Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 129

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131→Archive 135

Autopatrolled for stub creator?

I saw you are one of the admins at Autopatrolled and I came across Pvmoutside who is a prolific stub creator, since over 10 years. At the beginning of his wikipedia career he also created some start class articles. Pvmoutside doesn't answer at the talk page, keeps creating basic stubs and was given the autopatrolled rights over 10 years ago by an editor who no longer is editing. I have seen other autopatrolled editors created mainly start class or better assessed articles before being granted autopatrolled. I wouldn't grant Pvmoutside autopatrolled and I wonder what your conclusion is.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, from the people who've commented in the linked discussion, you appear to be the only one who believes there is an issue here. And, correct me if I'm wrong, this issue isn't specifically with the stub creations of this editor, but with stub creations in principle. – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes stub creation in principle is the issue. I believe those editors should not be granted autopatrol rights as they in specific and wikipedia in general could benefit from the tags the reviewers would add to the articles. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for protecting me.... The reason I have autopatrol right is because I also maintain bird pages, and every 6 months or so there needsto be a move or swap, and the admin who gave me autopatrol rights allowed me to do that.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
@Pvmoutside Could you link to a diff where you were "in need" for autopatrolled for a move or a swap?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
When I adked to move and swap articles, I originally asked to be an admin thinking that was the only way to accomplish what I wanted. I was denied.The admin gave me autopatrol rights instead. It's been working so far.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Pvmoutside, you're confusing autopatrolled with pagemover. Paradise Chronicle, given that the only editors to whose work this user right makes any difference at all are (other) reviewers, maybe you can decide it among yourselves whether you all would be interested in starting to have Pvmoutside's articles in the NPP queue? And everyone, we're all squatting on the talk page of HJ Mitchell: he seems to have tolerated the barrage of notifications about our posts to his talk page, but he doesn't appear to have anything to do with this case, and chances are he's not interested in changing that. If there really is anything that needs discussing, can we move that elsewhere, please? – Uanfala (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I have also noticed that HJ Michell is not answering, maybe the wrong venue. A note by HJ Mitchell indicating a better one (since I indicated I came here because or their involvement in Autopatrolled from start) would have helped shortening the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle: First of all, I've been busy for a few days. I'm not here 24/7/365. But more importantly, I have no idea what you're asking. If you want to establish a rule that autopatrolled is not for stub creators, go and get a consensus at somewhere like VPP. Otherwise, without any evidence that Pvmoutside's creations are problematic, I have no grounds to remove their autopatrolled flag. There is a very strong, very well-established consensus that it's perfectly acceptable to create very short articles and while I have my own opinions, the role of admins is to enforce policy as-written. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, it is good to have admins who apply policy as written. And while you are correct that consensus is that very short articles can be written, I do not believe that it is beneficial to wikipedia that they are created on autopatrolled, as many of those are likely deficient and seldomly edited again. A review where tags, projects and wls can be added, helps to welcome and integrate the article into the Wikipedia process. And to enable more of such reviews, autopatrolled should be removed. Then also Pvmoutside doesn't seem to have known for what autopatrolled is, as they thought it concerns moves, as also pointed out by Uanfala above and its removal won't hinder Pvmoutside in moving articles which seems to be their prime concern. That said, I have moved on with the discussion to Barkeep49 talk page but thought you merit an answer. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Still top shelf in my book

"Ass In High Gear Award"

Your work as an admin is not being graded,
But it certainly is much appreciated,
To know that you see with vision that's clear,
And don't mind keeping your ass in high gear.
Atsme 💬 📧 23:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Always nice to hear from you! I appreciate all you do for our new patrollers. It gives me confidence in one of our most important processes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Single purpose block-evasion sock?

Hi, recently you indefinitely blocked SapientiaLinguistica for their behavior (which was related to their activity on the article Chakavian). Yesterday was registered a new account Brack3tRedacted whose first edit was on the same article making same disruptive changes to the content. Maybe it is too soon to report them for sock investigation without further evidence (besides CheckUser). As they are not making any edits elsewhere it is enough to semi-protect the article. A long semi-protection would be good anyway. Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Sorry for the delay. They've only made one edit so I don't there's anything to do right now. If it becomes a pattern, let me know. Even if we can't be sure about block evasion, if their edits are disruptive that's ample grounds for a block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

TPA revoke

Could you modify the block for 2a01:c23::/32 to include talk page access as well? see Special:Diff/1142619311 AP 499D25 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I thought I recognised them. This person has been around for a while on various IPv6 ranges. The software won't let us block anything bigger than a /32 for IPv6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

School IP vandalism continuing

In January, you blocked this IP because of the constant vandalism. Since the block expired, there have been 6 edits made from that IP, all vandalism. Wes sideman (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: Thanks. They can have a longer block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! - Advice Requested:)

Hello!

I really want to thank you so much for all the work that you do on Wikipedia, and for taking the time to reply to my permission request with some very helpful information and advice:)

I really want to chat about Wikipedia if that's okay? I have been very interested in being very heavily involved in Wikipedia, I would love to help a lot of people here.

I love editing on Wikipedia, it gives me something very positive to do and I really love it! I was wondering if I could ask for some advice? I really want to be extremely helpful and to see positive change done by myself. I would love to help articles become so much better and to see positive changes just like I can see on your Userpage!

Would you be able to help me? I'd love to one day have things like "50 articles heavily improved by my work" and things like that. Something to look at on my profile page and think look at this positive change I've done!

Also, what I have done so far...would you say there's some good in that?

Thanks so much I appreciate everything! MrBauer24 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Peter, first of all I love your username. I'm a big fan of 24. I'm glad to hear you're interested in building some quality articles. I find it one of the most rewarding things you can do on Wikipedia. The best advice I can give you is to find a subject you're passionate about. Most of my articles are on esoteric things like war memorials and bridges (much as it drives my wife to despair that I have shelves full of books on "really boring" subjects!) but you'll find that most people have a niche like that. The trick is to find yours. I would pick something easy to start with (my first was Mike Jackson (British Army officer); biographies, especially of people with long careers, are good because they're easy to structure and they have an obvious start and end point); something that has enough written about it that you can get at least couple of thousand words on it but not so much that you're drowning in source material. User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article is one of the best guides I've seen on subject selection (the whole guide is excellent but much of it is out of date now).
Once you've got a subject, you need to get hold of just about everything written about it. Books are the gold standard for most subjects; journal pieces aren't far behind; news and web sources are less good but can b helpful for filling in details. Other encyclopaedias and resources like biographical dictionaries can be helpful to see what they think the main points are. I usually pick the most detailed source and start by summarising that, then use the rest to flesh out the article. Then it's just a case of smoothing the prose into a coherent narrative, tidying and structuring the article, adding illustrations, etc. Then you ask somebody with more experience to read it through and give you feedback. I've become a much better writer over the years thanks to the feedback of reviewers. The person I asked to review my first FA was Eric Corbett but he's no longer editing for other reasons; Dank is someone I remember from my early FA-writing days who helped make me a better writer. I'd always recommend having a look at FAC and Peer Review to see what a quality article looks like and what sort of things reviewers pick up on and maybe offering some feedback yourself. Most people are happy to hear any feedback just to know that someone has read what they've written! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Kind of you to mention me, Harry. I typically hang out at FLC, and I haven't been feeling well lately, but I'll be happy to look at anything and see if something useful comes to mind! - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I always appreciated your input at ACR and FAC, even if it was a few years ago. You gave good advice on tightening writing style. I don't really get over to FLC these days. To be honest, I hate fiddling with tables; I'd actually rather write and research a few thousand words of prose than put the information in a table. Though Visual Editor makes it easier these days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I agree ... tables can be off-putting and the rules are too fiddly. And I see people disagreeing over sourcing issues a fair amount (I'm not sure what to do about that; I generally try to leave sourcing issues to the source review people). But I like it when it works. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) And I'm hopeful that LLMs will make the fiddly stuff easier some day. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Pointer

I presume that you did read this thread where multiple users noted GCB's baiting behaviour — including with inappropriate sexual innuendos — for a long span of time across multiple t/p(s) including threads w/o me? Also, Doug is a long time talk-page stalker with whom I have colloborated on S. Asian articles and I can assure you that he was not "warning" me. That said, you can always verify from the horse's mouth. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place. It's annoying enough that it's move d from ANI to AE but while it's there please let's not make people follow even more breadcrumbs. I intend to leave the discussion for a while to see if any more uninvolved admins care to weigh in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
There's a 500 word limit and I was not the one who moved it from ANI to AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrangaBellam

Hi, I have already exceeded my limit in this discussion. However, can I give a one-two sentences answer to other participants of the discussion? Marcelus (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You can have another 100 words to respond to comments by involved editors that directly concern you, and another 100 to respond to any uninvolved admin. But please consider keeping your comments as brief as possible; less is often more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, as for now I will limit myself to only one reply Marcelus (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

VM

Did you see my thread on VM's t/p; it was a misunderstanding on his part. Though I should have provided a diff. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I pointed that VM had implied that I might be violating BLP (by citing Grabowski) which can be construed as aspersion, going by GCB's logic. But it is obviously not one. VM failed to understand the particular reference but at his t/p, things became clear. Now you propose that the episode is an evidence of my disruption - wow! TrangaBellam (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I didn't. If a discussion is taking place at AE, I will follow the discussion at AE but that doesn't mean I'm following side discussion on individual talk pages and as I'm not active in the topic area, I don't watch the talk pages of participants. If you and Marek agree that he misunderstood you and you weren't suggesting he was involved in a discussion on a page he's never edited, then I'll reconsider my position at AE. Either way, my friendly advice to you (speaking as Harry the person, not the AE admin) would be that several uninvolved admins are concerned about the way you conduct yourself in discussions and you would do well to take a deep breath before commenting in future, especially in controversial topic areas, because everyone seems to agree that your article edits are generally good. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
See User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#AE. I have requested him to strikethrough the part, now that our misunderstanding is clear. However it is fact that I should have provided the diff at the first place; would have avoided the saga.
I will also request you to reconsider the mvbw issue, carefully. If you read my statement, I did not accuse mvbw of anything by saying that he found my edits to be antisemitic. I am still puzzled at the reaction because well, I did consider his comments valid (though unexpected) and not breaching any policy!
I do take the message home that I need to tone down my comments and shuttle the conduct issues to proper venues; see my assurances to Calanecc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: sorry to be a pain, but which diff? There are so many. I would also like to hear from VM; there's no risk of the discussion being closed in the next few minutes. I would like to close it today if possible but I won't close it while there are questions to be resolved, don't worry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
So, to elaborate:
GCB claimed that I was casting aspersions in this edit where I claimed of POV-pushing. Do note that it was directed at no editor in particular.
In my response, I claimed that hours ago, VM said [this is the diff in question that I had not linked to, causing confusion] that I was violating BLP.[1] So, going by GCB's standards, can I claim that VM is "throwing aspersions"? The answer is no. Like me (who had noted the lack of qualifications of the reviewer), VM had reasonable evidence to suggest that I might be violating BLP. Aspersions, if supported with reasonable evidence, are no longer aspersions. Do you see anywhere where I intended to attack VM in any manner or ascribe any nefarious motive to him? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a popular legal rhetoric to actually have its own name and a fair many books on the topic! You (1) accept the other side's pleadings at face value, (2) apply it to some scenario that is in their favor or goes against you, and (3) show the nonsensical outcome of such an application. The goal is to show that their reasoning has no legs to stand. BLP, NPOV are policies; invariably, in a contested area, edits and even editors will be accused of breaches. I do hope that I make myself clear? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Two more editors - Levivich and Paul Siebert have responded to your latest edit about me. I will appreciate if you can strike-through your comment. That's the last of me on this t/p on this issue. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: I struck it an hour ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah, for some reason, the page did not show the strikethrough on a reload. My apologies. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Btw, is AE governed by consensus (like ANI)? For example, Bish and RP appear to not support any logged warning of any kind for me. In contrast, Calanecc does, quite explcitly. I am not sure about your final stance. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure about my final stance either. And the answer to that is a grey area. The Contentious Topics procedure allows admin to act unilaterally, so they don't need a consensus of other admins, but any action can be overturned by a consensus of admins so it's inadvisable to proceed against the strong objections of other admins. We usually seek the middle ground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


  1. ^ While no editors are mentioned by name, it was me who had added the content under challenge.

TFA

Thank you today for Operation Flavius, introduced (in 2014): "In 1988, at the height of "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland, an IRA team attempted to detonate a car bomb in Gibraltar. They were pursued by British special special forces, who shot dead three IRA members who later turned out be unarmed and not in possession of a bomb. The resulting chain reaction left another half a dozen people dead in Belfast, while a dispute over the legality of the SAS' actions raged for another seven years until a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights which left neither side entirely satisfied. This article documents that chain of events, with all its twists and turns. It's certainly been interesting, given that the subject matter is still controversial today ..."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

GCB etc

Joining the party on your talk page:

Although I am uninvolved in the pages in question, I posted about GCB at another page that Grabowski took issue with, Collaboration with the Axis Powers. (I was already working on the France section when I became aware of his article.) GCB was rather obstructive with respect to my attempts to verify some of his specific comments about that page, but I do not know if she realized that that is what they were. If my remarks at AE aren't helpful I'll withdraw them and file a separate ANI, but I've been working up to reporting Trangabellam, for exactly what Marcelus complains of, at a page unrelated to the Holocaust.

I have had issues with Marcelus in the past but I believe that he was similarly trying to improve deficiencies identified by Grabowski. I can probably find the link where he said that, if it would be helpful. I just read the history of the massacre article and I am not sure I agree with him, but he was trying to source it, I think.

I personally believe Trangabellam is the wrongest, but before I bring in completely unrelated subject matter I thought I should ask. The short version is that immediately after an attempt to AfD an article failed, they rewrote it to say that its topic was invalid, completely ignoring my repeated protests and attempts to discuss at the talk page. But this has nothing to do with Poland or the Holocaust.

I don't trust myself to discuss Gitz. He is, yes, polite. Anything else I would have to say about him would require diffs and I am trying to keep the scope of my comments narrow. Please ping me if you would like to see the link re Marcelus or diffs re Trangabellam at the board. Elinruby (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: what's likely to happen at AE is that TB and GCB will get warnings for their conduct on talk pages, and Marcelus will get a revert restriction. As far as I can tell, this is the first time TB has been brought to AE, and although GCB has a previous sanction in the topic area, it's the first time this specific issue has been brought to admins' attention. Both seem to be saying they've seen the error of their ways. Of course it's possible that they're saying what they think admins want to hear, but the advantage of a warning is that there's a record that the conduct has been discussed before. The best-case scenario, the one we all hope for, is that a warned editor realises what they were doing wrong and changes it and that's the end of the matter. If they're brought back to AE for the same conduct, they're likely to end up with some sort of sanction.
Which is all background to the answer to your question, which is that opening a new ANI or AE complaint is unlikely to result in any action beyond what's likely to result from the existing thread. I would suggest you join me in hoping that, now these editors have been made aware of the problems with their editing, things get better. And if they don't, you can file a new complaint with fresh diffs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I hope you are right. It sounds like you don't think the link or the TB diffs would make a difference to this case and you of course are much more familiar with how the process works. Would you like me to remove the stuff about GCB? I don't think anyone has answered me yet. Elinruby (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to remove it; it will have been seen by plenty of people already. But in a discussion that long, I don't think a few more diffs that show the same conduct will be seen as grounds for any more action than is currently proposed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
nod, ok. Elinruby (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • HJM, TrangaBellam rewrote it to say that its topic was invalid, completely ignoring my repeated protests and attempts to discuss at the talk page. has been discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive315#Minaro123. See Elinruby's comments in part. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes you portrayed his objections to your edit-warring to be edit+warring themselves, that was what was so distasteful about it, that and the way you made fun of him. Worst newbie-biting I've ever seen. But I am not going to litigate that here. He doesn't think it would make a difference to what we're doing right now, so...he doesn't think it would make a difference to what we're doing right now. I've ask you several times before to refrain from clerking discussions about you, though. Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Harry, Marcelus just made a proposal at Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers (see BRD fail section), and I've invited him to develop it further. Can you please tailor whatever penalty you give him to allow that to continue? Make that page an exception or whatever? I promise not to get into a knife-fight with him, am familiar with his work, and welcome his input. It would be hard to discuss rewrites if he had a 0RR restriction. Thank you for any thought you give this. Elinruby (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I have words left, I should take this request to the AE page, huh. Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Qualified for Rollback?

Hello HJ,

I do a lot of work reverting vandalism to Wikipedia and would like to use the tool AntiVandal. This requires Rollback, which I don’t have. I was looking at the permissions page and it looks like you are the one that reviews most requests. Do you think I am qualified? I have over 1,300 edits. I am very familiar with general Wikipedia policies and the policy on Rollback (only use on Vandalism). My CSD log may also show this. My thanks log may also be helpful. However, I have only been editing for a little over 2 weeks. I have seen editors with less edits than me get approved, but they have also had an account longer. I would also be open to a trial period. I don’t know if this would stop me from getting it, so I am asking your opinion.

If you don’t think I am qualified, tell me why, or how long I need to have been here for. If you think I am qualified, you can go ahead grant me the user right, or I can apply for it on the page.

I appreciate your feedback in advance. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I was recently involved in this issue, that Rollback would be helpful in. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What about warning them as well next time (if they come back)? Tails Wx 01:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you can see my contribution history that I usually warn users every time. However in this instance, by the time I had reverted their first edit, they had vandalized another page. I then reported them to AIV instead of warning because of the severity of the vandalism. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Yup, I can tell! But what about warning the IP on ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page? They hadn't vandalized another page and continued reverting with no warnings. Just wondering why, I swear I won't bug you with these examples next time ;) Tails Wx 01:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This was also a similar scenario. The user was repeatedly vandalizing the same page. I went to report to AIV, but a report was already there. I didn’t warn the user that time because the other users that reverted before me didn’t and I assumed it was probably just a sockpuppet/long term abuse IP, which was confirmed by the page protection reason. I do warn users most of the time though, :)! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Alright, just checking. I'll leave it up to HJ, then! Tails Wx 01:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for your help! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
No problem! I think from the experience you have in anti-vandalism work, I think you have a shot! :) Tails Wx 01:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement and your service to the project. I hope/think I have a shot too! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@Illusion Flame: You're off to a good start, but I'd be more comfortable if your account was bit older. Two weeks is very new and I don't think that's enough time to really get to grips with policy. I'll happily give you reviewer, though. @Tails Wx: there's no point warning people like that. First of all, anyone on a grotesque vandalism spree like that isn't going to stop just because we asked nicely and needs to be blocked on sight; more importantly, both cases are block-evading LTAs (albeit two different loonies). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I completely understand. Thanks for reviewer! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I do understand as well, I guess sometimes warnings are unnecessary for some vandals! Tails Wx 11:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
It's all about judgement. Childish vandalism is one thing, and some things could just be tests (some people still don't believe they can edit and their changes will be live straight away). Though even then I rarely give more than two warnings and never more than three. But we don't have to assume good faith with someone who obviously has nefarious intent (corporate spam, hate speech, etc), or when someone is on a spree, or when there's a pattern that suggests someone is not new. When you see so much of it, you start to recognise patterns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone not new? Socks! Tails Wx 13:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Some of our more persistent friends know our anti-vandalism systems as well the people who maintain them! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Positive! Tails Wx 15:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Psst

Don't you mean east of the Adriatic? Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten to get over the recent personal attacks directed towards you. We all are grateful for your contributions. Keep doing what you're doing.

❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 20:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Honestly it doesn't bother me. If it keeps them occupied then so much the better! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe semiprotect that Signpost talk page?

See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/HuffSmurf. Not sure if the comments should be kept at all (WP:DENY, WP:NOTHERE?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm in two minds. I don't want to choke off legitimate discussion and there's something to be said for leaving it as a honey trap. On the other hand, I don't want to encourage the loonies. (Now watching that SPI but feel free to ping me if they pop up somewhere I'm not watching.) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to semi-protecting it. Let some sunlight shine in and maybe make the idiots disappear from Wikipedia. Unless they start with legal or physical threats, of course. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about page protection but the 500/30 restriction and these two ArbCom Amendments apply to that page like any other on Wikipedia [1] [2]. The 500/30 restriction was passed *precisely* to prevent this kind of nonsense. Volunteer Marek 13:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, Marek, but "this kind of nonsense" isn't going to go away if we protect that page. The crazies (Icewhiz et al and "anti-Icewhiz") will always find an outlet *somewhere*. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. Also, just want to point out that the "Icewhiz" and "anti-Icewhiz" sometimes (often) are the same person. Icewhiz. Volunteer Marek 15:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Either way I'll indef them as I see them but people like this don't just get bored and go away; in a few cases they've only stopped when they've been locked up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell and @Volunteer Marek -
This is most likely Icewhiz pretending to be me (my sock puppet)
see me - [3]
see the sock puppet - [4]
or check the location of these two IP's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.194.98.179
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.7.159.46 both using proxy service to be editing from that location (check the country I'm editing from)
Icewhiz was trying to frame me for years.
See this (my comments) where he is doing it by inserting a smiley face for example. I have more examples of the similar. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Look at this as another example:
  • I made this edit that was evidence on TrangaBellam
  • 30 minutes later an IP makes this edit on TrangaBellam's talk page proxing to the country I'm usually editing from (IP is generating his locations using a VPN %100) -
GizzyCatBella🍁 16:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: Please can you avoid editing your comments after you post them? I get a notification for every edit. But it's not really important, at least at this point. Any new account making deranged comments about Icewhiz/VM/Poles/the Holocaust/Jews, or just trolling discussions, is going to be indef'd and the best thing we can do (short of real-world action like the WMF making a formal complaint to an ISP) is block them and forget about them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh okay, sorry about that. - HJ Mitchell - I e-mailed ArbCom about those framing attempts, I linked to your talk page as well (I hope you don’t mind) - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your latest comment about blocking those also. 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't mind at all, but I don't think anyone would seriously believe that was you so I don't think you have anything to worry about, and the accounts won't be around for long enough to have any impact. It's the accounts that are intended to get established that worry me more than the throwaways. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

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) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Proposed decision mentioning you

Hi HJ Mitchell, in the open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. 

You are not directly affected by any proposed sanction; this is just for your information.
Your name appears on the page only once because you had partially blocked ZaniGiovanni, and this is mentioned in ZaniGiovanni's "sanction history" section.

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, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A user you blocked is back

Making personal attacks, [5] and a brief look over their contributions since returning from the block suggests much the same sort of edit warring and tendentious behavior as well as building an extensive "case" in their sandbox showing that they did not learn the lesson of the block at all. Andre🚐 00:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a personal attack, though it does possibly suggest a battleground mentality. I'm surprised to see they haven't had a contentious topic notification, so I've given them that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a concerning tactic, that Andrevan would come directly to you, the Admin that blocked me last time. I have no illusions that you read the hundreds of messages Andrevan put my way. Apparently, only the diffs matter. My sandbox is the start of a case against him. Part of that case is the argument that he's following me around. He even checked my sandbox to see what's in there, and, gasp, I have a different opinion. Actually, you probably did get my reply thanking you for the message and explanation, and contrition regarding the "run around process" editing [6]. Also, in our recent exchange, you can see my case against Andrevan right on my talk page. Or, since the biggest lesson I learned from last time is that it doesn't mean anything unless you have diffs, here they are in full with diffs [7]:
Why don't we lay out the very simple argument and your response.
An IP user says "Hey, since Fox News is being sued for defamation, we shouldn't even call them "Fox News", since they aren't even real news [etc, etc]" [8]
The next comment is a user with a lot of effort spent on trying to make sure wikipedia and everyone else devalues Fox News, literally and in their hearts. He simply says "Yeah, I agree, see all that stuff I put somewhere else." [9] (Incidentally, you also have a lot of effort put there as well).
Then you come in with another simple "Agreed" statement, along with a wobbly use of the word "controversial" with regards to Fox News being "news". [10]
A short incredulous reply asks "What are you really asking here?" [11] I'm not 100% confident, but I think probably this user sees the silliness of the suggestion.
Along comes the NPOV, very sensibly. I'll blockquote this one [12]

We're not going to "de-news" the opening sentence of the article of, um, Fox News. Their journalistic integrity is certainly in tatters as the Dominion lawsuit exposes a lot of nefarious, partisan activities behind the curtain. All of that can and should go into the article, but let's stay grounded in reality in how the lede describes the subject.

And, boy, you backtrack fast: "Oh fine Zaathras, be the voice of reason and moderation, just like Fox" [13].
So, leaving on the table whatever "just like Fox" is supposed to mean and what we might glean from it, are you suggesting something other than an instance where you ought to be slapped with a trout? Shall you return to that talk discussion with a rebuttal for Zaathras?
Yes, I am building a case against Andrevan, it is in works in my sandbox. Andrevan's behavior is concerning when looked at holistically, but as such, that requires a lot more work that a few diffs on an ANI board. If I have any sense of an upcoming battle, it's only with Andrevan. HC (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
There's nothing concerning about my message to HJ Mitchell, it's a common practice to contact admins for such help and notification. As he notes, you were battlegrounding, and you hadn't been warned of contentious topics. I would consider your statement alleging improper bias as a motivation of other editors to be a personal attack as well. As far as your "case," it's quite a stunning indictment of your own behavior. I see no problem with mine. You have consistently attempted to ram through your changes without regard for discussion or consensus, you have continuously cast aspersions of bias and improper behavior. A new user, you have gone straight to right great wrongs and engage on contentious topics, and when people warn you to slow down or gain experience first, you accuse them of POV railroading, sealioning, and other unsubstantiated allegations, while attempting an end run around consensus. After your block you have continued with this. You stated "a shot across the bow". I found that wording from the Admin curiously hostile and ironic, considering he admission that the block was for both the "run around processing" and incivility. The idea of being "shot and sunk" for non-compliance is quite a metaphor A shot across the bow means a warning. One you seem to have avoided heeding. You have continued to make unsubstantiated allegations such as This is hallmark sealioning. As far as the discussion with @Zaathras, Zaathras and I have a perfectly good and collegial relationship on wiki and probably agree on most things. I somewhat jocularly and sarcastically made a joke at Fox's expense (as indicated by the italics) but was saying that Zaathras was being reasonable. The only person out of line here is you with your continued aspersions and attacks. Andre🚐 01:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Rollback her rights for User:Aviram7

Hello. I tried to notify you from the above user’s (User talk:Aviram7) talk page that they are proving too hair-trigger in their use of their newly acquired rollback or rights, reverting a thank you I put on my own talk page to a welcome from User:Fragrant Peony as unconstructive. That, simply, is not cricket (even if their edit and my response to it on my talk page have since been erased by them).2601:196:180:8D80:ADA2:986A:1D5F:F14D (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

2601:196:180:8D80:ADA2:986A:1D5F:F14D and Dear HJ Mitchell I mistakenly removed the edits of these IP's from the Ip's talk via SWviewer but then I took back your edits, ""Mistakes are made by humans and not by God"" I assure that I will not make such mistake again Have the right to rollback even on Hindi Wikipedia, you must know that it is not so easy to remove vandalism from SWviewer, if you think that I am not capable of rollback, then of course you can take back the rights from my account. Kind regards → αѵίɾαʍ7 ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 07:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@Aviram7: We all make mistakes. It's an inevitable part of life. It's what we do next that counts. As long as you do everything you can to fix your mistake, and avoid making the same mistake again, that's all we can expect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear HJ Mitchell you're right Whether I am English Wikipedia or Hindi Wikipedia, both these languages ​​or both wikis are part of my life and I give great importance to English along with Hindi, I believe in correcting the mistakes made by myself, I am happy that I I'm a member of the Wikipedia community, but I always use SWviewer here to remove vandalism and always use undo and warnings are working efficiently. Thank you for replying to me.Kind regards → αѵίɾαʍ7 ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 15:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

TPA Removal PLS

At User:IBangedUrDad666 1AmNobody24 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24: How charming! Looks like Bbb23 beat me to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Good heavens.

I practically just got the e-mail out, went back to look, only to see the article and the AfD revdel'd and the offender indeffed, in a matter of moments. Damn fast work, and thank you! Ravenswing 20:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: I can't take all the credit, and it's under discussion internally, but I appreciate the thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
One last thing if it's determined to keep the revdel; the edit history on the creator's talk page references the address in the edit summary of the notification of the AfD. And eh, I'm sure you can pass the share of the thanks to your comrades! Ravenswing 20:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for what you did at [14]. @RegentsPark and @Bishonen were trying to save Trangabellam as usual. (This time they failed.) Thanks for not falling for it and the logged warning. (I am sorry if speaking against admins in this way is a policy violation, but I don't know how to put it in any other way.)Akshaypatill (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What a lovely ping to wake up to. Speaking against admins is not a policy violation, Akshaypatill, but assuming bad faith of any users, admins or not, is a violation of our principles. Further, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it's specifically not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts from one area to another, and cheer when your opponents from elsewhere get grief. Bishonen | tålk 08:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC).
I don't have much to say except to wholly endorse Bish's comment. Having worked with both of those admins for years, I don't think either of them would let their personal feelings about an editor cloud their judgement in the way you suggest. Nonetheless, if you have evidence during a discussion at AE that an admin is not uninvolved, you can present it in that discussion. If you believe another editor is misconducting themselves, you can report it to AE or the appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise, please comment on content, not contributors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

PCR

Dear HJ Mitchell, Sorry for this request to but I have exicted to remove vandalism, so I think i eligible for PCR rights because I aware about that my home Wikipedia is hi. Wikipedia but i like to editing on english Wikipedia i not more edits on here but i only revert vandalism on enwiki, this is a great work for me, If I get a chance to review other users' edits here, rest as you wish.kinds regards → αѵίɾαʍ7 ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 15:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aviram7: You can't do any more damage with reviewer than you can with rollback, so sure. Just be careful, please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear HJ Mitchell Thanks, And I will definitely remember your words that no harm should be done by me through this review and rollback.kinds regards. → αѵίɾαʍ7 ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 20:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello sir, my name is TheManishPanwar. I am also interested in vandalism removal. But. [Changes] will go quickly. So as I get it made, I am not able to remove it. Can you please give rollback rights. Manish Panwar (talk) |Contribs) 06:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@TheManishPanwar: I went through your last 500 edits and I don't see any experience of reverting vandalism or warning vandals, so I don't think meet the requirements yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

You are reverting away from BRD. user boldly removed the content, I reverted. It is theirs to take to the talk page. We've hashed it out there before including source discussions: Talk:Laurence_Olivier/Archive 4#sfn "no target" error. As far as i can tell, SC simply waited several months to remove the content they didn't like, that was added by several editors. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That's quite an allegation, especially considering the content wasn't in the version that passed FAC. But in any case, your comment is misplaced. If you really want to include it, take it to Talk:Laurence Olivier. I don't much care whether it's included or not; I jut watchlist a lot of FAs to try to prevent them suffering a death by a thousand drive-by edits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Already on it re: talk.
I would just like to point out, this isn't a drive-by edit, and I resist that allegation. I spent several hours reading biographies of Olivier that day (December 17), and added several details I felt were DUE as they were mentioned by all of them. SC appeared not to like it, and quibbled about the wording, but ultimately reworked and massaged the edit to something we both stopped changing. The detail was thus present until now. I call that a WP:STATUSQUO. Today, 3 months later, they remove that detail again. I don't think it was done in bad faith, and I'm not alleging any misconduct here. They clearly think they're doing the right thing, and I get their motivation is to "protect" that article, as is yours. But these aren't drive-by edits. To me, it appears to be a dispute that is coming back around, 3 months later. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Then I look forward to seeing some quotes from sources on the talk page. You might even convince me. As a courtesy, please could you make your comments here in a single edit rather than going back and editing them? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure thing. I do this only because the formatting changes slightly from the preview on reply-tool to being on the page itself, so I always reread it. And as I reread it, I want to make sure I'm accurate, not violating any policies or saying something poorly, and so I make other changes until someone replies. But I get why it's annoying on your User talk, I'm sure it gives you lots of annoying notifications, and for that I apologize. I can restrict myself here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • “As far as i can tell, SC simply waited several months to remove the content they didn't like, that was added by several editors”. Aside from it only being added by one editor (you), rather than the “several” you claim, I can’t quite parse your comment with “I don't think it was done in bad faith, and I'm not alleging any misconduct here”, which is exactly what you’re doing, but never mind. It’s also false to try and claim that I removed it because I “didn't like” it. Please don’t try and assign motives to people when you don’t understand what your saying. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    you don’t understand what your saying.
    Remember to WP:AGF and please refrain from insulting the intelligence of other users. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    To help parse: my intention was to point out why I felt HJM's reversion away from STATUSQUO was misguided and not in line with WP:BRD. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
You have assigned motives to me that are untrue. You do not understand my motives in removing those words. 🤷‍♂️
Considering your rather unpleasant insinuations above, I think you may want to actually grasp NPA before spreading further untruths and smears. SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What can be done?

Hi HJ I came across your commentary on the Prince Harry page and you seem reasonable. I think the page is out of control and continues to add too much information. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to be a replacement for buying a book or reading the news. So much on his page is propaganda from tabloids that he is currently in a lawsuit against for phone hacking and listening device inside home etc… The moderator is convinced that it’s reasonable to add whatever is reported or the tabloids find newsworthy. This has been an ongoing issue with same moderator for years. I mean to include how Harry lost his virginity? Just let people buy the book. Also, talking heads are paid to speak, I don’t want to go the route of adding talking heads that agree with Harry, I just don’t think it should be included at all. DigitialNomad (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi DigitialNomad, I think you're making good points, but removing large swathes of text from the article in one go was possibly not the best way to go about it. I think you should continue the discussion on the talk page, and start by identifying parts that are covered in too much detail and suggesting edits to consolidate them. Once the general bloat in the article is addressed, some of the more tabloidy details, like his virginity, will stand out more and it will be easier to compare them to the more important details. Unfortunately, most Wikipedians in my experience fall into the trap of trying to include everything because it's verifiable and it's very difficult to convince people that something shouldn't be included if there's a reliable source for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the response and for the advice. I will continue to engage, but it’s very difficult as there is an entire machinery dedicated to sneaking content in and count in wearing people out to get their way. This isn’t like other Wikipedia pages where there are fandoms who want to add as much as possible. There is an actual hatedom that target Harry and Meghan. More dedicated than fandom, which is why they’ve taken over the page. Don’t go to Meghan Markles page unless you want to have a heart attack or lose faith in humanity. Meghan’s page is deliberately editorialized in same voice as the British tabloids.it feels hopeless. And I’m no fan of her or him, but you don’t have to be one to want Wikipedia standards to be held up. DigitialNomad (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Hey, do you mind going to the most recent topic on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you read that interaction, and let me know what you think of the edit? Surely that doesn’t belong there, especially when the editor is so upset about something Meghan didn’t even claim herself, which I explain in my response. DigitialNomad (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
@DigitialNomad: I don't think anyone has "taken over the page". You'd be surprised at how resilient Wikipedia is to that. Have a look at an article of your choice on a controversial subject and you'll see that it probably represents the mainstream view of the article fairly well. Where Wikipedia struggles with high-profile subjects is in keeping out the churnalism and the talking heads and the coverage of run-of-the-mill events, which is how you end up with 14,000 words on a 38-year-old who would be unremarkable but for his family name. You're making good progress on the talk page, and you should feel free to continue to make edits yourself. You won't get everything you want because Wikipedia works on consensus, but everyone who has been involved so far is only interested in improving the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Let’s hope for the best. I hope you stick around, most get worn down and at some point just opt out. DigitialNomad (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not really my subject area but I'll keep both articles on my watchlist and pop in here and there to offer advice or a third opinion. I'm glad we're getting more input though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Small request

Hi, I have a problem with one of the users. I don't know if this behavior is normal and acceptable on Wikipedia, but I find it very unpleasant. I don't want to start AE or AI again, but if this behavior breaks any rules, I would ask you to say to this user not to that. I don't want any bans, sanctions, just simple intervention (if it's required).

As you know I have 0RR restrictions imposed on Eastern Europe. Pofka is taking advantage of this, and in every discussion we take part in brings up the sanctions imposed on me. Which is all the more strange because he himself recently had a complete block on editing in topics about Lithuania (and I think also Poland) for personal attacks against me. Recently, this ban was revoked. I would understand if the discussion was about my behavior, then invoking the sanctions would make sense. But these are always purely content-related discussions. In this situation, I feel that the constant bringing up of my sanctions is aimed at discrediting me, changing attitudes towards my arguments, etc.

Examples:

When I asked him to stop doing this, he simply deleted my question from his talk page. What do you think about it? Marcelus (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've left some clarification for Pofka. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Marcelus (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello HJ Mitchell,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not touching that with a bargepole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I am curious if there is a page that explains what a recent changes patroller is, as I remember you saying something about that. I tried looking at the user access levels page but I can not find it. If you know of one can I see the page that explains it? -- Grapefanatic (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Grapefanatic! The page you're looking for is Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol (WP:RCP) but I tend to use the term as a shorthand for all anti-vandalism work that involves looking for and reverting unconstructive edits. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thank you :) -- Grapefanatic (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Coke Studio Tamil

Hello! I see you have protected the title “Coke Studio Tamil” for being recreated several times. Therefore, I can not edit the title. However, I think it maybe redirected to Coke Studio (Indian TV program)#Coke Studio Tamil for reference. Can you create the redirection page? I will be glad if you ping me for any other opinion. Regards — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 18:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've created the redirect for you and protected it to prevent an article being written there improperly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hoax

Hi HJ Mitchell. Considering the fact that you are the administrator who deleted this article, I thought maybe I needed to bring this draft to your attention because it appears to be endorsing the same individual who has presented himself as a footballer or singer on multiple occasions. Can an administrator delete a draft, or should we just wait out on the incubating period which is usually 6 months if I'm not mistaken? Keivan.fTalk 14:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Hi. The general CSD criteria (G1-13) apply to all namespaces. It's possible that's not a hoax (it doesn't contain the implausible claims that the mainspace version did) but even if it's not it appears to have been created by somebody evading a block so I've deleted it. If the subject is notable, hopefully a legitimate editor will write about them but given your diff, that seems a remote possibility. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:RexxS

Harry, Is it time to put a "retired" notice on his user page? And hide the last para on being a current WMUK trustee etc? It's over 2 years since he edited, sadly. Perhaps you could ask the great man? Best Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Having been blocked

Hi HJ, You blocked me for one week for "disruptive editing", although honestly I did not see anything disruptive in my editing. But, be that as it may, in my opinion the people who cheered for me to get blocked were much worse offenders of Wikipedia rules. Unfortunately, it appears to me that no one really bothered to read what I had to write, what others wrote, and the content I had attempted to edit. You write above that one should not assume bad faith on the part of other editors, but that is exactly what was done in my case. In fact, given the opportunity, I could, not only say but prove the same for some others (did I mention an editor or an admin? No :). Before I act against some who I believe violate Wikipedia rules knowingly and brazenly, and who claimed bad faith on my part while knowing better, I would like to learn your view of exactly why you went ahead and blocked me. Please write. I will not get upset, but I do consider sometimes how some people can get away with what they do, and that does upset me. Thank you.70.164.212.36 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edits are highly suggestive of a battleground mentality. That is, you don't appear to be interested in reaching a consensus through discussion, which is what Wikipedia is all about, but rather in forcing in what you think is right and attacking anyone who disagrees. Your comments have repeatedly focused on what you perceive as another editor's ethnicity or motives, which again is contrary to the Wikipedia principle that we comment on content, not contributors. If you actually engage with the community, you will find that most people here are not agenda-driven warriors or paid propagandists, but ordinary people who are trying to make the encyclopaedia better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I tried to reach that often mentioned but never precisely described consensus, through the article Talk page, but the opposing editor(s) never really replied and simply deleted my edits with vague reasons. I then filed a dispute since my well supported edits and references got deleted. Where is the battleground mentality in that? There is no way I could explain to you where everything is all wrong, unless you are willing to go through the entire context. Let me instead only ask two simple questions: 1) How does anyone know whether consensus has been reached and can enforce it, and 2) Is knowledge obtainable through a democratic process (in this case, what Wikipedia calls consensus) or by way of scholars? I would appreciate your replies and will not comment any further after reading them. By the way, I would definitely agree with you that most people in Wikipedia are ordinary people, but unfortunately that most still leaves out a bunch of propagandists, many of them paid, that congregate around their favorite subjects.70.164.212.36 (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
There are people who are on Wikipedia mostly to advocate for "their" side of history, undoubtedly, but there's not the orchestrated, professional effort that you're describing. That takes a lot of time and resources to put together and would be extremely difficult to keep secret and fairly easy to detect. Consensus is when almost everyone is mostly agreed. One person arguing against everyone else is not a consensus. Two people arguing opposite sides is not a consensus. Asking for a third opinion or a broader range of opinions is the best way to reach an agreement. All you can do is calmly and rationally (and ideally concisely) make your case and present your sources and hope that people agree with you, or at least that you can reach a compromise. But sometimes consensus will go against you. And if that happens, it's more than likely not because of anyone's hidden agenda, that's just the way it goes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
curprev 19:11, 18 January 2023‎ TimothyBlue talk contribs‎ 62,747 bytes +95‎ Undid revision 1134447587 by 70.164.212.36 (talk) sources in article support statement in lead infobox undo Tag: Undo
curprev 19:08, 18 January 2023‎ 70.164.212.36 talk‎ 62,652 bytes −95‎ Removed the part of the caption referring to a "Greek genocide" because: 1) the author did not provide any references as to whether there was a "Greek genocide", except a link to a one-sided Wikipedia page. 2) Genocide is a legal term applicable only by an international court decision, it cannot be used at will to impress readers. 3) by the authors' own admission of 10K-125K Greek & Armenian fatalities in the fire, it is clear that the shown references have no idea of who died and how many undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit 70.164.212.36 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne and ANI

HJ, I opened a thread about WWW at WP:ANI, and you are of course mentioned in the thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User you warned is badgering another

I am not competent to argue Polish historigraphy but I don't think they are either. And IMHO they are WGR with a buzzsaw. See what Trangabellam is doing to Marcelus. This is baiting and it's exactly what they did to Minaro123 at Aryan Valley. This is wrong. Elinruby (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, please consider pinging users when you complain about them to administrators. Like this: @TrangaBellam:. For my part, I think any baiting on that talkpage is at least mutual. Bishonen | tålk 12:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC).
Can you say how am I baiting @TrangaBellam? I didn't even edit a word in the article, I added only cn tags Marcelus (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, your reply wasn't here when I started my post. I should have realized you would also be watching the page at let you speak for yourself. Elinruby (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I was pinged by the @Bishonen mention of me. Thank you for noticing the whole thing. Marcelus (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
they appear to have an EXTREMELY scorched-earth approach to source verification. I am not seeing this baiting that they responded to by deleting an entire section without prior discussion. Repeatedly. But fine, Bishonen, perhaps this happened on some other article I don't know about. I will however mention that she said that she watches this page the last time they saw me here. And then posted a link (without notifying me) to a thread where they accused me, (also without notifying me), of misrepresenting sources because I called a town a village. I suppose she felt that the accusation discredited me; hard to say, because I wasn't notified of that accusation + threat. Perhaps of course she assumed that I was subscribed to the thread, but this was not an option on mobile until quite recently.
But other things exist of course, so noted. But isn't that where we are on this? Marcelus has been very revert-happy, it's true, and I have been on the receiving end of that before, actually. But he isn't doing it in the linked thread.
I will be extremely careful nonetheless to notify the extremely litigious TrangaBellam the *next* time I perceive her to be in a knife fight with someone trying to respect an edit restriction. I made this post realizing I was painting a target on my back for someone I barely know. So be it. Elinruby (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Diffs are important; I do not recall interacting with you outside the Minaro123 issue. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, I do not appreciate your colorful description of me as "extremely litigious". TrangaBellam (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The lengthy list of those you have dragged to the drama boards is a huge impediment to finding that one case where we interacted. I found it quite impressive and think it speaks for itself. Perhaps you should refresh your memory if you don't recall all the accusations you make. My favorite is where I was somehow incompetent as demonstrated by my editor of the week award. Elinruby (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: sorry I have been instructed to notify you and I forgot Elinruby (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This is trolling as blatant as it can be. You, obviously, know that it is courteous to ping someone when discussing them for the first time in a new thread but not again in the same thread, esp. when replying to their reply. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: I don't know, I think Bishonen has a point. I would have appreciated a ping when you said I was distorting a source even though I wasn't citing one. It's not really fair to threaten people who have left the thread already, TrangaBellam. But hey, I forgot to apologize for calling you "they". I was going to fix it, lest this be an insult somehow, but you complained the last time I edited a prior comment, so in the traditional manner of my people I will just have to apologize. Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I personally didn't think it was necessary to ping you after you said you watch the page, or whatever you said the here last time you appeared when I protested your MO in this latest AE case o,f yours. Polish AE case that is. You have so many, there are probably others by now. But hey, feel free to hijack another thread on my talk page to insult me again Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for granting me the rollbacker rights. I will be using it at right place, for reverting the edits which are problematic, without removing the latter addition.Admantine123 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Qualified for Rollback Now?

Hello HJ,

Last time we spoke, you granted me reviewer instead of rollbacker because of my account being too young to be familiar enough with policies. It has been a little while and I have definitely learned since then. Having to approve other users edits really tested my knowledge of policies. I understand to only use rollback on vandalism, and I am asking for you to grant rollback now.

I prefer to talk to you directly, here, as opposed to on the large public notice boards, if you were wondering why I am requesting here. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I am also open to a trial if it would make you feel better. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
We'll start with a one-month trial and see how that goes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good! Thank you. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_129&oldid=1157200374"