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.

UTRS Account Request

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

Talk page reinstatement

Regarding this edit, I'm curious where the line is between unactionable and BLP violation. To me, that's an accusation of ethical misconduct against multiple named living persons, not even in the context of a sourced opinion (on the contrary, specifically stating that it's original research). It's really no different from this edit or this edit—that's pretty much what this editor does—both of which were hatted and stayed hatted. Should I have hatted it as unactionable or FORUMy instead? Taken it to AE? I just don't see where the line is, where this is okay yet other accusations by this and other editors aren't. Woodroar (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've no objection to hatting. It's not really a serious BLP issue to state that some journalists know each other (it's about as scandalous as some Wikipedians knowing each other!), even if it is done to impugn their motives, but it's not really on-topic either. Thanks for the other diffs; I've indef'd them, since they're not here to build an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I was mostly concerned with the "friends doing favors for friends doing favors for friends" comment, but I understand your side as well, so fair enough. I'll hat unproductive conversations going forward. Well, with other editors, since you've blocked this one. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

31.221.29.100 (talk · contribs)

I've suppressed several edits by this IP. The vandalism goes back more than a week, so I'd suggest extending the block. Hopefully soon you can do all of this! Thanks for your post at ARCA. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. I usually just do a spot check of edits when I'm processing AIV reports, but looking more closely that IP's registered to a business communications company. It looks like a VPN, and there's almost no legitimate reason to edit Wikipedia through a VPN, so I've hard-blocked it for a year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact there are so few reasons to edit through a VPN that I've blocked the /29 the company uses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How did you determine it's a VPN? And business communication? It's [1]. Whew, copy and paste almost gave you a recipe for pineapple upside down cake with bourbon, but I caught it before saving! Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

VPN was a guess. The IP belongs to Exponential-e Ltd, and VPNs are one of the services they provide according to their website. But I overlooked that the client was SW Durham Training (which explains the interest in Darlington and Bishop Auckland). I'll soften it to a schoolblock. I was never much of a fan of bourbon, but I never met a Scotch I didn't like! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

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

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

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

--L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 12:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lixxx235: Thanks. As I'm sure you can imagine, it's not always easy work. And some case feel a lot like being caught between a rock and a hard place, so the appreciation is, well, appreciated! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Help remove the one reminders/warnings

Hi! HJ Mitchell, I saw some people help maintain the Delta ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Electronics ) page recently and the information looks not bad. Just wondering could you remove the one reminders/warnings dated Jan. 2011 respectively on the top? Or they may confuse people who refer to the page. Thank you. Xilachang (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And...

Thank you for looking at the socking evidence for Wifi again. It's to your credit. Unblock Makrandjoshi and I'll edit my vote in your RFA to "support". Seriously, though, thank you for being willing to look at stuff a second time. It speaks volumes to your character. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And you're welcome. I'm not infallible, and I try to keep that in mind. And in this case the socking is certainly a lot more likely than not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for you!

	Just for you!
	Your own banhammer! Awarding you with it for all your help with vandalism! 5 albert square (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. Must get me a real one of them! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like a personalised one just in case other admins try to nick mine! :p--5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Signing

You might want to re-sign this: [2]. Stickee (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

To Confirm/Learn

So, BANEX covers even talk pages, despite the user having been topic banned explicitly for battleground behavior and Ownership? I want to make sure, since the general consensus in that Enforcement Request was so, and your hatting it also said so, and I like to know this kind of thing in no uncertain terms. Thank you for your time. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Talk Page Stalker) Not to speak for HJ Mitchell, but a BLP violation is a BLP violation, whether it takes place in the mainspace, on a talk page, or anywhere else in the project. It stands to reason that the exemption for removing BLP violations would also cover all of those same areas. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 04:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I... get that and understand it from a policy standpoint, but doesn't that just open up a way for a topic banned editor to continue to meddle in an area he or she has been deemed to be a problem in? I get now why the Enforcement Request was incorrect, but I do also have to admit some wariness at that specific exemption. Though to HJMitchel since this is on the topic of exemptions, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a topic banned editor making an enforcement request on another editor a violation of said topic ban? That definitely does not fall under removing BLP content, and WOULD count as engaging in the topic banned subject. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and I share them to some extent—for me, topic-banned editors should stay away from the topic altogether—but I can't enforce policy that's not there. The community consensus is that BLP trumps everything, and almost all sins can be forgiven in the name of removing BLP violations. Personally, I think it should be a requirement to seek admin intervention immediately if a removal of an alleged BLP violation becomes controversial, but policy as it is allows people to violate topic bans or edit-war all day long as there's a legitimate BLP concern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd ask if there is anywhere I could propose a change, but after being bit by a long time editor AND an Admin... I am not about to think my proposals would be judged in the slightest on their merit, rather than who is proposing them. Though, since you seem a nice enough fellow, what I would have proposed is to make the BANEX also be a "SOCKEX", specifically, allowing the banned user to request an involved Admin or Long Term User to make the changes, rather than doing it themselves. This would provide a more neutral, and hopefully cooler, head to weight the decision. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you close that when he made non BLP removing edits here, here, and here and also on User talk:Jimbo Wales [3] [4]

I hadn't the last two, but they're three and a half days old; had they been reported at the time, he probably would have been blocked. The first three are legitimate as he's explaining BLP issues; if he was engaging in substantive discussions of content, he would be in violation of his topic ban, but we should encourage people to explain themselves when they remove BLP violations, as opposed to just removing something without comment and likely starting an edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

This Month in GLAM: January 2015

This Month in GLAM – Volume V, Issue I, January 2015 Headlines Belgium report: SOIMA 2015; Wiki Loves Art; European Commission; FOSDEM Czech Republic report: Czech GLAM discusses why institutions are afraid to release their media France report: Celebrating public domain and more Germany report: GLAM on Tour in Wuppertal Italy report: 1600 usages for BEIC images in 165 wikis Netherlands report: Europeana Sounds edit-a-thon; Symposium & Erasmus Prize; Honorary doctorate for Wikipedia; New years drink Spain report: Europeana Fashion Edit-a-thon; Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 Awards ceremony; Benito Prieto Coussent Sweden report: Europeana; Working Life Museums UK report: Armenian Genocide; Diversity in Film; Residency Hat-Trick USA report: Philadelphia & New York Open Access report: Wikidata for research: proposal submitted; Open Access Media Importer: featured media Catalan areas report: Catalan Network of Public Libraries Calendar: February's GLAM events 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 · Romaine 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jajadelera

Hello, HJ Mitchell. We have yet another sock: JDNew (talk · contribs).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Add also NewJaja (talk · contribs), Jdseriesnew4 (talk · contribs) and NewJajaDelera (talk · contribs) to the list.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh good, some exercise for the mass block script! All  Blocked and tagged, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki "statute of limitations"?

What is the "statute of limitations" ("had they been reported while they were fresh, you almost certainly would have been blocked") on topic ban violations? Where can I find information about this time limit in the Wikipedia policy docs and/or the allowance for it in the ArbCom decision? Also, can I have your assurance that from now on, other editors will not be blocked from this site for WP:NOTHERE if they write something like NBSB did? Thanks 96.245.254.115 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

References

There is no statute of limitations, per se, but we use blocks to prevent disruption rather than as punishment. In this case, the disruption was several days old and there was no evidence of ongoing disruption, so a block would have been purely punitive and would not have the effect of putting an end to disruption because there was no disruption at the time of the enforcement request. As a rule of thumb, if it's more than 24 hours old there would normally have to be a very good reason to consider sanctions (for example, if it's part of a pattern of violations or borderline violations, the wider pattern might be considered). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I guess I just thought that the ArbCom decision and findings of fact about this behavior done NBSB would have constituted that pattern of violation. I hope everyone else applies as much reserve with WP:NOTHERE for everyone equally, as you do. Cheers 96.245.254.115 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how NOTHERE is really applicable; that's about accounts (mostly) that don't do anything useful and are only on Wikipedia to cause disruption or push their agenda. And the findings that led to the topic ban don't show a pattern of violations of the topic ban. If he violates his topic ban again, by all means let me know or report it to AE and will act on it. Just as I would—and just as I do—with any other editor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions log entry

Regarding your log entry for Retartist's discretionary sanctions: is there a reason you linked to a version previous to the one finalized by your close? —EncyclopediaBob 16:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like to provide the oldid of the last version of the thread before the close, so that anyone evaluating it at a later date can quickly find the thread and easily view the diffs and the discussion between admins. I'll only normally link to the closed version if my closing remarks contain something that might be useful to other admins reviewing the action at a later date, and in this case they just stated the result. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your practice makes sense -- what I attempted to explain (clearly not clearly :) was there was a version in between the one you linked to and your close. —EncyclopediaBob 18:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I know, I want for the last edit to that thread before my close, rather than the last edit to the page (which had multiple threads open). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the version I linked to above contains an addition by User:Ryk72 to that thread specifically which yours does not. —EncyclopediaBob 18:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I've fixed it now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Not high priority but the reference link your log text "(see AE request)" still points to the incomplete version. —EncyclopediaBob 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi HJ! Thanks for that. Even though I'm mostly a lurker & focus my editing on gnoming, I'm a long time admirer of your work. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could look over the comment that I added in that diff. And also if you could add your thoughts to the thread at WT:BLP. I'd appreciate your insight as an experienced Wikipedian & admin. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bikeshedding?

Harrumph! -- Euryalus (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted, but I'm not sure how else to describe holding up a siteban to discuss the exact parameters of a concurrent topic ban. Well, not in terms I'd use in polite company, anyway! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

At the present moment there is a suit before the court which was commenced nearly twenty years ago, in which from thirty to forty counsel have been known to appear at one time, in which costs have been incurred to the amount of seventy thousand pounds, which is a friendly suit, and which is (I am assured) no nearer to its termination now than when it was begun.

—Charles Dickens, preface to Bleak House, 1853.

-- Euryalus (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Baranof

Your interpretation of BLP that ostensible BLP defense excuses violation of an Arbcom topic ban by NxSBaranof is, shall we say, unique. That you have at the same time moved to topic ban off one of Baranof's innumerable opponents does not speak well for your judgment. Please consider yourself "involved" with respect to any future motions made against him — his site ban is coming... Carrite (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I earlier noted, anyone who takes action to protect the encyclopedia from BLP violations (as Harry has properly done here) is seen as proof of "involvement" by a certain set of people. That you choose to view Wikipedia as a game to be played between "opponents" rather than a project to write an Internet encyclopedia with sensitivity and human decency is self-explanatory.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Says the man who tried his best to Character Assassinate me. Those in glass houses, Mr. Baranof. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BANEX would be the policy that you're struggling to recollect, Carrite. More time gaining familiarity with Wikipedia policy and less time commiserating over bowls of sour grapes with TDA at Wikipediocracy would do you a world of good. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you did dodge that site ban this time around, Tarc. I forgot about you. Better luck next time. Carrite (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Come on Tim, you know me better than that. In fact, look a few sections up (once you've read Tarc's link). You could drive a coach and horses through BANEX, but that seems to be what the community wants. As a servant of the community, I can't go round enforcing policy that isn't there. And more to the point, there's not enough booze in the house to drown out the inevitable screeching at ANI if I did. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, now, H., let's read it together: BANEX: "Exceptions to limited bans: Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following: Reverting obvious vandalism (such as replacing a page with obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree...." — This action by NxSB in a banned topic area is not "obvious," it is contentious. It is a clear and obvious violation of an Arbcom-generated topic ban. Continue to act as an enabler at the risk of your tools. Seriously... Carrite (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The big, bad Carrite is in a threatening mood tonight, HJ...."at the risk of your tools", indeed. Maybe he'll pen a strongly worded blog post next. Tarc (talk)

Emma Sulkowicz

Hi Harry, would you be willing to close two discussions related to Emma Sulkowicz? I'm thinking it would be good for continuity if you were to do it, but if you're too busy, don't worry. In case you're willing, the discussions are:

1. Requested move 6 February 2015, due to close on the 13th.

   This began as a proposed move to Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz, but it now incorporates an earlier suggestion to move it to Mattress Performance: Carry that Weight or Mattress Performance (Carry that Weight), whichever is the correct punctuation. (One of the RM participants created an article at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) during the RM, which I've redirected.)

2. WP:BLPN#Should Wikipedia publish the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her?. Not a formal RfC, so it can be closed whenever you think appropriate.

All the best, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I'll happily close the RM; I'll look at it tomorrow. Since I've acted as an admin in relation to the issue discussed at BLPN, I think it would be better to get somebody who comes to it cold; I haven't read the thread so I don't know what the outcome would be, but if I closed it as "no" I'd be opening myself up to accusations of bias. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my comment on Jimbo's talk page

It'd be appreciated if, in future, you would consult me before deleting, or otherwise interfering with, any of my comments on Jimbo's talk page or anywhere else. Regardless of what anyone else may have said, my initial comment drew attention to a significant article unfairly criticizing Wikipedia in a high-profile literary and political journal. Moreover, I stand by the observations I made about it. It's not pleasant waking up to find that they have simply been deleted after I'd given them some thought. I have been an editor and an admin in good standing at Wikipedia for many years, even if not all that active by some standards, and have never had so much as a warning in all that time. I've worked cooperatively and well with people here. I think I deserve some courtesy - but then again, I'd deserve it even if I were a newbie. If you want to watch the responses carefully and redact them as needed, you are welcome to. I might even have been open to moving my comment to a less prominent place on the page. I'm a reasonable person, and I do realize a lot has been said about Gamergate. But simply deleting the entire discussion, including my initial comment, without any attempt to talk to me about it first, was not the sort of act I'd have expected from a colleague here. Metamagician3000 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that by the time one starts removing the personal attacks and the other off-topic rubbish from a thread like that, and then removes all the replies to them (so as to not to leave a comment looking like it was made in a different context), there's not much left. Which would inevitably beg the question of why I didn't remove your comment. So I removed the whole thing wholesale to prevent it deteriorating further. I'm sorry that your comment was collateral damage, but consulting with everyone whose comments are removed in a messy thread like that is just not practical. I won't object if you want to re-post your comment in a day or two once tempers have cooled. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. The horse has kind of bolted, since I'd already restored my comment, but the current discussion seems reasonably civil. By all means watch how it goes, but could you please hesitate before simply deleting the whole thing again? I don't want to get into a war with another administrator, and I'd probably not take this further if it all went badly off the rails and you did delete stuff again, but there is now some reasonable discussion about reliable sources that deserves to be allowed to happen even if some of our more, um, volatile editors do end up taking the discussion in a bad direction. Best wishes. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Riddle me this, Harry

So, I'm apparently permitted to dispute BLP violations, even if under the tban. Why is it then, that I have this feeling that, the second I try to raise any concerns, I know that someone or the other from a certain group will ride up on their white stallion, and then whine enough for me to get banned because I'm violating some obscure alphabet soup "policy"? Yet, if said white knight were to flail around pages under the tban screeching about their noble quest of... Something, they would get merely a warning? I'm asking this, since I would like to raise a concern about a BLP violation, in the hopes it would be removed, so the hate group known as {redacted due to topic ban}, would have less ammo to harass women and minorities, including myself, that support the {redacted due to topic ban} consumer revolt. I mean, I thought that the rules were applied equally, but, I can't be sure, or can I? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to head off said group. One of the ban exemptions is "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban." So, I am preeeetty sure my revised understanding of Ban Exemptions says that this would be alright. (This is partly a question to Mitchell. Am I right?) AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't address me by my surname, AF; you can call me Harry—everyone else does. DSA, if this is the same issue you asked me about by email, it's not an obvious BLP violation to the extent that "no reasonable person could possibly disagree". Also, BANEX doesn't actually allow you to suggest the removal of the BLP-violating material, only to remove it (and, apparently, to explain the removal on the talk page and report the person who made it...). No, it doesn't make sense to me either (see my comment above about a coach and horses), but I didn't write the policy! My suggestion from my email stands, though: contact one of the regular editors on the article by email and see what they think; there's nothing to stop them from removing it or starting a discussion as long as they're satisfied that it's a legitimate issue that merits removal/discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)