Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AgadaUrbanit (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 10 March 2014 (→‎Sock Wars: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

WP:AE and discretion

Placed here, as not to clutter an already lengthy section with an essentially digressive comment, but feel free to move, link, or notify as you find necessary.

I agree generally with your position that admins should have discretion, and conceptually we can impose less severe restrictions in lieu of a block. Most of the time I've seen, when challenged, it comes down to sheer force of personality by the admin imposing the sanction, which can be pretty costly in stress levels and time spent explaining actions over and over again. Also, given the developments over the years giving enforcement actions special protection from other admins, I think a little extra solicitousness to doing things carefully is in order in general, I don't wish to suggest that I think you or any other administrator in particular cannot be trusted.--Tznkai (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for dropping in. I've been working at AE on and off for a few years, and one thing that continually strikes me is the inability of most admins there to think outside the box (or at least to consider actions that require thinking outside the box). I firmly believe that admins' duty at AE is not to roboticly impose sanctions for technical violations, but to do what they believe is right for the project. And that might involve doing something that isn't an arbitration enforcement action per se (that is, the arbitration remedies are one more tool for dealing with disruption, but we're not obliged to use them). Toddst's block of Yozer1, for example, was a perfectly valid admin action, and could have stood as it was, with the AE protections lapsing after a year (something that has happened plenty of times before, but isn't exactly routine). Of course I agree that we need to take (even) more care with AE actions than with regular admin actions given the toxicity that surrounds arbitration and the special status afforded to AE actions (with which I don't entirely agree, but reluctantly accept are necessary)—that's why we spend so long discussing things, even though any admin could act unilaterally. While I don't think we should rush into things, nor should we refuse to do something just because it hasn't been done before, nor even be afraid to use our discretion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, mostly. The mostly is where discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is the best time for creativity, and often the time it is most needed. I've certainly tried it myself over the years with limited success. And we certainly can't keep playing not to lose, as opposed to playing to win, which is what mechanical application of rules can get you. But I've become much more aware of how much AE is playing with fire - I've seen it, if not abused outright, misused. I've always thought administrators, at AE and globally, owe everyone else solid explanations of all they do, to provide clarity into our bureaucratic nonsense (a sour spot of enough hurdles and jargon to confuse, but not enough resources to support) - nonsense that is made worse by our near universal disdain for bureaucracy. Anyway, I think I agree with you in principle, just not as applied here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen WP:AERFC?--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page "camping"

Hello. I would like your admin and maintenance at Kalki_Bhagavan since if would not an urgent matter, please, advice. Thanks in advance!

Making OTRS human.

Good morning young man. There is a empty glass on the table- awaiting your visit. How do you rate the NHS (stub, Start, C, B- or still pending?)

To business, can you have a look at this page and give your OTRS opiniion. Does it have all the detail OTRS needs to give the donated text a thumbs up.

Martin of Sheffield sent me a poke regarding a young man who had asked a webmaster friend if he could copy a chunk of the website onto a Wikipedia page. He did, and Martin just wanted a simple way to get Wikipedia approval. We ought to be able give him the correct text to make official I thought. I have spent the weekend playing Dungeons and Dragons with the official OTRS pages- they make Stalin's and the STASI look like a bunch of pussy cats. The language is a direct cut & paste from the Old Testament (/rant)

I think I said in Manchester that we needed some simple A6 cards, like the creative commons one, to encourage new people to get involved and to signal that the text & photographs on their websites was CC-BY-SA- and they would like WP to use it. So here we have a practical example of that almost happening.

  • I have C&P ed the available text and customised- but does it hit all the points on your OTRS checklist? Can we point the young man at the page and let him get his friend to fill in the blanks.
  • Is the format right?
  • What have I missed?

Then

  • How can we extend this into a Smartphone app? That will take some backend work
  • Then what about a OTRS Tutorial for humans?
  • Can we make the OTRS pages more encouraging, and less threatening?

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clem! Still pending wrt our beloved NHS; perhaps they're waiting for the Tories to privatise them completely. I'm already being seen by a private company that runs part of the hospital "under contract" from the NHS. I'll get back to you wrt OTRS when I have a bit more time. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interfase's topic ban

Hello, HJ Mitchell.

I ask you to lift the topic ban on Azerbaijani topic from me. The most of my edits are related to Azerbaijan topic as I am from Azerbaijan. Another topics are not interesting to me. I'll promise that I will not took part in any ethno-conflict topics and edit warrings (and accusing anybody in vandalism as well). Because some users say that due to such peaceful edits I could be blocked. Also that sanction was made without opportunity giving to me to explain may position. If you let me to edit Azerbaijan topics, which are not related to any conflicts, I will thank you for this. If you also review my edits in articles you will see that all of them have a purpose to provide the readers with useful information about Azerbaijan and improved the Azerbaijani topic in English Wikipedia.

Also I want to ask you to give me an opportunity to seek adviсe to you in case of problems with users, who will not be agree with my edits.

Regards, --Interfase (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Could I make this edits?[1][2][3][4] Because without the description of these monuments in the articles their photos could be deleted. --Interfase (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't consider the topic ban to cover Azerbaijan topics in general—just topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. So editing an infobox about a university (for example) would be fine, as long as you don't add, remove, or modify any content related to the conflict. I'd suggest you be careful about it so you can't be accused of deliberately testing the boundaries, and if you're not sure whether an edit would be covered by the topic ban, don't make it or at least ask me (or another uninvolved admin) first. I also don't see a problem with the other edits (adding descriptions of monuments), as long as the subjects aren't connected to the conflict with Armenia. If you keep your nose clean for a few months, we can look at lifting the topic ban.

If you have problem with other editors, the best thing is always to try to resolve things through discussion, but yes, you're welcome to ask for opinions or advice, especially if it relates to the topic ban. Does that answer your questions? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mitchel. Thanks. I'll try to keep far from topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. --Interfase (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mitchel, you said that I can ask you about my edits, when I am not sure. So, I added description of the monuments of the victims of Black January and Khojaly Massacre. But user LGA says that I couldn't do this as the topic of Khojaly Massacre and Black January are related to conflicts. I agree that any monuments for victims are related to some conflict. But as I think these monuments are modern monuments which topics are not disputed. So my question is whether the descriptions[5][6] of the monuments could be added to the articles Black January and Khojaly Massacre Memorials? --Interfase (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HJ Mitchell. I'm a little confused about this topic ban, myself, because the edits that led to the topic ban in the first place this diff and similar ones, had nothing to do geopolitical conflicts (at least not contemporary ones); they were about the name of Azerbaijan. So I'm not following how a ban specifically from Armenia-Azerbaijan is suited to prevent future instances of the same. Let me know your thinking when you have time, thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've looked at this and thought about the best way to proceed. @Interfase: it does seem that your conduct was problematic, which is why several admins agreed that you should be sanctioned, but in hindsight, I think an indefinite topic ban was a little over the top. Nevertheless, I think something should be done, so what I propose is:
  • I vacate the topic ban.
  • In its place, you are prohibited from describing any edit as "vandalism" unless it meets the definition at WP:VAND (that is, it is an edit made with the deliberate intention of causing damage to Wikipedia), and
  • For any reverts you make in mainspace that are not of clear and obvious vandalism (specifically, they would be recognised as vandalism by somebody not familiar with the topic), you must go to the article's talk page and give your reasons for your revert.
  • Violations of the above will result in a block and/or the reinstatement of the topic ban.
Does that sound reasonable to you? (Courtesy ping for Heimstern Läufer). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds totally unreasonable to me, unless you vacate from topic bans all editors that came under such sanctions for far lesser misdeeds. I don't understand these give-and-take little talks with Interfase, who never acknowledged his misconduct or expressed remorse for them. This is a strange form of selective enforcement of AA2, and should be fully investigated. (Courtesy ping for User:Sandstein). Hablabar (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note your objections, but at the end of the day, it is my prerogative to vacate or modify sanctions that I impose. Having reviewed this one, I think a sweeping topic ban is disproportionate to the offence, which is why I've proposed an alternative. If Interfase's conduct continues to be a problem after the topic ban is vacated, you can report them to AE or bring it to my attention and Interfase can be sanctioned—the effort required to re-impose the topic ban, should it prove necessary, is minimal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFPRV

As you have reviewed a lot of requests for Reviewer permission recently, can you give me a short feedback about my edit history and chances to receive Reviewer permission in the near or far future (or now)? I have already applied once, but back then I didn't realise that only my contributions to this project (not the German Wikipedia) were taken into account. Thanks in advance, FDMS 12:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know what you're doing. Contributions on other projects can be taken into account, but the key is your understanding of the key policies on enwiki. I think you have that, so you're now a reviewer. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipity

Check this out. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike? And apparently simultaneously! Either that or there's a telepathic connection! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muhammadshahzadkhan

Hello HJ Mitchell. You may like to review this user Muhammadshahzadkhan (talk · contribs) that you blocked yesterday for edit warring and as soon as that block expired, he was back to the same articles and again edit warring. I would also like to add here that by the looks of it, this user appears as a sock of Bhural (talk · contribs) (SPI), and I may file a report if I find time to collect some diffs. -- SMS Talk 00:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I might easily have missed that, but I've indef'd him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socking at AE

Hi. I'm not sure about the rules so I won't say much right now. I am sure one person in AE is backing up himself with another account. How should I go forward with this? --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you have evidence, I suppose you can post it here to save the bureaucracy. If any of the evidence isn't public (ie it's not available on Wikipedia itself), email it to me. As long as you're acting in good faith and not just trying to discredit another editor, you have nothing to worry about—as you've probably seen, my patience for frivolous claims in an attempt to discredit other editors at AE is wearing thin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am only interested in facts and honestness so that's why I bring it up. I think that Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Bukrafil (talk · contribs) are the same person. As soon I went to AE, Gilabrand stopped editing, which is very unusual of her and it has gone one week now. Bukrafil has edited before but looks to be a sleeper account. She edited Al-Haditha, Ramle on 4 February and then Hadid. Both are typical of her, which is it's about a depopulated Palestinian village and the other one about one Jewish/Israeli village built on it. She demands "proof" that Hadid was built on it. Then she edits it again and then it becames that Hadid was only built two km from Al-Haditha.
They both rewrites much and makes several edits on one page directly after each other. Both often format the refs bad by having space before ref tags and no space after. Gilabrand has done it so many times (like here). Here, here and her edits on Canada Park (like this and this) are examples by Bukrafil.
They spell Romania as "Rumania".
In the article Caviar, Bukrafil added in November 2012 info about caviar from the kibbutz Dan. This got removed by a user in January 2013. Gilabrand reinserted and reworded it last month. In the article about the kibbutz, Gilabrand had in May 2012 added info about the caviar. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into this over the weekend. If you have any more evidence, keep it coming; not because I've reached a conclusion, but because the more material there is to analyse, the better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that Gilabrand had in May 2012 added info about the caviar from the kibbutz in Caviar. So what Bukrafil did was reinserting it. When this got removed again, Gilabrand reinserted it this time.
They have edited same other articles too but I will look closer if there is more evidence to show that they are the same person. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Given the number of edits and standing Gilabrand has in the community and that Bukrafil has made more than 200 edits. I'd suggest it'd be worth starting an SPI so that the evidence is together and easily referred to. But mainly so that we can have a CU take a look and a record of that check. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SPI sounds like a good idea. I have some more to add but I can wait and do it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SPI is indeed a good idea—I was going to take this there myself once I'd looked through the evidence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for both of you two's replies. I will start a case soon. I will add and compile the evidence. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just consolidated your evidence into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilabrand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I will write there soon. I was nearly done but had some break and now will also adjust it.
I think it would be better to not wait on the SPI result until the AE case is closed as this can takes weeks if I am seeing right. If something comes out from this SPI, it can be brought up separately. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had to sleep but I have written there now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Wars

Looking at the AE and Sock investigation there is a growing behavioral evidence that accounts User:IRISZOOM and User:Nableezy are operated by same person.

  • Both accounts push the same POV and edit the same articles. Their combative style is identical.
  • It was mentioned that User:Nableezy and Gilabrand had a interaction ban and the AE case indicates that this conflict is still active.
  • User:Nableezy is known for his sock sniffing capabilities and the investigation above demonstrates that User:IRISZOOM could also could be a star of Sherlok Holmes movie.
  • I have not invested too much time but on surface, there is User:IRISZOOM and User:Nableezy interaction for pushing his POV while attacking Gilabrand: Gilabrand is removing websites and confusing villages.

Please let me know what do you think. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it of course. That's not a huge amount of evidence, but it's a start. If you have anything more (diffs especially), please psot it here and/or open an(other) SPI. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no connection to Nableezy.
While you can raise suspicion, please refrain from personal attacks like the one in the third point. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell:, I'd appreciate your involvement in this investigation. The scrutiny should be applied equally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TFA request for Mike Jackson

Just letting you know that tomorrow I hope to be making a TFA request for one of your featured articles, Mike Jackson, as an alternative nomination for 21 March. Minima© (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Interfase

Hello HJ. This diff suggests you may have lifted Interfase's AA topic ban. If that's the case can you please log the change in WP:ARBAA2, along with any new terms? An editor has opened a ban violation complaint at WP:AE#Interfase and the case is quite blatant if the block is still in effect. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am compelled to emphasize again that the discussion about the possibility of lifting topic ban on Interfase, especially without a formal appeal, sounds totally unreasonable, weird and frivolous. If you decide to vacate him from topic ban I will give you a long list of editors who came under such sanctions for far lesser misdeeds, and you will need to release them as well to be fair. Otherwise, this would be a strange form of selective enforcement of AA2, and will be fully investigated. Hablabar (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2014



Headlines
  • France report: National Archives; Sèvres & mass uploads; Wikipedians in the European Parliament
  • Germany report: Claim open culture, again and again
  • India report: National Museum, New Delhi, India (January 2-5, 2014)
  • Netherlands report: Art and Feminism; Wikipedian in Residence; War memorials
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Candelas (Master Planned Community), Arvada, CO

I was a little surprised to see the full protection at Candelas (Master Planned Community), Arvada, CO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At RPP I posted the facebook link where an activist group was encouraging users to restore the dubious content to the article, and the version you protected actually uses that facebook site as a source. Certainly discussion would be preferable, but since the article is getting reverted by a canvassed IP-hopping range with no inclination to discuss, semi-protection seems more appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ubie the guru

The link to the SPI in the template is redlinked; I don't know if this is intentional?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, sorry for the bother; it's that twinkle bug. I've only seen it in AfDs so far, but obviously it's here too.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The joys of Twinkle! Still, it's a million times easier than working out how to do it manually. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

  • By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

West Midlands Police Museum editathon

Just a reminder that the West Midlands Police Museum editathon is this Saturday; I look forward to seeing you there. Please take a moment to re-read the event page, so you know what to bring with you, and what to expect on the day. Do let me know if you have any questions, or can't attend. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of restrictions

Hi, HJ Mitchell.

As you wrote here after this AE thread is closed, I can come back to your talk page and tell you whether I'm willing to accept the restrictions you proposed in lieu of the topic ban. The AE thread is closed now. As I wrote there it was a misunderstanding, because I thought that the topic ban was lifted. But OK. I agree with you that the topic ban was a liitle bit over the top. I accept these restrictions in lieu of the topic ban. I promise that I'll not describe any edit as "vandalism" unless it meets the definition at WP:VAND and for any reverts I make in mainspace that are not of clear and obvious vandalism I will go to the article's talk page and give my reasons for my revert. There still some open discussions (e. g. about Khojaly Massacre Memorials) that need my participation.

Regards, --Interfase (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&oldid=599008909"