Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:41, 18 January 2015

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Case

Hi HJ Mitchell, I have provided the dates you asked for. Could you comment? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Bumping. Whatever your decision, I'd appreciate at least closure for the case before the archiving. Thanks. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll have a look, but from a glance at the dates it doesn't look like there's anything recent enough to justify tangible sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, thanks again for looking through the case. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about what to do

Harry, Hi. One of our Wiki editors, User:Thgoiter, has been using a redirect template on the WP article Priestly breastplate, redirecting the page to an organization called "Hoshen" and which deals with Lesbians-Gays-Bisexuals-Transgenders. At first, when I saw this, I thought it was vandalism, since the topic matter of the article treats on the Breastplate worn by the Jewish High-Priest. I therefore reverted his edit, thinking that he was being disrespectful. Later, I realized that perhaps there is a "disambiguation" of the term "Hoshen," since it is used also in Hebrew for the High-Priest's Breastplate. See: Jan 15. What can I do to rectify this issue? - Davidbena (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Stalking. Just revert your edit(s) if applicable and leave a friendly note explaining the confusion on parties' talk. No harm done and obviously GF. I would get in touch though as the major priority. Irondome (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I agree with Irondome (I find that editing at half past one in the morning interferes with my beauty sleep, and as you can see from the photo on my userpage, I need as much of that as I can get ;) )—self-reverting (which I see you've done) and explaining your confusion should solve the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Franc

Hey, if you're still up, could look at the article, it's got a six sentence update, and I have marked the nom ready again. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

At 03:35? That really would interfere with my beauty sleep! But I'll have a look at ITN/C as soon as I get a minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your blurbwording. I was going to suggest "significantly" myself but then thought that was a judgement call. But I think all that matters is that readers can look at the article and get the info. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What does this look like to you?

I believe you imposed the sanction regarding off-site account identification and GG. . I struck it as an NPA issue but he restored it with the additional edit implying who's blog it was. Worth it? --DHeyward (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not really what I had in mind when I imposed the sanction, and I doubt a block for that would stand up at at ANI. It's an indication of the wider problem, but that's ArbCom's jurisdiction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. If that's not what you intended, that's what I was verifying. ANI is always an unpredictable avenue so I wouldn't base a sanctions argument over that aspect but I wanted to check what you thought about it in light of your sanction. No need to create sanction drama if it's not the sanction evoked. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Confused

This appears to refer to some "strident criticism" I've lobbied your way. I don't even recollect crossing paths with you. What exactly are you referring to? Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: My apologies. I realised after re-reading that comment that I should have used the passive voice to make my point about admin candidates being damned if they do and damned if they don't. I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, much as I disagree with your oppose rationale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

• Op-ed: Articles for creation needs you

• WikiProject report: Articles for creation: the inside story

• News and notes: Erasmus Prize recognizes the global Misplaced Pages community

• In the media: Misplaced Pages's birthday brings tributes, app, award; Castro death rumors

• Featured content: Citations are needed

• Traffic report: Wikipédia sommes Charlie

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Request: Could you look at the General Sanction Archives for GG?

Hello, HJ Mitchell. I was wondering if I you could take a look at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive2 and determine if the three open cases should be closed despite being in the archive. I ask since I am not sure if them being archived counts as the cases being closed. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I'm not sure formal closure is strictly necessary unless there are unresolved issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"He makes uncommon sense"!

Subject is a misquote from She makes my day

Dear Sir,
It was a pleasure to read your recent posting at WP:TFD. Having very recently also observed similar silliness at WP:RM, I can't help but wonder how so many people have so much spare time, and nothing better to do with it. (It almost makes watching paint dry attractive.) Never mind, there's still some Glenmorangie left. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: I'm glad you liked it! I also wonder what motivates people to get involved in things that have no effect on the mainspace and no tangible effect on anything but ... whisky can solve a multitude of problems! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps rather than tax it, governments should subsidise it? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. I seem to have moved into the category of "caring". This can't be good. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

TPROD

Would you please take the block to ANI, I'm not seeing anything inappropriate in his post that is warranting Discretionary sanctions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I was actually coming here to thank him, as this was long overdue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad you agree, I'll wait a while longer before starting an appeal if HJ Mitchell refuses to do so and I'm sure your opinion will mean more there then it does here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: Your wish is my command. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make it come off too demanding lol but thanks appreciate it 8) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You said please. That's more manners than most people have when the disagree with one of my blocks! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful though if you could pry involved GG'ers like Thargo out of it. Things like this are brought to ANI in hopes of getting genuinely neutral and uninvolved eyes to opine of if a block was warranted or not; it does nothing but boil up an already tense situation when you have someone involved pop by and grave-dance ("maybe should have been longer considering how overdue it was", "arguably one of the worst offenders"). These comments are at best unhelpful, at worst disruptive. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

True statements are just that. I'll only be commenting if necessary, but of course I'm going to endorse an overdue block. Are you implying I'm a GG supporter, though? I'd appreciate you adjusting your comment if so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't very well act as an uninvolved admin in an ANI thread about one of my actions. You could ask another admin or point out Thargo's involvement, but there's not much I can do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We might need to write this in a calender, I think this is one of the few ani threads about ablock discussion that hasn't degenerated into a lnych the admin conversation. It's surprisingly civil lol but it's still early in the US I suppose ;) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Simone Moro

Hi, as I already reported here, a sockpuppet of User:Germania Breslau, globally locked, has started again adding disputed and offensive sentences about Simone Moro (<< negative protagonist scandal with gaining Crown of the Himalayas >>, btw it was his first attempt of a eight-thousander, so I don't undestand how he can talk of "Crown of the Himalayas", that it means climbing all of them). However he is a sockpuppet, and there is no Consensus in talk page for adding that content in that form. Thanks in advance. --Rotpunkt (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rotpunkt: Thanks, I've blocked the account, protected the article for a month, and added it to my watchlist. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I've updated the sock case whose name is hard to type. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. --Rotpunkt (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Community sanctions

I just noticed the discussion with the arbitrators which you started with this edit. I'm pleased to see a positive response from the arbitrators who have commented.

I would like to amplify that with my own take on the matter. There are times when the expectation of an arbitration decision coming down nowadays seems to hamper community processes, and needless to say this is the last thing the arbitrators or the community expect and want to happen.

I'm sorry that you seem to find yourself often alone in taking action. While I don't always agree with your individual decisions I think they're an obviously valid exercise of administrative discretion and you should continue to do what you do. As I've said at WP:ANI, we need more action (and more administrative guidance in the form of trouting). Without that, the editing process dissolves into anarchy and good editors are driven away. --TS 17:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ: Not only did you say something reasonable, but you managed to get an understandable response from the arbs! It doesn't quite solve the problem of the person filing a case who names most of the admins who have previously refereed the issue as parties. It's too bad that HJM is often alone in taking action on GG and I certainly haven't helped lately. My distaste for the behavior of both sides leaves me reluctant to do more adminning there. It cheers me up whenever I see a comment by TS in a GG dispute because I assume it could contain some impartiality. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. You're right, and I'm certain you're not the only admin put off by the constant (and for the most part absolutely absurd) accusations of admin abuse (which is of course the whole point of making them), but any help would be appreciated. At the end of the day we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and I feel admins should be much less tolerant of anything that disrupts that aim—from either side of the dispute. Tony: I agree with you that there is no shortage of misconduct which all contributes to the toxic atmosphere. But I'm reluctant to get seriously pro-active for various reasons: accusations of "admin abuse" are certain parties' favourite passtime, I think it's best for admins (especially when there are so few actively enforcing the community sanctions) to stay above the fray, but most of all because the rate of edits to the talk page makes it very difficult to keep track of everything—I'm not invested in the subject and don't want to follow all the content issues, and I have lots of other things (including several other busy pages) on my watchlist. So please, bring things to the enforcement page, even if they're relatively trivial. I'm quite happy to evaluate things and close requests with warnings or mild sanctions and work up to more serious sanctions for repeat offenders. If the board gets more work and the log gets longer, it becomes much easier to spot patterns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your removal

I disagree with this removal. I disagree that it's "inflammatory," it's a direct comment about the article and the struggles we're currently having. I would appreciate your restoration. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The comment, in my view, was made with the intention of starting an argument (and even if that wasn't your intent, it was the likely result) and contained nothing that would be useful in a discussion about the content of the article. Instead, it cast aspersions on an unnamed group of editors, so I think inflammatory is an accurate description and I'm afraid I won't be restoring it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, pretty much every part of it was about the content of the article: it's controlled by certain editors, there's a sense of "righting great wrongs" throughout, and is heavily slanted toward a specific POV. I understand your intentions to stay uninvolved, but this might be where your lack of involvement misunderstands where the problems of this article have stemmed for the last few months, along with the borderline harassment I've gotten from Tony on this article this week. If commenting on the way the content is slanted is inflammatory, no amount of discussion can be allowed. As you've already disparaged the evidence, where would you like me to go from here? The message I'm getting is that we cannot talk about how the article content has been shaped, which is why the thing is at ArbCom to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How the article came to be the way it is (and I don't know if it is biased to one side or the other; frankly, I'm past the point of caring) is not especially relevant to discussing where the article goes from here (which if it were solely up to me would be the bin). I wouldn't remove discussion of the article's history if that was all it was, though I would endorse hatting it if another editor decided to do that. But what you did was to cast aspersions on the previous editors of the article, impugn their motives, and accuse them of "hiding behind reliable sources". That's not a comment directed at improving the article, so it has no place on the talk page. Since you've expressed disinterest in following the dispute resolution and enforcement procedures, you shouldn't be commenting on editors or their conduct at all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's actually directly relevant, that's ultimately the problem. I've "cast aspersions" because an accurate portrayal of the situation was granted and necessary to give the proper context (context that you're "past the point of caring about"). That you do not dispute them is obvious enough, and it's not that I have a disinterest as much as the interest has been made at ArbCom and beyond. Would you like me to provide you with a list of other claims in the talk page that should also be treated this way since you believe this is the route to take, or would you rather do the productive thing and restore the appropriate (or appropriate parts of the) comment? I understand the frustration you're having, now try and understand mine. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's your opinion of how the article came to be the way it is. The way to change that is to make suggestions for improvement based on reliable sources—and reliable sources are what the article has to be based on; that's core policy. If people have been misrepresenting or cherry-picking sources, that's a different ball game. One where the prize is a topic ban. But we don't discuss editor conduct issues on article talk pages. Repeatedly stating that opinion is only going to hinder the development of the article because it invites an argument over whether or not the opinion is accurate, which is going to lead nowhere and as I say, is irrelevant to how the article progresses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're not coming to an agreement on the latter, and that's fine. I do think I'm being singled out for some reason when those sorts of comments have been tolerated across the project for as long as I've taken part (close to 5 years). With that said, I'm hoping ArbCom does hand down a lot of topic bans, because it's long overdue; while I know you believe it to be my opinion regarding what I put forward, your admitted lack of knowledge of how we got to this point is why you express as such, and I don't necessarily hold that against you even as I implore you to become better versed in the history of the article if you're going to remain involved in the sanction process. To be able to make the changes we need to there requires us to acknowledge the past, not sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. The new user needed to know that, the fact that someone unhatted Tony's hatting should tell you that such a removal (without even talking to me first!) would be controversial. There's really a lot of history here I would suggest (again, respectfully, my tone might be coming across wrong) you look into, as it might illuminate some issues. There's a reason people are celebrating your block of Red Pen earlier today. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've avoided delving deep into the history because I don't want to get involved in the day-to-day development of the article. I regularly enforce sanctions in the Israel-Palestine topic area, but (while I'm reasonably well-read on the history of that conflict) and I take much the same approach there—I'm not familiar with the history of all the articles and I generally only respond to violations that are brought to my attention. I don't understand why you think it's necessary to make a remark that you know your opponents are going to disagree with. It would suffice to state that you think the article is biased, and to make suggestions for improvement (based on sources); that is something I have not thus far seen you do. Oh, and if I were a betting man, I'd bet reasonable money that we'll see at least two sitebans (maybe four or five if the arbs decide to take hard line), multiple other remedies ranging from admonishments to topic bans, and discretionary sanctions superseding the community sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said at the enforcement page, I won't bog you down further on this. I know why you're staying out of it, but the history does matter, and I hope that ArbCom recognizes that as well. I'm assuming a couple sitebans as well, but I'm truly more concerned with how this will be handled for the future of the article period. Anything I say will be "disagreed with," I've even mentioned some of the vitriol here directly. I can't worry about that, I can only worry about improving the article, and "suggestions of improvement" must include noting that there's a cadre of editors who have shaped the article a certain way using certain behaviors that aren't of value. The evidence is at ArbCom, and I'm unaware of any policy or guideline that says "never shall such things be mentioned again." Tony Sidaway|Tony, who had the problem with my comment also seems to have a blind eye to what's going on, and, well, given the history of the article and how the sanction process has worked (and that is not a knock on you or Gamaliel, who have done yeoman's work when no one else would), there's a reason why comments like mine are not just important, but necessary. I'm logging off for the evening, but you won't hear from me on this specific topic again. I would, however, appreciate you reinstating my comment as a gesture of good faith for the process and for the good of the article. It's that important. Thargor Orlando (talk)

Response

I was relieved to see this action by HJ Mitchell, not only based on the grounds presented about this article, but also because several other times TheRedPenOfDoom has interfered with my valid edits on spurious grounds, in what seemed to be more of a power trip than valid editing. For example in one case TheRedPenOfDoom took the position that information about relatives and spouses of notable persons should not be included by name, which is contradicted in countless articles. As someone who doesn't show up in the hierarchy of Misplaced Pages hierarchy, I've felt powerless to appeal those arbitrary positions, especially when TheRedPenOfDoom refused to involve a third party in accordance with that Misplaced Pages process. It seemed as if TheRedPenOfDoom really wanted an edit war. I guess this person's username pretty much says it all, threatening Doom via the editing process. JCvP 21:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about the no-go listing

Can you please tell me if the AE against JzG has been resolved or is it still ongoing? Atsme☯ 03:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply re recommendation to go to ANI

Thanks, HJ Mitchell, per your recommendation I've started an ANI thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry_case_going_after_Featured_Article_writer_Neelix. Per my experience sometimes it seems like nothing concrete happens from ANI threads, HJ Mitchell, so I'd most appreciate it if you could have a look there, investigate further, and see if something can be done about this meatpuppetry that's unfortunately driven a Featured Article writer off this website.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

One left unblocked: Cactusjackbangbang (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"Tell me, Evey, do you know what day it is?" "November the fourth." "Not any more..." Okay, so it sounded better when Hugo Weaving said it, but you get the point! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the lack of finding at SPI and lack of consensus at ANI please unblock Johnnydowns. NE Ent 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I will note that Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) has also filed UTRS appeal #12949, which hasn't yet been responded to.

I'm wrapped up in a weird conflict about retired user Neelix. I edited a page of his (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sci-Fi_Dine-In_Theater_Restaurant&action=history) and since that time have been accused of sock puppetry and now meat puppetry. This morning, all my edits on his article were reverted by an editor accusing me of meat puppetry (Cirt). But it was just an accusation - there has been no decision or proof presented, so it seemed wrong to me that he would revert it just for that reason.

When I asked him about this, he found another reason to undo my edits and then threatened me with banning for vandalism. However, if you look, my edits consist only of removing text that is being repeated verbatim later on in the text.

Eventually I opened a dispute against him - I was then banned by a DIFFERENT user whom I've never interacted with before.

— Johnnydowns, UTRS appeal #12949

Make of that what you will. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)