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.

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I could really use some clarification, please. I don't mind if you use deprecated tags like "<s>" on text you originally wrote. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I'd be happy to talk about your RfA with you, because (despite my oppose) I like you, and because I know from experience that an unsuccessful RfA isn't a pleasant thing. But I don't want to argue with you about the merits of my oppose, and trying to prove yourself right (or me wrong) isn't going to result in anything productive. If there is something specifically you don't understand, you're welcome to ask me here, and I will elaborate in whichever venue you prefer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Can you (and/or your talk page stalkers) please help me to understand how my answer to question 7 could be construed as inconsistent with WP:SOCK, and how to construct a better answer? Thanks. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, socking is about evading scrutiny. Assuming another identity to pretend to be somebody else (for example, logging in or out to violate the 3RR, using multiple accounts to vote multiple times in an AfD or RfA, using a different account or logging out to evade a topic ban, etc) is socking, whether done with a different account or as an IP. Block evasion is socking when the blocked user pretends to be a different person for the purposes of getting round a block. However, logging out (or into a different account) when your main account is blocked, but not hiding the connection (for example, if my account were blocked and I logged back in under my disclosed alternate account, User:Whisky drinker), is block evasion, but isn't sock-puppetry. There are less obvious forms of block evasion as well, for example continuing a bot task on your main account after your bot account was blocked for performing the task could be construed as block evasion (but not socking, assuming the bot account is disclosed and authorised). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have incorporated that info into my Problematic editor decision tree, what do you think? — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:EF

I think I've done what you requested, and hopefully additions of "My Dick" will slow down. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reaper! I can't imagine any encyclopaedic use for that phrase! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk! I support such fixes, but bemoan your crippled imagination. So far i've thot of "(Peggy, my) Peggy Sue" "(Looking for my) Donna", and looked up My Antonia, My Babu, My Bill, My Boo, "My Sharona" .... (But let's not fully think thru the cases suggested by the result of searching for the Times so wanted Deep Throat to watch it, get Nixon).
--Jerzy•t 08:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bjmullan

Just a heads up, as I was the last one to revert the IP, the Troubles 1RR states -

Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty

You have basically, in good faith, imposed a block on Bjmullan for staying within the rules.Murry1975 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid the block isn't a mistake. I blocked him for using that exemption (and the AE process) in a combative manner, not for a technical violation of the 1RR. The exemption is there to stop people logging out to avoid the 1RR—it is not a license to freely revert IPs during content disputes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was unaware by the phrasing in the template. What, in case I come across such again, would be the better way to handle it? I have to admit I would have done the same as Bjmullan without considering it a bearch by myself. I will check back in the morning so if you are busy its ok to put it on the long finger.Murry1975 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same as the 1RR forces you to do with a registered user: stop and discuss. Unless the IP is obviously a registered user trying to avoid sanctions, in which case report to ANI or AE, where they'll probably end up blocked for longer than they would have if they'd violated the 1RR while logged in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers HJ, one more question, if an IP breaks the 1RR or 3RR and gets blocked I am presuming that his edit can not be undone within a the "relevant" time period by an editor who has previously reverted, is that correct? I just dont want to do something stupid and avoid hassle on here.Murry1975 (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of judgement. If the IP edit looks like it was made in good faith and it doesn't introduce serious problems to the article, it's probably best to do the same as you would with a registered account. What would almost certainly get somebody sanctioned, though, is doing exactly the same thing as the IP and then reporting the IP for doing it, while relying on a technicality to avoid sanctions yourself, because Wikipedia is not a battleground and AE is not a courtroom. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means that when we disagree with each other, we stop and discuss, and the 1RR is there encourage, and if necessary, force people to stop and discuss. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarity HJ.Murry1975 (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ, apologies for the delay in posting, I'm not editing much these days. I have to disagree with you on your reasoning on this one and before I outline why, I'm more than happy to agree to differ. I'm coming to this from a long and troubled experience of arbitration/The Troubles. The exemption is there to stop disruptive IP's and blocked and banned editors from disrupting the project. Troubles articles are plagued with them and this article is no exception. Take this edit for example. It is the exact same edit as this one, and this one. Likewise it is also the same as this one, and this one, this one, and this one. I know this edit and its editor. I know two admin's who also know this and the page has been protected because of it. Bjmullan also knows this edit, [1], [2]. Based on this, I knew this edit was disruptive and I reverted. In light of this information, I would be very much obliged if you could revise your posts on this and reconsider the situation on IP's. I hope the information helps, anyway no harm no foul. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Just a heads up on this IP.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your rationale against my decision. I can see where you're coming from, and I've been doing arbitration enforcement for long enough to know that IPs can be a pain in the arse, but what we so often lose sight of is that there is such a thing as a legitimate content dispute, even in areas covered by discretionary sanctions and 1RRs, and the 1RR would have forced Bjmullan to stop and discuss had the IP been a registered user, because the edit itself was not inherently disruptive—you both reverted based on who made the edit and not the substance of the edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decently done

In studying the years-long history of personal agenda and POV-pushing, I had actually considered performing this action myself, and it would have been the fisrt time I would have done so. Wikiepdia is not for pushing one's personal agenda, and must absolutely respect being neutral and balanced in all veiwpoints. Well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's the less pleasant side to adminship. But at least you get to save your blocking virginity for some nasty vandal or something like that! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#File:Sheetal_Sheth_Cover_of_CHI.jpg

Heh...part of me thought there was an auto-response...force of habit from working at Telstra for so long...my bad. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 03:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on otrs-en-l? Auto-responders are being talked about on there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Deletions that caused redlinks at Category:Wikipedia disambiguation

Category:disambiguation was duly moved, after discussion and consensus, to Category:Wikipedia disambiguation (lest someone think the Cat relates to Disambiguation rather than Wikipedia:Disambiguation). I presume the moving admin failed to retarget the 3 Rdrs lk'd by its {{shortcut}} call, but would have intended existing uses of the shortcuts (or new uses inferred from remembering the old Cat) to continue to reach the moved Cat. However, you speedy-deleted them as if the deletion of the Cat were not intended as a move. I assume you'd agree they should continue to exist, and will be glad to undelete and retarget them unless you do so, or say otherwise here within 36 hours. Tnx.
Hmm. By the same logic, the old Cat should have been replaced by a soft Rdr, i think. Unless you do that as well, or express an opinion, i'll also research whether my logic is right & act accordingly.
--Jerzy•t 07:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I checked the deletion log entry before I deleted the redirects (because there were loads more of the CAT:XXX redirects the other day), but unlike the others, it didn't say anything about a move, which is why I zapped them instead of correcting them. I'll fix those, but whether the category should be a (soft) redirect or not is a question for the folks at CfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   The oddness may reflect the fact this one was initially proposed for speedy renaming to Category:Wikipedia:Disambguation (rather than the ultimate Category:Wikipedia disambguation), and my questioning of that format kicked it over from speedy (where i imagine the others were) to CfD.
   Of course you're right, and this has also been enuf attention to a Cat whose main significance is that editors turbo-add it to Dab's from laziness, or ignorance of {{disambig}}.
   I didn't try to follow the whole discussion, but it's plausible that it was concluded that turning such Cat asg'ments into red links may help discourage that error. To the same end, i think i'll turn those legacy shortcuts into "unpublished" ones, and make that invocation of {{shortcut}} mention CAT:WDAB instead. Thanks for your help.
--Jerzy•t 20:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Group Wikipedia Page

Dear Harry,

You recently deleted a Wikipedia entry about the Paramount Group due to ‘unambiguous advertising or promotion’ and concerns over a ‘conflict of interest.’ The article had also been edited in recent times by, amongst others, Bell Pottinger staff using undeclared pseudonyms.

We set out with the best intent to make all the content factual, accurate and fully referenced. There are some examples of this below.

Having listened to Wikipedia experts, and taken advice, we understand that there were errors in the way the information about Paramount Group was uploaded as well, as the need for neutrality and impartiality in the copy.

We would like to understand how we can get the article reinstated, in a more appropriate form, and to request your help and advice in achieving this. If we need to start afresh then we will and will ensure we comply with Wikipedia’s five pillars.

As mentioned, we genuinely believed the information on the article was factual, accurate and referenced. For example, it contained the following section on the company history.

Paramount has also sought to consolidate its position within the South African defence industrial landscape. In September 2009, it acquired a 19 per cent stake in Aerosud, making it the largest individual shareholder. Aerosud is an established leader in South Africa’s aviation industry and supplies parts to companies including Boeing and Airbus. This was supported by a 3rd party source http://www.aerosud.co.za/news/digitalmag.htm

Another paragraph reported: In 2010, Paramount announced an agreement with India’s Ashok Leyland, which is the largest supplier of utility vehicles to the Indian Armed Forces, to produce the Stallion MPV in India for the army and other government internal security forces. Again this was referenced with a 3rd party source http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/landwarfareintl-com/south-africa-and-india-lead-the-way-in-protection-for-armed-forces/5501 .

More followed: The establishment of the company’s second manufacturing plant outside of South Africa was an important strategic step in the company’s development. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ashok-leyland-paramount-ink-defence-deal/86663/on Another section on products included the following: In 2009, Paramount finalised an agreement to manufacture its Matador and Marauder MPVs in the capital Baku, with the first vehicles rolling off the production line in May 2010. This was supported by the http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=122139 .

On another occasion, the entry described how Paramount Group’s Marauder vehicle featured in the BBC’s Top Gear programme. Again this was fully documented linked to BBC sources.

Wikipedia is one the world’s most widely read and influential sources of information and reference and Paramount Group is a major South African business. We employ over 1,500 people and make a big contribution to the South African economy. We operate in a high profile sector and do business with governments around the world.

As such, we would like people, whether in South Africa or in our clients’ countries, to be able to search Wikipedia to find out who we are and what we do.

Whilst we understand that there are current issues between Wikipedia and our public relations company, we would like to point out that the Paramount Group Wikipedia article was not originally created or uploaded by Bell Pottinger. We were never consulted about its impending deletion and had we been so then we would have sought your guidance on correction.

We would like, using a clear and transparent editor account with a declared interest, to reinstate the page, subject to editing. Please can you advise on the best steps to achieving this objective – and perhaps even work with us or review our copy before it is posted to ensure we are both meeting the spirit of Wikipedia as well as the etiquette and guidelines. Thanks in advance for giving this your due consideration and we look forward to your response.

If you would like to contact me please contact me on bran@paramounrgroup.biz

Best Regards

Brannigan

OK, I can email you a copy of the code of the deleted page if you want, and you can start the article again. As long as what is written is neutral (that means it's not written like a sales pitch or a press release, but in a dry, purely factual way, and notable criticism is included alongside notable praise) and well sourced,there shouldn't be too much of a problem. I would also need any employees of the company or PR firms retained by the company to register individual accounts (and not edit the article while not logged in), and to explicitly declare their conflict of interest on their userpages, and carefully read the two relevant pieces of guidance, WP:COI and WP:BPCOI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:NYyankees51

Hey HJ Mitchell, this is to notify you that the user has sent you an email; I guess they want to make doubly sure. I have unblocked the user at their request and the agreement of another admin so they can plead their case against a community ban. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos Aires train disaster

Re this edit, which you blocked the IP for, should it be revdel'd? If you C&P the offending text into Google Translate you will see what I mean. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's rude, but I don't think it's "grossly offensive, insulting, or degrading"—I usually save RevDel for the really nasty BLP violations and similar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't 100% sure on this one, which is why I didn't RevDel it myself. I've given all IPs a 3 day holiday from vandalising the article anyway. Maybe the rest of us can now get on with expansion and improvement of the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. It's unfortunate that some people have nothing better to do than to make a nuisance of themselves, because it means those of us who do have something better to do have to clean up behind them! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good job ClueBotNG is about though.

Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning

Do you really feel it is fair to warn only me out of everyone involved (Poyani, Gatoclass, more?) in the past year when I am working in a collaborative spirit to address the concerns of other editors? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a silly question really—do I strike you as the type of guy who would do something he thought was unfair? It happens to be your conduct that is under the microscope at AE. It has already been determined that the report is not frivolous or vexatious, so I couldn't warn Gatoclass even if I wanted to, and Poyani is not the complainant or respondent in an AE report, so their conduct is not being examined. You have managed to interpret my post in the most negative way possible, and completely overlooked that I have determined there is nothing in your conduct that rises to the level where I feel sanctions would be appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am mostly concerned that any warning towards me would be abused in future cases. Gatoclass managed to open a case based on a single recent edit and spared nothing in his attempt to portray me in bad light. He even went as far as making a soothsayer-type allegations about my alleged intentions to edit war. Is that considered a legitimate type of complaint when the only thing behind it is his WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding the section's existence? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

81.159.129.131

Can you extend the block and reblock the user 81.159.129.131 (talk · contribs), he is banned. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with with CharleJS13. Can you explain why you think the IP is him? Or you're welcome to go and ask another admin more familiar with the case, but I'd appreciate knowing the background in case I come across him in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His editing is too simple in fact:

The most common edit he does is to change genres to his POV (Beautiful, Dirty, Rich).
The second thing he does is to attack other people (Practically all the edits made by the IP).
The third is to change "Stefani G." to "Lady Gaga" (LoveGame), even when there is a consensus to use BMI/ASCAP sources (WT:GAGA). Charlie never accepted this 1, and in fact reported me many times because of that 2 3, 4.

He is so obvious that as soon as I see the IPs 86.xx and 81.xx, always on the page he edits (Rihanna, Madonna, Lady Gaga, synthpop-related articles), there is a high probability to see him editing. His IPs are always from IP Pools and BT Public, and his behaivour is always to use the undid button. That's Charlie in a nutshell. You can see the "suspected" IPs and you'll see the same pattern. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback again

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Purplewowies's talk page.
Message added 22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

bjmullan

I was disappointed with your decision to block me and that fact that you never came back to review my unblock request. I wasn't trying to game the system and the is clearly held up by my edit history. I'm here just like you to help improve this project and I do understand that your job is not easy, just like dealing with IP isn't easy. I hope that this encounter doesn't spoil our future relationship... Bjmullan (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did come back. I considered your unblock request, and decided to see what other admins had to say there and at AE. The only other admin to comment at AE endorsed my decision, and the only admin who commented on your talk page seemed to miss that the block was not strictly for violating the 1RR. Regardless of what your intentions were—and if you say that you weren't trying to game the system, I will take your word for it since you have an otherwise clean record—you relied on a technicality in an attempt to avoid sanction for doing exactly what you were reporting the IP for. There's further discussion of my rationale and the technicalities a few threads above if it's of interest to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]