User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 88

Just blocked user Apex Horizon
Hello. There's a lot of clean-up needed after them, both revdel'ing (almost all edits are grossly insulting edits on BLPs) and deletion of insulting redirects. Thomas.W talk 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it now. Joy of joys. Just how I like to spend my weekend! FFS. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to see the end of that little drama. BTW, I mentioned it at WP:ANI without realising someone had done the same here, so that debate will need to be closed. This is Paul (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've closed the ANI-report. And thanks for both the block and the clean-up! Thomas.W talk 19:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. Just for the record, ANI was absolutely the right course of action (even with a simultaneous AIV report). A case like that qualifies as an emergency, and you need admin eyes fast. The mess can be cleaned up and the dots connected later—the priority is to get this maniac blocked. If you come across him again, please do alert me here or by email (as well as using every other method you can think of to attract the attention of any passing admin if I'm offline). Oh, and next time you hear somebody say we have too many admins or something else derogatory to admins in general, spare a thought for the half an hour I'll never get back for cleaning up that mess! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd make you aware of in case you hadn't come across the account yet. This edit undid my reversion of something Apex Horizon had done the previous day. I don't know enough about the topic to know if the change was done in good faith, but his other edits seem to be reasonably ok and nothing's happened on the account since Sunday. I'm probably being over-cautious and it may just be a coincidence, but thought it could be worth keeping an eye on. This is Paul (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Paul. They seem to actually have an interest in the subject area, so they could be legit. They're not posting obscene misogyny all over the place, so I'll err on the side of caution for the time being. If they become disruptive, it'll be caught quickly; if not I suppose it's a moot point. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello all. For the record, I'm unable to comment on the edits posted by Apex Horizon since all appear to be inaccessible. The contribution as related by This is Paul is definitely not vandalism - which is strange I know. Could an innocent account have been hijacked by someone nearby? Could the password have come automatically at the station? I don't know the answer but just to go on topic for everybody's information. Ethnic Cleansing is a term that generally refers to a land in that certain groups may be expelled from it. Sometimes the victims are the "object" of the verb but that tends to be incorrect, moreover insulting to the same individuals when they realise what they are saying about themselves. Surprisingly, it was coined as a euphemism. If I were to say my own expulsion from a certain land was the result of "cleansing" then I am inadvertently acceding to the perpetrator's claim that my people were that for which the land needed to be "sterilized". Cleanse means deep-clean. Either way, there we all go and I hope there will be no problems on this subject. Anyone is free to write on my talk page for further discussion. Inspector Don (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping by. Paul was just wondering whether you might be the same person as Apex Horizon (because you undid Paul's revert of Apex Horizon's edit), but it seems you're not, so there's nothing to worry about. You won't be able to see Apex Horizon's other edits because I've Revision Deleted them as grossly offensive. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, looks like it was him after all. This is Paul (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well they evidently weren't who they said they were. I've asked the blocking admin whether they were related to our friend. My gut tells me this goes further back than Apex Horizon/3AM XXX. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Avalon: talk page
Hello HJ Mitchell, thanks for page-protecting Avalon; is it not policy to protect article talk pages? because the edit war is still raging there Noyster  (talk),  20:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's generally against policy to protect the talk page (and the RfPP request, btw, was explicitly for the article, not the talk page; you need to use lt instead of la or talk pages). But as it happens, it's a moot point as I've just indef'd one of the parties to the edit war. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sweet Xeper has a sockpuppet at IP 151.34.39.154 and the edit war is continuing. Cagwinn (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * has blocked the IP. If they come back again we can look at other methods. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User rights
HJ, on 15 June 2010 you kindly updated the user rights on my NSH001 account. I wonder if you could now apply the same rights to my NSH002 account, please? Fortunately vandalism seems to be quite rare nowadays on my watchlist, but it still happens occasionally (as it did today), so it would be useful to have rollback on NSH002; and if I need to mass-revert vandalism, then NSH002 is the more appropriate account for that purpose. I'm very unlikely to create new articles from NSH002, but templates, categories and redirects are a different matter.

Many thanks for your help (and your admin work in general).

--NSH002 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

AE discussion still going on
At WP:AE the editor has been asking more questions. Since you imposed the original blocks, do you want to respond? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My round

 * Ya got anything stronger? ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Next time I'm in the kingdom, it's my shout. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Now that you're back, there was a request here from User:NSH002 that was posted here and archived while you were gone. Welcome back, by the way. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, get back to work ;) You will have about 3 doubles and three pints lined up when you're back to the table by my timing, and arguably Kudpungs'...Irondome (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And done. Thanks gents. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and thanks also to Richard for the reminder (I'd have waited a coupla days to allow HJ some recovery before reminding him...) --NSH002 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nostradamus troll is back!
.. and about to cause chaos on the Nostradamus Talk page as before (see my reversion). I think a permanent block is called for, as he's obviously incurable! Could you possibly oblige, please?

Best --PL (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 72.10.152.0/21 for a fortnight. IP addresses change periodically (and this loony appears to have access to quite a few ranges), so blocking them permanently is not a good idea (and wouldn't do much good anyway). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

How did the Abortion debate eventually get resolved?
Hello, I was going through some old ArbCom cases in which ArbCom actually tried to solve a content dispute. This is clearly VERY rare and I could only find 2 cases: Ireland article names in 2009 and Abortion in 2011. I looked at Requests_for_comment/Abortion_article_titles, and I saw you were assigned as one of the closing admins for the community wide binding RfC. But it doesn't look like it ever closed. I'm just wondering how everything resolved itself afterwords. --Obsidi (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC) (I'm not really looking for what the result was, but how the community got there)--Obsidi (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nostradamus troll
Thanks, HJ, for blocking troll 72.10.154.213 on the Nostradamus Talk page. I appreciate your point about changing IPAs. However, unfortunately he's already back -- NOW ON THE MAIN PAGE, and causing chaos, as expected. He's very determined! Could you please extend your (enhanced) protection to that as well?

Best --PL (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I second PL's views! His views are not just insulting, but potentially highly misleading. It compromises the credibilty of the page. Smithsurf (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page for six months. That should go some way to solving the problem. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that HJ. THere are a lot of people who will be relieved -- until May, at any rate! :(

--PL (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What?
I assume you were joking with that edit summary, but it's hard to leave that alone. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just coming here to say the same thing. While I have to agree we have lost a valued contributor, that was a bit over the top. I think all concerned have overreacted just a little bit too much here. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've e-mailed him. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Mitch, I should agree. The edit summary was not fair to editors. I've known you for so long, but don't recall you losing your cool like this. Anyway, am around, so ping me if you wish anything.  Wifione  Message 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely and wholeheartedly agree with every word of that edit summary. LHMask me a question 17:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody please explain this to me: if we have to be nice to the trolls, but we drive away our most dedicated editors in repugnant displays of contempt for their contributions, how have the trolls not won? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thomas' retirement was a surprise to me. I was in the neutral, but the opposes didn't seem harsh to me. That's coming from an editor that feels that RfA is a horribly broken process, the problem being harsh opposes. Like I said, it was a very big surprise. I don't know why it had to end that way. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fairly clear to me. If you'd spent several years doing dirty jobs and getting abuse from trolls/vandals/POV pushers/sockpuppets/long-term abusers, and then asked for more tools to make your life (and everyone else's life) easier, only to have scorn poured on the request, for the most part by people who have no idea what they're talking about (look at the number of experienced admins who deal with that kind of abuse on a daily basis in the support section; I don't see any in the oppose section), you'd be pissed off. And you don't answer my question. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If he retired from this, then how could he handle adminship? You're twisting things around here IMO. We block trolls and vandals, which keeps them away, we do not insult them. Is blocking trolls and vandals not enough to satisfy your wants? Thomas retired on his own free will, no one tore him down as far as I can see. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 18:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, gorgeous--the old "well, if failing an RFA caused him to retire, how could he handle adminship" BS. Just beautiful. Well done. LHMask me a question 18:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see some RfAs would cause them to retire, but not this one. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 18:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Except it did, because people were basically piling on TW for being too "mean" to vandals and trolls, and he finally had enough of that nonsense. LHMask me a question 18:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This keeps going in circles. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. I see no point in you and me arguing anymore. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm "paying attention" to what you're saying. What you're saying is just really inane. LHMask me a question 19:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do people feel they have to be "mean" to anyone? Isn't that what trolls want? I didn't see much contempt for Thomas W.'s contributions; I saw legitimate criticism about his demeanor, which both you and him did not take very well at all.- MrX 18:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any "mean"ness in the diffs there. I see nitpicking of an excellent candidate who would have been much more useful to the project as an admin, and a few terse comments to people who wouldn't have understood anything else. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I found my own failed RfA to be quite disheartening and it put me off for a few days. Admins who I'd never worked with were digging through my edit history to find examples of my failures, instead of looking at the greater benefits (like a lighter workload) that my participation would bring. Meanwhile, the admins I was most familiar with weren't commenting and I couldn't ask them to per WP:CANVASSING. I thought adminship was more of a trust issue, which I felt was something I could easily demonstrate as having earned, but nope. The community found fault with my AfD noms up to that point, and assumed that rather than realizing my shortcomings and improving, that I would continue to make the same mistakes. At the time that felt like the opposite of AGF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's some gravestomping from one of the winning trolls: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mitch, for what it's worth, I agree with you and I regret not having supported Thomas while it was still possible. Guess I should now wait patiently for the "cops" to catch me. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didnt vote because I had no time to research, and I learned early on from User:Kudpung dont vote if you do not know the background. Its premature closure and the loss of Thomas is a bad blow to WP. The reason things are not worse than they are here is precisely due to the behind-the-scenes work of Thomas and others. I understand Harry's frustration. Irondome (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * While I do not agree with how the edit summary was worded, I do agree with the concept behind it... -- Biblio worm  20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Me & HJ at times haven't seen eye to eye on things... But I completely understand why he said it ... You nominate someone and it all goes tits up and then that editor leaves... it's bound cause upset, I guess not all RFA's go smoothly and it's a shame but unfortunately it's life. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  20:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The RfA process is really good at "straining out the nats but swallowing camels". I remember a few years back, I had noticed a fairly new editor who made some problematic edits that I reverted. I don't remember exactly what the edits were, but it was certainly unproductive. A few weeks later, much to my surprise, I found out that they had been made an admin, and I hadn't even known the user had made an RfA. I only found out about it after the user had been caught bragging off-wiki that they were a vandal who had been approved for adminship!! - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think both Thomas and Harry may have overreacted slightly, but in a perfectly understandable way. It's a lose–lose situation, as RfA's reputation will take yet another hit. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thomas isn't the first editor to quit after an RfA this year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, I supported Thomas and still would. At the same time, the edit summary in closing that RFA is exactly the type of activity that the opposers were concerned would happen by Thomas himself.  I don't see humor in it, but I do find it ironic, and worthy of note.  Dennis - 2&cent; 03:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * HJ, I for one found your hypocritical edit summary very amusing. Keep the entertainment coming. Townlake (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ...really? --Richard Yin (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell called everyone who voted against his candidate "you fucking morons." His message in this thread to the opposers, many of whom are longtime respected contributors to this project, is that by opposing certain candidates on civility grounds "we drive away our most dedicated editors in repugnant displays of contempt for their contributions." Of course, he's displaying severe blanket contempt for the "Oppose" RFA contributors with his "you fucking morons" statement. If you can't see the humor in HJ's approach here, that's unfortunate. Townlake (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That was stress. HJ works very hard, is one of our best admins. Non admins I think often don't fully grasp the pressures of admin work, which often goes unseen by the community at large. Let us just move on, and not alienate a fundamentally decent person. We already lost one yesterday. Let's empathise a bit more.No man is an island kind of thing. Irondome (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And he was right. Opposing on "civility" grounds is very rarely legitimate. Unless someone is just a complete hot-tempered jagoff (which Thomas is not) "civility" is a stupid reason to oppose. LHMask me a question 19:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have your opinion, I have mine. Shrug. Notice that I'm not going to resort to profane name-calling because we disagree. Too bad HJ can't model a similar example. Townlake (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet, you felt it necessary to troll HJM in your post just up this thread. But the fact that you didn't use any profanity makes it all better, right? LHMask me a question 20:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Who's trolling? He obviously wanted to get attention and a reaction. Wish granted! Townlake (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You were, and obviously so. Trolling an upset editor is far worse than using profanity, in my view. Give me HJ Mitchell's approach over Townlake's any day. LHMask me a question 21:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You were, and obviously so. Trolling an upset editor is far worse than using profanity, in my view. Give me HJ Mitchell's approach over Townlake's any day. LHMask me a question 21:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit summaries were completely out of line. It does not matter what the motivation was. It does not matter if you were right, and all 28 people who opposed in the RfA are the " " you called them. Your behavior is completely out of line. "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." I haven't looked, but based on comments by others this appears to be an isolated event. I hope so, and I hope it remains that way. Permanently. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft is right. And IMO Townlake and HJ have both acted inappropriately (I wouldn't go as far to call Townlake's behavior "trolling" though). Don't make me choose which user acted better. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 22:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Townlake's post was obvious trolling. Not even a close call. And HJM was simply noting that the ducks had quacked in his edit summary. LHMask me a question 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We both have our opinions. But calling a huge group of respectable opposers (not that less-respectable users deserve this either) "F****** morons" is far from a "simple note". HJ hasn't admitted has has done wrong (using Thomas' retirement as an excuse for his now blatant and IMO serious personal attack). Not what I was expecting from him. (I even assumed that his edit summary was a joke at first.) -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But note, it was only an ill-advised edit summary, which would have passed unnoticed by most if people hadn't drawn attention to it. That said, we don't want a myth to grow up that 28 mostly intelligent, reasonable people got led astray by some troll. Quite a lot of other instances were quickly identified that were a lot more telling than the one flagged by the IP. This RfA would certainly have gone the same way regardless of the IP's intervention Noyster  (talk),  13:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that's exactly what happened. You lot put more weight on that troll's "concerns" than you did on Thomas's fine work battling trolls like that. Because of it, WP has lost not only a potentially good admin, but also a fine editor. And that's on you people, so you might as well just own it. LHMask me a question 16:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet you're totally cool with HJ calling me a "fucking moron" because I committed the cardinal offense of disagreeing with him about someone's RFA. Because HJ calling his fellow volunteers "fucking morons" totally encourages us volunteers to agree with HJ in the future and keep working with HJ, shoulder to shoulder. Right? Townlake (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RFA2011 didn't bring about any physical changes to the current process but together with Wales labelling RfA 'a horrible and broken process', it did sent a clear message to the voters, hence for the past year or so it is far less of a bloodbath than it used to be. That roughly concurs with your relative semi-retirement from Wikipedia, . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I took some time away. Thanks for noticing. I would love to continue chatting about this with you, Kudpung, it's always interesting given our different perspectives on the world. Alas, I'm about to head offline for a few days and must now wrap some things up. Be well. Townlake (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the "fucking morons" remark. That was unnecessary and uncalled for. I recognise that the opposers were acting in good faith and that some of them actually put considerable thought into their comments. I pushed Tom to run (this was unusual in that I approached him about the idea, rather than the other way around as has been the case in most of my nominations) and I was very upset to see the RfA go so badly. I don't pretend to understand the majority of the "civility" opposes (and yes, you most certainly were led astray by a troll—I would bet good money that the IP who posted that question is the same serial troll Tom and I had been dealing with the week before the RfA, requiring a great deal of time and dozens of revision deletions) and I still believe that Tom would have been an outstanding admin. As can be seen, I took a few days away from Wikipedia. I'd probably spent a bit too much time on Wikipedia, and particularly in project space, prior to the RfA, and I needed to regain perspective and focus on other areas of life. Of course, none of this excuses the remark, but I hope it will be seen as mitigation. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Harry :) Irondome (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And thanks for being supportive. We don't do the things we do to earn appreciation, but it doesn't hurt. If you're ever up north, I'll buy you a pint. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Harry, you're the one that deserves a pint. I've bought you a few already and I'll be more than happy to buy you a few more. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take you up on that next time you're in Blighty! You've got my number. ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A sincere apology would have been much shorter. You shouldn't have used your "apology" to take yet another shot at the stupidity of the opposers. Townlake (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And where is your attitude going to take this discussion? Don't start another big argument that ends in a few of us taking Wikibreaks. AGF, and assume that Harry's apology was sincere. Who are you to say "A sincere apology would have been much shorter."? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to apologize for something, it's better to just apologize and then stop. "I screwed up and learned something" is generally better received than "I screwed up but I had a good reason and you guys were led astray." This is good advice for real life, not just Wikipedia; HJ Mitchell is welcome to take it or leave it. He does a lot of good and valuable work around here, and this unfortunate incident does not define who he is in my eyes. I want him to be successful in all his online and offline endeavors. And with that, I take my leave from this discussion. Townlake (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Range Block query
Hi HJ!

I'm coming here with a range block query, raised a request to AIV tonight to request that an IP is blocked because they have been constantly posting on Jimbo's talk page asking him to review some ban that they've been put under. Now, from what I can find out, this is a sockpuppetry ban not an ArbCom one so correct place to request an unblock is on their talk page of the banned account. Instead, they are IP hopping, refusing to listen to reason and only willing to post an unblock request on Jimbo's talk page. I've blocked all the IPs I can find and semi-protected Jimbo's talk page for a few hours, however my concern is that in a few hours they will simply go back to Jimbo's page and start again with a new IP. Would you be able to do anything like a range block? The range of IPs seems to be anything from 31.192.84.101 to 109.81.209.62.--5 albert square (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at this, that is a massive range; To block all those will cause massive collateral. Of course, my calculations may be off, but even if so, to my eye it looks like a massive range. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  18:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've chatted to 5 albert square off-wiki and explained the impracticalities (even if it were possible without blocking mos of the Internet, the software wouldn't allow a block that big). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a massive range: more than one-quarter of all IPv4 addresses that can possibly exist. To get all those on a single rangeblock would in fact knock out half the Internet - all the way from 0.0.0.0 to 127.255.255.255 - so it would need to be several smaller ranges, such as 31.192.0.0 to 31.255.255.255; 32.0.0.0 to 63.255.255.255; 64.0.0.0 to 95.255.255.255; 96.0.0.0 to 111.255.255.255, which is simply impractical. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I must admit I didn't think a range block would be possible, however as I don't have much range block experience, I thought that there was no harm in asking. The IPs certainly caused a lot of damage to his talk page.  As soon as I blocked one, another appeared!--5 albert square (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PROD Deletion
Hi, I would like to ask your help to delete these articles which were WP:PROD'ed because of failing WP:GNG. Hansamu Yama Pranata, Paulo Sitanggang and Utam Rusdiana. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure somebody will get to it sooner or later. Although I used to clean out expired PRODS a few years ago, these days I don't generally do much deletion, except in urgent cases (and PRODs by definition aren't urgent). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:JRoc123.
Deserves a talk page block. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1RR Nag
Hi, You expressed an intention to reply but was busy with other stuff, I'll try once gain in case it really interested you and you weren't just being polite.

I have the idea to redefine the 1RR limitation to essensially say "do not commit an edit that was already done in the last 24 hours". This would handle the following situations better than current definition:


 * A user re-applying their own controversial edit that was reverted by someone else, violating BRD. Now re-applying would be performing the same edit and would violate 1RR. Instead the user who did the original edit would have to use the talk page to reach consensus on restoring the edit.
 * Group revert war. N users performing an edit, while M other users undoing the edit, each doing it only once per day and not violating current 1RR. The outcome is determined by relative sizes of N and M. With the new definition, the first one of the N users would perform the edit, then the first of the M users would revert it, and the next of the N users would not re-apply the change since it would violate the rule. Instead all N+M would be forced to discuss the merits of the edit.

It will not handle a situation of WP:OWN, an editor that reverts any edit that any other editor performs on "their" article, since each revert would be a unique edit not done in the last 24 hours. With the new rule the other editors would be unable to re-submit their edits. To overcome this, a part of the existing definition of 1RR should remain in power ("also, do not undo large part of other's recent edits more than once in 24 hours without reaching consensus"). &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Stalking and interested) WK, why don't you take it to village pump proposals? It would be a great forum for discussion. Its a complex and stressful area, and I've read your proposal several times. I think it's too complex a concept for one ed, admin or not to answer in one definitive "authoritative" post. It needs a much bigger forum than a mere talk page. I think if you refined the wording, made it out as a case, it would attract comment in the community, and you would get some seriously good debate.I'm willing to help out on wording. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in responding. I sort of agree with your idea, but I'd prefer to go with something even simpler, especially in controversial areas like the Arab-Israeli conflict: I'd like to see a blanket prohibition on reverting a revert without talk page discussion, regardless of whether it was you or somebody else who made the original revert. It would deter a significant amount of the socking that happens in the ARBPIA area and it would prevent (or make sanctionable) attempts to game the 1RR by tag-teaming. I've sanctioned people for tag-teaming before, but it's much easier to enforce bright-line rules. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it amounts to the same thing: not re-applying an edit already done is the same as not un-reverting it. Maybe you can add your opinion at the vilage pump. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC for user conduct
Just thought of informing you, you had previously closed RFC about Middayexpress.

An RFC was created some days or probably 1 week ago, see Requests for comment/Ryulong 3. I think that it was not really listed anywhere, thus no outcome. What you can do? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was created more than two days ago, but has only one editor, and has not been certified (see WP:RFC/U), so it is eligible for speedy deletion. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And it was field by an SPA who has made 0 edits elsewhere. I've deleted it and blocked the SPA. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Admins
I happened to notice your comment at the discussion. While I don't really have any view to oppose him becoming an admin (RFA or there), I can't quite say the same about arbcom resysopping admins at this time when there is no acceptance that the previous arbcom case was mishandled or fatally flawed. If there was a community desysop system or if arbcom was the only way to appoint admins, I would not be concerned about arbcom resysopping in practice. Though maybe the obvious solution is having a better/alternate appointment system by the community (as it is probably futile attempting to circumvent it in the long run).

Personally, I wish a decent proposal was made which would change the system for the betterment of the project or so that the project can benefit from what many individuals have to offer (rather than, as is the case here, how the project can benefit from a single individual alone). But that would probably involve someone taking the time to set up the relevant RfCs properly (in a way which won't be shot down like the previous ones but will take into account the good points from previous ones), and working through each of the RfCs. Maybe you know someone who can? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you please partially self revert?
this edit only the bottom section regarding the long term contributors globally site banned? Tutelary (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you really think there's something to be achieved, other than indulging the troll (hint: the only people who post on Wales' talk page through open proxies are people who have been banned for years of abuse and trolling), then you can by all means ask a question in your own words, but I'm not inclined to revert unless Wales, as the 'owner' of the talk page, wishes it restored. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But I can't really restore other people's words, specifically the response by someone by WMF. Without his response, the IPs' wouldn't make sense. Plus if I were to ask again, it would lose the value of that WMF comment since I couldn't copy and paste his reply as a response to my original question. Tutelary (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely reluctant. I have very little time for these long-term sockpuppeteers because they cause masses of drama and disruption and contribute absolutely nothing to the encyclopaedia. I'm sure you've seen your fair share of them given your involvement with the Gamergate article. Is there something you feel would be achieved by restoring the thread in the light of Philippe's comment? I'm not necessarily keen on on the party line of "it's a secret and the reason it's a secret is a secret" either, but neither Wales nor the WMF are going to elaborate. There's almost certainly a very good reason for that, and I can't imagine the WMF (given how reluctant they are to get involved in the day-to-day running of the place) would take such action lightly. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Move help
Hi HJ. Hope you have been well. Requesting some help with a move. May you please move Draft:A.K.A. Jessica Jones to A.K.A. Jessica Jones? I created a redirect at the article, and my three edits made it so I could not do the move myself. Editors have reached consensus that we are ready to move into the mainspace. Thank you! And as a side note, thank you for the protection to Captain America: Civil War. That is also much appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. And done. Always happy to help. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Who's thick now?
me. Some times you have to know when to throw in the towel, call it a day, and go for a pint. That time is now. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wouldn't worry. I must have clicked the link half a dozen times trying to work out what was wrong, and even tried to go directly to the block log before I worked out why it wasn't working! ! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not worried, I'm relieved. Because, beer.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you have got me thinking of drink now!--5 albert square (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

blocking question
Hi. I noticed this edit. If you block someone indefinitely, what's to stop them from simply creating another user account? An in the same vein, if you block a user's alternate account, what's to stop that user from simply creating another? I suppose Wikipedia could do some sort of IP logging, but most people (AFAIK) don't have the same IP address for very long. Not to mention the use of multiple devices. I always wondered about this. Because if I were the devious sort, I could operate multiple accounts and sometimes even edit war with myself. – JBarta (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. Was just looking at a sockpuppet investigation. I guess I could get away with quite a lot as long as I was careful how I edited. – JBarta (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going to type a philosophical reply about why creating a new account that has no behavioural connection to the old one and doesn't do anything disruptive isn't really a problem (and sort of defeats the point of socking). What I will say is that it's almost always behaviour that trips sockpuppets up—more often than not, they give themselves away, or they do something to arouse suspicion. And once somebody makes the connection, technical evidence in most cases can pretty conclusively link two accounts together. It's pretty easy to change your IP address, but the server actually records quite a lot of information besides the IP, and there are some things you'd have to go to quite some lengths to change. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "but the server actually records quite a lot of information besides the IP, and there are some things you'd have to go to quite some lengths to change" What information besides the IP and what things need to be changed? Does Wikipedia reveal the methods and tactics used in this area? Dumb question maybe, but I'll ask anyway. – JBarta (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can guess a few: cookies, OS and browser versions/languages/resolutions, average activity hours for each day of the week, word choice. The way you click through links and type also probably has an identifyable pattern. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So if you're guessing, I'm guessing you're not aware of anything like WP:THIS_IS_HOW_WE_CATCH_YOU? I know it sounds like a stupid question, but I don't mind. I have other flaws more worrisome than the willingness to ask a stupid question. – JBarta (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To some extent, WP:BEANS applies; but your browser passes quite a bit of information to the server, so a checkuser would be able to tell which browser (and which version) you were using, as well as various bits of information about your settings. Mostly meaningless on its own, but when you compare it to another, and add behavioural evidence on top of that, it makes for quite compelling evidence. You might like this tool from the EFF—it shows you the sort of information that's passed to the server whenever you load a webpage. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) WK, average activity hours for each day of the week, word choice. The way you click through links and type also probably has an identifyable pattern. I don't think that sort of thing is logged, though obviously comparisons of that sort of thing can be, and often are, made from special:contributions and various analysis tools. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. If I ever decide to make mischief I'll at least have a few things to keep in mind. Anyhow, I'm sure you are busy and I won't take up any more of your time with silly questions. Thank-you very much for enlightening me. – JBarta (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to tell Harry that BEANS probably really does apply here. But what's been written has been written. Everyone on the internet should know that when you connect to a router, there is specific, unalterable, data that can identify what PC a user is using and where they are connecting from. From router to router to router. But I have no idea if CU user router data. Dave Dial (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind indulging curiosity, especially if it piques my own. But as I say, it's almost always behaviour that trips sockpuppets up, and we just use technical evidence to verify what's already suspected. And Dave, I haven't said anything that can't be found with a bit of digging; besides, security through obscurity and all that, and even if somebody managed to completely throw a checkuser off, it's the behaviour that gives them away. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A reproductively viable female worker ant that is able to reproduce with mature males when the colony is lacking a queen
I've been distracted by other things (especially preparing for a Friday job interview) and had gotten away from that situation. I can get back to it and add a "not going to happen" note after checking (please pardon me for doubting, but I just want to satisfy myself that you're uninvolved), although I'll not if someone else comes along. Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gino D'Acampo
Would it be possible to protect the Gino D'Acampo article again, as it is subject to persistent vandalism? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I missed this earlier. I've semi'd it for three months. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude
Dude !! I didn't know you could revert all of a vandal's edits ... I thought I was going to have to hit 'em one by one. Guess I should get more familiar with AIV. I am curiously watching today's TFA, and see that a vandal IP edit stood there for 26 minutes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Handy bit of javascript (though I think it's a little bit slower if you're not an admin. Or a bot.). I spot-checked a few and they were all junk, so I thought I'd save you some time. And that diff is a perfect example of why people dread TFA! Dear oh dear. I've stuck on my watchlist, but the horse has well and truly bolted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What's this sweet Javascript code? How can I get involved? Every time I deal with the "Marhc" vandal I have to manually revert through Twinkle. (Which of course adds every rollback to my watchlist...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First line here. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh cool! Thanks!  How come nobody told me about these secrets before?!  :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PArt of the problem is there's no central repository of these things, and a lot of them have minimal or no documentation. So we end up with hodge-podges of bits of javascript, which I gather makes the devs' lives a nightmare because when you're dealing with experienced editors, no two editors' interfaces are the same! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember when I first learned about Twinkle. I was mostly pissed that I had been copy/pasting UW templates and doing all that crap manually for MONTHS. That's hard work! Anyhow, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please enlighten me
Hi, I am curious as to why you reverted the 26 edits, to separate articles relating to autism, on 9 December, by 198.188.6.56, after which you placed a school block. Although the IP has engaged prolifically in vandalism there has been none since 5 December - four days ago - and those 26 edits do seem to be constructive ones. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the edits weren't vandalism, but these two certainly were (which is what led me to block the IP), and I rolled back their edits en masse none of them appeared to be unambiguously constructive and, given my extremely limited knowledge of the subject, I took 's word. The thread above is related. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , there were two subtle vandalism edits (link to child abuse as description of treatment, and "eliminating autistic people" as description of an organization), which were a concern, and the rest of the edits all replaced autism spectrum disorder (or some variation thereof) with autistic, which is a redirect back to autism spectrum. There may have been other subtle vandalism, but after I saw two instances, I chopped checking. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, to both of you. Thanks for the clarification, although I looked through all 26 edits, those two subtle changes slipped past me. Had I spotted those I would have done the same. I am begining to feel that all anon edits should be approved before taking effect. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, unwatching here now :) Ping me if further info is needed!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

continue semi-protection
You semi-protected 2014 Indian Super League season page for a month. Recently the protection expired and disruptive editing has begun from unregistered users. Could you protect it again, please? Coderzombie (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've semi'd it again for three months. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

RevDel request
HJ, I'm the current coordinator over at DRN would you consider RevDel'ing this edit which without citation accuses an IP user of criminal activity and comes perilously close to outing him? I've deleted it under GRAPEVINE but I think it might be well if it were to disappear. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it is the risk you run if you edit without logging in, but since it serves no constructive purposes I've RevDel'd it. The text is still available in intermediate revisions (between that edit and yours) though; would you like those RevDel'd as well? I only ask because those edits are all legitimate and editors might want to refer back to them or link to the diffs in the future, which they wouldn't be able to do if they were RevDel'd. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just zap my removal edit since the edit summary provides a flag and we can take a risk with the rest? Thanks, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're a mensch, my friend. Thanks, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ta
No12345abcd was one of three plus an IP working on Maverick Holiday Party Spaghetti Riot Of 2k14 which I deleted. I suppose they thought I shouldn't have done that. Melanie has my page on her watchlist, so she caught the later ones, and then got her own... Peridon (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Harry, (and ), FYI - I have already blocked User talk:No12345abcd User talk:Yes0139 for VOA and obvious socking. I came to it from an entirely different route. Rgds, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris. And you're welcome, Peridon. You might want to indef the rest of the accounts if they haven't been blocked already. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yvette Fielding
It is semi-protected and pending changes. --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's on an IAR PC2 because of serious issues with obscene vandalism and misogyny from sockpuppets of an incredibly disruptive editor. And that an admin who deals with abusive editors and obscene vandalism day in day out, the very fact that I'm using adjectives like those should tell you that there are issues. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Eleazar Avaran
Hello HJ Mitchell, I'm involved in an issue concerning the article Eleazar Avaran against User:Aharonium in the discussion page of the article. The editor is as adding original research via website: http://opensiddur.org as a source. I have warned the editor about using original research but failed. We both have violated 2RR but editor is persistent on adding the website:, and is now publicly trying to build a case using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism via this edit:. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

IP block
Hey Harry--please compare this with this. It's either IP hopping socketry or meatiness. Care to do the hono(u)rs? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Done. If he comes back again, I might semi the article rather than get into a game of whack-a-mole. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)