitality, but the way things work, one determined rogue can place any article under siege. The protection periods get longer and longer with less and less review each time. Before we know it, we have permanent protection for "persistent vandalism" by just one person who long ago moved on to other things. I hope we can avoid that path here. Skyway (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. We have very few defences against anybody who's determined enough and patient enough, but we have to hope that that energy can be channelled into something positive. Permanent protection isn't in anybody's interests. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at this
He followed me to other articles after I told him to stop. After he was unblocked he has continued the same behaviour. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps assume good faith on that one. They did revert themselves, and they did apologise. Unless a pattern emerges post-unblock, I'm inclined to hope that they move on. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was an accidental there would of been an autogenerated edit summary. The apology is disingenuous because it was obviously intentional.
 * He added OR to the lede but he claimed the text was verified. The text added to the lede was not a summary of the body. The references he added to the lede did not verify the claim. He was being disingenuous because he obviously ignored my comments.
 * After I told him to stop following me to other articles he did continue but has never apologised for following me.
 * It was also a strange coincidence that two different accounts made very similar edits.
 * I thought it was important to give you more detailed information on this. I don't want the editor to move on to other articles to do something like this again in mainspace. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * QG, it might just be best to leave it for the time being. They've hardly done anything since they were unblocked, and they've provided a plausible explanation for the one questionable edit. Frankly, you both seem to have an unhealthy obsession with each other; can't you just give them a wide berth? If they carry on the way that got them blocked the first time, there are plenty of other editors who can deal with it, and I'm sure somebody will bring it to my attention. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Banner disruptive editing
You have blocked user:The Banner for disruptive editing, especially edit warring for one week. There was a hope that after that he will act more responsibly.

However, after he had served his block, he has engaged twice in edit warring on article UE Boom. He also posted a number of uncivil messages on the article's talk page in the first section. He fails again to accept consensus, and engages in name calling. Please see him calling A merger of Roman Catholic parish article in AfD nomination as "vandalism". Overall, he continues the same pattern of behavior as prior to the block - disruptive and uncivil. Dmatteng (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the habit of indef'ing established editors on the basis of a single post on my talk page, but in this case it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had my own concerns about The Banner's conduct since their block expired, so I don't think I had any choice in this case. I've blocked them indefinitely; I hope not infinitely, but that's up to him. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please check your post on The Banner's talk page, I think the block template is missing (and also mistyped 'yo' should be 'you'). Although I'm an involved editor, I would rather prefer that his disruptive behavior would cease without a block, however I'm afraid that it is rather not possible at this time.
 * Could you please also add conditions: 1) The Banner should remove all non-constructive messages on talk pages that he had posted; especially name-calling and other uncivil messages. 2) He will not engage in edit warring. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the typo for the time being to save annoying Banner. The template isn't a necessity, and sometime plain English is preferable to templatese. I'm not sure a restriction not to edit-war is necessary, as edit-warring is against policy anyway; obliging him to go back and remove previous edits would be unnecessarily punitive, whereas the aim should be to prevent further disruption. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA
Hi HJ, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request regarding Rich Farmbrough and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Iranian Embassy siege
This is a note to let the main editors of Iranian Embassy siege know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 30, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 30, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Iranian Embassy siege took place from 30 April to 5 May 1980, after a group of six armed men stormed the Iranian embassy in London. The gunmen, members of an Iranian Arab group campaigning for Arab national sovereignty in Khūzestān Province, took 26 hostages and demanded the release of Arab prisoners from jails in Khūzestān. Police negotiators gradually secured the release of five hostages in exchange for minor concessions. On the sixth day the gunmen, frustrated at the lack of progress, killed a hostage and threw his body out of the embassy. The British government ordered the Special Air Service (SAS), a special forces regiment, to rescue the hostages. During the 17-minute raid, the SAS rescued all but one of the remaining hostages, and killed five of the gunmen. The hostage-takers and their cause were largely forgotten afterwards, but the operation brought the SAS to public attention. It was overwhelmed by the number of applications it received from people inspired by the operation and experienced greater demand for its expertise from foreign governments. The building suffered major damage from fire (aftermath pictured) and did not reopen as the embassy until 1993.

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again? Bencherlite, any chance you could spread these out a bit more in future? I won't grumble about this one (though it might have been nice to have held it back for the 35th anniversary next year or even the 40th in 2020, though that's a long way off), but it's a pain in the arse to keep an eye on a TFA, and this is the second of my FAs to run in the space of a few weeks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it had been the 25th anniversary coming up, then I might have waited a year, but the 35th anniversary isn't a particularly special number. And six weeks between TFAs isn't cruel and unusual punishment (last summer, one editor had two TFAs in three days, at his request I might add) - but I don't have any plans to run Richard Dannatt or Operation Barrass at present, which I think (after checking) are now your only two FAs yet to be TFA.  I know TFA can be a pain but you are getting over 3 weeks' warning of the date, which I hope helps. Yours, BencherliteTalk 05:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the advance warning is helpful, and thanks for the assurance that you don't have any more planned for the near future. I cna live with that. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 10:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Santiago the Surco
Hi colleague, there is no "edit dispute" there but this article unfortunately is one of the targets of a well known cross wiki vandal. See here for the file. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (nl-wiki admin and global sysop)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I've changed the protection, and I see the account has been locked. Let me know if you need any more help with this on enwiki. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do so! MoiraMoira (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2014
Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: RPP India election
There was no notice in the history of the page of the semi..Lihaas (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it'll be in there somewhere—the page i protected, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=protect&page=Indian_general_election%2C_2014 it's in the log]. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement: no fun
I'm sorry, Harry, but I must formally decline your invitation. I took a look at WP:AE and I find. Note the last sentence: I want to object to it because it seems as if there's WP:WIKIHOUNDing (by the filer) going on plus an implicit statement (by the responder) of "I've been waiting for an excuse to hit 'block' ASAP", which to my mind is just Not Cricket. But, at the top of the page, there's a pink box with a bunch of bullets that boil down to "if you even think about posting here to disagree, you'll be desysopped and banned for life. This is our patch: keep out". The attitude is just far too hostile: I cannot risk my neck even by posting a neutral comment, so the prospect of doing this more often is not what I am here for. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a shame, Redrose. Without wishing to discuss that specific request, I understand your feelings, and the perk of being volunteers is that we can opt to do or not do (almost) anything we please, but I think your decision not to participate (and that of other admins) contributes to the problem there, which is that it essentially an echo chamber. So few admins comment there that you just get the same opinions again and again, and it can be maddeningly difficult to get people to budge. The regulars know this, and they play it like a fiddle. Add to that the dire warnings of desysopping etc, and there's so little oversight that admins can get away with al sorts of shit. ArbCom are trying to change some of that with the DS review, but the problems really are with the process rather than the instrument, so the only way to really solve it is from the bottom up, with more admins offering opinions. And if that meant that I was in the minority, I'd be a lot more comfortable with that than I would with being shouted down by a tiny number of admins or with enforcement requests being summarily closed by a single admin with no meaningful oversight. That's why I've been mentioning it to admins I respect, including you, so I hope (though don't expect) that you'll reconsider, or at least share your thoughts with ArbCom. Ironically (since I gave them both a relatively hard time at the election), User:Roger Davies and User:AGK have seemed willing to listen to people who raise honest concerns during the discretionary sanctions review; perhaps they might have comments to make on your thoughts. Input from TPSs, especially admins, welcome. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I've . Expect the very first entry in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARedrose64 this page] any day now. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, Redrose. In fact, I see exactly where you're coming from, and my initial reaction was not dissimilar. I like Rich, and I'd love to see him stay, and I'd love to see certain parties but the more I think about it, the more I think it's not so much about whether any one particular edit was "automated" by some bizarre definition, but the community and ArbCom want Rich to move on and find something else to do. As far as I know, he's never properly acknowledged that there were problems with his automated editing (they may have been blown out of proportion, sure, he never broke the wiki, but that's not to say they didn't exist), and now instead of just going and writing an article or something and accepting the boundaries he's been given, he seems to be testing the extent of (and arguably crossing) those boundaries. I think a ban would be absurdly out of proportion, just as it was last time, but that position is increasingly left open to ridicule when Rich goes and does almost exactly what he was banned for last time. The way Rich is going to get out of the hole that (he's dug himself|has been dug for him) is not to carry on regardless because he thinks the restrictions are unjust, but to do something else—which, as I understand it, is exactly what ArbCom want him to do.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Optical Express
Hi. Can I draw your attention to a 'discussion' on Optical Express with regards to a user once again trying to add content where consensus was previously agreed that it wouldn't be included. Your input would be valuable. Thanks. Hardlygone (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Reprotection
You recently protected Template:States with limited recognition. That protection has since expired, and the exact same thing is happening again. There's more talk on the talkpage I suppose, which is progress, but still. It could use re-protection (in my opinion). Regards, CMD (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've protected it for another week. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although saying "to the TALK PAGE, please folks" doesn't really help those who did go to the talkpage during the first protection (and in my involved opinion had a consensus), only to have their discussion ignored by various almost-SPAs that haven't touched the talkpage (one did, but didn't engage in any discussion and just ignored all the points above). CMD (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I've just looked at it in more detail, and I reckon there's something fishy going on. I've indef'd three accounts, and filed an SPI. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Questionable banning
‎Could you please explain why you have blocked / banned user ? I see nothing in his edit history that would merit such ban, yet you claim he is "clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia." The only fault I can see is joining an edit war whether to include the Donetsk People's Republic in Template:States with limited recognition. Three reverts does not call for an indefinite block. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That account has made 28 edits, almost all of them to push a POV, including tag-team edit-warring at the template you mention. That alone is enough for an indef to my mind, but I also have very good reason to believe that the account is a sockpuppet, which pretty much grounds for an automatic indef. There's a link to the SPI in the thread above. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! That's very kind. I have some help with the edit summaries—User:Steel359/Protection js makes those sorts of things a bit quicker. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh my, that is a lovely script. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is. It really ought to be better documented. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just going through MfD today, and was disappointed I couldn't find a script similar to AfD Close to use on it. That would be nice. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is one, but I don't have much to do with MfD. It might be one of Mr Z man's, so you could ask him or one o the regulars at MfD. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I got one to work, but it is pretty finicky. I have to open the discussion from the main MfD page (not from the page itself), and it doesn't delete the page automatically like close AfD does.  It only adds the templates a discussion you are editing, and you have to save it manually.  It is still better than typing in the templates manually.  Took a while to get it to work for me though. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How odd. You could see if anyone at VPT could make something better; it can't be that hard for someone clever to base something on the AfD script. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello HJ, You blocked this ip about a week ago for edit warring at List of fast food restaurant chains, as soon as his block expired he was at it again restoring his deleted content. Could you look into this again? Also, was making the exact same changes while the other one was blocked. Possibly a sock account. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeremy, thanks for bringing this tom attention. I've blocked both IPs for a month. If problems continue, let me know—semi-protection may be necessary. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough
A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimea/Ukraine articles
Hi HJ. In the message you left on my talk page (here), you explained your reasoning for not protecting the relevant articles. As my response there indicates I don't share your opinion, but I understand where you're coming from. In that comment you also said "I'd really like to avoid protecting them for the duration if that can be avoided, but if you keep bringing issues to my attention, I'll do my utmost to make your life easier". So this is the "bring the issues to your attention" on my part. See this 3RR request filed by User:Kudzu1. It's sort of gone past "lots of disruptive anon IPs" causing trouble on these pages, to pretty much full blown sock puppetry and abuse of multiple accounts by at least - though likely, more - one person. So. How can my life be made easier? SPI? I already filed one, on one sock master (though that's probably a different person) and some other users have filed others (for example ). The problem is - and notice that a CU has not even gotten around to the SPI I filed - that by the time the CUs get around to considering these cases, the person(s) behind these accounts have already thrown them away and moved onto new SPAs which keep doing the same thing. Not sure what the best course of action here is but it's helluva frustrating trying to deal with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ouch. That's a bit of tricky one. Widewindow has been blocked by another admin; if (or presumably when) they come back and start again, they'll probably be indef'd. The area seems to be littered with SPAs (I indef'd Membrane-biologist and his sockfarm the other day), but connecting the dots is tricky and they don't seem to stick to any one article. The only thing I can suggest is creating a subpage somewhere that lists all the sets of accounts an IPs you can find that are clearly one person. Then people can analyse it, I'll indef any obvious socks, and a rangeblock might be feasible or we can look at semi-protecting some of their favourite targets. If nothing else, it might give us an idea of whether we're dealing with one sockmaster or several and we can establish a pattern for people to look out for. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Socratic Barnstar

 * I'm not sure it's especially Socratic, but thanks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, your 'prediction' based on keen sense of logic has just been fulfilled. I was actually wondering how he might reply to you, because you posted a real honest message. And he actually replied in the way to confirm everything as you have stated. I like the way you are giving him chances, one after another, but it seems all in vain. In my opinion, by now he is a hopeless case, and that is an opinion of a several other editors. I, and it seems at least several other editors really appreciate that you have blocked him for there is finally some peace. Dmatteng (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Problematic IP user
Hello, I believe that The Beach Boys edits by IP user 108.12.150.215 constitute a gross violation of BLP. I suggest hiding them from view. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're "grossly offensive, insulting, or degrading"—note the "grossly" bit. RevDel is supposed to be reserved for really nasty libel and other things so potentially harmful that reverting and blocking is insufficient.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. Blocking vandals is one of the more satisfying parts of the job! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Page protection
Hello HJ! First, I'd like to say a big thanks for adding protection to Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It makes working on those page more about productive expansion than consistently reverting vandals. Second, I'd like to ask you to take a look over at The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and possibly add some protections there as well. Another superhero film and show, another page for the vandals to go to. Just as a note, the United States release for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is May 2, so if you deem fit, and the protection for that page could cover that date, and time after it, that would be much appreciated. Once again, thanks for the other two protections, and an early thanks if you add some to ASM 2 and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I protected ASM2 for six weeks, by which time it should be out of the headlines (must go and see that; not least for the excellent Emma Stone!), and Agents of SHIELD for a month. Let me know if you get more problems with them and I'll take another look. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I will be sure to take you up on that. The Marvel film-related pages always draw vandal traffic, so it is constantly an issue, especially around their release dates (or in the case of SHIELD, after an episode airs). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can imagine—they're the sorts of things that come up at RfPP quite frequently. Thankfully, most of it seems to be fancruft and fairly juvenile stuff, which is just a pain in the arse, rather than anything really malicious. But drop me a line if (or when, I suppose) you get more problems. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thank you again! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Module talk:Location map/data/Alps/attribution‎
Can you blank Module talk:Location map/data/Alps/attribution‎? A bot got to it before you did and now it's stuck in several incorrect categories. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Help
Hello, please help me, I'm out of options, The city of Aleppo was conquered by an old king Naram-Sin, he mentioned Armani and I linked Armani to its article which I created Armani (kingdom), yet this IP user insist on adding Armenians which is confusing to the readers, Armani was a kingdom and Armenians are a People not mentioned by Naram-Sin and adding them is really Out of context !!! I asked several times for a reliable source that Naram-Sin conquered Armenians, but the IP doesn't give any and doesnt engage in a discussion, every time I revert him, I beg him to discuss on the talk page but he refuse, Im asking for a source and he doesn't give any, I beg for a discussion and he refuse, I created an article for that city (Armani) and mentioned that it might be connected to Armenia and that's not enough for him, I left him a message begging him to engage in a discussion or explain his edits but he refused, please look at my messages to him on : User talk:166.137.210.22, User talk:198.228.216.46 , User talk:198.228.216.17 and User talk:66.214.143.69, I was told to talk to him twice but I asked him to talk for 2 days to no avail , what else can I do ???? please read the section and decide if his Edit is useful Aleppo, what can I do ???? even Armenian articles doesn't mention Naram-Sin conquering Armenians !!!! I dont want to edit war and get blocked, look at the articles I created or rewritten Yamhad, Ebla, Palistin, List of rulers of Aleppo, Luhuti, Armi (Syria)..etc, I Have a lot to contribute but these edits by the IP is disruptive and he doesnt want to talk,, please give me a way to make him discuss !!! or to make him provide a source or to stop him, sorry if I made you Upset by coming to you like this, but Im really out of options--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've fully protected it for 48 hours. Hopefully that will be the incentive the IP needs to go to the talk page. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks you are a savior, really appreciate it--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

SPI and RPP
Thank you for your prompt action re: Taft School. John from Idegon (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hadn't seen the SPI, but I saw the obvious sock-puppets and indef'd them. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism at United States Marine Corps rank insignia article
Vandalism has occurred twice again since you commented on the MilHist talk page. The vandalism is identical word for word with the IP vandal but this time it belongs to new registered User:Jarhead4Life. Warnings have been put on User talk:Jarhead4Life first by User:ClueBot NG and then by User:Ducknish. Now what? Same person keeps doing exactly the same vandalism word for word. Thanks for your help, anything would be appreciated. Cheers. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indef'd. If it turns into a game of whack-a-mole, I'll think about semi-protection, but let me know if you have more problems. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you...I have a feeling he will be back sooner or later. Thanks for your prompt reply... Cuprum17 (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Silk (BBC One).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Silk (BBC One).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been replaced, so I've deleted it under G7. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Request
Could you please reconsider article protection for Hokusai? It is because of the erotic picture in the article, and it was not only today and not only this IP that was blocked today. Hafspajen (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
 * I did consider it quite carefully the fist time round, but I've double checked. 216.126.81.149 was the only problematic editor today; excluding 216.126.81.149 and editors reverting them, the last edit was three weeks ago, so I don't think protection is necessary, but I will of course reconsider if circumstances change. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we hope for the best. Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Making OTRS human.
Good morning young man. There is a empty glass on the table- awaiting your visit. How do you rate the NHS (stub, Start, C, B- or still pending?)

To business, can you have a look at this page and give your OTRS opiniion. Does it have all the detail OTRS needs to give the donated text a thumbs up.

Martin of Sheffield sent me a poke regarding a young man who had asked a webmaster friend if he could copy a chunk of the website onto a Wikipedia page. He did, and Martin just wanted a simple way to get Wikipedia approval. We ought to be able give him the correct text to make official I thought. I have spent the weekend playing Dungeons and Dragons with the official OTRS pages- they make Stalin's and the STASI look like a bunch of pussy cats. The language is a direct cut & paste from the Old Testament (/rant)

I think I said in Manchester that we needed some simple A6 cards, like the creative commons one, to encourage new people to get involved and to signal that the text & photographs on their websites was CC-BY-SA- and they would like WP to use it. So here we have a practical example of that almost happening.


 * I have C&P ed the available text and customised- but does it hit all the points on your OTRS checklist? Can we point the young man at the page and let him get his friend to fill in the blanks.
 * Is the format right?
 * What have I missed?

Then -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How can we extend this into a Smartphone app? That will take some backend work
 * Then what about a OTRS Tutorial for humans?
 * Can we make the OTRS pages more encouraging, and less threatening?
 * Hi Clem! Still pending wrt our beloved NHS; perhaps they're waiting for the Tories to privatise them completely. I'm already being seen by a private company that runs part of the hospital "under contract" from the NHS. I'll get back to you wrt OTRS when I have a bit more time. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Banner
Would it be possible to remove user talk page editing access of user:The Banner? Even while being blocked he is still trying to push his agenda using his talk page and the way he is "trying to get specifics of his ban" clearly shows that it would be best if he remains blocked for a long time. (Considering that his behavior haven't changed neither after first one-week block nor after the second indefinite block.) Dmatteng (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He's not doing anything really egregious, and it is his talk page. I'm inclined to leave him with his talk page unless it starts causing serious disruption. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He is engaged in revenge editing. Insulting/accusing and he creates and intentionally escalates wiki-struggles. Most importantly, he is not in any way towards constructive work. For example, I have offered him to improve UE Boom article, and he declined. But he is fighting to put advert tag, clearly as a 'bad badge'. He has been and is attacking me, as well as other editors, but especially me, because my message about his disruptive behavior led to his block. By posting inflammatory messages as: "potential explosive cases" he provokes other editors. The UE Boom article has been reviewed by experienced editors and admins and no one has noted "explosive" issues.
 * I see that if he continues to have access to his talk page, it will lead to even more disruption with even more editors involved. His 'pretentious childishness' while 'asking' for specifics of his ban "to swim in Olympic pool or ocean", etc; shows that he is playing with his block and indirectly ridicules you by mocking. He also said: "And you just not willing to listen or inform yourself."; "I am powerless against your unwillingness and one-sidedness." (that is to accuse you.) Actually he accuses virtually everyone with whom he disagrees.
 * DP said: "I'm suggesting you propose something that will keep you sane" and he has got a point here about 'being sane'.
 * You have said: "wikilawyering over the definition of "parish" makes me inclined to think you're deliberately missing the point," and I absolutely agree with you.
 * Editor DP, who has been supporting him significantly in the past, has also seen enough. "You kinda went renegade on us."; etc. Dmatteng (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh, I've blocked a lot of people, and they rarely take kindly to it. That gives you a pretty thick skin. He's not really attacking anyone directly (in fact he's only made a few edits in recent days), and I think he knows that sooner or later he's going to have to drop it if he wants to be unblocked. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I really wish he would drop disrupting behavior, and he was given numerous chances, yet returned to the very same behavior. I have tried to be nice to him, yet got insulted in return. In my opinion he is an absolutely hopeless case, and he has drained too much of other editor's time and nerves. I'll ask other involved editors to post here their opinion. Dmatteng (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I just stay away from his talk page and try not to comment there. If you don't comment there he's unlikely to either...But his comments about taking articles off of his watchlist with "complete errors" or whatever he said indicates that he clearly hasn't learned his lesson. There are no errors in placing civil parish and village in one article so long as you distinguish between the two.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my place as an admin to take sides on the content issue. I can only assess whether an editor is behaving disruptively and act accordingly. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I, for one, agree that there's no need to remove talkpage access at this time. Indeed, we're working rather hard to come up with a solution that will see The Banner return to the fold as quickly as possible, while providing protective restrictions as needed.  It's pretty offensive to suggest removing that ability.  Yes, they don't seem to "get it" 100% yet, but I believe they will - I typically have faith in humankind  ES  &#38;L  11:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you just ping me to leave Banner's talk page alone when I just said "I just stay away from his talk page and try not to comment there. If you don't comment there he's unlikely to either..." I only replied in the first instance on his talk page because he was making claims about errors and conduct which wasn't true. I wasn't even aware of the recent events with Dmatteng and only read what had happened after he alerted me to it. I don't watch Banner's talk page or have a habit of regularly reading his comments there. You should know me better than that HJ. Sometimes in trying to be a neutral admin you do things which can be a bit irritating.I know as much as you do when it's best to leave somebody alone and get on with doing something..♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was meant primarily for Dmatteng, but I included you because you'd responded to his request on your talk page. As I'm sure you know (but Dmatteng needs reminding), the best thing now is for both parties to keep their distance and let things work themselves out. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dmatteng asked me to comment. I don't care what the Banner says on his talk page - it is not on my watch list. I see no reason to stop him posting talk page comments as long as there is nothing that would get Wikipedia in trouble if we left it there, like libel or copyright violations. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Per suggestion of HJ Mitchell (and even prior to his suggestion) I'm ready, and even more, will be happy to leave The Banner alone. I would appreciate if HJ Mitchell would advise The Banner to remove all mentions about me and the article UE Boom from his talk page, and to refrain from editing the same pages with me in the future. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)