User talk:HJ Mitchell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learned something!

Please don't leave {{YGM}} or {{Tb}} templates here—there is a very good chance I will see your message before I see the template.

Admin mop.PNG
Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it. I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks.
A list of archives of this talk page may be viewed here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically
If you have a query about my alternate accounts, please see this page.

Off-Wiki GamerGate behavior[edit]

I know you aren't going to reconsider your decision regarding Mark Bernstein, but when I read "armies of Mordor", I assumed that Bernstein was talking about off-Wikipedia GamerGate sites and message boards which watch these half dozen articles like a hawk. I didn't think he was referring to Wikipedia editors. He's talking about folks that post in threads like this and this (just two examples from this week and things have died down). That was my take on that reference. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I read it as a direct attack on the editors who complained about the last link, but even if it weren't directed at any Wikipedian, it's not a helpful comment, and it really was the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm all for second chances, but I let somebody talk me into reconsidering last time I blocked Dr Bernstein and Dr Bernstein hasn't given an inch since so—as much as I'd like nothing more on a personal level—I'm not going to be reconsidering this time; in fact, I think I was perhaps unduly lenient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I knew you wouldn't reconsider because it was clear you were pretty fed up with his edits. I just think that a problem with the ARBCOM decision is that they didn't take into sufficient consideration the amount of off-wiki collaboration and harassment that was going on and directed specifically at editors who were trying to combat violations of BLP policy. I've spent time on the worst of the worst of these forums (which I won't link to) and the language is coarse, pointed and aggressive towards individuals the members view as blocking their POV in the GamerGate articles. I know that all of the editors who've received topic blocks (including Bernstein) are aware of how they are targeted on these forums and those are really the people they are opposed to, these message board trolls, whether the individuals come to edit Wikipedia or just talk about disrupting the encyclopedia on their own forums.
While this off-wiki activity has recently lessened in its ferocity, having also been harassed in late 2014, I know it is extremely difficult, when one is being targeted and outed, not to view the whole topic area as a battleground. But seeing the abuse directed at several admins, I know that you are not a stranger to this behavior (while in this case, it is on-wiki) and since most admins find a way to disengage from personal disputes, you all provide an example we could follow. Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a stranger to off-wiki abuse, either (though noting on the scale that some of the editors in this topic area have had to deal with), and the deleted revisions of this talk page contain plenty of material that makes the gamergate crowd look like girl scouts (I'm not joking!). I guess after a while it just becomes background noise. A lot of what I do as an admin Yes, ArbCom can and perhaps should note it as a mitigating factor, but it's not a blank cheque. At the end of the day, we're all responsible for what we write. Being a bit terse or jaundiced as a result of harassment I can entirely understand, but when somebody fails to realise that they're at one end of a spectrum of opinions and starts lumping in everyone who doesn't agree with them with people who write shit from behind a computer screen on some effluent tank of the Internet or other, I'm afraid they're part of the problem, not part of the solution. I'm fond of comparing the Wikipedia versions of gamergate and the Arab-Israeli conflict, because the latter is probably our most problematic topic area over the long term and the conduct issues are similar. Just substitute "misogynistic" for "Israeli" or "Palestinian" or "occupied" and the issues are essentially the same: both are plagued by single-purpose accounts trying to push their POV, both attract plenty of vandalism, sockpuppets, and generally unhelpful edits and talk page threads. Most of the editors in both topic areas have a POV, but neither side entirely succeeds in getting their way, and the constant discussion on the hot topics often results in a better article. It keeps AE busy, but editors who ask honest questions and accept the consensus survive, while those who try to force their preferred version, or dismiss all divergent views as trolling, end up topic-banned or blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well-stated, HJ. I'm of the opinion that since the heat on GamerGate is already much less than it was around November 2014, it will continue to lessen over time. I doubt that the Israel/Palestine area will ever cool down. And now I come across battles about the Ukraine or Assyrians/Chaldeans and these ethnic/national divisions make war over gender topics look almost well-mannered (well, if you don't look at those off-wiki forums). This whole bitterness about "Social Justice Warriors" reflects a clash over cultural values and it might erupt on other sensitive subjects such as politics, race, equality or class. It was this bit that really hit a nerve and continues to generate such virulence. I'm not sure if this is as big a deal in the UK but I can see it coming up in the future in the U.S. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a question, HJ Mitchell, but Mark Bernstein's 90 day topic ban has been lifted. Does this affect his penalty for violating the said topic ban if it no longer is present? Or does he still face a month-long penalty even though it no longer applies? Liz Read! Talk! 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What gives you the right...?[edit]

... to block whole swathes of users/editors of Wikipedia? Are you 'elected,' what qualifications do you have? Are you qualified to be judge, jury, executioner? I really am curious regarding the motives of self-appointed people like you who seek to manage information/thought just as much as the 'old elite.' A genuine question from me. Your responses below rather confirm to me (a true professional) that you have some form of personality disorder. If so, then you need help, not my ridicule... Strange too how the most agressive Wiki-Controllers are interested in military matters and are American... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2015‎

American? If you're going to attack an editor at least get your facts straight. — Strongjam (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Admins are elected by the community and their actions are reviewable by the community. Your diagnosis is rather unprofessional to say the least. --NeilN talk to me 20:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Elected by the community? What does that mean? You do not address the crux of the question. People get to control Wikipedia by some arcane 'lord of the jungle' process. As it happens, the spelling of behaviour as behavior rather indicates an American. Secondly, my views about people like you are shared by the true academic community - and no Wiki-controllers ever answer the questions. What 'kick' do you get out of this? Why do you do it? What right have you to control? That is why I made the blunt statement I did. It's a genuine concern - but no answer will be forthcoming. You live in a world where you have admitted your actions are supported by the'community' (=people exactly like you). You are not the worst offender. And what are your academic qualifications?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This page should answer most of your questions. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Requests for adminship should help you understand the process, too. There is an RfA going on right now, 94.197.42.119, why don't you stop by and look at the process in action? Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 2. And really, you're not fooling anyone into thinking you're a professional academic. --NeilN talk to me
I dunno, I've seen worse from some professional academics... Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

But this rather cofirms my 'fears.' The process you mention is self-serving. It is set up with the ultimate result of supporting the self-appointed structure of Wikipedia-Controllers who themselves can set up the rules, the structure etc. It is not democracy, or even a meritocracy: it's the strongest and loudest who win. I do not want to win; all I want is for some idiot who (not here) wears combat outfit, carries a machine gun, has a basic high school education, has an extreme Right Wing agenda, banning us for correcting non-contenious articles about (say) opera singers. It's madness and there is nothing we can do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2015‎

"And really, you're not fooling anyone into thinking you're a professional academic." that rather proves my point. Inane insults rather than answering the fundamental question. As it happens I do not have to fool people - I am an academic at a real university and have been for twenty years. But I am not better than you or anyone else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2015‎ (UTC)

If you think admins are our "strongest and loudest" editors then you really haven't done your research as as professional would. --NeilN talk to me 20:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have an easy life compared with most people and I am well paid BUT I must publish articles every year, must attend conferences, I must justify everything I do or say with evidence and if I mess up I will be criticised. I must travel the world to see different viewpoints and must argue my case, again with evidence. What do you people have to face? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Constant anonymous harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Constant non-anonymous harrassment, personal attacks, more complaints than thanks for the volunteer work they do. Amortias (T)(C) 21:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget the free psychological assessments! --NeilN talk to me 21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Harassment??? - what you mean is that you do not agree or rather do not want to think. Complaints? Yes, why not? Are you saying that whatever a volunteer does or says is right just because they are a volunteer? As for anonymous, do you really think anyone who dare ask questions is going to post with a registered address? He's going to be banned for life for daring to ask those questions. Finally, in all my academic career I have never accused someone of 'harassment' with whom I have disgreed (and keeps disagreeing!). I have certainly not banned them from speaking out - nor can I ban their publications. That is my point and the difference between us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talkcontribs) 21:17, 25 March 2015‎ (UTC)

The difference between us is that I (and i dare say many others as you can see here) will quite happily spend all day refuting anything you have to say that you cant provide evidence about someone who I have never seen carry out anything but positive contributions to a piece of work that they receive no renumeration for. You may quite posibly be a competent and productive member of whichever academic community you work for but we have no evidence to prove this. We have plenty of evidence to prove that HJ Mitchell is a net positive to this project. The admin proces is in many ways similar to the process that you will have gone through for any job you may have applied for . You submit your application and the evidence you have provided is assessed and if suitable then you may be offered that role. If you cant see that this is what happens here then it may be you need to find another project to work on as the administrators are one of the most useful resources we have to ensure this project keeps running as it should. Amortias (T)(C) 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, guys? You know you're being trolled, right? I mean, if you're having fun, feel free to keep arguing with him, I guess. But this guy is just yanking your chains. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, yeah. I was curious where he was going to go with this. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the good chuckle, but it seems a bit unlikely, given the address is a UK mobile broadband connection. GoldenRing (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolling Yanking at chains ??? - do you really think people say that who are not part of the strange Wiki world? Imagine if I wrote a really bizarre article in the real world, full of self-assertion and insults (like troll and yanking at chains) I would be laughed off the 'stage.' In fact all I am asking here is: first, what gives you (or me) the right to control Wikipedia and block people? Second; the response to questions regarding banning and control have produced a rather typical response (trolling, harassment... etc). 'Where am I going?' well I have no real agenda, I am genuinely curious about how Wikipedia works, who can control it etc. The responses above to my musings rather confirm my worries. Why is any firm comment met with Wiki-Control talk? I do not want to be right just want to find out how Wiki works and who runs it. Thanks to you I suspect I am getting a little nearer the truth. Just google 'what's wrong with Wikipedia...' and you will see that it's not just academics who worry about it.

And finlly I have no axe to grind regarding Mitchell's actual contributions; but rather his long list of blocks/bans. That is what worries me. That is why many have serious worries about Wikipedia - it's not always the quality of the actual article but the control.

Have a look at this link for the basics on how it should work., See this link for how decisions are made and this link this link and this link for the control mechanisms in place. All of these positions are elected on community consensus.
The list of blocks and bans are people who have been negativley contributing to the project. If he was blocking constructive individuals there would have been a request made to remove his ability to do this. It might be worth spending an hour or two observing WP:AIV to see just how many net-negatives there are in a short space of time as it might give some context to the levels of blocks and bans. Amortias (T)(C) 22:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being constructive (Amortias) but what you say still relies on election on community consensus which I think is largely self serving. It is not true review (as I must put up with!). I cannot silence a colleague even if I gang up against him with others - I cannot press a button to silence someone. I say self-serving because it seems to be rather like saying 'the electorate are those chosen to agree with me.' I think it is fine to have an 'expert' who can revert edits - but total bans for one off debatable errors is very scary.

Please let me give one example: when I lectured for a while (as a guest) in America it was clear (as I am a European) that anything left of liberal was regarded by the community consensus as tantamount to Communism. I was not banned from speaking and have been again. I feel that Wikipedia would ban me from certain pages if I introduced my (supported) views. On the other hand I should be banned from lecturing in America for sheer vandalism - such as setting light to students. My fear for Wikipedia is that mere disgreement is regarded as a 'crime' and results in a ban. It would be very easy for me (for example) to ban people whom I regard as an abomonation because I disagree - but I cannot do that in 'real life.'

What you'll hopefully find is that the community consensus varies hugely on what an elected role should do/should have done and viewing previously completed Request for adminship's wil show you how multiple editors opinions on adminsitrators varies.. Administrators are expected to be able to back up their decisions based on policy WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN.
With regards to the example one off incidents leading to blocks and bans have to something major such as an already blocked editor evading the block, legal threats or Arbitration enforcements. Banning someone for simply disagreeing with them is likely to get swiftly overturned and the dmin themselves under severe scrutiny. Some of the more heated debates if your interested in the more dramatic side of Wikipedia its best to look at WP:ANI where youll find quite a lot of disagreement but in the end general consensus resulting in conslusions (not all the time due to policy requiring blocks on some issues) and more often a non-blocking resolution to an issue. If an admin blocks an editor this can be reversed by community consensus, a sincere request from the blocked user (which should be dealt with by an uninvolved admin) or by appeal to the bans appeal sub committee. No one editor is above rebuttal for their actions including Jimmy Wales. Amortias (T)(C) 22:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Evenin' IP. You'd be Evlekis, I presume? If not, I guess you have an evil twin out there who shares your interest in Wikipedia politics (and my block log) and who also edits via 3.

  • What gives me the right? Well, there's this and this (note that I fell flat on my face in the first one, and I had significant opposition in the other two, so it's not a guaranteed pass by any means.
  • What qualifications do I have? Well, I got my 10 GCSEs and my three A-levels (politics, law, and geography if you're interested), but I don't think the people who voted in my RfAs really care about that. In Wikipedia terms, I've written some stuff (but not nearly as much as others) and I guess I've "played the game" for long enough that most people don't think I'm a complete idiot.
  • Judge, jury, and executioner? Not really. It's not that hard to overturn a bad block.
  • Control information/thought? Well, would you call this information? What about this? Or this? What about these? That's just a random sample from the last couple of days, so if you multiply that by five years it's not actually that hard to rack up astonishing numbers of blocks (there are 19 admins who've made more blocks than me, I believe; 17 if you exclude bots).
  • Do enlighten me, which personality disorder do you think somebody would have to have in order to rid an encyclopaedia of people who write "salmon are actually goats"? My best friend did a degree in psychology, so I'm sure she'd love to compare notes.
  • I'm interested in "military matters" among wide and varied interests. I'll happily talk to you about trains or policing or politics or architecture or cycling or various other things if you prefer.
  • I can assure you I'm a Brit. My accent would place me somewhere around here. Would you like a scan of my passport? The WMF already has one, so it's no bother.
  • I know quite a few academics, some of whom contribute to Wikipedia, though I don't think any of them would profess to speak for the whole academic community.
  • What 'kick' do I get? I guess there's a sense of satisfaction in keeping bored schoolkids and malicious editors away from the encyclopaedia; I'd rather write articles, but admin work is a necessary fact of life. Why do I, specifically, do it? Because at some point I learnt that I have a thick enough skin to put up with the abuse and the death threats and the other nonsense and get the job done; not everybody can put up with that kind of thing, and a thick skin shouldn't be a prerequisite to editing, so I do my best to take the burden off the good people who have better things to do.
  • I definitely don't have a right-wing agenda. I'm a gruaniad-reading, bleeding-heart liberal and I lean slightly to the left.
  • Is there anything specific you take issue with, or just the various rangeblocks I've put in place to deal with your evil twin's abuse (if another admin feels like adding to the list, aim at 94.197.0.0/16)?

—Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

HJ, best answer I've seen in quite some time. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Due to your usual modest and understated style, you neglected to mention that you are also a Mensch Harry, as we East End of London Jews term such as yourself. Stay as you are mate, because you are badly needed. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm still struggling with the meaning of the confessional:'On the other hand I should be banned from lecturing in America for sheer vandalism - such as setting light to students.' Holy mackerel, being a light unto the nations of students is one think, with palmary biblical resonance. But torching your students, well, that's just a touch beyond the denotational range covered by 'vandalism', at least in the book of criminal law. Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I've complained in the past about editors being to bitey to newbies and IPs. But in this discussion, editors have tolerated persistent rants and insults to try to explain how Wikipedia administration works and address questions that have come up. Yet, the IP expresses little willingness to try to understand the project and just continues to condemn the way things are (WP:SOAPBOX).
And if all editors who raised complaints faced blocks, I would not still be editing here as I was a rather irritating newbie, being outraged when my edits were reverted and venting on talk pages (I thank God for the exceedingly patient folks at the WP:TEAHOUSE for their nonjudgmental responses). If what you say were true, I'd have a long block log but I don't. I gather you have moved on from this discussion and I think if you find Wikipedia such an intolerable environment, that was probably a wise decision to make. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What the heck[edit]

And what are you planning to do about what has been going on on that article. I'm sorry HJ you are wrong here. This place is nuts and is being run by manipulation and personal attacks. You have discretion. In this case you are enabling behaviours that are at odds with the integrity of this place. This wasn't about that article . You have editors on that article that are abusive and you have an admin who will not let them pass. Who was blocked at 3RR not 4RR but 3RR. Look at how another admin on that page was treated [1] How discouraging and heart breaking. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

Clarification needed[edit]

You say, "I believe multiple parties' conduct bears examination, and discretionary sanctions of some sort are in order." My name is listed under "Involved parties". Am I to understand that you're asking for me to be sanctioned in some way? Alakzi (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: I'm asking for everybody's conduct to be examined. Even assuming you were found to have done something wrong, ArbCom, as a general rule, only imposes sanctions on the worst or most persistent offenders. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Is my participation in this recommended or even required, or can I merrily move on with my life? Alakzi (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You can move on with your life. If somebody has a question specifically for you, they'll ping you or leave a message on their talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How about my life? I made 4 comments on the talk, already 2 more than I am allowed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Four is twice as much as two, so you can expect your allowance to be reduced to zero. My condolences. Alakzi (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Look on my user page for "He who speaks a word of consolation". Real people die, and some fight over the more or less shouting of a hidden text. I miss Dreadstar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't pretend to understand how it's come to this; why is there so little solidarity? I wonder how many of us might be able claim that we'd lead the same life again, if that were possible. Death must be abolished; and so must sectarianism. Alakzi (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There is little solidarity because there is little trust and much bad blood. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Unblock[edit]

Since you haven't had the decency to respond, I've unblocked MB. Dreadstar 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: As HJ Mitchell hasn't edited after he was properly pinged, what's up with the discourtesy? --NeilN talk to me 16:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There have been emails, the discourtesy is Harry's. Feel free to initiate desysop of me, I have found this place to be disgusting and disreputable. Dreadstar 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
No one, not even an admin, is obliged to be around a computer or answering emails 24/7. It's been significantly less than a day. --NeilN talk to me 16:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @Dreadstar: Has he indicated that he has received your emails, and that he doesn't intend to respond to your request? I mean, it seems kind of contradictory—either there have been emails from HJ Mitchell, or he hasn't "had the decency to respond"; it's not immediately obvious how it would be both, or why your tone is called for here. You first pinged HJ Mitchell (and presumably emailed him) less than a day ago, and he hasn't been editing since.
You seem to be shopping around for a confrontation and a reason to take offense when it isn't called for—and it's not a good pattern that you've fallen into, especially when it involves the use of your tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Didn't realize that HJ Mitchell blocked you less than two days ago for edit warring (then unblocked contingent on your promise to stop). Now you're picking a fight with him and undoing his admin actions? Really? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@TenOfAllTrades: Dreadstar has blocked themselves, so I wouldn't expect a response. — Strongjam (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Though I'm sorry that Dreadstar is leaving, one of his final acts was to undo the AE block on User:MarkBernstein. This is contrary to the procedure at WP:AC/DS#Appeals. In my opinion another admin ought to restore the block unless it is reversed by AE or Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If anyone reblocks, it should be HJ Mitchell since he imposed the block in the first place. Reblocking by someone else would complicate matters since it would be unclear who the user can appeal to undo his DS block if he chooses to. Gamaliel (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yaa bureaucracy! Generally agree, although it seems Harry might be taking a break. I emailed him about another matter earlier and he hasn't replied (he usually does.) Unless there is any disruption from MB before HJ Mitchell returns I'd say best to just leave it for him. — Strongjam (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Reblocking without consensus would be wheelwarring, regardless of the unblock possibly also being out-of-true. The solution is for anyone who cares enough to get consensus to reblock. Anyone who wants to protest Dreadstar's unblock can open an arbitration case. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Under Arbcom's rules, Dreadstar shouldn't have unblocked without consensus. To lift an AE block it takes a decision at AE or AN, or action by Arbcom. Reinstating the invalidly-lifted block would not be wheel-warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to add that ArbCom has proposed a motion to desysop Dreadstar (that has an absolute majority of arbitrators supporting, and barring exceptional circumstances should carry and be enacted within 24 hours) which officially states that the unblock made by Dreadstar was in violation of policy, so I'd assume that after the motion is enacted any admin should be able to reinstate the block. You might want to talk to ArbCom first though. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Reblocking would be wheel warring, regardless of whether the unblock was unwarranted, unwise, unsound or just plain stupid. (Because why else would you want to do it?) It should be left to ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action." WP:WW. I think the meaning of "in a combative fashion" here is clear... I'm sure we all are aware of what the intent of the policy here is and what it is meant to address, and undoing the illicit action of a now ex-admin isn't it. Marteau (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it isn't exactly clear because Dreadstar unblocked Bernstein because he believed his topic ban had been illicit (in the context of the dispute over Laurence Olivier article). I think the Bernstein original case needs to be reviewed if there is a question of whether or not the ban was warranted. HJMitchell's subsequent block was because of a topic ban violation. If the topic ban is in question, then the violation is also in question. It's simpler to review the original incident and see if another admin would have ruled similarly. Liz Read! Talk! 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Voting on functionary candidates[edit]

This is occurring at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Game of Thrones wikipage deleted?[edit]

It appears that the Game of Thrones wikipage has been deleted! :O Do you know what happened? Im kinda worried :O Sebahed (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is an ongoing technical issue. Undoing the last edit on the page resolves the problem. If it was a constructive last edit you can then undo your undo to put it back. Amortias (T)(C) 19:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)