User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 91

WP:UAA and User:Tuscgenlibrarian
Near as I can tell, I think the only time we've interacted was regarding the failed RfA nomination concern this past fall, voiced here on your talk page. So, I think of you as uninvolved with me on this topic, and given your activity you are knowledgeable in WP:UAA affairs.

Recently, I came across User:Tuscgenlibrarian, and given that the account was editing Tuscaloosa Public Library, it seemed highly likely that the account is being used to represent the library. Given that, I placed a uw-coi-username template on their userpage. Subsequent to that, another editor (doesn't matter who; my point here isn't about someone else, but about this account) removed the warning, and indicated at WP:UAA that the account is not a blatant violation of the username policy. There's been some discussion about it at WP:UAA, but again I'm not here about one or more users.

I am here to try to understand where my brain is failing on this, if indeed I am incorrect. My reading of WP:ISU, where it states "Usernames that are names of posts within organizations", is that accounts that imply a position within an organization rather than indicating a particular person are not acceptable. I can make an argument that "Tuscgenlibrarian" could mean the genealogy department library (they have such a department), i.e. it's implied in the name. I think it proper that to avoid this, clarifying the issue in the process, the account should be renamed as there is an implication this is a shared account.

So, if I'm wrong on this, how is this not implying a shared account? I'm quite boggled on this; this seems very pro-forma to me, and an obvious softblock/rename. I look at User:Marketing_Denver_Christian_Schools and think "ok that's the marketing department for Denver Christian Schools, block". See similar for User:Verizonemailsupport (e-mail support for Verizon), User:Sematext marketing (marketing dept. for Sematext), User:Canucks.media.relations, media relations for the Vancouver Canucks. Accounts named after positions or departments of companies are not common, but they do happen and the WP:ISU policy seems very clear on this.

I'm not looking for you to take action on this editor, and I'm not asking you to get involved in anything. I just wanted an experienced, uninvolved voice to whack me on the head if I'm wrong and show me how I'm wrong (assuming I am). I'm not getting it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, in practice, like many things, the answer is "it depends which admin you get". In principle, I agree with the decline at UAA. As you've identified, the key is whether the account represents an organisation or an individual at the organisation, since we explicitly allow usernames like "Harry at Acme Inc". Given that the username is "Tuscgenlibrarian", not (say) "Tuscgenlibrary", it seems reasonable to conclude that it represents an individual librarian rather than multiple librarians or the library as an institution. Of course, if their edits are problematic, that's a different matter and can be dealt with regardless of their username. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:UAA is for simple, uncontroversial cases. Anytime there is a disagreement, it should be taken to WP:RFC/N. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it as controversial. There are many librarians at a library, and we're not supposed to allow accounts that identify a position within an organization, which this one does (per WP:ISU). *shrug* Don't care either way, but perhaps the ISU policy should be revised to remove the second bullet point, since we apparently do allow such usernames. *boggle* --Hammersoft (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that people are disagreeing with you and yet you don't see it as "controversial" tells me you don't understand the most basic notions of how discussions and consensus work. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Benoit, I think Hammersoft meant that he wasn't expecting it to be controversial when he reported it, and I can hardly blame him because a more zealous admin might well have blocked the account. An RfC/N might actually be a good idea—it would be interesting to see what the current consensus is. I suspect we'd be a lot less willing to cut the editor slack if they were representing a profit-making company. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck my earlier comment; I apologize, I thought I had read "I don't see it as controversial" instead of "I didn't see it as controversial". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi HJ - I've barely been on-wiki for the last several weeks because I have an exceptionally bad case of Mycoplasma_pneumoniae, but I saw your proposed FoF on my ping list and wanted to thank you for it. Whether or not it ends up going through, it means quite a bit to me to have had it proposed. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Kevin. Sorry to heat about your health issues; that sounds ... unpleasant to say the least. You're welcome, anyway. The whole thing is absurd, but of all the allegations that have been thrown around that was possibly the one that had the weakest basis in reality (second only, perhaps, to the allegations of a grand admin conspiracy!). I can't see how any admin in their right mind could have let that go. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Serbia
I'm not sure PC is having the desired effect, but there have been a few revisions accepted in the last 50. I'd probably be inclined to semi it given the number of reverts plus that it's a contentious subject. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm inclined to agree. I've not been watching it, but it does seem that PC is generating a lot of work for very little gain so I've semi'd it. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you decided to block me for having a opinion
Perhaps you can tell me, now how it is I get that user to stop changing the names of my files. I do not want that user changing the names of my files, at all, yet from the moment you issued the block he has been here and on commons modifying just about every file I have uploaded. If your going to block me, and just allow BMK to do whatever he cares to do, and I have no right to even comment on it, what is the point of being here? It was mentioned before to that user that the user should "give me a wide birth" so he spends two days changing just about every file that I have uploaded, modifying each of them as many as 3 times before moving on, during the nice time out you were so kind to establish. Please once again ask "that user" to stop, this is nothing more then the same antagonistic activities "that user" uses to dominate things, now he just stalking my contributions. This is a joke.... talk→  WPPilot   12:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've strongly advised him on Commons to leave you alone. If he continues, I'll block him (I'm an admin on both projects, so I can block on either or both), but the same applies to you—you need to leave him alone and not give him a reason to interact with you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Harry
G'day Harry, thanks for being a righteous smasher of complete idiots on en WP. No idea how you have this level of patience, but more power to you, brother. Without you, en WP would be a much harsher environment for mere mortals like myself, particularly those that edit in the murky depths of Yugoslavia in World War II. You are a bloody champion, and don't let the constant complaints from "jobsworth" idiots discourage you. We love you, man! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Peacemaker! It's appreciation like that that makes chasing loonies around the place worthwhile (and trust me, what's visible is the tip of the iceberg—some of the stuff that gets RevDel'd and oversighted is beyond belief!). :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Block notices
Hi, Harry. I have recently seen an unblock request for a block you placed, at User talk:Addminztrator. (Another admin actually unblocked.) The blocked editor (a) misunderstood the reason for the block, and (b) misunderstood how to request a change of username. Probably both of those misunderstandings could have been avoided if you had posted a Uw-adminublock to the editor's talk page. (If you didn't know that template existed, then with just a little more work you could have posted something else, such as Uw-ublock together with a brief sentence saying what was wrong with the username.) I have noticed in the past that you quite often don't post block notices to editors you block. I think it is almost always best to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi James, I'm well aware of the specific template. I intentionally went for a hard block in this case because I thought it was deliberate obfuscation. I was perhaps a little over-zealous, I was dealing with a string of grossly offensive usernames at the time, as it seems that wasn't their intention so hank you for letting me know. As for block notices in general, when I block with a templated reason, like UsernameHardBlocked, I very rarely leave a copy of the template on the talk page as most of these are throwaway accounts and the template transcludes in MediaWiki:Blockedtext when they try to edit. This seems to be in line with current practice at UAA. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account
I see that you blocked this vandalism-only account more than once in the past: User:167.102.56.142. It was used for vandalism again today. Can't it be permanently blocked? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an IP address, not an account, so no. IP addresses are reassigned from time to time, or (as would appear to be the case here—I'm guessing it's a school or a library) different people use the computer the IP address is assigned to. Nonetheless, I've blocked it for six months. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

HOLD ON
I'm currently putting together a detailed summary of the Mrdhmias case, please hold on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs)
 * Okay, I'll wait for you, but I'm pretty confident in the blocks I've made so far. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, everything's fine, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything, and I didn't edit-conflict with you on blocks and tags. Sorry it took me two days to find time to take care of this!!! By the way, have you ever considered actual SPI clerkship? You seem to be around a lot and certainly seem competent... :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm still looking at the not-yet-blocked accounts to see if there are grounds for more blocks because there's clearly something nefarious going on—you don't get that many accounts using dodgy ISPs and proxies in good faith. Thanks for the thought, but my interest is more in this kind of serious/coordinated/long-term abuse (which obviously overlaps with SPI quite often) rather than in editors getting up to minor funny business with multiple accounts. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for getting up to minor funny business. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should evade this and then spend the rest of the day causing mayhem, then I'd pop up on my own radar and start blocking my own IPs! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But on a more serious note, it just seems to me that some of the things that end up at SPI are really trivial, especially when there are some real creeps around who are in greater need of admins' attention. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both, guys! By now, I already had the idea that I was overly negative and seeing ghosts. This is very stimulating! The Banner talk 19:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Banner! No,you weren't seeing things—even if those were multiple real people, there was definitely something nefarious going on. It just takes a little while to get to the bottom of it when there are that many accounts and they're deliberately obfuscating their origins. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add to Charlie Hebdo shooting
" – President Ahmet Davutoğlu sent his condolences to the people of France and add: "we condemn terrorism in the strongest manner. We stand with the people of France. Terrorism has no religion, nationality or a value it represents. Terrorism is a crime against humanity and can in no way be justified" " --Antmqr (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * the article is not fully protected. You should be able to make the edit yourself. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * thank you --Antmqr (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Xander
Would you mind e-mailing me a copy of what he said in the recently-redacted diff?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to email you the BLP violation, no, but suffice to say it contained the same content for which he was blocked last month and his personal attack on Kevin Gorman is still publicly viewable. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I saw what he posted last month and I also recall that, while it was a serious statement, he did provide a source upon request that made the same allegations.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's your point? That repeating somebody else's libel gets him off the hook? That calling somebody a "fraudster" and suggesting that a BLP subject worked for said "fraudster" is not libellous? That coming back after a block for BLP violations and then posting exactly the same content is not disruptive? That, if that were somehow okay, it excuses the nasty personal attack? And why are you agitating for him to send you the content I RevDel'd? You're deliberately missing the point. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy's talk page
You have protected JW's talk page for TWO weeks! He has an open door policy on his talk page so all are welcome. If there is disruption, try a less over-reactionary method -- maybe protect it for 2 hours; instead of 2 weeks. 85.76.18.93 (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In order to be welcome on a page on Wikipedia, one must be welcome on Wikipedia itself. Blocking, and certainly banning, is an explicit revocation of that welcome, so evading your block is disruption in itself. Even if it weren't, evading your block to edit-war to restore an archived talk page thread certainly is. Please stop evading your block and use the usual channels if you wish to appeal—email ArbCom, use the UTRS system, or if you really wish to talk to Jimmy Wales you can email him (though, as I'm sure you know, his authority to lift ban or blocks is in pratice extremely limited). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your complaint regarding ArbCom's speed of response
Context:

It has been observed on multiple occasions that the committee takes excessively long times to respond to proposals (if at all) or to provide any sort of feedback on the workshop proposals or reveal a working draft version of the Proposed decision. Add to the fact that the exception is the committee posting the proposed decision on or before the due date (even when the due date is extended for "unspecified reasons"). I think it's time to start holding the committee accountable by assessing specific metrics (Participation in Evidence Phase, Participation in Workshop Phase, Proposed Decision Drafter, PD complete before due date, PD due date extended, Time to voting from PD posting) so that there's a metrics based measurement as to Arbs who decide to move forward into the next candidacy. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for 1970 to come round again...
- could be a long wait.

I think this was a problem with the software being confused by a time of 00:00:00. Whether the block really would have expired at the intended time or not I don't know, but I changed it to 00:00:01 to be sure. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I now see this has already been discussed, above. Oh well, never mind. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested Self-Block
Hi this is home IP address. I am writing here (and at a few other Admins TP's) to request a block of my IP address (this one 98.74.168.58 (talk)). I am a week away from exams, and have used WikiBreak Enforcer on my main account. I discovered however that I can still edit from here and the temptation is too great. I have confirmed with my ISP that I am the only customer given this IP. A block until February 1, 2015 is requested for my current IP address. Thanks! 98.74.168.58 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC) User:EoRdE6's IP adress
 * Um, HJ? Blocked until 1970?   This is odd, the IP is shown as blocked, but the expiry date is obviously wrong.  I recall a discussion at VPT a little while ago; you can actually block for a duration of "Schmogelblingen" if you want to, and the block log will dutifully show that block, but the actual duration is zero seconds if there's no valid duration, and the user won't actually be blocked.  Here, though, it appears the user actually is blocked .... ?! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unix date. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after making Floquensock suffer, I was able to replicate this; it happens when you say "00:00 1 February" but leave off the year. However, I don't understand why they're actually blocked; if you set a block to expire before the current date, you'd kind of think it wouldn't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How odd! I didn't specify a year, and in Special:Block it shows as "Sun, 01 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT". No idea why the log is showing 1970. I suspect a software bug. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks correct; the block is set to expire at the proper time, but the block log is displaying it wrong. I just blocked Floquensock until 00:03 9 January, and the display showed it would expire in 1970, but 30 seconds later it expired on its own.  So, a display bug, but the block you placed will expire this coming Feb 1. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Very bizarre - just a note that even us lowly non-admin types have the same bug. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor Floquensock! Us socks are even lowlier! darwin fish 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

50.77.200.121 and Lindsey Stirling
Thank you for blocking this IP address for extended period this time. I would have asked for an indefinite block myself as I am not sure that 1 month will be enough for this character. Should there be a block template added to their talk page?  Nyth 63  20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't indef IPs. IP addresses get reassigned from time to time, or the person behind them moves on. If they come back after the one-month block, they'll get a longer block. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Persistent British railways IP editor
Thanks for the block on this editor. They've just blanked their talk page - I wonder if they think that'll make the block disappear? Do you really want the list of targets and IP addresses on the UK railways page? I think there about 150 articles and at least 25 IP addresses.... I started a list on one of my sandbox pages, and its grown rather a lot, and have been trying to work out which of their earlier edits are still around and if valid... It's a bit like cleaning up after the Lord Mayor's show. You can take a look at Problematic edits - but it is not complete or properly organised yet. Robevans123 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Too soon to block?
Hi HJ Mitchell,

I've just undone a minor erroneous edit by on the releasedate of Uncharted 4, and thought I'd issue a cautionary warning on not using the MOS, but it seems you've already blocked them. Maybe they've harassed you outside of Wikipedia (I hope not!), but otherwise, isn't a block a bit soon, without any warning? Kind regards, --Soetermans. T / C 19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any username like "xxxyoloswagblazeit42069" should really be blocked on sight—they are, in my experience without exception, throwaway accounts that contribute nothing to the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stupid user names aside, their only two edits were adding a release date (incorrect, albeit). They can still request to be unblocked of course, and this isn't my battle at all, but I fear this might scare off future editors (even those with stupid user names). --Soetermans. T / C 20:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Username is against policy, the edits are irrelevant in the decision to block; this was ublocked (which is soft, as opposed to uhardblocked) specifically because the user's edit weren't particularly problematic. It will provide guidance on creating another account or requesting a rename. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "noscoper" part? It sounds like a gamer thing, not really sure though. Does that user get a message about their username outside of Wikipedia? Because their talk page hasn't been created. --Soetermans. T / C 20:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the "xxx420" part. It suggests no serious intent to contribute to the encyclopaedia. They'll see the template if they attempt to edit again, which includes instructions on appealing or eating creating a new account with a sensible username. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, guys. Have a good night! --Soetermans. T / C 21:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather eat chIPs84.13.7.223 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeated attacks on the page Buxton Community School
Hello, Harry! Earlier today you blocked an editor, User:Thegmiester, for vandalism. Turns out he was one of a string of vandals at that same article, with a new one popping up whenever the previous one was blocked. Could you take a look at my report at ANI and see if you think any further action is warranted? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was fast! --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Six months' semi and a few block ought to do the trick. Undoubtedly kids from the school who think it's funny. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tarc and Thargor Orlando
This is a matter I consider too trivial to merit comment on the Gamergate sanctions enforcement page. I looked at Tarc's contributions, and the truth of the matter is that they haven't edited that much in "the last fortnight or so," as you put it. Many of those edits are outside the editing scope of the sanctions. There is a discussion I'd like you to look at, though. I'll give you a "freeze frame" target than diffs so you can see what happened.

The exchange I want you to see is here in a discussion I had started, "Why are we citing First Things so much?", questioning the extensive use of a single source in the draft. It looks to me like Thargor Orlando is adopting a warlike stance, in saying "Unfortunately, the well is so poisoned it's better to wait and see if the worst parties are removed from the topic area first. Even questions get you labeled a troll, so right now it's more an awareness thing in hopes some change their tune."

The intent seems to be to goad editors by accusing them of misbehaviour; in fact the discussion up to that point had been fairly civil. Though there are severe differences of opinion over whether the article is correctly balancing reliable sources, these differences were aired in policy terms.

Tarc then responds to Thargor Orlando: "That's been the 8chan/reddit playbook all along; agitate the real Wikipedia editors, run to Arbcom for relief, then hopefully return the atricle to all its Quinn/Sarkeesian/Wu-bashing early days It remains to bee seen whether this was an effective strategy or not, hopefully Arbcom was up to the task of drilling down to what really happened here."

So both editors are discussing disputes over conduct instead of content. My opinion is that it's fair to say both are at fault: Thargor Orlando for the initial sally, Tarc for taking up the topic. There's an implicit assumption of bad faith in both comments. I'm not the admin, so it's not my job to judge, so best of luck to you. --TS 01:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the future, User:Tony Sidaway, I hope you'll tag me (and User:Tarc, for that matter) when you want to raise issues concerning us. My reference was to this and this discussion here.  You might have missed the context, but I'm not the only one who has had to deal with this sort of unnecessary abuse.  This is not a "warlike stance," the warlike stance is from the unnecessarily harsh language of others.  The discussion hasn't been civil in months. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I had it wachlisted as well since I posted here a few days ago, but this is a user's talk page, not a policy/forum venue, and I did not see a need to comment. Just because people talk about me or you or whoever on their talk pages somewhere doesn't require an invitation be sent. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said it was required. It's a hope.  If you don't care, that's fine.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think this was a particularly bad scrap, but it's an example of a certain war-like context underlying a lot of these jibes. Until I went looking I didn't even notice this diversion, even though it was in a discussion I had started and was participating in. So, rather trivial in the context of an enforcement complaint, but indicative of a breakdown of good faith by multiple parties. One particularly worrying sign, to me, is the extent to which even administrators are demonstrating an unwillingness to step up while the arbitration decision is pending. Editors too are showing a rather upsetting unwillingness to act as the case drags on. This is quite bad for the atmosphere of cooperation; is deteriorated noticeably over the past week. --TS 17:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the first shots were fired some time ago. My hope was that the ArbCom case would have resolved this by now, or I would have brought some of these issues to the sanction page.  The delays have been what they are, though, and it feels almost pointless to worry about it right now even while the behavior from the worst parties continues.  You seem to have some sway with some of the loudest ones over there, maybe you can get some of the unnecessary and obviously incorrect accusations to cease? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually as two of the loudest ones yourselves, I was hoping you and Tarc would set a good example. --TS 23:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually pretty quiet in comparison to some of the folks making the most incendiary commentary. 79 edits ever for me at the talk page compared to your 316, for example, and your behavior has been exemplary even without comparing it to your peers.  The person who has called me a troll twice has 879 edits to the talk page.  See the issue yet?  Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. This back-and-forth helps nobody. Please, as a rule of thumb, if your comment is not directed at improving the article or is likely to lower the tone, don't make it. I do understand that tensions are high and the urge to make snarky or unhelpful comments can be very strong, but if you feel that urge, walk away and go and do something else for a while then revisit the discussion later. No single editor's participation in any discussion is crucial. I've now put an editnotice on the talk page (I wonder what you all think of it?). I don't watch the talk page closely enough to deal with every snarky comment, but if things are brought to my attention, I might start asking editors to walk away for a little while or issuing single-page bans of a few days' duration. That said, I'm not the least bit surprised by the general hesitance to act or request action. When the arbitration case wraps up, several editors will likely be banned, the community sanctions will almost certainly be superseded by discretionary sanctions, any admin who has so much as looked at the situation has been accused of being INVOLVED, so admins are struggling to see that they have a mandate for sanctions or the benefit of imposing them at this stage. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2014
Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 11:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

KrazyKatEditor
Hi HJ, is fresh off a block, and resubmitting the same content that got her blocked in the first place. I've been trying to incorporate and improve upon the constructive aspects of her edits, but I think she's going overboard with forcing her particular worldview, especially when there is no discussion on her side. Obviously this is not beneficial for community editing. Thanks mang! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Dayum, you work fast, homes. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would that be a reference to Barrett Homes, the famous fictional builder? ;) Irondome (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it took me half an hour to come back here—real life intervened! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the reference, Irondome, but I do like a good pun. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a gentle wordplay on Sherlock Holmes as opposed to homes. Barrett Homes is a big building outfit here in the UK. Just my dumb humour! Regards Irondome (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion
The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, John! It can be difficult at times, but I feel it's important and it can be very interesting (you certainly learn a lot about geo-ethnic conflicts!). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

notice / complimentary and alternative medicine
thank you for advising me, I was unaware--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. That's the purpose of the notice. The provisions are only a few hours old anyway, so not many people will be aware of them unless they've had one of those notices. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to fix the spelling there, - "complimentary medicine" would be that provided free of charge, but I think that what is meant in this context is "complementary medicine", that which complements traditional methods. Or am I wrong? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not my section title. Thankfully ArbCom got it right but you had me going there for a moment! 17:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, your title was subsequently modified with . That explains that (I thought it passing strange). Sorry to have interfered there. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Pageant Winner Promotion
Proposed group deletion. Articles for deletion/Jessica Scheu I also think these articles were created by socks in violation of the blocks against other socks but some Admins can't see that. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If any of them were created since the 7th, when and I started blocking the accounts, they'd be eligible for speedy under G5. But being created by a sock before the master was blocked is not covered by CSD. If they don't meet other criteria, I'd suggest listing them all in one AfD. Assumng the result is delete, they ought to be salted. I can do that with Twinkle if you give me a list after the AfD closes, rather than making some poor admin do them all by hand.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PRODs should always be the first avenue (before AfDs), and a PROD removed by a block-evading sock can be restored. If that fails, a group-AfD is fine, but you have to list all the articles in the AfD (under a collapse header if need be), and you have to tag all articles with an AfD banner. Not doing so wouldn't be a fair process. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

108.28.162.100
Isnt this user blocked? Looking at their talkpage User talk:108.28.162.100 it looks to be User:Reguyla socking. Anyways I undid their comment on RGloucester's talkpage which seems to have been reverted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for a month. Though I think Reguyla has access to plenty of others. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

ITN
I respect your decision, but it is not a matter of disappointment; it's a matter of logical arguments being ignored(not by you, but the original closer). 331dot (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand, but all the things you say about the opposing arguments are the things the opposers will say about the supporting arguments. After such a ridiculous amount of discussion, consensus would have had to have been crystal clear to post and the closing admin was going to take flak no matte which way the decision went. Frankly, I wish we could attract that level of participation for events that actually matter, as opposed to balls (of varying shapes, sizes, and nomenclature) being moved up and down a field. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In any event, please don't take my comment as criticism of you; just an observation. I wish you well. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, HJ, for taking us out of our NCAA misery – after a mere 10,500 furious-sounding words. (Maybe there should be a limit?). Sca (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

sock puppets
Could you have a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang? I am certain that this is a sock farm aimed at. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with, and thank you very much. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about what to do
Harry, Hi. One of our Wiki editors, User:Thgoiter, has been using a redirect template on the WP article Priestly breastplate, redirecting the page to an organization called "Hoshen" and which deals with Lesbians-Gays-Bisexuals-Transgenders. At first, when I saw this, I thought it was vandalism, since the topic matter of the article treats on the Breastplate worn by the Jewish High-Priest. I therefore reverted his edit, thinking that he was being disrespectful. Later, I realized that perhaps there is a "disambiguation" of the term "Hoshen," since it is used also in Hebrew for the High-Priest's Breastplate. See: Jan 15. What can I do to rectify this issue? - Davidbena (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stalking. Just revert your edit(s) if applicable and leave a friendly note explaining the confusion on parties' talk. No harm done and obviously GF. I would get in touch though as the major priority. Irondome (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Irondome (I find that editing at half past one in the morning interferes with my beauty sleep, and as you can see from the photo on my userpage, I need as much of that as I can get ;) )—self-reverting (which I see you've done) and explaining your confusion should solve the problem. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Confused
This appears to refer to some "strident criticism" I've lobbied your way. I don't even recollect crossing paths with you. What exactly are you referring to? Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I realised after re-reading that comment that I should have used the passive voice to make my point about admin candidates being damned if they do and damned if they don't. I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, much as I disagree with your oppose rationale. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Franc
Hey, if you're still up, could look at the article, it's got a six sentence update, and I have marked the nom ready again. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At 03:35? That really would interfere with my beauty sleep! But I'll have a look at ITN/C as soon as I get a minute. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your blurbwording. I was going to suggest "significantly" myself but then thought that was a judgement call.  But I think all that matters is that readers can look at the article and get the info. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Case
Hi HJ Mitchell, I have provided the dates you asked for. Could you comment? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bumping. Whatever your decision, I'd appreciate at least closure for the case before the archiving. Thanks. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, but from a glance at the dates it doesn't look like there's anything recent enough to justify tangible sanctions. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, thanks again for looking through the case. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Request: Could you look at the General Sanction Archives for GG?
Hello, HJ Mitchell. I was wondering if I you could take a look at General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive2 and determine if the three open cases should be closed despite being in the archive. I ask since I am not sure if them being archived counts as the cases being closed. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, but I'm not sure formal closure is strictly necessary unless there are unresolved issues. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

TPROD
Would you please take the block to ANI, I'm not seeing anything inappropriate in his post that is warranting Discretionary sanctions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was actually coming here to thank him, as this was long overdue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you agree, I'll wait a while longer before starting an appeal if HJ Mitchell refuses to do so and I'm sure your opinion will mean more there then it does here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to make it come off too demanding lol but thanks appreciate it 8) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You said please. That's more manners than most people have when the disagree with one of my blocks! :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful though if you could pry involved GG'ers like Thargo out of it. Things like this are brought to ANI in hopes of getting genuinely neutral and uninvolved eyes to opine of if a block was warranted or not; it does nothing but boil up an already tense situation when you have someone involved pop by and grave-dance ("maybe should have been longer considering how overdue it was", "arguably one of the worst offenders").  These comments are at best unhelpful, at worst disruptive. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * True statements are just that. I'll only be commenting if necessary, but of course I'm going to endorse an overdue block.  Are you implying I'm a GG supporter, though?  I'd appreciate you adjusting your comment if so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't very well act as an uninvolved admin in an ANI thread about one of my actions. You could ask another admin or point out Thargo's involvement, but there's not much I can do. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We might need to write this in a calender, I think this is one of the few ani threads about ablock discussion that hasn't degenerated into a lnych the admin conversation. It's surprisingly civil lol but it's still early in the US I suppose ;) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Community sanctions
I just noticed the discussion with the arbitrators which you started with this edit. I'm pleased to see a positive response from the arbitrators who have commented.

I would like to amplify that with my own take on the matter. There are times when the expectation of an arbitration decision coming down nowadays seems to hamper community processes, and needless to say this is the last thing the arbitrators or the community expect and want to happen.

I'm sorry that you seem to find yourself often alone in taking action. While I don't always agree with your individual decisions I think they're an obviously valid exercise of administrative discretion and you should continue to do what you do. As I've said at WP:ANI, we need more action (and more administrative guidance in the form of trouting). Without that, the editing process dissolves into anarchy and good editors are driven away. --TS 17:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * HJ: Not only did you say something reasonable, but you managed to get an understandable response from the arbs! It doesn't quite solve the problem of the person filing a case who names most of the admins who have previously refereed the issue as parties. It's too bad that HJM is often alone in taking action on GG and I certainly haven't helped lately. My distaste for the behavior of both sides leaves me reluctant to do more adminning there. It cheers me up whenever I see a comment by TS in a GG dispute because I assume it could contain some impartiality. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . You're right, and I'm certain you're not the only admin put off by the constant (and for the most part absolutely absurd) accusations of admin abuse (which is of course the whole point of making them), but any help would be appreciated. At the end of the day we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and I feel admins should be much less tolerant of anything that disrupts that aim—from either side of the dispute. : I agree with you that there is no shortage of misconduct which all contributes to the toxic atmosphere. But I'm reluctant to get seriously pro-active for various reasons: accusations of "admin abuse" are certain parties' favourite passtime, I think it's best for admins (especially when there are so few actively enforcing the community sanctions) to stay above the fray, but most of all because the rate of edits to the talk page makes it very difficult to keep track of everything—I'm not invested in the subject and don't want to follow all the content issues, and I have lots of other things (including several other busy pages) on my watchlist. So please, bring things to the enforcement page, even if they're relatively trivial. I'm quite happy to evaluate things and close requests with warnings or mild sanctions and work up to more serious sanctions for repeat offenders. If the board gets more work and the log gets longer, it becomes much easier to spot patterns. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Response
I was relieved to see this action by HJ Mitchell, not only based on the grounds presented about this article, but also because several other times TheRedPenOfDoom has interfered with my valid edits on spurious grounds, in what seemed to be more of a power trip than valid editing. For example in one case TheRedPenOfDoom took the position that information about relatives and spouses of notable persons should not be included by name, which is contradicted in countless articles. As someone who doesn't show up in the hierarchy of Wikipedia hierarchy, I've felt powerless to appeal those arbitrary positions, especially when TheRedPenOfDoom refused to involve a third party in accordance with that Wikipedia process. It seemed as if TheRedPenOfDoom really wanted an edit war. I guess this person's username pretty much says it all, threatening Doom via the editing process. JCvP 21:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Simone Moro
Hi, as I already reported here, a sockpuppet of User:Germania Breslau, globally locked, has started again adding disputed and offensive sentences about Simone Moro (<< negative protagonist scandal with gaining Crown of the Himalayas >>, btw it was his first attempt of a eight-thousander, so I don't undestand how he can talk of "Crown of the Himalayas", that it means climbing all of them). However he is a sockpuppet, and there is no Consensus in talk page for adding that content in that form. Thanks in advance. --Rotpunkt (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've blocked the account, protected the article for a month, and added it to my watchlist. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike. I've updated the sock case whose name is hard to type. See Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. --Rotpunkt (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)