Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:15, 30 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.

Ignocrates block

The post that Ignocrates made on my user talk page that was cited by Cailil in the AE , was neither stalking John Carter, nor "poking the bear."

His post was a response to a post that I had made in the Historicity of Jesus arbitration -- not, as Cailil had suggested, to the posts that John Carter had made to me in his and my talk pages.

In his post, Ignocrates responded, not to anything having to do with John Carter, but to an issue I'd raised, about my "actual identity." It was obvious to me that it was written the way it was because Ignocrates had read past posts I'd made, where I described why I chose the username "Fearofreprisal," how I had been outed by a group of cyberattackers, and Hijiri88's attempt to out me earlier in the arbitration. Its essence was that my concerns about my real-world identity had merit, and I should consider a "fresh start" at some point in the future. It was a thoughtful and helpful message, clearly directed exclusively to me, from an editor with whom I'd had previous positive interactions.

I hope you'll reconsider the block against Ignocrates. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the block wasn't based on that comment or on any individual comment, but on my impression that Ignocrates has been unduly focused on John Carter to the point of following him around and scrutinising his contributions for perceived violations of the interaction ban, and on the fact they haven't contributed to an article for over three months, and is therefore not respecting the spirit of the interaction ban even if they've been careful to abide by the letter of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've read both Arbitration policy and Banning policy, and I can't find any support for the notion that an "impression" is enough for an administrator to site ban someone. The "care and judgment" requirement for administrators would suggest that an impression is not enough.
• Regarding Ignocrates following John Carter around: I ran an interaction analysis for the last 3 months , and I can find no evidence that Ignocrates was stalking John Carter. (In any event, he wouldn't need to follow John Carter around to notice violations of the interaction ban -- it would be pretty obvious to him in the normal course of following conversations in which he'd been involved.) If you can find evidence that Ignocrates was stalking John Carter, please provide diffs.
• Regarding Ignocrates not contributing to an article in 3 months: This is factually wrong. Going back to October 26 (if that's close enough to 3 months), Ignocrates made 21 edits on articles -- and each of these edits was a "contribution," intended to improve the article. (By contrast, you've made far more article edits in the last 3 months, but nearly all of them appear to be reverts or page protections. While I don't discount the value of your edits, an argument can be made that Ignocrates "contributed" more to building the encyclopedia over the last 3 months than you did.) But... by what standard does this have anything to do with "not respecting the spirit of the interaction ban?" Unless there is some unwritten policy that supersedes the Misplaced Pages terms of use , this seems entirely irrelevant.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether you respond to my points above. The damage is done: Your ban was the final straw for Ignocrates. While I don't question your good intentions, as an administrator you have a responsibility to get the facts straight. This time, you didn't. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation on block you gave to an editor

Could you clarify if a block you gave to editor Ryulong is still active, specifically the one that stated he's not allowed to talk about other editors until the ArbCom process ends, or maybe I read it wrong. Aside from this, Ryulong seems to have used a public Twitter account which he has admitted to owning, with almost 200 followers to insult me, calling me "an asshole", "insanely devious asshole", then tells me "fuck you", and says my call for moving on after my soon to be topic-ban "the smuggest and most patrocinizing most fucking assholish thing you have said", he has repeated this on-site

"Loganmac, the only reason you're taking this calmly is because you are using a throwaway account and have no stake in Misplaced Pages. Your interests lie solely with Gamergate and it is completely insane that you are being so god damn patronizing and smug" this is in my opinion assuming bad faith, and a personal attack by calling me patronizing and smug. This has resulted in people contacting me on Twitter after his public remarks. I would like to ask if this is a violation of the sanction you imposed. Thanks! Loganmac (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Off-wiki posts are generally outside of the remit of on-wiki enforcement. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc, Sphilbrick, and Ks0stm: The comments were on an arbitration page, so this is your jurisdiction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If a block for violating this passes alongside Ryulong's Arbcom block, would it be possible to ANI appeal the discretionary sanction block on principle? Bosstopher (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

He's not getting an ArbCom block, it looks like he's only getting a topic ban and a few other measures, and it would seem the clerks are not inclined to sanction him for his comments on the PD talk page. The sanction I imposed lapses once the case is closed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Manchester Grammar School and advice

After despairing for years, a member of staff contacted me on User talk:ClemRutter#Manchester Grammar School

I posted a reply that I would like you to look over on his page. User talk:Serendipityrules. I would hope we could use this to welcome on board other new editors of his professional status. Can you have a look please- I will also ping Andy. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:NFLplayer

Will you move-protect instead? --George Ho (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What for? What danger would come of it being moved. We only protect templates that are vulnerable, or used in the interface, or used on many thousands of articles. Otherwise the protection policy is the same for templates as it is for articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

History of Israel

Question/request: Could you verify the statement from https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_Israel&action=edit&section=22 in chapter "First years 1920 - 1929" as quote: "fleeing antisemitism in Poland and Hungary"

My remarks: There was no antisemitism in Poland at the time. It was before 1920 and re-emerged after the death of Józef Piłsudski in 1935. Marcus19771107 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is an article discussing antisemitism in Poland in Interwar period, including the 1920s. Even if you are correct, there was a pogrom in 1918, which alone is a reasonable reason for people to flee even a few years after it happened. “WarKosign” 15:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Marcus19771107: The best place for this question is probably the talk page. Because I'm an active administrator in the topic area, I can't get involved with content issues. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Rev-del block extension and talk page revocation

HI,

Think a refresh of the block and possibly this needs rev-del at User talk:12.41.156.156. Amortias (T)(C) 20:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, done, and done. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Loganmac and article Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters

Sorry, I am out the door so this is quick note. When you have a moment, could you look into this? From a perusal of Loganmac's edit history, he has only ever edited a single video game article til now, GTA V. It appears highly unlikely that Mr. Mac has arrived at Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters with a video-game interest, but has rather gone there by stalking Ryulong to an article where he recently got into a revert-war with an IP. This is IMO clear provocation when the ink on the GG Arb case is not yet even dry. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Loganmac has edited Five Nights at Freddy's 2, Drawn to Death, Hatred, bioshock, MGS peace walker, ect...2600:1000:B017:4F7:7113:9CED:35AF:868D (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? Really? I'm astonished. Just when you think you've seen it all. I've blocked him for 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters is not a video game by the way. There was a video game released based on it, but that's it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You just beat me to that block. You were also a lot more lenient than I would have been :) Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I considered indef'ing him, but I didn't think it would stick. Hopefully he realises how bloody stupiddeeply unimpressive that was. If he doesn't, then I suspect he's not long for this project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Long overdue. You were more lenient than I would have been too. An indef block probably wouldn't stick though. At least you've given him one final chance--5 albert square (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I brain-cramped on Japan film/anime<=> video game for some reason. Thanks for the prompt attention. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to be clear that my AE filing was in no way a statement that you did anything wrong with respect to this block. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is such

a shitty atmosphere around at the moment. I'm going to take loads of stuff of my watchlist. Hope it bloody clears soon. Just thought i'd share that. It's all fecking bollocks at the mo. I'm going to get rat-arsed now. Irondome (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's insanity at the moment. Perhaps it's because it's the dark winter nights. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Irondome, there's always a shitty atmosphere. It's just that it gets more noticed when notorious characters are at the source of it and when some admins are brave and bold enough to do what we elected them for. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen. Let us all press on and hopefully this miasma will lessen. Had a slight attack of LMF back there. Yours aye Irondome (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem knowledgable

Where do you think the best place to push this gravedancing to is? Hipocrite (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to 8chan or Reddit or wherever it came from. That account was blocked for vandalism in 2007, made a few edits in between, and then that. I've indef'd per NOTHERE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question re Gamergate

You added a box on the talk page for the GG controversy page. It says there's a 1RR in effect for GG, but I don't see that mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions. I'm just confused (and would like somewhere to point to regarding this 1RR if it comes up in the future). Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ imposed the 1RR with the power given to him by the DS. See WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions. RGloucester — ☎ 04:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Oh! Thank you! :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I think you should add an archive box at WP:GS/GG/E. Archives of past requests should be easily accessible. RGloucester — ☎ 06:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Himitsu_Sentai_Gorenger

You protected the Himitsu_Sentai_Gorenger page, and I'm curious as to why. I'm new so was rather confused as all heck, looked at it and it was recent. I don't see much vandalism requiring it, especially since it was reverted by a third party rather quickly. I've already made an edit request but there's a lot more to fix. How do I know when it expires and is it stuck that way till then? I don't know how to check that and think it's probably staring me in the face but missed it. FlossumPossum (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

HJM, Have you considered that perhaps we need ArbCom to provide further guidance as to how to deal with accounts that won't let Ryulong depart gracefully? Hipocrite (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My edit has absolutely 100% nothing to do with Ryulong and was actually trying to fix a poor edit made by another completely unrelated editor. Do you mean me or the three people who were having it out over the spelling(which seems to be in question looking at the edit history of that page, it's Gorenger btw, not Goranger.). FlossumPossum (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll certainly understand if I use a healthy does of skepticism with respect to an account that, over the course of it's 26 edits has edited only this user talk page, and arbiter regarding GamerGate, and that of one of the blocked GamerGate parties, right? It's a shame you couldn't have proposed your edits before a series of GamerGate sockpuppets started harassing banned users who were merely trying to depart gracefully. Detail your proposed changes on the talk page, with sources, and I'll consider them. Hipocrite (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're not entirely wrong, the arbcom case DID get me interested in editing Misplaced Pages. Enough to actually make an account finally and try to make edits! It was things like beeblebrox making the unblockables essay and the know it all/I have the final say attitudes of some editors in areas I find interesting(anime/video games/Programming) that kept me away. I was merely making conversation with him because I followed links all the way to his page. Someone else mentions the essay and I f ollowed up as an IP, then said 'screw it, lets go for it' and made an accout! I'll let my edit request and future edits stand as my proof that I'm here to contribute. FlossumPossum (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@FlossumPossum: Welcome. My apologies for the protection. As Hipocrite says, some people are deliberately targeting Ryulong's articles in light of his involuntary departure, so I've protected several of them while they're a this vulnerable stage. My suggestion, if your intention is to improve articles, is to do something a little less controversial for a week or two, and then come back to these articles. They will of course need new people to maintain them and keep them updated, so perhaps that's something you could help with once the dust has settled. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but a question about what you just said, "Ryulong's articles", is that not against WP:OWN? Sorry i'm new and not sure exactly how this all works.

No apology necessary. WP:OWN applies to a situation where one editor (or a group of editors) dominate an article and refuse to allow any edits they don't approve of. That's not the rationale behind my protections. The protections are necessary because Ryulong has been heavily associated with those articles, and certain parties have taken Ryulong's banning as an opportunity to cause disruption on those articles. If you'd like to contribute them, you can register an account; you'll have to make ten edits elsewhere and wait four days, though. You can also make an edit request on the talk page and put {{editsemiprotected}} at the top of your request. I don't want to deter good-faith edits, just trolls who want to cause trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason that two editors of multiple years that seemed very interested in the topic at hand, User:DarknessSavior and User:Fidsah were indef'd without any sort of explanation, one of them even denied an unblock request?

Are you going to protect his articles and ban any editor that tries making any changes indefinitely into the future assuming bad faith? What aspect of the conduct of Misplaced Pages were these bans handed out on?

You realize that the same reason Ryulong was penalized in the ArbCom case for applies to other articles? Some editors, including User:Digifiend have been waiting years for his grip over said articles to lighten. 79.247.112.157 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, so a bunch of people are coming in to talk on this section now. To the helpful editor van! I decided to do a little legwork now and I found DarknessSavior's edit to be in line with what the talk page stated in september 2011, including Ryulong agreeing "Well, whaddya know. That's definitely a good source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)". So it appears DarknessSavior was erroniously banned while making good faith edits. If anything it might be worth discussing on the talk page again, but it's clear DarknessSavior likes related material by other edits as well. Fidsah seems to be piling on but DarknessSavior does indeed seem to have an interest in the area even if not extremely active.FlossumPossum (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The protections are necessary because Ryulong has been heavily associated with those articles, and certain parties have taken Ryulong's banning as an opportunity to cause disruption on those articles. But that's the thing: it's not disruption - it's making changes that were constantly reverted by Ryulong, where he had been enforcing his version literally for years, which literally nobody else agreed with. This is evident to anyone who takes a look at the talk page history. Seriously, people are implementing the community consensus and getting sanctioned for it. It's almost as absurd as the notion that people are somehow "taking revenge" on a banned editor by doing something that involves no interaction with that editor. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@HJMitchell, it appears that quite possibly there is an issue with one of the editors on that page being a mere proxy for the banned editor on the Kamen Rider OOO characte rpage . I'm walking away from it, look into it as you will. I could write why the assertions are wrong all day, but honestly, I don't care about that show and have a WoW article I really wanna work on waiting for me! FlossumPossum (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea who's right or wrong, and proxying for banned editors isn't against the rules per se, as long as the proxy accepts full responsibility for the edits, including any negative consequences. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." From WP:PROXYING is what I was referring to. I know the answer to the debate, it's not up for debate, there is actually an answer one way or another based on how the language works but again, WoW > Kamen Rider! You might want to keep an eye out on it though. I'm new, so not exactly sure how to apply the rules, it was just super obvious that someone was merely relaying information from a banned editor. Thanks man! FlossumPossum (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Year In Review Awards

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions to the Featured Articles Operation Flavius and Death on the Rock you are hereby awarded this Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Glad to see we decided to do these in the end. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How could we not? I like to think of the project as a Meritocracy, so if you have earned something I will make sure you get it to the best of my ability. More over, there is the joy for the editors of seeing their hard work rewarded. I've been thanked 8-9 times over the last 24 hours by people who got awards, some of them were not even expecting awards and one was surprised that it was milihist who bestowed the first award he's gotten here. Its tedious and time consuming, but moments like that make it all worth while for everyone, wouldn't you say? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kamen Rider OOO

I can't see any evidence of the "persistent vandalism" on this page that you cited as a reason for protecting it. There has been some minor edit-warring, with less than a dozen total edits in the month before your action, and nothing at all for several months before that; most of the activity has been from registered users anyway; and there is new talk page discussion. Please explain? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Page protection is warranted for any page than 4channers plan to edit; in this case, to dance on Ryulong's grave. https://boards.4chan.org/m/thread/12027677/so-uh-remember-the-neoheisei-trash-guy-ryulong#p12033337 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The concept of "grave-dancing" - also mentioned further up the page by @Hipocrite: - strikes me as patently absurd. We're going to sanction people now for being happy that they can finally undo changes that would, over a period of years, get instantly reverted by one specific editor, against community consensus? Even though they officially don't need a reason anyway? Do people need to repeat years-old discussions on the talk page before they're finally taken at their word that this isn't some kind of revenge? And then just who gets to participate in this process? Please. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There will be a clear different between a gamergater dancing on Ryulong's grave and a good faith anime fan who cares about L vs R. Hipocrite (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's...not what BANREVERT says. You're allowed to instantly revert Ryulong's edits if he makes them now, in violation of his ban. You're not allowed to just burn everything he's ever done from the site, that would be insane.192.249.47.186 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What's more, the discussion on the talk page had absolutely nothing to do with the changes Darkness made. His changes have literally never been discussed before, they're just...kinda bad, since they violate the animanga project's standards.192.249.47.186 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like I had http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kamen_Rider_OOO confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kamen_Rider_OOO_%28character%29 . The discussion of the spelling "Condol" vs. "Condor" goes back to at least 2011 on the latter page. And seriously, how could changing "Condol" (which is utter nonsense) to "Condor" (an actual name of an actual animal in English, in the context of other animal names like Lion and Cheetah) be "kinda bad"? As for the animanga project, neither page is templated as being within its scope. They are in the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you're correct on wikiproject templating, but I'm still fairly certain ENGVAR applies. Still, Darkness's reverted edit was based on other topics, and as I've stated many times in the talk page, the issue is whether the name is official or note. Both Condol and Condor are official, so we treat Condor as preferred because it also makes more sense. Regarding the names Darkness changed -- those were not the official romanizations. For context, the rule Darkness edited under would be akin to changing the character's name from Kamen Rider to Mask Rider. We're not supposed to automatically insert our own translations -- we use the official names, and then can note what they're obviously supposed to mean. But a company being bad at spelling does not negate that the name it gave its creation is, indeed, the name of that creation.192.249.47.186 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider topic ban

Dear HJ Mitchell,

I believe you misunderstood my intentions.

I am a newbie on Misplaced Pages and like most I learn as I go. Except for Nishidani I had no serious problems with other editor including much more 'explosive' pages such as Al-Aqsa Mosque, UNRWA or Israeli-occupied territories. A request for mediation was sinply diclined by him so a system like AE seemed to me as a reasonable last resort. I understand now it was a mistake.

I would like to ask you to reconsider the topic ban you have put and convert it into a warning.

Regards,

Ashtul (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll think about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ashtul (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

George Bowie

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Done (indef). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Felipe Nasr

What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Done (six moths). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't yell

-- don't really need font size 5 there. NE Ent 10:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I wanted it to be as obvious as possible. I'll change it to something more standard in a few weeks, but I think that page is still linked from quite a few places at the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I just had to

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For everything at the Gamergate controversy article. :) HalfHat 13:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :) It's nice to appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

OTRS

Just FYI, I copied your reply on ticket:2015012710015931 and made otrswiki:Response:En-GamerGate Sanction‎. — Revi 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. Good to know that it was helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi, Harry. I have made a ROPE unblock of an editor you blocked, at User talk:Bobbytettegani123. For most admins I would have consulted them first, but in your case I took your message at the top of this page as giving me the go-ahead to unblock without consulting you, even though it perhaps debatable whether it applies. You certainly haven't have erred in one of your admin actions, but I am inclined to take an editor admitting that he or she was being silly and promising not to do the same again as changing the situation, so that your "rationale for the action no longer applies". In such cases I am a great believer in giving a second chance. I find that surprisingly often the result is that we get another good editor, and if the vandalism does continue, it is easy enough to re-block. Do let me know if you disagree, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I completely agree. My rationale no longer applies, and there's no harm in unblocking if they've seen the error of their ways. The worst-case scenario is they're swiftly re-blocked (somebody ought to create WP:FOOLMEONCE...). Thanks for the note. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy#Cherrypicking

The discussion in this section seems to have broken down, as neither side agrees to the application of WP:NOR, and there are accusations of WP:KETTLE. I've asked Rhoark if he would prefer to move to a dispute resolution process, but I would also appreciate the input of an admin who would be more intimately familiar with the application of NOR. Either way, I feel like I am getting close to argumentative, and I have no desire to be sanctioned -- what would be the best way to get this question answered by someone knowledgeable while also removing myself from the "battleground"?192.249.47.186 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

• From the editor: An editorial board that includes you

• In focus: Thirteen editors sanctioned in mammoth GamerGate arbitration case

• In the media: A murderous week for Misplaced Pages

• Forum: Evaluating the Arbitration Committee's handling of GamerGate

• Traffic report: A sea of faces

• Recent research: Bot writes about theatre plays; "Renaissance editors" create better content

• Special report: Traffic in the fog—most-viewed articles of 2014 include death, Facebook, and Ebola

• Featured content: Like Jack Kerouac's On The Road, this week's issue was written on amphetamines

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

hey

I was wondering if you would please reconsider your block of Protonk. I know it's a really hot topic that you've been dealing with, but I don't think there's enough there for a block. I'm not taking any sides in the whole thing, and I really respect all your efforts in this area; I'm just asking you to reconsider lifting the block and having a discussion with him/her instead. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is there a Misplaced Pages version of Uncyclopedia:Ban Patrol or do I just wait for an admin to ban a vandal/blanker? --DSA510 Pls No AndN 00:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:R Van should outline it. Sort version, revert, warn at appropriate level, escalate to WP:AIV. Misplaced Pages:Twinkle is also a big help for templating the warnings and reporting to WP:AIV — Strongjam (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk. It looks like you were pinged, but that's fluky enough that a notice is probably a good idea too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)