User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 90

Seasonal Greets!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Herald (talk • contribs) 14:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate
Hi HJ

A report was made to AIV regarding this user:

Now the report at AIV was refused because the editor has only made one edit, however to me the editor is a little suspicious, they seem to know a bit about Gamergate and they're quoting statistics etc going by that chart they're linking to. I don't like to overrule another admin, I thought I'd make you aware of this as you know more about Gamergate than I do.

Do you recognise this as someone's sock?

Hope you had a great Christmas!--5 albert square (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can find anything more concrete (even if it's just suspected master with a diff or two) I'll take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks.


 * you made the report to AIV, have you noticed a similar editing pattern with anyone else?--5 albert square (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to pin anyone down when it's clear that the editor is solely here to stir up drama on the Gamergate arbcom case. There have obviously been others but this is probably a throwaway account for some troll who just wants to keep the drama at the highest, considering he's putting up "evidence" after workshop's been closed.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've had the chance to look through the Gamergate articles I know of now, whilst I still think it could be a sock I can't find who's sock it is. Either way, going by the type of edit they've made and where they've made it to, if they're not a sock then I agree a troll who has possibly come across from the Gamergate Wikia for the sole intention of causing trouble for Ryulong.  Blocked indefinitely now--5 albert square (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Persistent vandal at Manuel Uribe
Season's greetings HJ. We have an IP vandal back today at Manuel Uribe and seeing as you were kind enough to protect the article previously, I wonder if you would take such action as you see fit. I believe the vandal is the same person as before. Same MO, anyway. Thanks. Jus da  fax   02:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked the IP as well--5 albert square (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, appreciate it! Jus  da  fax   04:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock-evasion per WP:DUCK
Hello, you banned user izzy.neon after this attack on me which in turn resulted from me reverting the user's POV-pushing at Tajik people. I now see no fewer than three "different" users (YulbarsTiger, George$653 and AlexUsb) are repeating the same POV-pushing. All three user accounts are created for this sole purpose, to avoid 3RR. As it seems to be obvious socks under WP:DUCK, I thought to take it to you as the blocking admin. Regards Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see two of the three socks are already blocked though not the latest one, George$653.Jeppiz (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the remaining sock, and another admins has protected the article, so that should solve the problem for time being. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 RfA
Hi. No big deal, but was there any particular reason that you listed your "moral support only" as a full-fledged "support" vote so it gets counted in the running tally? It seems like "moral support only" would be better off in the "Neutral" section, or, if left in the "Support" section, was unnumbered. BMK (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Barring something extraordinary happening, it's unlikely to make a blind bit of difference to the end result, so it doesn't really matter where it goes. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done for a year. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Computer engineering
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And done indefinitely. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK article Tijuana cross-border terminal, all images uploaded by rnieders deleted.
Hello HJ,

On December 19, all the images I uploaded for the article Tijuana Cross-border Terminal were deleted for the following reason "Deleted: I think that the entire discussion below misses an important point -- we do not know who User:Rnieders actually is. These have had enough public exposure so that it is clear to me that they require OTRS licenses... (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)"

The Commons deletion request was made by Ellin Beltz on December 1. The images went through a DYK review process from September 18 to November 5. Whatever explanation I gave to Ellin Beltz, she refused to accept. I asked her several times and supplied a link to read the Wall Street Journal article by Millman, Joel (August 1, 2001). "San Diego's Gateway to the World May Be Tijuana" which featured the project and my role in it and would have answered a lot of her questions. The deletion discussion was reviewed by Ww2censor who did not support the request for deletion. On December 19, Ellin Beltz then contacted an administrator and this is the request she made:

"Hi Jim: This nomination has been going on a long time. I really don't care if you bust my chops and keep all of them, or see what I do in the images and delete them; but could you make a decision on this just so we can close this old page? Thank you so much for all your help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)"

They were deleted that day by (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC). I contacted him and he stated that I missed the point of the whole discussion, that the real issue was not who Ralph Nieders is, but who Rnieders is as many people upload images using other people's name. But I was a bit disturbed by Ellin Beltz comment of "see what I do in the images and delete them" if Jameslwoodward did not delete them. I had offered Ellin Beltz that I would show all the documents I have to Keizers who was the editor who created the article page and lives near San Diego, but that I would not be back in San Diego until December 26, she executed the deletion on December 19 as noted above. I have prepared an OTRS request to have my images undeleted but have not submitted it yet. I explained that the images and article went through a DYK review process and no comments were made on the images. I tried to explain to Ellin Beltz that the images were created by me more than 20 years ago and that my current computer could not open the old files. I scanned my line drawings which were in Spanish and then added English text. She failed to understand that I worked on this project at my own expense for 18 years and that the technology of printers, computers and software changed dramatically during that time. When I started, images were still being done by airbrush and pencil, printers were dot matrix, color and jet printers were price prohibitive.

The images are central in showing the development and evolution of the Tijuana cross-border terminal as they show the difference between the Mexican government's and San Diego's proposals. I also have added a large number of newspaper references so that the reader can understand the underlying politics that affected negotiations and made a 3 year project into a 25 year odyssey. With your background as both an administrator and OTRS reviewer, perhaps you could offer some basic advice as to how I should submit the request to OTRS as they have a 20+ day backlog and I have made many mistakes in uploading these images and now the Tijuana cross-border terminal article makes references to images that do not exist. I also would like to point out that I DID NOT benefit from disclosing the information I submitted to the Wikipedia article which many wished would be forgotten e.g. Mexico's demand that San Diego close down its international airport before they would consider the Twinports concept. That did not gain me any points with the Mexican government nor disclosing the 3 page memo I wrote to the Mexican SCT and the U.S. State Department reference 39, Lindquist, Diane (July 23, 2002). "Otay airport terminal plan called 'dead' Consultant: Mexico not cooperative, wants U.S. investors to fund it all". I would appreciate being able to get some direction. Respectfully Ralph Nieders/Rnieders Rnieders (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Could you explain a little more concisely how I can be of assistance? I'm an admin here and at Commons and an OTRS agent, so I could certainly help with reviewing OTRS tickets and image permissions and I can view or restore deleted files if you could provide me with links or ticket numbers or ... something. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. The images deleted were part of a Wikipedia article Tijuana Cross-border Terminal and can be access on commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rnieders. On December 1, Ellin Beltz made a commons deletion request for the follow reason, "Files uploaded by Rnieders (talk · contribs)[edit] Technical images, photos and schema for a Tijuana airport development plan. No indication that uploader holds copyright to any of these images, probable COM:COPYVIO:
 * File:ASA 1991 Tijuana airport development plan with second runway.jpg
 * File:ASA 1992 Tijuana airport development plan.jpg
 * File:Valenzuela-Nieders Tijuana-San Diego phased airport development 1992.jpg
 * File:Valenzuela-Nieders cross-border airport concept.jpg
 * File:Tijuana phased cross-border airport development 1992.jpg
 * File:Tijuana cross-border promotional cover Nieders 2001.jpg
 * File:Tijuana cross-border terminal modular design concepts Nieders 2002.jpg
 * File:Tijuana cross-border promotional cover 2001.jpg
 * File:GAP Tijuana airport phased master plan 2000-2015.jpg
 * File:Casey Development-Nieders Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1996a.jpg
 * File:Aero Charter-Nieders Tijuana cross-border terminal counterproposal 1991b.jpg
 * File:ASA Tijuanal airport development plan 1992.jpg
 * File:San Diego TwinPorts airport proposal 1991L.jpg
 * File:Aero Charter-Nieders Tijuana cross-border terminal concept 1991a.jpg
 * File:SANDAG San Diego-Tijuana bi-national airport proposal 1990.jpg
 * File:ASA Tijuana airport development plan 1991.jpg
 * File:Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg


 * I attempted to answer her concerns, but nothing I said made any difference. Another editor, Ww2censor on December 2 reviewed the discussion between Ellin Beltz and myself and did not support the Commons request for deletion. She then began to make reference to a discussion I had with Stefan2 from Sweden in August when I first wrote part of the Tijuana article and uploaded images incorrectly under fair use. She did not want to believe that the images discussed with Stefan2 were not the same as the images in this discussion and then ended her discussion with this "In fact based on the ever-changing series of statements of where these images came from, I'm asking all other editors to consider COM:PRP here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)" I offered to have all my documents reviewed by User Keizers who is the editor of the Tijuana Cross-border terminal and lives near San Diego but that I would not be back in San Diego until December 26, she never replied. On December 19, Ellin Beltz contacted Jameslwoodward and made the following request, “Hi Jim: This nomination has been going on a long time. I really don't care if you bust my chops and keep all of them, or see what I do in the images and delete them; but could you make a decision on this just so we can close this old page? Thank you so much for all your help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)”


 * Jameslwoodward complied and all the images were deleted. I then contacted Jameslwoodward and he stated that I missed the point of the whole discussion, that there was no question as to who Ralph Nieders is, the question is who Rnieders is. To establish that Ralph Nieders and Rnieders are the same, he said that this must go through OTRS. He also stated that he doubted all the images could be restored due to COM:ADVERT. I have no problem having my name removed from the image files, but I am NOT using Wikipedia for self-promotion. I created the project, the design and location. This article has NOT benefited me. As mentioned previously, neither the Mexican government nor GAP wanted the history behind the cross-border terminal told and why it took 25 years to build. I no longer consult in Mexico and no one mentioned this conflict during the DYK review process. I have prepared a detailed request to send via email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org detailing everything that has taken place. That email has NOT been sent. The Tijuana Cross-border terminal article was nominated September 18 and reviewed until November 5 for DYK, no one made a single comment on the images or any other policy conflicts. These images are my property, my copyright, meaning Ralph Nieders/Rnieders. I submitted a request to OTRS in early December to undelete one image that Ellin Beltz had already deleted in November, i.e. File:Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg. To date, I have not received a reply from OTRS, no email, no ticket number from OTRS and it has been over 20 days. Now that all the images have been deleted from the Wikipedia article, I want to make sure I correctly make the OTRS request because without the images, the Wikipedia article makes no sense. I am a complete novice to the Wikipedia protocols, I do not understand Ellin Beltz conduct, she made assumptions without any supporting facts, e.g. my discussions with Stefan2 and Keizers, she refused to look at all the discussions and images involved. If all of this is a misunderstanding, I can accept that. From my User talk page(Rnieders), it seems you looked at this article on November 5, 2014 and that is why I contacted you. There are enough newspaper articles with my name to show who and what I did, I still have the hard copies of my reports with the images, emails all the way into the land negotiations for the current building site and the fact that the ASA cross-border terminal and my proposal were two miles apart. That is why the images a central. You understand the Wikipedia process, I do not, I was vetted by the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. State Department, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Diego Reader, etc., I do not know what more I can offer if I cannot speak or meet with anyone. Respectfully Ralph Nieders Rnieders (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I'm following you now. Could you forward me the email (I'm hjmitchell at ymail dot com) you sent to OTRS. Then I can run a search and fish your email out of the OTRS queue and let you know whether it contains the information we need. If it does, I'll undelete the files or have a chat with the deleting admin on Commons. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello HJ, I have sent you an email but was not able to access the OTRS request as I used my nephews computer in South Carolina. When I sent the OTRS permissions-commons request, it went through his Windows Live-mail account. I have sent specific information in my email to you. I will contact him to send me the email so I can forward it to you. I apologize for the delays. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello HJ, the December 5 email to OTRS permissions-commons requesting the undeletion of File:Mexicana de Aviavion Tijunana Cross-border Terminal proposal 1990.jpg was still in my nephew's outgoing box, it was never sent. This means I have to start the process for all the images that have been deleted. Should I use the OTRS copyright permission template and email each individual image to them and how will that resolve the deletion issues? I do not want to repeat mistakes, thank you Rnieders (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just replied by email, but send the email to OTRS, cc me, and I'll let you know where we go from there. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Good 2015 to you and yours!

 * 'appy new year mate! Irondome (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And to you, my friend! And of course (to recycle a section!) to . Her's to a happy and productive 2015! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year HJ Mitchell!


Happy New Year! HJ Mitchell, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year
Nice to see another Brit up and about. Thought you would on the single malt by now... :-) Ron h jones (Talk) 01:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ron! I though I'd see what was going on; I'm drinking, though not single malt at the moment. I'll probably turn he computer of when I start to feel the effects! And thanks ! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year HJ Mitchell!


Happy New Year! HJ Mitchell, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 09:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave on someone else's talk page.

Hi Harry
- hope you've had a couple of relaxing days. I would have except I  got  concertina'd in  a multi  car pile up  on  the northbound fast lane of the Bangkok - Udon highway yesterday. Mine was the only car that  could still be driven. Oh well, it all  adds to  the excitement  of the season so here's ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to  be around on  Wikipedia for a long time to  come. Cheers, Chris. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris, and to you! What have I told you about editing and driving? ;) Hope you're okay anyway. Any idea when you're next back in Blighty? Happy new year to as well!  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
 * Thanks. And to you. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate block
User:Tutelary commented at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations that blocking User:Grewia was an inappropriate block, and I have to agree. While the behavior is somewhat questionable, it's not really harmful and with things like blocks, sometimes new users deserve the benefit of the doubt. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally yes... but new users do not fuck around with SPIs that do not involve them. New users don't know what an SPI is until they're named in one, or until they've edited for a little while. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How are they supposed to know they were named in one if they weren't notified? That's explicitly what the user was doing. Notifying someone of an SPI against them is not against any policy or guideline. Tutelary (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the user doing the notifying was never named in the SPI, right? That's the issue here; that they came out of nowhere to disrupt the SPI (and I am absolutely not complaining about the notification - I'm talking about their rubbish inside the SPI itself). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They're not required to be. There's a suitable place for those comments, and that place is 'Comments by other users'. You are allowed to participate in SPIs that don't involve you. It's just uncommon enough for an admin to have a problem about it even though it's allowed. Tutelary (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out here, Tutelary has a history of accusing me of making inappropriate blocks and yet none of those blocks have been overturned, I've never been censured for a bad block, and several of them have been upheld by neutral admin on appeal. In this specific case, I wouldn't expect a brand new editor to know that SPI exists, much less to be commenting on investigations and notifying editors that they have nothing to do with. I admire your faith, but their contributions taken as a whole clearly indicate that they are a troll, that they have no interest in contributing to the encyclopaedia, and that they are not new, so I'm afraid I stand by the block, and I notice that in addition to Luke, two other admins have endorsed my action. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily cite my support as being anywhere near as valuable as that of mostly uninvolved admins though, simply because I'm so heavily involved. I don't really see the point in spending ages discussing whether or not an account that never contributed to mainspace was blocked fairly or not. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 01:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Such is the life of an admin, Luke! Now you know why nobody wants to do the job! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Comedy Nights with Kapil episodes
Regarding above page, I warned twice that author (vandalism warning 1 & 2) to his talk page. But he intentionally deleted those warnings and undid that page thrice in same day. Author Name : TheRedPenOfDoom pradipgarala (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

My page protection was mistyped slightly
Hello HJ Mitchell; My full protection request for "Alexia" was mistyped this morning, and it pointed to the disambiguation page rather than the Alexia (condition) page. My concern was to try to make as clear a statement of the matter in the subject summary that I overlooked adding the disambiguation parameter in the request. The protection for the "condition" version is still needed for one week only to avoiding edit reverts and avoid the fork of the articles with editors losing time on the "old" fork which has been replaced by the new "Dyslexia" article version discussed as described in the protection request summary. If you prefer, then I'll re-type the whole request and resubmit through regular channels since you were correct to decline the protection request for the disambiguation page for "Alexia" which needs no protection, only the Alexia (condition) article needs the full protection for the one week. FelixRosch  (TALK ) 18:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that protection is absolutely necessary. There have only been a few reverts and all of them by you and another editor. Since the other editor hasn't explained their reverts, I'd be inclined to caution them about edit-warring and block them for disruptive editing if they continued, but if you really want protection, protection you shall have... HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough. That user Talk page now has a template notification about edit reverting and the need for discussion. I will alter it if you think a separate notification is closer to what's needed. If it takes hold with the user then it might do what is needed, otherwise I might need to return with the request. FelixRosch   (TALK ) 19:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'll leave things as they are for the week, and if problems resume after that we can look at other options. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ksolway has returned
Per your note on this user's GG Enforcement section that you closed, I'm informing you of his return, if you wish to write a caution note. It really doesn't look promising, as all this user does is edit-war to get a decidedly slanted POV into the lead; one, two. Tarc (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to caution him or issue a blanket topic ban? Your note on his talk page indicates the latter, your closure the former.  He has raised it at AN, I do think a full-on topic ban is a bit much FWIW. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant to issue a blanket topic ban. Their edit suggest to me that their continued presence in the topic area is unlikely to be conducive to resolving the dispute. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia - Alexia
So are you also part of this cabal conspiracy and not wishing to follow wikipedia protocols regarding the editing of articles, and not following protocols of discussing articles on the articles talk pages and providing notice regarding issues of mergers etc. dolfrog (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just an admin trying to keep the peace. The other party was bold, you reverted, now it's time for you both to discuss. The talk page is there for you to explain your objections, and if you can't reach an agreement you can request outside opinions. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

SWOT analysis
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Super Mario
And this one? --George Ho (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The Voice (Australian TV series)
And that one? --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And done. PC seems to be keeping things under control in all three cases. Thank you kindly. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
I saw that you had made an edit on my Talk page and when I checked the history, I was a little surprised to see that it was a deletion. I won't ask what it was about and trust your judgement, so thank you for looking out for me even if you are just "doing your job"... :) Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's since been oversighted, but it's nothing to worry about; it wasn't directed at you—just some loony on a mission. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

IP block
I think you could have blocked indefinitely - it looks like an open proxy to me. I know there are a million others they could use but it would be one less to worry about. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The thought crossed my mind, but I couldn't be certain and went for the conservative option of a small rangeblock for a week. It appears the ever-wise was bolder, and blocked a bigger range for six months!  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Question
I thought knowingly inserting false information was vandalism? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You'd have a hard time proving that a long-established editor was acting in an attempt to deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia (emphasis in the original), and even if they were the odds that they'd be blocked at AIV are astronomical. As a rule of thumb, if it takes more than a sentence to explain or more than a minute to evaluate, it doesn't belong at AIV. In this case, ANI might be more appropriate. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Understood, and I'm equally perplexed and confused. But here in 10 seconds it is:


 * The cited source says the buildings are owned by Extell: "Extell Development Company has purchased the bulk of the Ring portfolio … Extell leased four of the buildings … to the Kaufman Organization"


 * Yet he insists they are owned by Ring: "In 2014 it was announced that several properties in NoMad owned by F.M. Ring Associates would be redeveloped by the Kaufman Organization"


 * Honestly, I don't know what this about other than personality conflict rather than the facts. Maybe you could advise as an informal third party? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it was emotionalism, and he has now accurately written "previously owned by Ring." Wow, I am perplexed but I'm glad it's over. Thank you for being a sounding board. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. In future WP:DRN or WP:3O (for content issues) or WP:ANI (for conduct issues) are better than AIV for these sorts of things. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Move request
Hey HJ, Happy New Year! Hope you're well. Could you possibly move User:JuneGloom07/Serena to Serena Campbell for me, please? - JuneGloom07  Talk  23:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And a very happy new year to you, too. :) I did the move, but restored the previous history because it wasn't trivial. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thank you! I might have another couple of requests soon. I'm trying to finish off all my drafts and cut down my to-do list. - JuneGloom07  Talk  01:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Question
So, why didn't you give me a chance to present my side before blocking and topic banning me? Cla68 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you restored an accusation that named individuals had been involved in serious criminal activity; you know perfectly well that that's not acceptable in any namespace. And from your conduct in the topic area up to then, it appeared to me that you did it to make a point rather than because you believed the material had any encyclopaedic merit. Honestly, I seriously considered indef'ing you but settled on a week as long enough to deal with the immediate problem. Note that I also topic-banned the editor who originally posted the material; the only reason I didn't block them was that they are an inexperienced editor who was probably unaware of the severity of the transgression. Additionally, I had already decided on my course of action before I saw the enforcement request—I only became aware of the request when I went to your talk page to inform you of my actions. That's my rationale, but you are of course perfectly entitled to appeal to AN or ANI. Alternatively, you can sit it out and ask me for reconsideration in, say, six months. I imagine the controversy will have calmed down by then, so I'd likely be quite amenable to lifting the topic ban. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you had an emotional response to my edit. That's cool that you're willing to admit it, but since there wasn't any danger of me redoing the edit, there was no danger in letting me give my side.  Was your response so emotional in part because I had been so critical of yours and other admin actions related to this dispute on the case Workshop page? Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You criticised my actions on the workshop page? Oh well, after almost five years on the job the constant harping becomes little more than background noise. It's a bit like userpage vandalism or trolling from people using open proxies—generally an indication that one is doing something right. Of course, you're welcome to haul me off to ArbCom or a drama board, but I've made tens of thousands of admin actions. Of course I cock up from time to time, but I'm confident that at least 99% of them will stand up to scrutiny, and I'm always happy to have a sensible discussion in the event that somebody has a legitimate, good-faith question about one of my actions. As to your specific sanctions, your history gives me no shortage of reason to believe that you would indeed restore it or do something similarly disruptive. If you had no intention of doing so, you need only have made an unblock request stating that and the block would have been lifted—had I refused to do so, I would rightly have been overruled at a noticeboard. As for my "emotional response", I think I'm a better judge of my own emotional state than you, and I generally aim to take a break and do something else for a while if I feel my blood pressure rising or I seem to be losing perspective. I don't think my response was emotional, and it was certainly motivated by nothing other than a desire to protect the project from disruption. If you think you've read an emotional response into my previous comment, I would respectfully suggest that you read it again, as I fear you may have read something that isn't there. As I say, you're perfectly entitled to appeal the topic ban to AN or ANI if you wish. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI
I appreciate the fix on ANI. It was a fine accolade, though! I hope you realise that now it'll be your turn to be stripped of your admin tools? Bishonen &#124; talk 00:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Indeed, I thought you might have liked it to stay, but alas, they declined the offer to tell us who they really are, so we couldn't possibly evaluate your most egregious abuse of your tools properly. We can but wonder why! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

SqueakBox
I believe your closure of this discussion, with a limited time for discussion during a holiday period when many editors, like myself, were unavailable, was premature at best. Many of the comments supporting the topic ban were cursory and inaccurate. For example, Scalhotrod cited edits to various porn awards pages as particularly destructive, even though the sourcing on those pages has been notoriously dreadful for years, and I have personally removed scores of supposedly "sourced" claims from such articles where the wrong person was identified as a sex worker. I also note that the initiator of the ANI discussion improperly WP:CANVASSED the porn wikiproject on the discussion, essentially assuring that thefirst wave of responses would support their proposal and unfairly prejudicingthe target of the complaint. I'd also note that such sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive, and imposing a broad sanction when only anarrow range of edits were objected to -- and over a subject where community consensus in previous discussions over the same target's similar edits supported much of his views about BLP issues -- is inconsistent with basic WP principles. I therefore believe you should reopen the matter to allow fuller and fairer discussion and cure the prejudice resulting from the OP's improper canvassing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't think the discussion was hopelessly tainted by canvassing—many experienced editors commented, including several admins; the discussion was opened mid-morning UTC on 29 December and I enacted late in the evening on New Year's Day, which is at least three and a half days of discussion, only the last of which is officially a holiday. I do understand your concerns, and have some sympathy for SqeakBox's point of view wrt BLP, so I'd be happy to consider a narrower restriction if you can come come up with a a form of words that is unambiguous and which addresses the issue. I couldn't think of anything you couldn't drive a coach and horses through when I closed the discussion. What is clear to me, as somebody who is new to this particular dispute, is that SqueakBox needs to re-think his approach. I've seen many situations where two editors get into an edit war and one refuses to engage on the talk page and relies on the BLP exemption to 3RR, and in precisely none of the cases I've seen has that approach solved more problems than it caused. Essentially, SqueakBox needs to be less combative, more communicative, and when a disagreement deteriorates to the point where two parties are just butting heads, he needs to be quicker to bring it to a noticeboard for review and discussion rather than just relying on a technicality to edit war ad infinitum. We even have discretionary sanctions on BLPs, so admins can come down like a ton of bricks on anybody behaving seriously improperly, but that requires getting admin attention (AE works better than the drama boards for things that can wait a few hours for admins to get to it). But SqueakBox seems to be operating at the point where BLP and common sense collide—for example removing the name of an act(or|ress) from an article when their name appears in the title of the work (and thus the article) and who is depicted in the cover art is taking BLP well past the point of absurdity. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the issue, for whatever they're worth. Tl;dr: If you can think of some narrower but unambiguous wording, I'm all ears, but I do think the discussion was fair and reached a consensus that SqueakBox's conduct was sub-par at best and that something needed to be done. (NB, I'm perfectly happy to have this conversation with SqeakBox as well if he wants.) Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all I think a well-phrased warning would have been more than sufficient. Following the prior discussions/RFCs on rated issues (where much of SB's policy analysis ended up supported by consensus), SB's editing lined with the consensus outcomes, and there's no reason to believe he'd do otherwise here. Second, when you look at the prior discussions, which were lengthier and had much more extensive participation, the initial trend was similarly adverse to SB, but extended and more careful discussion reversed the trend and refined the policy discussion. Third, quite frankly, several of the major critics of SB here, including the OP, showed an extremely poor understanding of BLP -- for example, the OP faulted SB's edits to Dirty Diaries, but that article is extensively unsourced and some sections are heavily laced with OR, particularly the "Plot" section, which goes beyond plot summary and details someone's opinions/inferences about which sex acts are depicted and whether they are similated or unsimulated. This content violates BLP and RS policies, per the consensus at the unsimulated sex in films article(s). It would have been far better if SB had removed this material rather than the unreferenced list of names, but imperfect attempts to cure clear BLP problems do not support broad, indefinite topic bans. The Briana Loves Jenna edit was clearly a poor call, but it's also apparent that the article's sourcing has never been properly examined -- otherwise Helmut Newton would not have been absurdly listed as its screenwriter for nearly eight years. The underlying question here is not whether unreferenced cast lists for porn films are BLP violations, but whether those violations are substantive enough to justify summary removal. As the Helmut Newton idiocy demonstrates, such content is rarely given proper scrutiny. Rather than topic banning an editor for coming up with the wrong solution to a BLP problem, the ANI discussion should have addressed the policy interpretation issue, addressing sanctions only if a user defied whatever the consensus outcome was. While many users expressed dislike of SqueakBox's, the evidence of either disruption or policy violation was perilously thin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Request
Since you handled a complaint about me recently, I thought you might handle a complaint from me.

A while ago I asked WPPilot not to post on my talk page. Well, he's now very, very angry at me, and he keeps dropping little unsigned notes there tonight, even though I reminded him about not posting there. Could you drop him a note and ask him to stop, it's getting annoying being interrupted as I'm working.

Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:BMK, I can't find where you actually literally asked the user to stop posting, I may have missed it. (There's this edit summary, but half the people don't read 'em.) I've put a note on his page. That said, I think you knew it was tactless to do a minor edit on his userpage, the way the situation was. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC).
 * I tend to agree with Bish. She's asked him to step away; if you give him a wide berth, he should have no reason not to the same, and if he doesn't, we'll set Bishzilla on him! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit to the user page was completely unintentional on my part. I renamed a file on Commons, and a bot automatically renames the file on all the wikis it's used on.  I had no idea it was on WPP's user page, and was chagrined when I saw it on my contribs.  (The bot uses the ID of the editor making the name change.)  I agree that if I had done it intentionally, it would have been a crass and tactless act. BMK (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, sorry, BMK. I'm not at all at home on Commons, and was surprised to discover today that by nominating a file for deletion there, I had also "edited" somebody's userpage, indeed I'd said a mouthful there. I wish the bots would at least let us know when they've posted in our name. (As Twinkle does here.) Bishonen &#124; talk 11:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Yes, I know, I'm an admin on Commons too. My comment about giving them a wide berth wasn't a comment on that, just advice that I often give to warring parties—to put it another way, now that he's been asked to leave you alone, it would just be wise to avoid giving him a reason not to. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll do my best to follow that advice. BMK (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to "give him a wide berth" when he responds to my reply to a third party's comment on Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey with near personal attacks. BMK (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's a clear escalation and not directed at improving the article. I've blocked him for 24 hours. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion of User:László_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm
was blocked on 02:50, 1 January 2015 for disruptive editing, but this editor is evading his block by using the static IP 213.114.147.52. The IP 213.114.147.52 was blocked in the past: also for being "László Vazulvonal of Stockholm editing logged out". He is adding unsourced infromation to biograhies of living people (e.g, ) 109.185.154.159 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what it has to do with me, but that seems pretty slam dunk. I've extended László's block to a fortnight from today and hard-blocked the IP to match. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WPP banned
I think your in error about the WPP ban. He did not violate the request to post on the other users page, the guy was answering a reply on a project talk page. Sure seems random and unjust. 172.56.6.253 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quack! Bishonen &#124; talk 15:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

I am just a fan, and have been watching the users photos for years. Rather odd to me..172.56.6.253 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ford N-Series tractor
I see that you declined the Temporary Semi-protection request. Since all of the vandalism has come from a single IP address, should the request have been for a Temporary User block via Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? He has undone the same changes and variations at least 4 times but not always with the Undo link.  Nyth 63  22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They've only edited the page three times over the space of three days. That's not enough disruption to justify any admin action. I'd suggest you try talking to them (if the IP address has stayed the same for three days, it might well be static) and only requesting admin intervention if things get out of hand. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Their nonsense started on Jan 2 and they have edited a total of nine times if you look at the page history. I have engaged them with warning templates on the IP user talk page and they have also been in communication on the article talk page.  Rather belligerent though. They have been quiet for a couple of days now so maybe they are done.  Nyth  63  17:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

As an experienced AE admin
As someone I know to be an admin experienced in dealing with arbitration enforcement requests, I would be interested to hear your views on whether you think that the dispute in the Acupuncture topic area that is currently subject to an arbitration case request could be successfully dealt with by enforcement of the pseudo-science discretionary sanctions. Please comment at Arbitration/Requests/Case (input there from other AE admins stalking this talk page is also welcome!). Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've left my thoughts there, for whatever they're worth. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Momin_Khawaja
I noticed that you made a page protected Momin_Khawaja. Why not be fair and undo all changes made today January 4, 2015 and revert it back to 03:03, 30 November 2014 version. This is a case related to the recent US torture program and there might be somthing going on (more than what meets the eye).....just my 2 cents!
 * I recommend you make this suggestion at Talk:Momin_Khawaja. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More pages on or before January 6
Drew Brees and Clown? --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Drew Brees extended to indef; Clown upgraded to long-term semi. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Station fire
That IP is. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've blocked them for a month. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

More socks from the same user
Hello again, the same sockmaster I mentioned here last week and whose socks you blocked, is back again with more socks, KanishkaKagan and Amir.Temur, continuing exactly the same edits as all the previous socks on Uzbek and Tajik related articles. It's getting quite tiresome as the sockmaster obviously has a lot of time and is just pushing out new socks and reactivating sleepers. I started a discussion at ANI about it here .Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked two. It's probably worth filing an SPI with a complete list just for housekeeping and future reference. Also, links are your friend! noping or linking to talk pages/contributions rather than userpages will avoid alerting them if that's what you're worried about. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for the information, I didn't know that. Very helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)