User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95 ← Archive 100 Archive 101 Archive 102 Archive 103 Archive 104 Archive 105

MIDDAYEXPRESS: supposed involvement in MUSLIM TERRORISM SUPPORT

Middayexpress is supporting Al-Shabaab?


Hi, I have read the interesting comments/summary about user:Middayexpress on "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress" last 09/24/2012. Of course I agree with you, but I want to add the following information, in case you want to investigate the "Al-Shabaab-ISIS" issue & presence on Wikipedia. This investigation is being done even on the blog of Mappista59 (read: https://www.blogger.com/profile/17629549463392207787 ). Thanks anyway:


User:Middayexpress is a controversial user of English Wikipedia.

She is a Somali woman (according to user Chuckupd and others) living in the UK, probably in London, who is accused to be with "pathological behavior" while controlling in en.wiki all articles on Somalia. She has caused to abandon Wikipedia at least one user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chuckupd), who wrote that "I'm not the only one being attacked (by Middayexpress) without mercy" and "Middayexpress, you are hopelessly insane " and finally "I give up on Wikipedia. Middayexpress has accused me with so many lies that it has become unbearably depressing. I'm not the only one being attacked without mercy. One of these days, I hope she will be banned and then I might consider returning here."


Another wiki user (Buckshot06 (talk) ) wrote that "Middayexpress is in long-standing, continual violation of WP:NPOV, continually rolls back edits that do not reflect his views (IDONTLIKEIT/Disruptive editing, plus WP:UNDUE over-positive views of the Somali situation), and continually attempts to WP:OWN a wide range of Somalia articles." And this statement was supported by User:Bobrayner, who wrote that "I share Buckshot06's concerns. However, I feel the problem may be more widespread, as I have seen Middayexpress doing the same kind of pov-pushing on other articles related to Somalia and the surrounding region".


Buckshot06 wrote (on 17 February 2014): "Middayexpress, I remain increasingly concerned about your distortions of sources in both these articles. Beyond the issue of the TFG's security forces in Mogadishu in December 2006-January 2007, these include putting words in the mouth of a senior Ethiopian official, who did not say that Ethiopia had 8,000 troops in Somalia in November 2013, distorting a meeting between Italian and Somali officials in 2012 into a claim that Somali had started rebuilding its air force in 2000-2010, and inventing aircraft numbers and entire aircraft from the Library of Congress Country Study. Why do you continually readd the SM-1019s that are not listed in the Country Study?".....and user Nick-D (talk) added:" I've noticed that your edits to these articles seem to put an unduly positive "spin" on things. For instance, in your most recent edit to the Somali Civil War article [1] you removed material sourced to a January 2013 academic journal article by Laura Hammond in which she argued that "[M]uch of rural Somalia remains in the hands of Al-Shabaab" and replaced it with more positive material sourced to a November 2012 news story which argues that 85% of the country was under government control at the time. You did not provide a rationale for this change (especially removing material outright rather than noting differing viewpoints) and I'm wondering why you made this change?"


User:Gobonobo added the negative comments that "Middayexpress can be a difficult editor to work with. Middayexpress tends to exert ownership over Somalia-related articles, employing an editing style that is combative and adversarial, often refactoring other's contributions and/or edit-warring to preserve their preferred version of an article. Sometimes Middayexpress exhibits tendentious behavior, removing sourced material that is critical of Somalia or Somali people". Additionally User:StoneProphet pinpointed that Middayexpress did "rampant cherry-picking of sources and content".


Middaexpress had fights from his first wiki-moments even with admins (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kwamikagami/old , who accused Middayexpress of "violating basic Wikipedia policy") and with many other users.


Middayexpress has even insulted users, like User:Sherurcij, who was called "racist" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia_Affair&action=historysubmit&diff=303950062&oldid=303948740 ).


Middayexpress was "restricted" from posting by admin EdJohnston for some months in June 2010, after an edit-warring with user StoneProphet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Middayexpress/Archive_11).


User Baboon43 (talk) accused Middayexpress of meatpuppetry in a sockpuppet investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Runehelmet/Archive ). He wrote:

"Middayexpress is a meatpuppet master for Runehelmet as seen on Runehelmets talk page once middayexpress began into a dispute with me he went over to call runehelmet into the discussion 27 and rune also does the same vice versa 28..These two individuals would rather have a page dominated by somali-centric material and seem to turn a blind eye on other ethnic groups as seen here 29..Gyrofrog does not enter discussion on a wide scale like Runehelmet does so that is not comparable..If an editor pushes pov and seems to take your side in a discussion always and you go invite him then that is not acceptable..also your example about you and runehelmet disagreeing on article doesnt matter because that article is strictly somali oriented(squabbling in your own pot)..runehelmet would rather tag team if possible based on his behavior & he prefers to tag team strictly with Middayexpress....User Runehelmet also seems like a meatpuppet for User_talk:Middayexpress as clearly seen on runehelmets talk page [6]..midday passes on articles for runehelmet to add on his watchlist clearing way for both users to appear on WP:OBSART and wp:CAN..it seems other users have brought up their behavior in previous discussion 7..middayexpress invites runehelmet to discussions which is also clearly seen on the talk page..they back each other to push consensus seen here [8] & [9]..also the only time Runehelmet seems to accept consensus in a dispute is if middayexpress enters the discussion as seen here [10] & [11]" Baboon43 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC). Furthermore, it seems that user AcidSnow is a "meatpuppet" of Middayexpress, because he always defends her POVs in all the Somalia discussions and "fights".


User:Bricology found that Middaexpress was "hiding it in a long, dense and relatively undifferentiated timeline" the issue of poaching as a source of funds for the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabaab. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Shabaab_(militant_group)#Moving_on...). He even wrote: "Middayexpress, you either presume that you have the power to unilaterally change other editors' work or you misunderstand the relevant issue, or both".


This tentative to "help" the image of Al-Shabaab in Wikipedia (similar to the one denounced by user Nick-D ) raises doubts, and creates the possibility that Middayexpress has a supposed involvement in Muslim terrorism support. Indeed she has an astonishing knowledge of Al-Shabaab activity in the last years: this knowledge can only be possessed by an insider (or a closely-related insider) of this terrorist organization!


Furthermore, Middayexpress has shown a "fanatical hate" (similar to the one of members of Al-Shabaab) against Christianity in Somalia, as is clearly evidenced from her cancellation of serious bibliography and data in the voice "Roman Catholicism in Somalia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholicism_in_Somalia&oldid=320544261): she has made disappear that "The Bishop of Mogadishu, Franco Filippini, declared in 1940 that there were about 40,000 Somali Catholics due to the work of missionaries in the rural regions of Juba and Shebelle, but WWII damaged in an irreversibly way most of the catholic missions in Italian Somalia.[1] ". She angrily (as a possible al-Shabaab member or sympathizer) denied her POV-caused disappearances (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Catholicism_in_Somalia&oldid=320948362).


Middayexpress even attacked with continuous "malignity" user Oldsettler accusing him of sockpuppetry until she obtained the help of "wikimafia" user Vituzzu: she wanted and obtained to "decapitate without pity in Wikipedia" Oldsettler with the same kind of malignity & hate shown in Syria by ISIS terrorists. Oldsettler wrote "The malignity of this Middayexpress is unbelievable. Why against me? I have never done anything with him/her or against him/her, but -after obtaining to erase my dad's photo- now attacks me continuously repeating the same accusations again and again and again with his/her typical "byzantine phrases" full of the same things. I have read his/her 60 archives and I have found that he/she is a Somalian living in the UK (probably in the London area full of supporters of ISIS (read [46]) and that he/she has had "fightings" with many wikipedians. He/she has collected many blocks and menaces of blocks for his/her continuous edit-warrings and seems to promote muslim POVs in a way that remembers the religious fanatism: most important to me, he/she seems to "hate" colonialism and western colonialists, so probably he/she identifies me with the Italians who colonized Somalia....and this can explain his/her attacks against me."


Furthermore Vituzzu is known in the Italian wiki as one of the main bosses of the “Italian wikimafia”. Some websites denounce him, like “Wikiperle” (read in Italian : htp://wikiperle.blogspot.com/2013/05/wikipedia-mai-criticare-la-famiglia.html) and “Perle Complottiste” (read: http://complottismo.blogspot.com/search/label/Vituzzu?max-results=100 ) and so do many Italian wikiusers (read in Italian: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/Vituzzu/3 ; http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/Archivio/Archivio_riconferme_tacite/2012#Vituzzu ; http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/Archivio/Archivio_riconferme_tacite/2013#Vituzzu ).

Vituzzu -he is from Calabria, the home of Ndrangheta (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/02/150224083921277.html)- has even been "blocked" many times in the Italian Wikipedia, even if he is an admin, and "strangely" survived without ever being banned (http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl… ): but this could only be possible because of his powerful "mafia" relationships!).


This help from wikimafia Vituzzu could or seems to be related to the growing relationship between muslim terrorism organizations and the mafia against & inside the Christian Western industrial societies (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PZMgorG2ojMJ:www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201211/20121127ATT56707/20121127ATT56707EN.pdf+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us): may be it is even related -as a clear possible proof- to the Middayexpress supposed involvement in Muslim terrorism support. Even a possible link to Al-Kaeda cannot be excluded, because of the growing contacts between Somalian Al-Shabaab and ISIS (read: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/24/isis-reaches-out-to-somali-terror-group-al-shabaab/ ).


Indeed in London, between some members of the huge Somalian community, there it is a growing "hidden" support for Al-Shabaab; and Middaexpress seems to live there (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964218/Somali-terror-group-Al-Shabaab-calls-Westgate-style-shopping-centre-attack-London-s-Oxford-Street-chilling-new-video.html ).


If interested in further in formation, please go to http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/north-london-boys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.145.55 (talk)

Golly. Not sure what you'll make of all of the above, Harry. But in case you have not already guessed, I believe that all but the last instance of the word even are actually intended to mean also. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tripodi, Paolo. The Colonial Legacy in Somalia. p. 66

An easy one for you...

Hi, HJ - need something done with the following vandal:

[1] Most recent vandalism Based on his pattern of editing, clearly a vandal User_talk:Lungchungpz Atsme☎️📧 12:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry, this is not what I meant to do. I blame Twinkle! Also, maybe you should consider having your user page protected, it gets an incredible amount of vandalism! — Strongjam (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

An easy one for you...

Hi, HJ - need something done with the following vandal:

[2] Most recent vandalism Based on his pattern of editing, clearly a vandal User_talk:Lungchungpz Atsme☎️📧 12:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry, this is not what I meant to do. I blame Twinkle! Also, maybe you should consider having your user page protected, it gets an incredible amount of vandalism! — Strongjam (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Can you nominate me to be an admin, I saw you were one of the admins willing to nominate. TeaLover1996 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If I can comment here, I really think you need far more time and experience on Wikipedia before you apply to be an administrator. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
What about me? :D (Totally serious.) I've been thinking about it for a while since I want to help out with the workload (instead of creating more work for admins by tagging and reporting things), but the process itself is a little intimidating, plus some other concerns. I'd want to ask for someone's informal opinion (of what might be wrong with me so I know what to work on) before trying, but I haven't been sure who to ask. I'm sure plenty of people recognize my name but I don't know who actually remembers me. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user

Hi! How do I become an autoconfirmed user? One of the pages I wanted to edit was semi-protected by you. Based on the criteria, my account should be at least 4 days old and have more than 100 edits. I think I'm already qualified. Thanks :) Mat 1997 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Mat 1997: WP:CONFIRM has the details. Normally it's 4 days 10 edits, although it can be 90 days/100 edits in some cases. It's not granted until you try to edit a page that requires it. So you should be able to just edit a semi-protected page and once you hit save the system should check to see if you should have auto-confirmed status and give it you. — Strongjam (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

IP 82.35.137.3

Hello! IP 82.35.137.3 was blocked in March:

16:16, 11 March 2015 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) blocked 82.35.137.3 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Block evasion)

Now the block expired and he resumed the edits that led to his block (the edits are identical to edits that he made in the past: see [3] and [4]).

Pleas ere-block him. 213.81.238.126 (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit appraisal

Good morning, I just had my first go at copy editing an article and I would appreciate a peer review to make sure I am on the right lines. The article I worked on is: K. Alison Clarke-Stewart which I picked purely because it was the oldest article listed.

There is one sentence in the article that I suspect could be improved but I don't know what it is supposed to be saying, so I have left it for the moment. It currently reads: ``Her initial academic appointment as assistant professor was in the department of Education and Committee on Human Development, and the College at the University of Chicago in 1974."

Many thanks for your kind attention. Cottonshirtτ 08:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bavo Defurne

Apparently, an entry for the Belgian director Bavo Defurne was created, but you deleted it in 2010. I think we can include him once more, now that he has an internationally regarded feature film under his belt, on top of his other works. His status seems to have increased, although I don't know what it was five years ago, because I only heard of his work recently. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

peacock

Hi, i know that peacock terms in wikipedia are not acceptable, but why all of them ----> one of the most influential scientists of all time, the most talented Western mathematician of the Middle Ages, one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps the most diversely talented person ever to have lived, ----- are not considered as peacock, even if the Newton one do not include any reliable source? In some articles I removed these peacock terms, but other users add them again, whereas in other articles when I add these "peacock" terms, it is usually removed, although I include reliable sources. Can you explain to me this? I am waiting for you. Thanks. (It is also sad that CU tools have not be given to you, but to other admins who do not deserve it. Don't worry, next time you will obtain it) 92.16.183.217 (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hatting - a quick question

Hi HJ Mitchell, Apologies for the interruption. I have a quick question, which I'm asking in the hope that it might quickly clear things up w.r.t involved editors hatting discussions; and allow a few of us to move on. When looking at the closing comments here, I noticed the polarity had changed from your final comment:

I endorse Gamaliel's proposed solution—that anyone can hat, but anyone can un-hat if they feel there is a discussion to be had about article content, and editors wishing to re-hat should bring the matter here. Hatting, used properly, is a useful device for dealing with off-topic or inappropriate comments, of which this talk page attracts plenty. I would, though, caution TRPoD not to use hatting to make snarky, condescending, or otherwise unhelpful comments, as these are only likely to inflame matters. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

to the closing comment:

Unhatting should be brought here first; hatting likely to be contested should be brought here first; hattings that are contested should be brought here for review. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the first (allowing unhatting without reference to administrators) better aligns with our principles & with WP:TALK. I believe that the second (requiring administrative intervention before unhatting) does not align with our principles & with WP:TALK. Are you able to recall if the difference between these was intentional? If it was, can you elaborate on the reasoning behind the change?

Many thanks in advance for any response; as I say, it might help put this to bed. I also noticed that you've been less busy on WP than usual, and I hope that you are well. Regards, - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember the specifics, but the summary would have been the result of the discussion, whereas my comment n the thread would have been my opinion. What I can remember is that back in January, the dispute was in the middle of a large and messy arbitration case, and that edit wars over hatting/unhatting/removing talk page sections were happening multiple times a day, so some sort of moratorium pending a ruling from uninvolved admins was the only way to maintain order. Things are calmer now, so I wouldn't say it was necessary to ask for pre-emptive admin intervention unless something was likely to be extremely controversial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi HJ Mitchell, Many thanks for your reply, it is genuinely appreciated. I thought that it would be something along those lines - "personal opinion" v "result of the discussion" - but what struck me as a little strange was that there are no comments aligned to the closing comment in the discussion. But, it's probably a moot point anyway, as general sanctions were replaced by discretionary sanctions; so not worth troubling over. Please have a large glass of something Islay for me. Thanks again. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Request to lower protection

Hi, you previously lowered the protection level of the Wikipedia Adventure pages to template-editor, e.g., this diff. It appears that these three pages were overlooked:

Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've lowered those for consistency. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FYI, they were erroneously populating Category:Wikipedia page-name maintenance templates due to a mistake I made in {{Hidden title}}. I fixed that, and null edits got them out of that category. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Cartoon Network (EMEA)

Hi HJ, could I ask you to help me with a unique situation at Cartoon Network (EMEA)?

I'll try to make this brief: The article started out as Cartoon Network (Europe) but I guess CN has expanded their programming to Europe, Middle-East and Africa (EMEA). There were a bunch of disruptive article moves done by Kosi Onochie (see move log) which resulted in a real clusterfuck. Kosi and a Nigerian IP editor (I'm pretty sure they're the same guy) kept adding unsourced content like TV lineups, flag-laden international broadcast lists with unsourced dates, etc. They never responded to requests for references, article talk page comments or warnings. I PRODed the article on the basis that there was no demonstrated notability and I couldn't find anything significant written about CN (EMEA). The PROD was not contested and the article was deleted. Kosi Onochie has recreated the article and he and the Nigerian IP are continuing the unsourced additions etc.

A few notes:

  1. Since the version of the article before the PROD contains a comprehensive edit history, it seems that we're going to lose that if the current article is being re-built, and it looks like they're just recycling the same general unsourced content. Does it make sense to bring the original article back, warts and all?
  2. The current article has an active AfD.
  3. Something needs to be done about Kosi, who has never used an edit summary or discussed anything, and the equally silent IP. I'm actually surprised that Kosi didn't get indeffed previously for those page moves. He also created Disney XD (Africa) apparently out of ether, full of unsourced date ranges, etc.
  4. Maybe page protection?

Anyhow, any help and input you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Protection template

Hi! You need to correct the protection template (20th May) on Rolf Harris because it doesn't match the protection log (8th April 2016). Thanks! Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

fixed. - NQ (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

By his own admission, 81.111.9.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is evading a block you placed on his main account, Matt 20123 (talk · contribs). He seems to have racked up an impressive number of warnings as an IP editor, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For being unafraid to endure the Augean stables. Your good works are not unnoticed or unappreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you be recruited?

Hi, HJ. Could you be convinced to take on a little new XfD work? Admin Martin Hoekstra has been AWOL at TfD since March, and, these days, long-time TfD closer Plastikspork is only showing up every 10 to 14 days to close just a handful of TfD discussions. No other admin is closing TfDs right now. Could you be talked into closing a couple of TfDs per day, and I'll see if I can recruit two or three more admins to help on the same basis? I would be happy to help in any way possible, including pointing you in the direction of the relevant guidelines and essays. Please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the day job is keeping me occupied at the minute so I'm not much use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, HJ. Understood. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Kitty Genovese

Hello. I approached another admin about this, but he said he was to busy with RL situations to deal with it, so I'm bring it to you.

Could you please take a look at Murder of Kitty Genovese? Richard Arthur Norton has decided that the information and reference connected to the image in the infobox is "metadata" and shouldn't be included. Per WP:BRD I Reverted his Bold edit and asked him to start a Discussion, which he did, but he also, in violation of BRD, reverted to his preferred version. He keeps restoring the article to his preferred version without a talk page consensus to do so. (BRD specifies that the article stays in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing.) I would appreciate it if you could -- if you think it is appropriate -- let RAN know that the article should return to the status it was in before he changed it, that his personal opinion about whether the additional information should be there or not is not controlling, and that he should wait to have a consensus on the talk page before making the change? I'm backing away from the article for the moment, as I've clearly lost perspective: I broke 3RR but then immediately self-reverted.

If you feel you'd rather not get involved, for whatever reason, that's fine, I just want to handle this quietly and not make a big megillah out of it,

I also would like to point out that the image which was in the article was File:KittyGenovese.JPG which was hosted on Wikipedia because it was a non-free file, having come from The New York Times. RAN replaced it with File:Kitty Genovese circa 1964.jpg, the same image (albeit a better version) which he uploaded on Commons as coming from The Nation and The New York Times. His rationale was that it was uploaded without a copyright notice, but of course, those periodicals are copyrighted in total, so the image is also copyrighted. In any event, it appears that he uploaded it on Commons to avoid his restriction on uploading images on Wikipedia, which I suppose is legal, but hardly within the spirit of his restriction.

I have nominated it for deletion on Commons as clearly a copyrighted image, but have re-uploaded the better version here on Wikipedia, replacing the older version (which was a scan from the newspaper) - again as a non-free image, which it is.BMK (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for "OccultZone and others" arbitration case

Hi HJ Mitchell, in the open OccultZone and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Question about sanctions

Is there a comprehensive list of users who are currently subject to sanctions by the arbitration committee and what those sanctions are? If so, could you provide a link to it please. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how comprehensive it is, but WP:RESTRICT lists editors subject to restrictions short of a siteban imposed directly by ArbCom. Restrictions imposed by admins acting under discretionary sanctions provisions are listed at WP:DSLOG and that list certainly should be comprehensive, as logging the action there is mandatory. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for those links. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Would my topic ban encompass Caitlyn Jenner's biographical article? The specific wording is Prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. The subject is a high profile MtF individual. Gender is present--but I don't see a dispute with it or a controversy. I am very suspect and lean on the edge of caution, which is why I'm asking you before I engage on the talk page or article. Tutelary (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd say that's a borderline case. To take a legalistic approach, Jenner is neither a controversy nor a person associated with a controversy in her own right. More philosophically, Jenner's gender identity is largely tangential to what dispute there is. Obviously I can't speak for ArbCom, but if I'd imposed the topic ban as a discretionary sanction I wouldn't consider Jenner's biography to be automatically covered. My advice would be to proceed, but to tread very lightly and to make sure that your participation adds value to the debate. Obviously, be aware that the discussion could easily lead into areas that definitely are covered by your topic ban, and of course that transgender issues are covered by a separate set of discretionary sanctions. (@Tutelary:) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
None of my business, I suppose, but using my crystal ball, I can see problems ahead if Tutelary edits that article, and it's worth a shot trying to stop them before they start. @Tutelary: Looking at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner, I'd say there is a gender-related dispute or controversy going on, and that it is "associated" with Ms. Jenner. Especially if everything is "broadly construed". I'd say rather than seeing how thin the ice can be without falling in, it's smarter to consider the page (and talk page) off limits based on this topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with Flo, I can see an edit to this article bringing brought to AE as a topic ban violation. Tutelary, I'd check in with an arbitrator just to make sure you're covered. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll just stay out of it. Thanks. I will still keep look out for blatant BLP violations--as it is a sensitive subject but stay out of the discussions and article itself. Tutelary (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

lifting protection for Nguyễn Công Phượng

Hi Mr. Mitchell, I am contacting you to lift the lift the recreation protection of Nguyễn Công Phượng since this articles subject did not meet WP:GNG but since has now met Wikipedia's requirements. At this discussion it was suggested for me to contact you on this matter, as the subject already had an article at Công Phượng but since the former is his full name I thought it would be better to move the latter articles content to the former and use the latter as a re-direct. Thank You. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked sock puppeteer User:Mrdhimas

Hello Harry. Would you mind blocking an obvious proxy (93.110.16.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) with an obvious connection to Mrdhimas (see 93.110.1.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 93.110.1.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that were both blocked for a year by you in January, in connection with the Mrdhimas SPI)? Thomas.W talk 09:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We can add 93.110.89.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) too. Thomas.W talk 10:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others closed

An arbitration case regarding OccultZone and other editors has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. User:OccultZone is banned indefinitely from English Wikipedia. They may appeal the ban after twelve months, and every six months thereafter.
  2. User:OccultZone is also topic banned from making edits related to a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.
  3. User:OccultZone is indefinitely limited to operating a single account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#OccultZone and others

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

RevDel request

An IP took it upon himself to make the following edit to Stan Wawrinka: [5] I've reverted the edit, but I think it should probably be hidden as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2015



Headlines
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 03:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Wild zoo animals

Made me think of this from Not the Nine O'Clock news. Best, Stephen 01:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wasp

On 18th October 2014 you protected the page Wasp for a period of one month because of persistent vandalism. This protection is still in place and I doubt that it is necessary now. Chiswick Chap and I have been working on the article and intent to submit it to GAN shortly. We will be able to keep an eye on the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Exceedingly silly questiom

I feel rather silly for not knowing or easily finding the answer to this... but I don't, and didn't. So I picked a random admin with my sanctions experience than I have :). I just alerted someone re: the existence of sanctions related to the GG case. The GG case notes that the community warning log should essentially continued to be used, but the community sanctions page itself is marked inactive and doesn't appear to be used as such. So... where's the appropriate place to log an alert in the GG case? Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Kevin Gorman, Interesting question; which I hope I can help with. Reading over the second sentence of WP:ARBGG Remedies 1.1.(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page. again, I'm not sure that it suggests that new alerts should continue to be logged; maybe just that the log of previous "community sanctions" will remain in that location. I think most editors have just been alerting other editors on their talk pages; and not logging in any location. Apologies if you meant a different section of the ARBGG case; please let me know if so & I'll have a look. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hrm. That seems like a reasonable enough interpretation to at least be defensible in case of future behavior by the user if I don't run in to a more obvious answer. That was indeed the sanction area I meant. Most of my experience is in dealing with community-based sanctions, rather than arbcom ones - especially post-revamp arbcom ones. I suppose that makes sense especially given how easy it is to demonstrate, if neeeded in the future that a particular user has been alerted. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Wasp

On 18th October 2014 you protected the page Wasp for a period of one month because of persistent vandalism. This protection is still in place and I doubt that it is necessary now. Chiswick Chap and I have been working on the article and have submitted it to GAN. We will be able to keep an eye on the article. (Second request, the first one having been archived.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the pending changes protection on that article. Let me know if you think it needs it again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk: Jill Dando

RE: Revision 668779873 In a lengthy discussion regarding the alleged murderer of Jill Dando, I offered a theory. Isn't this the purpose of the Talk page? The theory referenced an article that the user ThisisPaul found objectionable, and he removed my comment. I then removed my reference and reposted my theory. He deleted that text as well. I reworded my text, and he deleted that. Since I am a Wikipedia novice, could you please review my text and offer a suggestion as to how to present my theory without breaking Wikipedia guidelines. I have found a reference from a regular newspaper/website that could be cited (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698820/Murdered-Crimewatch-presenter-Jill-Dando-tried-bosses-investigate-alleged-paeodphile-ring-inside-BBC-no-one-wanted-know.html). It appears to me that it's acceptable to discuss other theories regarding the murder, such as the ridiculous Serb hit-man theory, but not the involvement of people closer to home. And I really have to wonder why ThisisPaul is so hypervigilant over the Talk page of someone who has been dead for sixteen years. 192.40.24.4 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Shandafirde

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Ames Laboratory OTRS

Harry, do you still have OTRS access? I like you to take a look at 2011070810013625. There is some more images from the Ames lboratory that I'd like to have, and I'd like to know the details of this OTRS, namely the scope, and contact info. (I'm still trying to figure out what I have access to at the moment. Google and Facebook are blocked, but despite what the Signpost says, Wikipedia is okay.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket is a forwarded email from a Wikipedian of an email exchange between him and somebody at Ames Laboratory. The representative releases File:Ames Process pressure vessel lower.tif, File:Ames Process pressure vessel remnant slag after reaction.tif, and File:Ames Process uranium biscuit.tif under CC-By-SA 3.0. The ticket looks legit to me. Since OTRS communications are confidential, I'm afraid I can't give you any more detail than that. You could perhaps try contacting the lab, mentioning that a representative of theirs released some images a few years ago. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: in case you missed it. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try contacting the lab. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Science Conference

Hi, this is another update on the Wikipedia Science Conference taking place in London on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd of September.

  • Booking has opened at just 29 pounds, including lunch on both days.
  • Take a look at the (pretty much final) programme if you haven’t seen it yet. With 18 plenary speakers - three from overseas - as well as the large unconference section, there’s a lot going on, and the Royal Society of Chemistry is sponsoring a wine reception in the evening.
  • We are also in the full swing of publicity. Emails have been, and are, going out to funders, scholarly societies, and university departments, but any additional promotion is appreciated. Please share a link, or tell colleagues in relevant fora. All publicity material for the conference is, of course, freely licenced for you to adapt.
  • After the conference there will be two hackathons: one Cambridge on the Friday, the other hosted by Wikimedia UK in London on the Saturday. These are being led by Daniel Mietchen and Stefan Kasberger. Follow the link for more details.

I hope you’re excited as I am about this event. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, I have reason to believe that User:Sweet Xeper is evading blocking through use of a dynamic IP. Examples of IP addresses include: 151.44.129.5, 151.46.141.240, 151.35.10.111, etc. Can this be checked and what are our options for rangeblocking? Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(saving HJ time) This is posted at AN with responses.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks... move along, nothing to see here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor you once blocked is now at AE

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Neptune's Trident. You issued a one-month block back in March. The situation is not totally clear, because they seem to be well-intentioned. But it's hard to reconcile such intentions with the repeated BLP violations. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was unsure of the etiquette of whether I should start a new section, or if it's all right to post under this one as it has to do with the AE case listed by EdJohnston. I'm concerned with a statement made by the editor markbernstein. In this comment [[6]] the editor is attacking the subject of the enforcement request. He is engaging in soapboxing and ridiculing the contributions the editor has made to the project. Looking more into his history, this seems mild considering some of the other things he has said in the past. How does someone so uncivil continue to be able to do so unfettered. He constantly insults other editors, makes unjust accusations towards them, he misrepresented the outcome of an arbcom to media outlets. I don't want to open a case over it as I'm busy trying to write my first actual article on the sight and that task is daunting enough. It's editors like him that have made me leery of getting more involved in the project. He's a genuinely unpleasant person and I'm terrified to run into him on this site. He is vicious. Sorry for bothering you with this, just didn't know where else to state my piece on the matter. Thanks for your time Thorrand (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that we're talking about Neptune's Trident, please see my unreserved apology [7]. But that case appears to have been filed by Thorrand , not User:EdJohnston. I don’t see a case filed by EdJohnston. I respectfully disagree that I misrepresented the outcome of an ArbCom case to media outlets, and observe that many of the outlets who interviewed me or quoted my writing also interviewed a great many people and quoted their writing, and that both ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation issued public statements as well. I am actually not unpleasant, much less vicious. And while we're here, 'welcome to Wikipedia! Sure, it can be a crazy place sometimes, but you certainly know how to dive right in and have done so capably -- appearing at AfD on your second edit ever, at AN/I with your 8th, and filing a fresh AE complaint with your seventeenth. I’m surprised you found time to read my articles and to form such a detailed impression of my character, and regret that I seem to express myself so poorly so as to place myself in such a misleading light. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no desire to engage you. I have more than a few edits under my belt as an IP editor, but figured It was a good time to fully create an account. As for your implecations of me opening the AE complaint, I'm interested in editing articles related to video games. I did what I was told is good for that and joined a wiki project related to it. The giant spacekat article was the newest article created on the project and last I checked, was still the latest. It led me to see the user was violating the ban imposed in them. Something I see you're intimately familiar with, so I brought it up. You can stop trying to hide your bad faith under a thin veil of civility. Your intent is obvious. My question and concerns were to an admin, not to you. So good day. Thorrand (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection of List of oldest living people

Hi there HJ Mitchell. In September 2014, you semiprotected List of living supercentenarians, which has since been moved to the title List of oldest living people. That protection was implemented for one year, to expire Spetember 30, 2015, a reasonable action given the repeated need to semiprotect the page previously. However, at the moment, there is a legitimate content dispute being discussed on the talk page that has unfortunately lined up as registered editors versus IP editors. I'm sure you agree that the purpose of semiprotection is not to privilege one side in a content dispute. I'd like you to consider removing the semiprotection on the article so that this isn't an issue. As a matter of full disclosure, if semiprotection is removed, I would likely make an edit to the article; that is why I am requesting it. I do not intend any edit war. You can review the discussion that prompted this at Talk:List of oldest living people#Anonymous supercentenarian from Japan, and of course your opinion of article contents is welcome there as well, if you feel like giving it. In any case, thank you for your attention to this request. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_102&oldid=1144124279"