User talk:HJ Mitchell

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 learnt something!

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

"Full protection" means...?

At 20:23, 3 October 2014 you fully protected Thefederalist.com‎. I understand this means it can only be edited by admins, but I'd like some clarification as to what that means. I understand that (a) admins can do housekeeping edits, (b) make edits required by policy (e.g., remove actual BLP vios) or (c) make non-controversial edits requested on the Talk page. But does the admin bit mean an admin is free to (d) work on a protected page as if it were not protected? Andyvphil (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, (d) is definitely out, and even (a) can be controversial. Adminship is about enacting (and sometimes enforcing) consensus and, by extension, policy (which is a codification of policy). Admins shouldn't act unilaterally, and they have to respect full protection like anyone else. So they can make edits requested on the talk page that have consensus or are uncontroversial (eg typo fixes), and they can remove serious policy violations (copyvios, I would say it would have to be a serious BLP violation, vandalism, and other serious issues), but they shouldn't just edit through protection as though it wasn't there, even though they have the technical ability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That was my impression, but then I encountered this edit: [1]. It seems it may be related to the edit war currently going on at List of Wikipedia controversies, though I didn't find out about that until later. There was another one a few days ago on the Neil deGrasse Tyson page, but in that case the admin (Mastcell, iirc) who took sides in the ongoing edit war there by deleting contested material from a fully protected page at least alleged a BLP vio, though I find that contention dubious. But in this case the edit was simply to add scare quotes, which hardly seems to address a "serious BLP violation, vandalism, [or] other serious issue". What do you think? Andyvphil (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, here's the MastCell edit, through full protection:[2]. IMHO, the Weekly Standard is perfectly adequate sourcing. I would have preferred it be explicitly credited in the text as the origin for the not terribly incendiary claim (which turned out to be true) that "no evidence exists..." but the fact that it's cited for that claim would seem to obviate any necessity for the edit. Andyvphil (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I can just about excuse MastCell's edit (a statement like that should have unimpeachable sourcing), although I'm sorely tempted to haul the next admin who does that to ArbCom. People are relying far too much on BLP to edit-war over things that aren't libel and it gets on my nerves. Drmies' edit, though, was quite plainly against the letter and the spirit of policy and I've asked him to self-revert (I won't revert it myself because admins edit-warring through full protection makes a mockery of the whole process). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution?

Hello,

Yesterday I made a request for a temporary semi-protection of Virtual In-Stanity due to chronic disruptive editing by new accounts, which you closed for being a matter you felt would be better handled by dispute resolution? I'm sorry - how is dispute resolution going to put an end to this? The edit "in dispute" was resolved by a consensus made on the main talk page of American Dad!, and a hidden note was posted on every affected article explaining this consensus and that any disagreements can be brought up there. Unless I'm missing something valuable here, I still think this page needs semi-protection, so I would appreciate a small explanation from you on this. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The template is a bit silly really (I have to use a template so the bot knows to archive the request), but in essence the issue is a content dispute, not vandalism or other deliberate disruption. Frankly, the whole thing strikes me as a bit daft—I'm sure people could find a middle ground if they tried, rather than just reverting all the time. It's obviously a source of confusion to readers, and semi'ing the article is not going to resolve the confusion; people would just start changing it again when the protection expired, or people would make their ten edits to get autoconfirmed so they could change it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution wouldn't necessarily solve this issue, I don't think; multiple IP addresses and accounts (mostly new ones, two of which I suspect are sockpuppets, but that is a totally separate issue that I won't bother mentioning anymore here) are involved in this matter that was resolved by consensus. The episode pages in which I (and any other editors involved in this matter) have made multiple reverts of this type of edit have had a hidden note that I personally wrote to address the matter and to encourage anyone who has an issue with this website's consensus on the matter to discuss it on the appropriate talk page rather than editing an individual episode. Multiple people, no matter how many times I revert and leave a note on their talk pages, continue doing this. Given that this dispute involves me and an unknown number of editors (IP and registered), how exactly am I supposed to curb this problem? Davejohnsan (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution in the sense of discussing the issue with transient IPs and accounts probably wouldn't help, but trying to resolve the confusion might. This isn't just some vandal trying to disrupt things fro the lulz, you've got multiple people who genuinely think you're wrong. Imagine if consensus on Wikipedia said the sky was turquoise. You'd have new accounts changing it to blue left, right, and centre. You could, for example, at least acknowledge that it's a point of controversy instead of just insisting that it's part of season 8 and reverting everybody who sees it on their season 7 DVD box set. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I revised the hidden note here to put more emphasis on the fact that it is a disputed matter, but I honestly don't know what else to do here. Not sure if I mentioned this before, but the dispute is also acknowledged on American Dad!. I don't want people to think that this matter is set in stone--sometime down the line, a new discussion may be opened and the consensus on this issue may once again be changed--but I wish people would pay attention! Thanks for your time. Davejohnsan (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ever considered an RfB?

Hi HJ,
I've noticed that you do a lot of work on WP:RPE. Since changing user rights is the primary function of a bureaucrat, I've been wondering if you would ever think about filing an RfB. I'm sure you would be a great 'crat. :) --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 22:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Thank you, WritingEnthusiast, you just made my day! But I'd make a lousy 'crat. I was never interested in user renaming (and 'crats don't do that any more anyway), I don't know anything about bots, and I prefer to !vote at RfA (not that they come around very often these days), so I wouldn't be much use. Besides, I prefer working in the trenches; I'm happier whacking vandals and granting rollback than I ever would be doing 'crat stuff. But thank you for the thought—I do appreciate it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Loeb's (department store)

I am not completely sure what is going on there, they seem to mostly be constructive edits but it concerns me that they seem to all be single purpose accounts and a similar naming habit. So I thought I would leave a note with the recent name violation to have another set of eyes looking at with a bit more powers to investigate. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeppiz

Looking again at the edits of Jeppiz I think he did only make 2 actual reverts, and the third series of edits were a new edit, and not a revert. In this context, I think he should probably be unblocked. Under the circumstances, would you object to an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked. I trust your judgement, and if you think the third wasn't a revert, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since they don't seem to have a history of edit-warring. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all. I didn't violate any rule, but I most certainly didn't keep as calm as I should have. Feeling a bit embarrassed by it all and will not repeat it. Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Block and unblock

Thank you for undoing your block. I take it seriously, and will leave it to others to edit the article for at least a few days, though I'll continue to discuss it.Jeppiz (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, hopefully we'll meet again in pleasanter circumstances. I hope there aren't too many hard feelings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS Userright

Per this, Can I request the OTRS userright be applied to my account please? I work in the permissions queues ocassionally and have answered questions about it in the past. Thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 20:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Done. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! :) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 21:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

another vandal

Hi, HJ - saw where you blocked User talk:Lab2000g for vandalizing American paddlefish, but wasn't sure if you noticed User_talk:69.163.90.6 also vandalized the article and needs to be blocked. Is this behavior normal during a DYK feature, or FA nom? Thank you kindly for catching the 1st vandal. Hope you can do something about the 2nd one as well. Atsme☯^Consult 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, they only made one edit, eight hours ago, and that was their only edit for months, so a block wouldn't do any good. A little bit of unwanted attention is to be expected for the top article on DYK. If you get it to FA, you'll get to experience the attention the day's feature article gets on its day in the sun! Hint: call in every favour you're owed from all your Wikipedian friends and get them o watch it like hawks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User block

Do you really think that blocking User talk:66.250.191.193 for a month is enough? I call this user the Brian Thompson Vandal. He started up this nonsense in August. Nyth83 (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess the obvious answer is we'll see in a month. Their talk page on my watchlist, so if they start again after the block expires, I'll gladly re-block them for longer, but it is a shared IP address, so we should exercise just a little bit of caution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Opinion

I have a couple User pages I am looking at but not sure if they classify as adverts, can you please provide your opinion User:AaronPugh1 and User:Kaboom Houston. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

They're both borderline... My inclination would be to leave them for a few days and see what their owners do—if the creation of those pages turns out to be their one and only edit, we can delete them under U5 (very handy criterion, that! Kudos to whover proposed it!) rather than debate whether they meet G11. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for North Stafford Hotel

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Cas! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

Hi, Harry. I have placed on hold an unblock request for a block you placed. The request is at User talk:Sarr X. The editor suddenly became a vandalism-only editor in April, after a previous history of constructive editing, and now he or she is claiming to regret the vandalism, and to wish to return to constructive editing. I am in favour of giving him or her another chance. Any opinion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi "James", thanks for the note. I'm soft, and it's easy enough to re-block if necessary, so I've unblocked them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In this situation I normally believe in unblocking. As you say, it's easy to re-block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Bell hooks

Hello again, HJ. I have a request the page mentioned above is driving my crazy, we have the properly capitalized article redirecting to the incorrect one. Is there a place I can request the two be swapped? - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There's WP:RM, but here works just as well. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That page has a long history of Talk page discussion about what capitalization should be used in its title. McMatter does not seem to have participated in that discussion and I see no clear consensus on the Talk page in favor of the move. I suggest that changing its capitalization therefore should have been considered potentially controversial, and therefore should not have been done without a formal WP:RM. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I do apologize I came in after chasing some vandals and didn't even think to look at the talk page for a discussion on the capitalization of a proper noun. This was completely my fault for assuming. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a name is't it? And the lead of the article capitalises it as a proper noun, so it din't seem controversial to me. But there's nothing to stop it being moved back if there's actually a reason for it to be lowercase. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The author apparently styles her pen name in lowercase, and that usage has been adopted by some (perhaps most) other sources that refer to her. I'm not saying I personally prefer the lowercase; all I'm saying is that there's a lot of history and discussion of that question that can be found in the Talk page history and the article's edit history, so a page move is a controversial action. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely controversial. There was a lot of discussion around the issue, and it had been stable at bell hooks for over six years now. -- Irn (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've self-reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Go sniff Yvette Fielding

Hi

Can we revoke talk page access on this one as well. The quacking is strong with this one looking at Amortias (T)(C) 21:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Connormah (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Range-blocked

Hi HJMitchell,

You’ve range-blocked my main ISP’s IP addresses. I cannot edit my talk page. My account is in good standing and I have not been account-blocked. I’m using my dial-up account on another ISP, from which I’m editing. This, however, is expensive and I don’t intend to make a habit of using this account unnecessarily.

I realise you’ve applied the range-block for a good reason. Can you please exempt my account from the range-block? If you cannot do this, please contact me using my wiki-only e-mail account; baffle_gab (at) yahoo (dot) com (dot) au. The block notice is:

“Your username or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by HJ Mitchell. The reason given is Block evasion.

   * Start of block: 22:19, 8 October 2014
   * Expiry of block: 22:19, 22 October 2014
   * Intended blockee: 188.29.96.0/20

You can contact HJ Mitchell or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is xxxxx (variable), and the block ID is #5214475. Please include all above details in any queries you make.”

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please help Baffle gab1978 with this issue? He is a valuable member of the Guild of Copy Editors on Wikipedia, and a most constructive contributor. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Baffle gab1978. The rangeblock was aimed at a particularly nasty vandal and serial sockpuppeteer (I spent about an hour last night deleting their obscene vandalism). I've changed the block so that blocked editors can edit their talk pages (though I have a feeling that will mean more obscene vandalism to clean up), and I've granted you IP block exemption, so you should be bale to edit unaffected, but please give that page a read, because it contains some things you should be aware of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated; thank you. I fully understand the need for these blocks. I'll read the page later tonight. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Help on Kurdish Nationalism

Here is the diff between a Canadian-Arabic User and myself on the stated article: [3]

The map was added by an IP, so that further discredits the theory that the map is reliable and that the user, after I reverted the edit, had brought up the issue on my talk page: [4].

Not being an expert on the Kurdish matter, and due to the possible bias of the user due to his Arab origins ], and polarising views on his userpage, I reverted the edit, using Twinkle, AGF, on the article. I am now doubting the reversion I made and I am looking for help pertaining to whether or not I had done the right thing. I would like your view (or you TP Stalkers) on what I should do and whether the image in NPOV.

Additionally, the IP which added it; [5], seems to edit mostly ethnicity-related articles, similar to this article, and after a 'Geolocate, I traced it to Serbia.

Cheers, Luxure (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I've no idea what to do there for the best; I don't know anything about Kurdish nationalism really. The caption seemed quite neutral in stating that the boundaries were one party's claim so you were probably right to restore it, but beyond that, I don't know. If the editor seems to be causing problems with an ulterior motive, it might be worth asking for more eyes at WP:ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

NPA warning

Considering that you are an admin and should know better, I can't be bothered to go through the 1-to-3 sequence of warnings. For this edit you fully deserve the following (despite DTTR). Fram (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.