User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 101

Can you please take a brief glance at Talk:Woman#New_section_for_discussing_the_composite and the comments by 67.247.78.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? These comments are quite offensive and violations of the sexology arb com ruling imho. Am I being too sensitive here? Just wanted a more experienced second opinion (esp. from someone I respect and who has dealt with this topic in the past) before taking it to AE. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't like their point any more than you do, but I don't see that they've crossed the (admittedly blurry) line between legitimate discourse and outright disruption. Continuing to raise it when he's clearly not going to get anywhere might be disruptive, but simply stating an unpopular opinion isn't in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you for weighing in! I'll just keep an eye on it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cactusjackbang's first appeal was closed as expired but since you had made the original unblock offer, wanna reply to their reply to you? :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben, I'll take a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind attention on the OS issue. Better safe than sorry. BusterD (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Always better to send it and get a second opinion than not and wonder whether you should. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Full protection? Not semi or pending?? I won't argue with you for protecting it - I'm just curious as to why we're setting it so essentially no one can edit it. Tabercil (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Tabercil: I've taken a look at the article editing protection, it's been set to indefinite semi-protection so only auto-confirmed users can edit it. Looking at the history, I would imagine that the decision behind this is because the vandalism seemed to be carried out by IPs/new users. Only the move protection is set to full protection.--5 albert square (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah sorry, was only going by the Watchlist entry and I obviously misread it. My apologies. Tabercil (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell,

Since I can edit Rhadamistus may I create an article related to him? To be exact I want to create an article about his wife so may I? Jaqeli 01:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Since I said five but only listed four, yes I'll allow that one as the fifth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Jaqeli 20:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Harry, I'll tell you what, I will write a nice article about the Ashby guy and we will see. I really don' give up that easily, you know. We Americans have many freedoms that are granted by our amazing constitution, which we all know is more amazing than anything else in the world and is one of the reasons the US is the most amazing, greatest country in the history of civilization! We saved y'all's behind in Vietnam, and we are ready to do it again, given our incredible golden heart. Give me hamburgers or give me death! Cheerio and thanks for your time, --Mondschein English (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The edits on Southern Poverty Law Center are between IPs from Australia (and one new account) and registered users. And it's continuing with another IP in this edit. Please reconsider the RPP request. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, Looking at that page's revision history, you appear to have "edit warred" as much as anyone else.

I urge you to re-read WP:BRD, specifically this passage:

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

Examining the talk page where one would expect to find those reasons, we see multiple contributions from each of the "edit warring" editors, even IPs - except you. You raise exactly one objection "Academic Questions ... does not appear to be peer reviewed", which in fact it is and proof was presented on the talk page. Did I miss your response? I encourage you to return to the talk page and discuss. Page protection should not be used to settle content disputes. 104.156.240.153 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't IP hop to try to force my edits on a page. I'm glad discussion finally started. But don't hurt yourself falling off your horse there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I see CBW has protected the page. I have mixed feelings, but hopefully that will allow tempers to cool and discussion to prevail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll leave that one to expire. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell. I checked the history of Ali article. After 19 February 2015, i see one edition war. In whole the article is good and i think it's harmful for article. What should i do? Can you guide me? Thanks!Savior59 (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've given it a month's protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

...while I have you on the line, would you mind taking a look at Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Demographics of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina? They're being hit by an IP-hopper geolocating to Serbia who is deliberately misinterpreting the 1907 edition of the "Catholic Dictionary", claiming that 98% of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina were Serbs in 1895 (including the Muslims and Catholics, i.e. the people who now self-identify as Bosniaks and Croats). Or maybe he just can't see things in a historical perspective (Croatia etc didn't exist back then). I've reverted him a few times, and pointed him to WP:BRD and the talk pages of the articles, but he just keeps going, accusing me of vandalism for reverting him. I'm close to 3RR so I'd appreciate if someone else would look at it too. Thomas.W ^talk 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I see CBW has semi'd all three. That's probably the best way to go. Hopefully your friend will get bored, although knowing the sorts of people that topic area attracts... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've never been good at taking it easy, and leave the difficult cases, such as spammers trying to promote their websites, people with a fairly obvious COI trying to delete controversies and politically and religiously motivated POV-pushers, to someone else, so it's been a bit turbulent here the past couple of days. With "bad guys" who are more persistent than ever, and clearly know their way around here. Thomas.W ^talk 20:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. About a month ago you instituted a rangeblock against 2602:306:8B2C:5350::/64 due to persistant IP-hopping vandalism (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phillip_Pham/Archive#08_March_2015). Well, that block expired, and it looks like within a few days Phillip Pham is already back to their old tricks (as I've tried to document at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phillip_Pham). Maybe a longer block is in order. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist has renewed the rangeblock for three months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Is there any chance you could look at the other IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phillip Pham? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear HJ Mitchell.

I am messaging you with regards to the continuous abuse from an anonymous user/troll, on the Nostradamus Wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nostradamus (The person concerned is currently posting as 199.27.175.60). They have been continually attacking both PL and myself, the latest instance of this has been within the past 24 hours. Please may you look to remove or suspend this user from the page, as their comments are totally unacceptable and inappropriate. Smithsurf (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to support Smithsurf. The troll Dennis Markuze (199.27.175.60) has been posting unsigned deranged poisonous personal attacks for years in forums concerning Nostradamus, and should not be allowed to turn Wikipedia into a personal battlefield too. They are currently at a peak. Please block him indefinitely and remove his posts, which have little or nothing to do with the article they purport to be commenting on. Having done that, please add the Nostradamus Talk page to your Watchlist, so that you can act at once in future as soon as any of his unsigned posts appear, as they undoubtedly will (it's quite easy -- he always posts anonymously, whether from the above address or from the other one that he has been known to use, and you'll have not the slightest difficulty in spotting his style!)

Meanwhile, please refer to http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Markuze

--PL (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for six months (We don't indef IP addresses because they change from time to time); we'll see where that gets us. I've added the article to my watchlist, but it's a long watchlist and I don't always have time to check every edit, so you might need to give me a poke. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that! As you'll have seen from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Markuze, we're up against a pretty serious case with wide ramifications!I'll keep my poker ready, but if he appears it'll probably hit you in the eye! --PL (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks HJ! Hopefully this shall be the end of the issue anyhow, but I appreciate that there are a large number of pages here (and so yes I shall let you know if anything else related crops up). Cheers. Smithsurf (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If it helps any, this article has not come up on the Special:PendingChanges list lately, but it is a regularly appearing article on that list. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Okay, you're the admin for five minute. What would you do? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well... I would say keep the level, at the very least, that keeps it on the Pending Changes list given the number of IP edits that are garbage or outright vandalism. Upgrading it to the level where only autoconfirmed Users can edit wouldn't be so bad either. I find it interesting that this article is vandalized year round. Obviously the high-point of the year is between Thanksgiving until just after Halloween. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave it as it is for the minute (but reset the duration to indefinite), and we can look at short spells of semi-protection if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, thx! And thanks for asking my opinion...! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello HJ. I just restored the timeout to 4 days but noticed that this is a change you made in late January. I found myself bringing Ohconfucius back from the archives twice in the same week. Putting the timeout back to 4 days would avoid this embarrassment. Let me know if you object. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

HJ, you should consider coming back to WP:AE ;=) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course I don't object, Ed. We had quite a few closed requests sitting at AE at the time and the page was getting quite long. It can easily be changed up or down as necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

AE is awaiting your return, if you have the time. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just checked that you had unblocked this IP. Consider reading User talk:Bishonen#Clarification, this IP is abused by a long term sock puppeteer, and he is already promoting his meaningless theories[1], also consider reading this talk page section of the IP. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow am I glad I followed up on my hunch to check OccultZone's contribs to see if they are still Formshopping and behold this discussion appears on the list. So, as I mentioned to mysterious and suspicious "OZ", I am not the editor in question and I suspect if they had some actual proof, rather than unproven conjecture, they would take it to ANI rather than run around to a few different admins pages who have high block counts looking for support for their conspiracy theories. Anyone who bothers to compare will see I have not done any edits or made any comment that even look like the blocked editor they are accusing me to be. These comments are nothing more than poor faith and a disruption to the project to justify blocking an IP to give themselves some street credit. I expect there is any number of accusations that could be made to justify blocking my IP, but that I am the editor in question is not among them. Cheers! 96.255.237.170 (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Do you have any actual evidence? IP geolocation should be taken with a healthy dose of salt at best, and IP addresses are reassigned periodically. Not to mention that over the time scale you're talking about, people move house/change jobs/switch ISPs. The IP is obviously an experienced editor logged out who has a bee in their bonnet about admins. But there are no shortage of long-banned editors who blame all the problems with their own conduct on "admin abuse", and the community at present seems to place a higher value on such editors than on admins who keep the wheels turning but have a low tolerance for bullshit. If you don't like the IP or you find them boring, just ignore them, but your scattergun accusations of sock-puppetry are getting tiring. At some point, the best thing to do is to say "sod that" and go and do something else—not everybody who pisses you off on the Internet is a sockpuppet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

With respect, editors also keep the wheels turning but you are correct that not all admins are a problem. I also am not blaming them for "my behavior", I blame them for theirs. Unfortunately some are not deserving of the privilege they have and they are allowed to be that way and cause a lot of damage to the morale and reputation of the site. I would also add that if the environment here wasn't so prone to indefinitely ban everyone, there would be a lot less of those long banned editors returning to comment or edit. For what its worth, my bonnet looks like this...but I cannot play the pipes! Cheers! 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course they do, but a small group of admins are effectively Wikipedia's last line of defence against things that nobody should ever have to deal with. Those sorts of admins, including Beeblebrox and I, are the reason you don't see Jennifer Lawrence's boobs every time you visit Wikipedia; the reason you don't have to read about what some sociopath would do to a female celebrity at 3am; the reason Wikipedia hasn't become a platform for allegations from a BLP subject's previous career; the reason spambots haven't taken over the place; the reason you won't find links to malware or attack sites on Wikipedia; and the reason that good editors can focus on writing the encyclopaedia, blissfully ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes. In my experience, most of the people who have thick enough skins to deal with that kind of crap tend to be quite jaundiced and sometimes have a short fuse. Whereas I know plenty of lovely, happy, cheery admins who do brilliant work and have seemingly infinite patience but happily concede that they couldn't stomach the darker side of admin work. Wikipedia needs both types of admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This IP(of Kumioko) is now blocked for block evasion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dear Mr. Admin @HJ Mitchell: I am confused. First let me introduce myself. I am Cookie Monster. I was a friend of the IP address your discussing about. I first meet the IP address here. I than decided to check out the IP address, and it said he was blocked before. I decided to ask why. We than started to have our first conversation here. He explains why he was blocked and I try to be nice to him. He said that administrators are abusive and that the "Wikipedia environment needs fixing", or something to that degree. After that I asked him to be friends, he said sure. I was than inspired to write an essay about his abuse and why IP addresses (or some of them) are not bad, and why IP addresses can benefit Wikipedia (you can check out the essay here. The essay has been erased due to this situation, but you can go to the history tab). Than I get a message from OccultZone, editing my talk page and crossing out the conversations I had with the IP address. I asked him why, and he responded here. He said that the IP address was blocked. I was confused why, and than he said to check out some links he sent me. I checked it out but this IP address was not mentioned in the notice of Kumioko as far as I can tell (unless I am blinded). He than sent me another link about the IP address above being a sock puppet of Kumioko, with a link to the sock puppet investigation and a link to Kumioko's userpage. I checked out Kumioko's user page, and it redirects to another user named "Reguyla". Than I go to the sock puppet investigation and I see February 2015 was the last discussion of Kumioko, and no mention of the IP address I was friends with. So, I am very confused what the IP address did exactly to be blocked, and OccultZone did not explain it that well. I than somehow got to your userpage, with the IP address, you and OccultZone talking. OccultZone says that the IP address is a sock puppeteer and you say to OccultZone that not everybody is a sock puppet. So I am confused what this IP address is, who is behind it or what. Sorry for having you to answer so many questions, but this drama needs to be addressed. I want to thank you HJ for dealing with my inquire about this, and hopefully you can tell me what exactly is going on at the moment. Cheers! CookieMonster755 (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Invader Zim episodes and Batman: Arkham Knight? --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

hi Mitchel this is dfrr. this is not mean message so please do not think I am being mean I am only a nice user who just needs to ask some questions. is there a reason why User:Occultzone has been block blocked? anyways no hard feelings just want to know why. anyways please leave message about it on my talk page and have a great day:-)Dfrr (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

	Ehem
	WHY DID YOU REMOVE MY VALVECRAFT PAGE?! I WORKED SO HARD ON THAT! YOU WILL PAY FOR THIS! Micahmpj (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because to quote your own statement, "its to help me raise money and to keep our server up and to help people out of where current stuff is in the game". You admit that you are trying to promote your own project and raise money. That has no place in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. CookieMonster755 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• you people are heartless 134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear HJ. As anticipated, Dennis Markuze (or an associate) has now reposted all his old personal abuse on the Nostradamus Talk Page, but this time from 76.79.199.66. And not just once, but twice over. Could you please apply the same six-month block to this address,too? Thanks. Meanwhile, is there something more permanent that could be done, such as closing the Talk Page to 'anonymous' editors? (until, that is, he starts reposting as 'Arnold Ruge'!) --PL (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's empty again because God hates us all. - I moved an image from Commons to WP so I could protect it so we wouldn't be left short at 7am tomorrow (our time). Please move them up or I will be forced to kill you or do something not-illegal but thoroughly unpleasant nonetheless. (It's almost 2am after the day from hell. Bare with me.) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please take a look to this biography and advise or enhance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar

Juvetorre (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence and List of universities in Benin? --George Ho (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes for the first. I think I'll leave the second; there are problems there, but I'm not sure PC will help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you're too sober. Here, have one on me. :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. I might have to see what I've got in the cupboard. I know I've got a bottle of whisky in there, but that's probably best avoided on a weeknight! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, HJ. I'd had User:Bobbertybob on my watchlist after some interactions with them on IRC. I saw your block pass by today, and I was a bit surprised. Although their post on the reference desk was definitely odd, and possibly trolling, I did not think it was nearly enough to justify a block. Your WP:NOTHERE rationale would suggest that they had been exhibiting a "general pattern of disruptive behavior" or similar, but the rest of their contributions seem relatively productive.

I also noticed that you seem to have forgotten to leave a block notice on their userpage, so they may not actually know they're blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Even if he knows that he is blocked, the talk page access was also removed, thus he cannot request unblock on-wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. That is even more odd—why did you remove the talk page access? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @GorillaWarfare:@OccultZone: Why don't you do some research before coming here? I noticed this in my watchlist, spent a couple of minutes on checking Blobbertyblob up, and found this, this, a very large number of warnings on their talk page, and enough disruption and outright trolling, including malicious speedy deletion nominations and nominations for AfD, to warrant an indefinite block for not being here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. All accumulated in less than two days, from creating the account on 25 April 2015 at 04:45UTC to being blocked for the third time on 26 April 2015 at 21:27UTC. So only getting a week means he got off easy... Thomas.W ^talk 23:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have done my research. That block was lifted after a successful appeal, and I disagree that the subsequent edits display that the user is NOTHERE, and particularly not to the tune of a one week block with no talk page access. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're looking for an administrative action to criticise I suggest you criticise granting the unblock request, which shouldn't have been granted IMHO considering the disruption Bobbertybob had caused here during his less than two days, and not the reblock. Thomas.W ^talk 01:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Molly, it's always nice to hear from you, even if we don't agree. With only the greatest respect and affection, you have an ... interesting choice of friends. But variety, as they say, is the spice of life. I didn't mean to revoke talk page access (at least I don't think I did, it was late at night and I'd been working all week). At first sight, I thought Bobbertybob was a reincarnation of the LTA case who has been trolling the refdesks with questions like that for months (possibly years now). I don't know what he is/was playing at, but at the end of the day it's silly rather than harmful, so if you think he has something to contribute other than silliness you're welcome to unblock him, but perhaps with some sage advice to spend more time in the mainspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: since I cocked the first one up! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  No problem, was just curious what was going on. Especially now that they have talk page access restored, I'm happy enough to let the block stand, especially since (to my knowledge) they haven't actually appealed it themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Being sober might be the problem :P Mlpearc (open channel) 20:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		You have no idea how good it felt to see someone else acknowledge that they occasionally make mistakes in typing around here, as you did with the two edit summaries shown here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Typo? Me? Perish the thought! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

...and check this out.   Obvious vandal - Special:Contributions/50.84.144.130 - all of their edits indicate same. Atsme☯^Consult 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Somebody's having a laugh at our expense. It's only childish nonsense, but nonetheless I've blocked the IP for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi HJ, I'd appreciate your involvement on the talk page to this article. It's now being half-hinger around Paul Nungesser, whom it is clear did not create the art work, and there are a bunch of aggro editors who are discontent with what Emma did and expressing their frustrations by distorting the article. thanks!--A21sauce (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to 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/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears KrakatoaKatie has. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You blocked 24.153.175.240/28 for a week here. That block has expired, and it looks like they're back to their old tricks: [2][3][4][5]. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ahecht: I blocked the /28 for a fortnight, only to discover that Mike V had blocked the /17. I don't know if Mike was aiming at the same person... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that SPI page and blocked the range based upon the IP contributions. (The CIDR range used is /17.) There were some constructive edits from this range, but the most recent stuff seems to be from the target individual. The block should be in effect for a few more days. If it resumes, let me know and I'll see if it's possible to extend it. Mike V • Talk 22:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell and Mike V: He's back: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phillip Pham. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Let it go or extend protection? --George Ho (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll just let that one expire. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• User talk:HJ~enwiki →‎ User talk:HJ →‎ User talk:HJ Mitchell

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Rich. I've deleted the user and talk pages for HJ~enwiki as I don't need them. I don't intend to use the account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am working on my statement for Karanacs' ArbCom against me, and this came to my attention. Per this,[6][7] shouldn't Mike Searson be listed under Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions on the Gun control main case page? Lightbreather (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#Gun_control because it was a discretionary sanction. These days we have the central DS log so we can spot people hopping form topic to topic, and the only thing logged under "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions" is actions directly in accordance with a remedy (for example a block to enforce a topic ban that was imposed directly by ArbCom in a remedy would be logged there, whereas a block to enforce a topic ban that was imposed by an admin as a discretionary sanction would be logged at the DS log). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello HJ Mitchell, could you help me with an etiquette question as long-time Wikipedian and admin please? Should indef-banned editors still get notified about content-related discussions? (like CfDs about templates or articles that they created, or discussions about files they uploaded) Considering they can't answer most of those discussions (and most likely don't care anymore), it seems like a futile exercise - but I am not completely sure. GermanJoe (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

For those who aren't likely to return, it does no good to notify them. But it doesn't really hurt anything either, so it's not really worth worrying about in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the TWA badges are protected for whatever reason, I was wondering if you could protect Wikipedia:TWA/Badge as well. All the badges use that template but apparently it was completely blank for two days since a newbie blanked it and no one noticed. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

They're protected to stop that sort of thing happening. I think Ocassi originally protected them and I downgraded them to template protection when Technical13 asked me to. I've protected that one as well now. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop#Motion to Recuse

Once again, ArbCom decides to act in its own political interest rather than that of the Community. (Note that they refuse to publish their verdict.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, the diffs presented there only increase my esteem for Salvio. I think his assessment is spot on. Denying that Lightbreather has been the subject of undeserved abuse would be like claiming the Earth is flat; but it is equally undeniable that she has a nasty habit of using enforcement mechanisms as a bludgeon against those with whom she disagrees, and that she has avoided serious scrutiny of her own actions by being superficially polite and in the way she frames things. That's not an opinion, that's a simple statement of fact. Salvio's lack of recusal does not reduce my confidence in ArbCom. Nor does GorillaWarfare's lack of recusal. I've seen no good reason presented for either to recuse.

As for WPPilot, if you don't trust ArbCom, do you trust me? I was the person who suggested on the functionaries' mailing list that the block be taken over by ArbCom. We discussed the possibility of an individual checkuser or oversighter taking over the block, but the collective opinion was that such an action would be ultra vires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Haweye, I have seen nothing from the Arbcom in a long time that did anything but facilitate their control and power. They do very little of use and in general do more to hold the project back. Any benefit in what they do is outdone by the negative. GorillaWarfare should absolutely have recused and the fact that she didn't pretty much solidified my lack of faith in the Arbcom process. Anyone who takes more than a cursory look at the data can see she is closely involved in the situation with Lightbreather. All you have to do is take a look at their interactions and especially in the GGTF email correspondence that is logged and linked on Wiki. Lightbreather is little more than an attention troll and needs to be banned but I have little faith that the Arbcom will do that because to make such a decision would make them look anti gender gap (especially after banning Carol) and its unlikely they will do that. If they do take action they almost definitely block and ban others to ensure that everything "seems" fair and shows no "favorites" in the decision. Giraffasaurus (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You have interesting theories in some aspects Giraffasaurus, but yours are powerful words for someone with your record of participation on Wikipedia... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... a new editor:

(a) is already commenting (after being here a week) on the vast amount of "abuse" all arbs and admins impose on everyone

(b) has been slapping Wikiproject US tags on every conceivable talk page, and

(c) created his account 2-3 days after Kumioko's last attempt to get an unblock failed.

I wonder, who could it possibly be? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. Not sure if that comment was meant to be a compliment, complaint or a warning but...don't judge a book by its cover. I have a pessimistic view of editing and from what I have seen I expect for someone to block me for whatever justification they feel like at any time. It won't surprise me, in fact I expected to face accusations or insinuations eventually but until I actually get blocked I will edit positively and try and do as much as I can in that time. If you think I am that editor Floquenbeam, then perhaps you should unblock them and find out if I continue to edit or not. Since that is clearly an ad hominem attack upon me with no proof, links or justification, I would expect that statement to be supported in some way or an apology levied. But I suppose its easier just to block your way out of an apology, present them with profanity, assaults and rudeness such as you did here and others available on your contributions page. I'm not sure why you are allowed to continue to be an admin here but my sincere hope is that eventually the community will tire of your abusiveness and show you the door. Giraffasaurus (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Kumikoko sock blocked, per admission at the SPI page. HJ, sorry for all the notifications. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You do surprise me! </sarcasm> HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I do trust you, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who is willing to take your word on WPPilot and leave it at that. I would trust ArbCom a whole lot more if they did not keep abusing that trust. Salvio has three editors saying that they think he should recuse (and a less than ringing endorsement from another). That should be a good enough reason to recuse. Recusal is not supposed to be a black mark; Arbs should be able to recuse without prejudice. There are plenty of Arbs available to hear the case, and they can get along fine without him. ArbCom says they had a discussion, but they held it in secret, and did not publish their reasoning. There was an implication that the decision was not unanimous, although in a recusal motion it has to be. There is no accountability, and no transparency. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm doing a bit of digging around the Neil March article, and I can see one of the main contributors to that article is Demerararecords (talk · contribs). You blocked that user, but I can't see why you blocked them. I know it was a while ago, but do you have any recollection of why you did that?

Thanks!

—me_and 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a {{softerblock}}, which means the username represents a company. We require that accounts represent an individual, so we don't allow company names as usernames. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha. I thought it might be that, but I hadn't clocked that the {{softerblock}} made it explicit.

In that case you might want to take a look at some of the other folk involved around that article, Hornetmuziq (talk · contribs) (Hornetmuziq Press is the name of the music publisher owned by March) and Soundspositive (talk · contribs) (who seem to be this group).

(The reason I'm looking at this is they're the only users commenting on the article deletion discussion; they're all single-purpose accounts, Soundspositive only started editing after the deletion nomination (I suspect having been canvassed off-wiki), and I'm wondering if Hornetmuziq is a sock of Demerararecords, given both brands are apparently owned by March himself.)

Of course, if you want me to do this properly via WP:SPI and WP:RFC/N/WP:UAA, let me know and I'll go through the formal channels.

Thanks,

—me_and 09:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I can make things easier for you. Demerara Records should be blocked because it is Neil March's record label and was only used to intervene in the debate about his page due to a misunderstanding of the Wiki rules about independence. Likewise I should also not be able to post on anything to do with Neil March since we publish his music. So if that means you need to block me too, that is fine. In future we will leave it to others of an independent status to contribute to Wikipedia.

Hi Harry. When you get a chance, can you restore User:INeverCry/Stuff and move it to User:INeverCry/References without leaving a redirect? INeverCry 21:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks old friend. I've got some extra time on my hands now that I don't have to fuck with socks and deletions.   INeverCry 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Harry, I note that you have recently put a temporary block on the above user. Unfortunately, they have started again with an attack on myself regarding a note left on the Talk page for List of people who disappeared mysteriously on 31 July 2014!! I regarded my contribution there as constructive and friendly - obviously this anon IP, with a poor editing history, does not think so? Can I leave this with you please? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Harry, Since the above was written, another editor has deleted the offending note - but it should be available via history. Looking at this IP,s recent contributions they are all are offensive. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)