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.

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 | 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)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

• News and notes: No men beyond this point: the proposal to create a no-men space on Wikipedia

• Op-ed: Is Wikipedia for sale?

• In the media: Gamergate and Muhammad controversies continue

• Traffic report: The American Heartland

• Featured content: It's raining men!

• Arbitration report: Slamming shut the GamerGate

• WikiProject report: Dicing with death – on Wikipedia?

• Technology report: Security issue fixed; VisualEditor changes

• Gallery: Langston Hughes

• 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#I_feel_I_was_unjustly_blocked 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 | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times has published the name of the accused rapist[1] - 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 | 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. [2] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: 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 | Penny for your thoughts? 03:10, 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)

@TParis: 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 | Penny for your thoughts? 12:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The two most active tool admins (that I know of) are TParis and DeltaQuad. 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! · ✉ 14:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've activated your account - thanks for volunteering.--v/r - TP 17:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

HMS Indeconstructable (UTRS appeal #13063)

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! · ✉ 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 | 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! · ✉ 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 | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Blockade of 186.151.23.169

You recently blocked 186.151.23.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a week, but it appears that they is another sockpuppet of Grinch xlj and ELreydeEspana (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 Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

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 | 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 | 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 Bishonen has sorted it out by blocking one party and giving the other a bollocking Britishism for "robust verbal chastisement"!. HJ Mitchell | 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 | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Xander756

This user is requesting an unblock in UTRS appeal #13126 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 | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, @TParis: would you mind kicking UTRS appeal #12952 over to me? I'm sympathetic to the idea of an unblock, but I'd like to ask a few questions first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)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)

Dave, 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 | 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)

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)