User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 95

Ryulong's talkpage acess
Why was Ryulong banned from his own talkpage, upon his siteban? Is this a new practice by Arbcom? GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's normal for people sitebanned by ArbCom to have talk page access revoked for the duration of the ban (the rationale, I suppose, being that we don't want them to edit anywhere on Wikipedia, not even on their own talk page). But it wasn't my doing, implemented the ban and removed talk page access at the same time. I fully protected the page a day or two later because people were gravedancing and posting other things that weren't helpful to the encyclopaedia, and to which Ryulong couldn't have responded anyway because he had no access to his talk page.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There is the question of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARyulong&diff=644967803&oldid=644888149|this edit] ... you (HJ) going to revert that? NE Ent 16:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Me personally? No. It's not even on my watchlist. I have no intention of editing the page unless I need to interact with Ryulong if/when he's unbanned unless possibly Ryulong makes a reasonable request for something to be added or removed, in which case I'd at least consider it. I made the protection to prevent the immediate disruption; I don't see it as my place, as an individual admin, to revert another admin's edit through the protection. If that was appropriate, I would suggest that it would be better coming from an arbitrator or a clerk using the authority of that position (thus reducing the likelihood of an edit war and more drama). Or you could ask The Wordsmith to self-revert. Or I suppose you could start a noticeboard thread (I just worry that that would re-open wounds that are just beginning to close). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think asking The Wordsmith to self-revert may be a good idea - they may simply be unaware about the protection. It's certainly not worth going to ANI for though, because all that will happen is yet more mudslinging and drama over an issue that has had way too much of that already. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, as my talkpage privillages weren't revoked at the moment I was sitebanned on April 22, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, though I see your talk page access was later revoked. It's above my pay grade, anyway. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie :) GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the clerk operation manual specifies that explicitly so it varies: I've asked them to standardize Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks NE Ent 17:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 already started discussion User_talk:The_Wordsmith. NE Ent 17:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was hoping to wish him well and express my disagreement with the fact that his ban is set to last no less than one year. Kurtis (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps send him an email? He can't respond on his talk page anyway. I imagine he still has email enabled, though. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Email access does appear to be available to Ryulong, looking at his block log. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't disabled upon blocking, but he could have disable it in his preferences (even banned editors can still change their preferences). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it doesn't really matter all that much. Here's hoping that Ryulong isn't turned away by this forever. Kurtis (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Research
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Time you ran for Arbcom - if of course you're prepared to give up what little private time you have left after everything else you do for Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh. No! I was seriously considering it back in November, but I don't have the stomach (or the patience) for the politics. And I'm more use at the coalface anyway. It took me the best part of a day to do that research and write it up in a way that was intelligible; I'd hate to have to do that on a regular basis, especially for 30-party cases, and then still have motions and clarification requests and private mailing lists to keep track of! We need people who can stomach that (and ArbCom needs to shed some of its workload for it to be sustainable, but never seems to be able to let go of anything), and I'm grateful to them for not letting the place turn into total anarchy. But even without anarchy, we still need people to block vandals, delete libel, and do all the other things that nobody notices until they're not done. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that you should strongly consider running for arbitrator. I don't think the "politics" are any worse than on ANI or AE. We can discuss further around October if you wish. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, well with an endorsement from somebody who really understands ArbCom I guess I shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Maybe I'll consider it when the election cycle comes around again. But I still think I'm more use at the coalface, and I enjoy my front-line admin work more than I suspect I would ever enjoy arbitration. (I also think would be much better at it, and is far wiser than I am!).  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll second Newyorkbrad and Kudpung. Honestly, I can't name anyone who I think would be a better candidate for ArbCom. You've proven yourself time and again as one of our most impartial administrators. The choice is yours, but it's just something that I think you should seriously consider. Kurtis (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of Ad Hom
Respectfully, I do not believe that my comment on AE was irrelevant. It may be considered ad hom, but was not intended to be absusive and arguments against the accusers character are implicitly allowed by several WP policies, including WP:Boomerang. It is my argument that the high amount of investment by this particular editor in the subject area has been causing an extreme battlefield mentality in the editor in question. He has personally been the reason I left the page, the way he edits is needlessly confrontational and he flaunts the line of civility which makes it hard to assume good faith for his edits. While these may be considered ad hom, and I would not completely disagree with you there, they are very relevant to a discussion when he brings cases for enforcement. Specifically, the two previous cases I cited are important because they show how the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. He is being confrontational and toeing the line of civility intentionally to frustrate who he views as opponents in order to immediately push for their topic bans if they misstep, instead of trying to find common ground with them.

I respectfully ask that you allow me to unhat my section. I will remove the portions about the banned editor. I apologize, I did not realize these issues had been previously litigated. I do not agree with your conclusion, I believe he is toeing the letter of the rule but violating the spirit with his conduct, but I will respectfully defer. Ries42 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to gather diffs that show Hipocrite misconducting himself (and yes, creating a hostile atmosphere is misconduct, and I have sanctioned editors for that before, but I don't see evidence of it in your comments) and file an enforcement request, please do. But your comments at AE boil down to the proxying for Ryulong (which has been discussed at length and the conclusion has been that it wasn't against policy; indeed, see my remarks a few sections up), an enforcement request against you which resulted in no action, and an enforcement request at AE which was essentially a request for an interaction ban but was closed as premature. None of that is evidence of misconduct, and I hatted it because none of it had anything to do with the matter at hand. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My 0.02. I am concerned that sympathy for a banned editor receiving an "unjust" sanction is driving certain behavior.  There should be no quarter given for editors acting in sympathy.  The ban is what it is and proxying for that person should be construed as a violation of the ban.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But it isn't. Acting on behalf of a banned editor is not, in and of itself, in violation of any policy currently written. Besides, there's no way to tell the difference between sympathetic editors who have put a given article on their watchlist while its maintainer serves out his ban and editors who are acting on a direct requests from the banned editor. As I said above, if they're disruptive, follow the normal channels for disruptive editing; if somebody disagrees with them, follow the normal content dispute resolution procedures. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is covered explicitly by policy in WP:MEAT A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement. A new user isn't new to wikipedia, rather, new to the topic as the policy states. It seems obvious on its face that editors that edit within the findings of fact for the banned or t-banned editor are by definition disruptive.  It's the very definition of meat puppetry and sanctions should be equivalent (i.e. behavior of a banned editor is a ban, behavior of a t-ban editor is a t-ban).  It's why ArbCom has findings of facts and remedies that go with them.  Why do you the the WP:MEAT policy does not apply to editors acting on behalf of banned and t-banned editors when ArbCom has already ruled the behavior is disruptive?  --DHeyward (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That bit of policy doesn't really apply to this situation—MEAT is about (usually brand new) editors recruited off-wiki, normally to give the impression that multiple independent voices share the same opinion—but even it doesn't prohibit making an edit on behalf of somebody else (even a banned somebody else). The bit of policy that does apply to the immediate situation is WP:PROXYING, which says Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor [...] unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Hipocrite has sated that he believes he has independent reasons for the edits and that he has independently verified their content, so there's certainly nothing I, as a single admin, can do. Unless of course the edits are disruptive in their own right, but nobody sees to be arguing that. The other option is to start an RfC and attempt to gain consensus to 'outlaw' (so to speak) this sort of thing in future. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Besides, there's no way to tell the difference between sympathetic editors who have put a given article on their watchlist while its maintainer serves out his ban and editors who are acting on a direct requests from the banned editor. When you put User_talk:Ryulong under full protection, did you perchance read the exchange between him and Hipocrite? Requests like Make a page with your watchlist that I can watch to figure out what I'm supposed to do while you're gone. (emphasis mine) don't exactly connote independent acts motivated by "sympathy" to me. An editor who wanted to make contributions in good faith, and not simply proxy for the banned editor, would already know what to do.

76.64.33.14 (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're new here and so unfamiliar with some editors to whom the rules do not apply. Despite its billing as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" we edit only at their pleasure. HJ Mitchell is typically (and uncommonly) judicious but even he believes himself and Mr Hypocrite above the IP rabble. 166.137.252.124 (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take the "judicious" remark at face value and thank you for it, but I don't believe that registered editors are inherently superior to the "IP rabble". A study was done a while ago, it's a bit outdated now but it's still interesting, that although the vast majority of vandalism came from IPs, actually the vast majority of IP edits were helpful. Anyway, what this boils down to is that I don't think Hipocrite has actually violated any policy, and even if he has there doesn't seem to be any support for blocking him, so if I was to block him my action would promptly be overturned. So I would say that unless Hipocrite is behaving disruptively, his motives for any particular edit are academic. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, is your talk page a free-fire zone where people can assume bad faith about me? When I asked for his watchlist and "figure out what I'm supposed to do," it was directly referring to his previous statement that he "update[s] a bunch of episode lists." I note that previously I had written "Provide a list and I will guarantee coverage. I can do the formatting," responding to "All I do is update a bunch of episode lists because I put in too much of a complex formatting for anyone to possibly use on their own." The misrepresentation of my statement is abusive, and I'd ask for more than an "academic," clearance of my statements, I'd like a clear statement that I have actually done nothing wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently so. In my opinion as one admin, you've done nothing wrong. The consensus at AN also appeared to be that you've done nothing wrong. And as long as your edits are neutral and verifiable, I don't see that changing. That's as unequivocal as I can be. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be completely clear about this. When an editor is banned, and editors who have been idle for years come back to Wikipedia to edit pages that were on the banned editor's watchlist, this apparently is grounds for an indef (I've seen several instances of this lately), on the basis of circumstantial off-site evidence of some intention of "grave-dancing" - regardless of the content of edits? But an editor who explicitly co-ordinates on-site with the about-to-be-banned editor to follow some portion of that watchlist and edit those pages is doing nothing wrong ipso facto, but needs to be shown to be acting "at the direction of the banned editor" in a non-circumstantial way before action is taken? 76.64.33.14 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PROXYING is what you're describing and there's nothing wrong with it. If Ryulong emails me and says "Hey request a move of "List of Power Rangers Dino Charge" to "List of Power Rangers Dino Charge episodes", and I think yeah, that makes sense, it makes the encyclopaedia better. Then that's what I'm going to do. Even if it was against a rule, I'd still do it. The indef's that were handed out have been overturned on appeal whenever it's been brought up and if there are any that haven't been I'd suggest they do so. The consensus has been that it was an over-reaction. — Strongjam (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While they may have been "overturned on appeal" the blocking admins' mission was accomplished: to dissuade editors from contributing content against the wishes of another editor who by rights should have no influence over the encyclopedia. How many of the blocked editors returned, 1 in 4? And how many of the blocking admin's have been sanctioned or even cautioned against discouraging future valid contributions? And by valid I mean following both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's rules and principles. You choose to follow the spirit or the letter based on whichever best achieves your desired outcome. That will never be a principled stance however you choose to justify it. 166.137.252.92 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Emma Sulkowicz
Hi, Immediately after you blocked User:09I500 for BLP violations on Emma Sulkowicz, an IP hopper (along with a sleeper account), has been tagging the article for deletion. This seems suspicious and disruptive. How should this be handled, is there a noticeboard to address this?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it's suspicious, but I'm not absolutely convinced it's related. Regardless, I've semi-protected the article for a fortnight. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Power Rangers Dino charge/Yoshua Sudarso
I noticed you checked the page out and made an edit making the actor page match the actor entry on the dino charge page. It made me notice that the actor page is actually incorrect and needs to be renamed to actually match the dino charge page. How do you do that? I'm pretty sure you can as an admin, but I'm not sure how to request a change. FlossumPossum (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean you want Yoshi Sudarso moved to Yoshua Sudarso? I can do that (the only reason I reverted the reason move was that it was made by a sockpuppet). Although I'm more inclined to nominate it for deletion considering the state of the article; do you think the guy's notable enough for his own article? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just looking over it and the only source I can find for his name that isn't WP:UGC is this press release which credits him as "Yoshi". I was considering nominating for deletion myself as currently the only source in the BLP is IMDB. — Strongjam (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I hadn't noticed that it was created by a sockpuppet; that makes it eligible for speedy under G5 so I've nuked it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yah, deletable for now until someone else makes the article. He might be notable because he has been working a bit but the state of the article itself was poor. I'll think about making it later perhaps. FlossumPossum (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Attack page
Hi

Can we get the attack page of the user you just blocked removed as I dont really rate it as a great event of the world. Amortias (T)(C) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Scratch that someones already done it. Amortias (T)(C) 22:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't seen that. What a lovely chap! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection request
Would you please again look at Legend (2015 film) to which you recently gave protection; also Testament of Youth (film). Thank you. Nedrutland (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fully protected both for a week. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

IPv6 vandal
Saw you were working on WP:AIV in the last hour and have a quesiton for you. Any suggestions on what to do with this (1 2 3) guy? I'm not familiar with range blocking in IPv6 land... is there anything to do here or are we stuck just chasing down the activity after it happens? Thanks for your advice, —  Noah  00:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes it's possible to rangeblock IPv6s; these are all in 2600:1006:B100:0:0:0:0:0/41, so I've blocked that for a week. IPv6 can be a blessing and a curse—because there are so many bits, we can target very small ranges, and because there are so many billions of them, the chances of them being reassigned to a legitimate editor are incredibly slim, especially in the sort of time frame of a normal block; on the other hand, if somebody has access to a large network, it can be damn near impossible to deal with because of the collateral damage. Essentially, everything that's true of IPv4 is true of IPv6, only more so! Not that I'm an expert—I'm still getting to grips with IPv6 myself. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi HJ, thanks for the help and the IPv6 info... hopefully that will slow down this particular chap for a bit. And, yes, I suppose it's only a matter of time until someone accidentally blocks a few billion IPv6 addresses by mistake. ;-)   —  Noah  01:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope I know enough that it won't be me! That would be the modern equivalent of deleting the main page! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate Article Question
Regarding the Gamergate article, you may have seen the discussion at Suggested Re-Adding of the Ex-Boyfriend's Name. I have now self-reverted my initial revert, due to it being incomplete. (Also, in the meanwhile, the issue has been submitted to the BLP Noticeboard.) Would it be appropriate for me to re-submit the (complete) reversion, or would that violate 1RR (and/or be discourteous due to it being on the noticeboard now)? Thanks! AtomsOrSystems (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1RR is there to stop he interminable edit wars we had before the arbitration case, so I for one am not going to get too het up about things that aren't edit-warring. Self-reverts are exempt, but that's not a license to game the system (in other topic areas, tendentious editors have made a revert and then decided that they wanted to revert a subsequent edit more, so they self-reverted their revert and then reverted the other edit! Needless to say, they got sanctioned! Although it was tempting to let them off for ingenuity!). As for whether it would be a good idea to do the revert you were trying to do in he first place, normally I'd say it would be fine. In this case, though, since BLP has been invoked and it's under discussion at BLP, it's probably best to join the discussion there and wait for the outcome of that. It's always better to be cautious with BLP issues—if somebody is being silly or abandoning common sense, it'll soon be sorted out at BLPN. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I appreciate the advice, and thanks! AtomsOrSystems (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI - Kelly
There is a current discussion at WP:ANI regarding and admin action you took. The user has pinged you but not left a message here, so I'm doing it in their stead. GoldenRing (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bah, sorry, just spotted that you'd already been notified and removed it. Don't mind me.  GoldenRing (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times has published the name of the accused rapist - will you reconsider putting a note in my block log that you made an error in this case? Kelly hi! 02:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point. I blocked you because you restored the content while legitimate BLP concerns were being discussed, not because I have any particular opinion about whether he should be named. As you've taken this to ANI, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep the discussion there. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Kelly has apparently violated the conditions of her unblock request by re-adding the information she assured you she would not re-add. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That will have to be dealt with at ANI (read: get bogged down in endless unproductive discussion); my re-blocking at this point would cause more problems than it would solve, and it would be unfair to block somebody just as I'm going to bed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

IIPM
Hi Harry. In case you haven't seen it, Peter Damian (mostly) put together this brief history of the IIPM saga which sheds some light on the Indian political and legal background. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I was surprised by the block of User:Makrandjoshi. While I've seen plenty of evidence of Mrinal Pandey/Empengent (who remains unblocked) and Wifione misusing sources, puffing IIPM and dissing IIPM's competitors, all I've seen Makrandjoshi doing is standing firm against IIPM's censorship of Wikipedia. I haven't looked at all of his edits, of course, but what I've seen has been to the benefit of this project, in the face of considerable harassment. (Apart from the death threats and threats of violence cited by Andreas, he was also threatened with police prosecution by an earlier incarnation of Mrinal.) Could you have made an error in this instance? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that. Thanks for the link. It's interesting, and it's good to know that I'm not the only one who's reached the conclusion that these articles are a hotbed of unhelpful editing, but it doesn't prove much. There's not enough to conclusively tie Wifione to Mrinal Pandey/Empengent (who to this day remain unblocked, so even if you prove the connection it could be argued that it was clean start since they're not evading a block). But from what I've seen, the article has been infested with single-purpose accounts, and I don't see Makrandjoshi as being any different. I read the Wikipediocracy thread (I normally go elsewhere for comedy, but somebody told me I was mentioned), and the argument against the block appears to be that Makrandjoshi is a POV pusher but they're pushing a "good" POV so we should look the other way. That argument holds no more water for me than the argument that we should turn a blind eye to disruption caused by anti-gamergaters just because the people they were opposing were even worse. It's the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" fallacy. I've looked again, and Makrandjoshi's edits are almost exclusively focused on the IIPM—the IIPM article is their most-edited, for example, to which they have 20 times the number of edits to the second article on the list (which itself is the IIPM's founder). If I had to guess, I would say it's likely, given the article's history, that Makrandjoshi is connected with one of the IIPM's competitors. And to address the other argument being made on Wikipediocracy, the arbs are unlikely to appreciate some random admin wading in and blocking the main party to a case days before the proposed decision is due. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * I hadn't read those Wikipediocracy comments before I posted this. If you want to address their comments, I'd prefer that do so there or in another thread. Here, I'd appreciate it if you would address my concerns about your block.


 * I don't see how you can think the case for Mrinal = Wifione is a hard call. Have you read the article talk pages, or the samples I listed on the workshop talk page or searched those two archive pages for the word "kindly", as I suggested?


 * I hadn't realised Makrandjoshi was disruptve. All I've seen is him attempting to remove puffery and add very appropriate commentary to IIPM-related articles. Yes he's a single purpose account but that's not a crime. I presume - at least I hope - you're not going to block this guy.


 * Here is an editor who, as far as I've seen, has been defending NPOV (I'm not aware of you providing any evidence to the contrary) unlike Wifione, has no obvious COI, unlike Wifione, hasn't deployed well over 100 socks, unlike Wifione, hasn't threatened to report anyone to the police, unlike Wifione, and you block him with a twenty three-word explanation. But for us to get a clearly threatening, biasing, socking, lying 10 year veteran paid shill admin blocked it takes 100s of hours of volunteers' time.


 * The GamerGate editors who were sanctioned by ArbCom were sanctioned for disruptive behaviour, not because they had a point of view. If you can show a pattern of serious disruption on his part, then I'll support the block. If not, would you please reconsider this block. This is, of course, just a matter of principle. Makrandjoshi seems to have been driven off a long time ago.


 * I am not IIPM's enemy, so your enemy's enemy = friend proposition doesn't apply in my case. I'm aware the Indian diploma mill topic area is well-covered by paid advocacy. See my comment here about the state of Amity Business School when Wifione started on it. DGG also commented on this fact in his analysis. That is not a license for you to wander into a topic you appear not to have fully grasped and start indiscriminately blocking people just because they seem to be on one "side". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was an admin up to August 2014. Since March 2012, I did very careful and repeated researches to assure myself that one editor's actions and edits here on en:wiki are dishonest and manipulative. I did the researches also because I wanted to be sure that I don't accuse somebody of wrongdoings without persuasive evidence. During my research work, I provided my conclusions repeatedly to a wider review to the "community". If I acted like you (as an admin), I would block the editor soon after starting my research, because from what I've seen in their contributions, it was clear to me that they are dishonest manipulators. Perhaps there would be no ArbCom cases and no time wasted, if I acted only in accordance with my own impressions and blocked immediately, like you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Blockade of 186.151.23.169
You recently blocked for a week, but it appears that they is another sockpuppet of  and  (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ELreydeEspana & Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ELreydeEspana) who usually vandalizes Wikipedia inflating the figures of white and German people in Guatemala and curses whoever reverts their editions. ★ Nacho ★    (Talk page) ★ 11:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Appeal 12952
HJ - I am having trouble figuring this issue out. I read the pages this user was supposedly disrupting and I see what appear to be constructive edits. I reviewed the SPI and the CU data appears to cleanse the user. Could you give more insight because I'm not seeing how this user qualifies as a NOTHERE. URL is https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=12952. Thanks.--v/r - TP 03:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't access that, but I've requested a UTRS account because I've been thinking about getting involved in that for a while. Am I likely to be approved in a reasonable timeframe to handle that appeal? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The two most active tool admins (that I know of) are and . I know I personally needed help setting up (the exclamation mark was messing things up). And even if you don't participate actively, I think it is worth it for most admins to at least have access to viewing UTRS tickets. :) ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've activated your account - thanks for volunteering.--v/r - TP 17:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

()
I'm perfectly aware, as you know, of the Ryulong trolls that sprung into action recently, but this one seems like it might genuinely be an innocent caught in a crossfire -- he is a productive editor over on Commons. Do you object to unblocking and seeing what happens? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, go for it. If they've appealed to UTRS it suggests it wasn't a throwaway account, so I've no objection to giving them some rope. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * DarknessSavior, Fidsah, Cactusjackbangbang (which is the appeal TParis asked about just above), FlossumPossum all appealed to UTRS, FYI. They're neither socks nor throwaway accounts per se, just dormant accounts of Reddit (mostly) people who resurrected them for their own nefarious purposes. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, they've had a time-out, so to speak, and the dust is beginning to settle from Ryulong's ban, so there shouldn't be too much danger in unblocking. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Kim
Hey. I'd like to use the Michelle Kim page to create a redirect (to a Neighbours character), but it appears to be protected. Is it possible to have the protection removed? - JuneGloom07    Talk  16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's been salted for two and a half years, so it's reasonable to assume that the issues have gone away (and worst-case scenario, I can always protect the redirect). :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that! - JuneGloom07    Talk  20:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for advice
Hi,

Im hoping you could provide some advice on what I might want to look at next. I have done (what I consider) a fair chunk of anti-vandal new page and recent change patrolling as well as being willing to throw my oar in at WP:ANWP:ANI and WP:ANEW where I think my two cents might be useful or where i can deal with and clear up some mess. I dont have a creative bone anywhere in my body so am looking for other areas I might be useful in. As you seem to have a pretty honest and level headed approach around here your advice would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 22:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm always dubious about the value of getting heavily involved at the drama boards. I know anti-vandal can be monotonous, but it's important work—the admin corps isn't big enough to be everywhere all the time, so we rely on patrollers to tell us where the tools can be most useful. Have you tried using some of the automated tools like Huggle or STiki? But if you're looking for something new to do, have you done any reporting to WP:UAA? That's another area where the admins would be quickly overwhelmed if it weren't for the efforts of patrollers; essentially you're looking for obviously offensive usernames, vandals with mildly offensive/disruptive usernames, and usernames that represent companies/organisations, especially if they're editing in connection with (or spamming on behalf of) the company. When WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged, a well-considered non-admin comment on some of the more complicated requests can make a big difference to the admin trying to clear the backlog. Or, if you feel you're good at patiently replying to questions, OTRS is always looking for more help. If you're technically inclined, the edit filter people might appreciate an extra pair of hands. DYK could always use more reviewers, the folks at ITN should appreciate well-considered comments, the Signpost is looking for new blood, and there are always article needing categories/references/copy-editing/formatting. The work never ends! ;) Any of that sound interesting to you? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont mind the anti-vandal work and can see that its quite a useful place to be involved in.
 * I've tried Huggle and Stiki but im much more a hands on person and prefer finding the more sneaky things they dont always pick up on.
 * I report to WP:UAA when im patrolling new pages or the abuse log so ick thos up i the course of what I do now. I can pick up some slack from there pulling out the bad bot reports. OTRS might be a good palce to start as my work involves handling queries and complaints when they havent ben able to be dealt with over the normal channels. I'll have a look over there. Thanks. Amortias (T)(C) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hot-blooded, check it and see.
Hi HJ, if you're around, could I get you to take a look at these edits. The user Barbaro is a bit quick-tempered and I've had to revert some of their stuff and warn them about personal attacks. A different user, JustPlaneEditing came by and reverted an edit of Barbaro's that was a few days old, escalating my warning from L2 to L4 for what was essentially the same spate of problematic edits. I tried to contact JustPlaneEditing to explain this in a friendly way and to suggest they remove the bitey warning, but Barbaro saw the warning and came back with more heat. Though I would normally be tempted to drop an L4 on Barbaro for NPA at this point, I wonder if maybe some input from an uninvolved party might help quench the fire. I'm hopeful anyway. I'm not asking for admin intervention so much as I am asking for friendly intervention from an admin, since my participation again might not be well received. Noticing JustPlane's talk page history, I wonder if this biteyness is becoming a problem with them as well. Anyhow, Thanks in advance! (I say as I drop this in your lap and run away as fast as I can...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm rarely about at 02:55 (and when I am, I really shouldn't be!), but it seems has sorted it out by blocking one party and giving the other a bollocking Britishism for "robust verbal chastisement"!.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I probably should have looked at the little clock icon that appears in on your talk page edit window. Too bad about this one. I tried! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
I myself may have been an anon, but I've been keeping his childish antics at bay, and notified a user in order to get word to an admin to take action against a vandal-like user. Thanks for your assistance. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. That guy was clearly just out to make a nuisance of himself. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Xander756
This user is requesting an unblock in to allow them to edit under the restrictions of their topic ban. It's now a community/Arbcom action so I cannot do it unilaterally.--v/r - TP 18:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry. He egregiously violated BLP, edit-warred to restore it, got blocked for it, came back and personally attacked the admin who blocked him then repeated his BLP violation on the admin noticeboard. I'll try not to hold it against him that he grossly misrepresented the reason for the block off-wiki, but his UTRS request suggests he's as intransigent as ever and still misunderstands or misinterprets the reason for the block, and he wants to go and edit a BLP (albeit in a different topic area). I'm not willing to unblock him and—unusually for me—would oppose any other admin doing so at this time. He needs to show some sort of comprehension of the problem with his edits, and understand that he must follow policy, even if he disagrees with it, and must not use Wikipedia to libel people, even if he disagrees with them. Clearly he doesn't. And considering the dust is only just settling from the arbitration case, I think it's premature to be considering unblocking people who were indef'd during the height of the disruption. Three months (from the original block, so another two months from now) and an understanding of what got him blocked in a first place and I'd seriously consider it. In fact, as a gesture of good faith, I'll alter the expiry to 7 April 2015, which is three months from the date of the original block, and I'll give him back his talk page access; iff he shows he understands that personal attacks and BLP violations are unacceptable (and that that's what he did) and gives assurances that he won't do anything like that again. I suggest he appeals to ArbCom if he disagrees with me, but I think that's a good offer, and probably better than the offer he'd get from ArbCom. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, would you mind kicking  over to me? I'm sympathetic to the idea of an unblock, but I'd like to ask a few questions first.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've released that appeal. I sent the Xander one to BASC.--v/r - TP 21:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TP. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to 100% agree with HJ here, the editor definitely still does not understand BLP policy, or doesn't care. He is still claiming that making unsubstantiated accusations against living persons is fine, and that editing Talk or Wiki pages with the same accusations isn't against policies. Dave Dial (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , is he still going on about this off-wiki? I rarely venture over to Twitter (heat:light). If he's still misrepresenting the reason for the block while simultaneously requesting to be unblocked, that makes me much less inclined to offer conciliatory gestures. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He's mentioned it within the past week or so. Still claiming he never edited a GG article. To him, as long as he never edited the specific Gamergate controversy article, then the Talk page, Zoe Quinn(and Talk), Anita Sarkeesian(and Talk), etc. don't count. I've tried to explain a couple times, but he's either not understanding or refusing to understand. Perhaps if Tom explained specifics it would go over better, since he is uninvolved. But I doubt it. Dave Dial (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at his Talk page though, the specifics for the ArbCom restrictions are pretty well laid out. There is no getting around that. If he's read that and understands it applies to Talk pages etc.., then your suggestion may be best. Dave Dial (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, once the dust has settled it should be less of a problem, but he needs to grasp that BLP and NPA are non-negotiable first. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitehell
It appears you've attracted an impersonator. Care to do the honors and block him? Everymorning  talk  23:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh! As impostors go, that's actually quite a good one. The list of potential culprits, though, is worryingly long. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for your assessment of discussion
User:HJ Mitchell, Hi! There is currently a discussion on Talk:Flood myth, in the sub-section entitled, "Suggested Sub-Section," in which there is some talk between editors about whether or not the current article is balanced, or shows "neutrality" about the Flood at the time of Noah. Can I please ask your advice about how I should proceed in reaching a consensus about the need for a more balanced article? Any advice will be appreciated by me. Davidbena (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to hush things up
If the gender gap task force want a fight they can have one, no matter how many Admins attempt to revert and hush things up. I have kept very quiet up until now, but many here are sick to death of them and their Gestapo like posturing. Giano   (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you like to know what I'm sick to death of? I'm sick of people starting petty feuds all over the wiki, and I'm sick of people who should know better fanning the flames. Why can't everyone just leave each other the fuck alone and get back to writing the encyclopaedia? I'd much rather interact with you and Eric and Lightbreather at FAC, where the result is something that people actually give a shit about, than at AE or the drama boards where admins have to waste inordinate amounts of time putting out the fires that people insist on starting. And if you really feel the need to insult Gamaliel, do it on his talk page, were can insult you back if he's so inclined, rather than in a closed thread at AE. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have fanned no flames at all until this evening, when I became totally sick to death of this ridiculous persecution of Eric Corbett, by a group of self-appointed feminists who would not know the meaning of the word feminism if it jumped and bit them on their over-rested behinds; and what's more if it comes to fanning flames, I suggest you look to the top of the Wikipedia tree, not amongst us twigs at the bottom. Giano    (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That you personally haven't been fanning the flames previously does not mean that fires haven't been needlessly started, nor that flames haven't been needlessly fanned. This weaponisation of gender issues by parties on both sides is really quite tiring. Imagine how much nicer Wikipedia would be if everyone just focused on writing the encyclopaedia, and we could have intelligent discussions about the issues that affect that (which include under-representation of women in the editor base), regardless of which set of genitals we were born with. Wouldn't that be so much more enjoyable for all concerned? So why not work towards peace and harmony? And then if other editors don't share your pacifism, it becomes very clear to outside observers hat the problem is with them and not with you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As closer, consider moving Giano's comment on the ARBCOM request page out of the admin section, please.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I considered it when I saw it. I decided that closing the thread before the discussion deteriorated further (regardless of who posted in what section) was preferable to procedure for its own sake. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, let's just say that if there is many more fire lighting and vindictive, trolling behavior from the so called Gender Gap people, then they are going to find that I most certainly am not a member of the fire brigade. So far, I have stayed well away from them, observing them from a distance, but many editors here have had quite enough of their ridiculous claims and attempts to pervert people words (have we forgotten the ridiculous, trolling "F-- victim" affair already? These people must be barking mad if they think the rest of us are so easily fooled by such paranoid rubbish. Giano    (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or you could just leave them to it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we should all sit back and let these people drive and persecute valuable editors from the project - a crime that, with less evidence, is often leveled against Eric Corbett? I'm sorry HJ, I know you are one of the good guys, but we can't let one group of self-appointed and self-opinionated editors walk all over us.  Giano    (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. Because the best way to prove that Wikipedia isn't hostile to women is to belittle and harass them. Same as to prove that Gamergate is about ethics in journalism is to degrade and harass women game developers and spout off about "SJWs". smh.... Dave Dial (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Wikipedia is not hostile to women, and no one, certainly not me, is belittling and harassing them. However, if a woman behaves like a complete fool, I would imagine that she is told she is foolish in exactly the same way that a man would be. However, most of the time, editors have no idea of the sex of the editor to whom they are speaking. You seem to be suggesting that women should be addressed as though they are characters in a Jane Austen novel. Well, I'm very sorry, but the world has moved on a little since the early 19th century. Giano    (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take sides. All I will say is that, yes, some people appear to be on a campaign to get Eric banned (though I don't think Gamaliel is one), but if Eric's conduct was unimpeachable, they'd have no case. And if everyone just focused on the mainspace, there wouldn't be a problem. Which set of genital we have shouldn't come into the equation. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you HJ, a very wise comment, with which I agree. So I won't even speculate about your genitals, but others do seem to have a preoccupation with them ( genitals in general not yours personally ), so I doubt this will be the end of the matter. Giano    (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your approach is best, HJ. Wikipedians are 'gender-neutral' & must be viewed that way, for these 'gender gap' disputes to evaporate. It will take time, but peace will be restored :) GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page reinstatement
Regarding this edit, I'm curious where the line is between unactionable and BLP violation. To me, that's an accusation of ethical misconduct against multiple named living persons, not even in the context of a sourced opinion (on the contrary, specifically stating that it's original research). It's really no different from this edit or this edit—that's pretty much what this editor does—both of which were hatted and stayed hatted. Should I have hatted it as unactionable or FORUMy instead? Taken it to AE? I just don't see where the line is, where this is okay yet other accusations by this and other editors aren't. Woodroar (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to hatting. It's not really a serious BLP issue to state that some journalists know each other (it's about as scandalous as some Wikipedians knowing each other!), even if it is done to impugn their motives, but it's not really on-topic either. Thanks for the other diffs; I've indef'd them, since they're not here to build an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was mostly concerned with the "friends doing favors for friends doing favors for friends" comment, but I understand your side as well, so fair enough. I'll hat unproductive conversations going forward. Well, with other editors, since you've blocked this one. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've suppressed several edits by this IP. The vandalism goes back more than a week, so I'd suggest extending the block. Hopefully soon you can do all of this! Thanks for your post at ARCA. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I usually just do a spot check of edits when I'm processing AIV reports, but looking more closely that IP's registered to a business communications company. It looks like a VPN, and there's almost no legitimate reason to edit Wikipedia through a VPN, so I've hard-blocked it for a year. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact there are so few reasons to edit through a VPN that I've blocked the /29 the company uses. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How did you determine it's a VPN? And business communication? It's . Whew, copy and paste almost gave you a recipe for pineapple upside down cake with bourbon, but I caught it before saving! Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * VPN was a guess. The IP belongs to Exponential-e Ltd, and VPNs are one of the services they provide according to their website. But I overlooked that the client was SW Durham Training (which explains the interest in Darlington and Bishop Auckland). I'll soften it to a schoolblock. I was never much of a fan of bourbon, but I never met a Scotch I didn't like! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!


Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for all the work you've done at AE, including the decisions I don't quite agree with.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 12:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As I'm sure you can imagine, it's not always easy work. And some case feel a lot like being caught between a rock and a hard place, so the appreciation is, well, appreciated! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And...
Thank you for looking at the socking evidence for Wifi again. It's to your credit. Unblock Makrandjoshi and I'll edit my vote in your RFA to "support". Seriously, though, thank you for being willing to look at stuff a second time. It speaks volumes to your character. Cheers. Begoon &thinsp; talk 15:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And you're welcome. I'm not infallible, and I try to keep that in mind. And in this case the socking is certainly a lot more likely than not. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)