User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 92

Archive 85

←

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

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)

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☯^Consult 03:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

What does this look like to you?

I believe you imposed the sanction regarding off-site account identification and GG. [1]. 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)

"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)

Reply re recommendation to go to ANI

Thanks, HJ Mitchell, per your recommendation I've started an ANI thread at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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/w/index.php?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)

What I make of it is that we have an account that makes a few trivial edits over the course of three years, goes dormant for nearly three years, then re-surfaces out of the blue to remove chunks of content from an article—edits which are completely out of pattern compared to their previous edits. Then gets into an edit war with Neelix and later Cirt. Okay, that's raises an eyebrow but isn't beyond belief. Then add in that they resurfaced at the same time as several other SPAs and long-dormant accounts and half a dozen IPs, all of which have done nothing in years except to make these edits to various articles. And that the only thing these articles all have in common is their primary contributor, and that several of these accounts have openly harassed that editor. That's far too many coincidences for me to believe. This is clearly being coordinated from somewhere, and it is damaging to the encyclopaedia. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters: this isn't a court; we don't need to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, nobody has a legal right to edit, so the only question that matters is "is this in the encyclopaedia's best interests?". And my judgement is that allowing this nonsense, whatever its origins, to continue is absolutely not in the encyclopaedia's best interests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent explanation, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_needed — Cirt (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Revoke access

Xharm has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Supersaiyen312. Can you revoke his UTP access? He is redirecting his UTP to main account. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel that's an acceptable edit for them to make... I'd just reinstate the redirect and leave it there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @OccultZone: I agree with Luke. Redirecting their talk page to the master's is not really a problem. It doesn't do any harm, and it might actually be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine. What you have to say about this statement ? I am sure that you agree with the block. If you think that he shouldn't have been blocked, you can just let me know here. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate block

Given his promise not to edit GG pages for 48 hours, I plan shortly to undo your block of DHeyward on the basis that the reason for the block no longer applies. If that's incorrect or otherwise inappropriate, please restore the block and excuse the inconvenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate states "Sanctions imposed cannot be undone by another administrator without approval of the sanctioning administrator or an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard." Tom Harrison has had that quotation from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate drawn to his attention, but has declined to reverse his action. I have asked him to reconsider that decision. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reconsidered as you asked, and it seems to me my unblock is consistent with policy, and what HJ Mitchell would do if he were active right now. Again, if you or another admin thinks otherwise, restore the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that Tom is generally reliable and reasonable and that no fuss should be made about this. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, is undoing a block done under discretionary sanctions on-par with undoing an Arbitration-endorsed block? If so, this is grounds for a desysop. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. There were changed circumstances and an attempt at communication (an "appeal"). HJ Mitchell had an opportunity to comment but is apparently away. All this takes clue, knowing who you are dealing with (blocked editor has a very good reputation) (HJ Mitchell invites review and reversal of his admin actions). Tom did the right thing and people should stop making trouble of nothing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I hope Arbcom takes Gamergate under AE, so that lines will be clearly drawn and the appeals page will be well watched. Worm^TT(talk) 14:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably they will. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• As a general principle, reversing blocks made under community general sanctions without a noticeboard discussion is a very bad idea, and should be treated as much the same way as arbitration enforcement blocks, for which admin have been desysopped for reversing out of process. In this particular instance I'm not inclined to make a federal case out of it. Suffice to say that process has its uses and should not be ignored on a whim, but it's not the b-all and end-all. In this case it appears the block had outlived its usefulness (which would fall under the "or the reason for it no loner applies" criterion in the notice at the top of this page), and as it was only a short block getting consensus to lift it might have taken longer than the time the block had left to run. And yes, I was "away". I was up well past 2am this morning being accountable for my actions so I felt like taking half a day off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Suffice to say that process has its uses and should not be ignored on a whim, but it's not the b-all and end-all." Agreed; glad it's all worked out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward (talk) has extended an olive branch of peace.

---

No worries. I knew you were busy with that other one and I didn't want to request a full ANI review which would have been like blood in the water for the sharks. I hope the unorthodox approach was less stressful for you and you continue to patrol the GS/GG pages. You got my email. --DHeyward (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tara Teng

FYI, see this, which should explain the sudden interest in the article. Revent^talk 23:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (further comment) FYI, that was not intended as a 'comment on' the allegations made, I really have no opinion, having not looked into it... essentially just a response to the comment you made in the ES when protecting the page. Revent^talk 00:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hi HJ. I see you making a lot of blocks lately. Given the number of tendentious anti-admin folks running around, and the tendency of ArbCom to desysop every time they take a case, I hope you will turn your block sensitivity selector down from 11 to something like 8. Just be more cautious and remember that WP:ROPE cures many situations. It's often better to let a bad actor go a bit further, to really prove they need a block, than to hit them prematurely. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman, it seems to me that it might be more helpful to Harry if you were to mention some particular blocks which you think were open to question. Just a general "don't block so often" may not be very helpful to him in seeing where, if anywhere, there is room for improvement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If we bring up particular editors, I will need to invite them to the discussion, and we will risk veering into long tangents. I've shared my general impression. HJ can email me if he would like more details. I don't want to pressure him further. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an arbitrator, but for instance the recent block on a Gamergate editor was imposed by HJ Mitchell after a formal discussion in which substantive concerns were raised about the user's recent conduct. The block was supported by another uninvolved administrator. If there are concerns about other recent blocks by this administrator, they should probably be discussed as soon as possible because that's the way to resolve problems.

I don't think any administrator need fear the Arbitration Committee in the Gamergate case, but even supposing they did we shouldn't be second guessing them. We're a self-governing community and shouldn't rely on the Committee to fix everything. Administrators aren't perfect but they're not required to always be right, which is why their actions can be reversed and we have procedures to do that without ruffling feathers or desysopping anybody. We should be encouraging more administrators to step up in the Gamergate sanctions and also in other problem areas, and we should thank those who are generous enough to do so. --TS 15:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I do appreciate you taking the time to stop by, Jonathan. I make a great many blocks, the vast majority of them nobody ever notices—common-au-garden vandals, spammers, long-term abuse, the odd sock, an open proxy here or there. I very rarely block established editors and generally avoid getting involved in ANI threads (which seem to benefit nobody except the manufacturers of headache tablets); it just happens that I've got knee-deep in the GamerGate nonsense, which is reaching its climax and the issue that prompted last night's ANI thread happened to come up at the same time. I was asked to look into it with a friendly note and I felt comfortable blocking the accounts as I did because there was clearly some sort of off-site campaign directed at Neelix (I gather it is/was coming from a members-only thread on a web forum). It seems that there may be issues with the articles in question, but flashmobs of brand-new or long-dormant account turning up to remove large chunks of content in concert with anonymous editors trolling the articles' author directly on their talk page does not strike me as being something we should encourage. But regardless, I don't object to your unblock of Johnnydowns. I hadn't seen your decline when I made the block—if I had, I wouldn't have blocked. It's also safe to assume that we'll get discretionary sanctions on GamerGate once the case wraps up, so I will probably take on a lower profile there for a while, or a least have the benefit of broader input before imposing sanctions—requesting input on the GamerGate enforcement page is like talking to a brick wall, probably because half the admin corps are facing (mostly vexatious) allegations of misconduct in the case and the other half are unwilling to get invovled lest they face similar accusations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want you to become the next Dangerous Panda. You can do 8000 useful blocks, and nobody remembers them. They remember 3 or 4 that might have been questionable. A good rule of thumb is not to block established contributors with clear or nearly clear block logs without first going the extra mile to speak with them and giving them enough rope to really prove they need a block. Don't take this as criticism. It's experience of somebody who's done a fair number of difficult blocks and lived (so far) to tell. Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

12,619, for what it's worth. DP was unfairly railroaded (interesting, isn't it that the producers and directors of last night's drama were the same as that one?), but he responded to it with profanity and then disappeared for two months, apparently not the first time he had done so (even if his reasons were entirely honest, which I have no reason to doubt). By the time he came back, nothing could possibly have changed the outcome. Whereas I was up til gone 2am to ensure that I was available to respond to any legitimate concerns about my actions. Anyway, this has been an abnormal few days—I normally get one visit to AN/ANI every few months, and it's mainly coincidence that three of my blocks have been under discussion at roughly the same time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• The red note at the top of this page: could you clarify whether it applies to AE actions and community sanctions such as GG? Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally not. If I write something like "this block may not be reversed without my consent or by consensus at a noticeboard" and link to general/discretionary sanctions provisions or I use {{subst:uw-aeblock}} with its verbose and rather grave "reminder to administrators", I intend that to over-ride the general rule. But the DHeyward incident was the first time somebody had interpreted the two as being in conflict and at the end of the day Tom's action was procedurally incorrect but in that specific set of circumstances was the right thing to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ, the special quality of GG enforcement is that no good deed goes unpunished. The community wants to have sanctions, sort of, but when it is time to enforce them it is boring and bureaucratic to do so. We would rather not, so wake us up tomorrow. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The existing community processes are completely incapable of handling these sorts of issues, or of preventing a discussion from being derailed by nonsense, which is how bureaucratic processes like general or discretionary sanctions come about. But I'm hoping (I'd pray if I was a believer!) that the arbitration case will remove a lot of the entrenched editors there, and once they're out of the way it becomes easier to deal with obvious disruption and people who create a hostile environment, which will hopefully allow sanity to prevail! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Its over and done HJ and you're still a good egg in my opinion. Best wishes.--MONGO 20:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, MONGO. We don't always see eye-to-eye, but I think we respect each other as mostly harmless! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• The standard for administrative action is quite properly WP:NOTPERFECT. The fact that I disagreed with a particular (Johnnydowns) block doesn't remotely begin to put HJ in the same category as the editors I've referred to arbcom for removal of sysop bits, and any talk of resigning or arbcom is ridiculous. (I would suggest what I always suggest to any editor -- real life is more important than, and the best antidote to, Wikipedia and if it's becoming unpleasant consider taking a break.). NE Ent 03:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the best way to report "link hijacking" edits?

Hello HJ. What is the best way to report to an Administrator of subtle edits in which legitimate links are being re-routed through question servers?

• Here is the first example on 04:28, 26 November 2014 and the second example on 04:21, 31 December 2014 of a link being diverted on National Automotive Parts Association (History) from a server at the usatoday.com domain to a server at the com-news.us domain.

• Here is the first example on 04:28, 26 November 2014 and the second example on 16:40, 27 November 2014 of a link being diverted on O'Reilly Automotive (History) from a server at the bloomberg.com domain to a server at the com-news.us domain.

• Here is the first example on 21:46, 2 November 2014 and the second example on 02:07, 5 November 2014 of a link being diverted on Human sexual activity (History) from a server at the ucsb.edu domain to a server at the edu-univ.us domain.

In all of these cases, the original links still works fine. Not sure why the links are being diverted since they eventually gets forwarded to the original links. Does spyware or other harmful programs gets installed during the link hijacking process? The questionable edits do get detected and removed; however, the questionable edits eventually returns, sometimes from a different IP address.

Should the *.com-news.us and *.edu-univ.us domains be blacklisted since all servers at these domains point to the same server [107.170.33.240] and nothing notable appears to be located on this server?

*.edu-news.us points to a different questionable server.

• com-news.us: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• edu-univ.us: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• edu-news.us: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Who do you think is the best set of Administrators that could use this piece of information to help Wikipedia get rid of these questionable linking practices? I am just a lowly (and occasional) IP editor who is not familiar with what things that a WP Admin is able to do. Thanks. 107.19.72.102 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. That led down some very interesting rabbit holes. None of the spamming appears to be very recent (the most recent I found was from the end of December), and we're only dealing with about half a dozen edits. I've put two of the articles on pending changes (meaning edits from unregistered editors or brand new accounts will need to be checked before they go 'live' for readers). If the links go to the same place as the original, I suspect it's some sort of traffic measuring, which probably means some shady PR firm is behind it. If it becomes a more serious problem, we can look at blacklisting the domains or setting up a filter, but I'm not sure there's enough yet to justify either. Please do let e know if you see any more of this—the quicker the better—and I'll do what I can to stamp on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for feedback. I agree with you that it is still too early to do anything preemptively yet, but I thought it is best to bring this strange activity to someone with a little more power since this is only what I have detected and this type of activity is extremely easy to go unnoticed (unlike the infamous and infantile "Cheeseburger Guy" you had to block last month). There are probably other hijacked links, but there is no way for us to detect them except by accident.

Just to let you know, when I first investigate (a month ago) the link to www.bloomberg.com-news.us, I was initially sent to some overseas pirate software site, but it has not happened since. So guess is that the editor is experimenting with some server set-up, but it is too early to tell what is this person's motivation, but it is not just simple infantile vandalism or even self-promotion.

• 67.61.86.38, 64.187.108.176, and 76.186.178.160 were associated with the *.com-news.us diversions.

• Only 69.172.211.99 was associated with the *.edu-univ.us diversions.

Just discovered that the *.edu-news.us diversions is probably just unrelated ordinary vandalism that was probably performed by a single person during a single 22 hour period via 95.37.95.219. (You might want to consider correcting your edit [2] to better reflect the original edit before the vandalism [3].) I just stumble upon this by pure chance.

I hope that this information might be useful to you and other in the event similar cases are later discovered. 107.19.72.102 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocks n things

Hey HJ! Thanks for speaking up at my talk page. I'm generally trying to keep it relatively open for discussion, even among IPs/new accounts/etc.—I'd rather end up accidentally humoring a sock for a bit than blocking/reverting someone trying to discuss things legitimately. That said, the extra hand is much appreciated when it comes to obvious socks and all that. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Molly. That's your prerogative. I don't make a habit of policing other people's talk pages, but there's far too much mud-slinging going on wrt GamerGate and it's taking (or perhaps it has already taken?) its toll on people who may or may not have something to answer for but who don't deserve the flak they're taking, including you. See the section above, for example. And not to put too fine a point on it, but that pisses me right off. Oh, and wrt this edit summary, no I'm not certain in the sense that I could pin it to a specific editor. Feel free to reinstate the comment and unblock the IP if you want. I'll eat my hat if it's not a sock, but as you say sometimes there's no harm in humouring them. (Oh, and I meant to link to WP:SCRUTINY but ... too many shortcuts!). All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I do appreciate your help with the mudslinging, both for me and others. I shouldn't get involved with the block decision on that IP, considering it was posting about me, but will un-un-unrevert the comments for transparency's sake. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments

Who do you think is going to replace the "entrenched editors" when it is clearly demonstrated that anyone who dares to challenge the Gamergate POV will be attacked, doxxed, harassed and smeared by an off-wiki mob, and will then get a topic ban for their troubles after said anonymous mob crowdsources "evidence" against them? Who is going to step forward in this climate when even arbitrators are not safe? Anyway, quite frankly, if I'm topic-banned here I have no further interest in contributing to this project as it will be clearly demonstrated how valued editors who risk their personal safety and sanity to protect living people from organized character-assassination campaigns are: Not at all. Good luck with this mess, and I bet you'll be singing a different tune when 8chan goes after you. It'll happen, just you wait. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've taken on worse than these loonies and lived to tell the tale (observe the number of revisions to this page that have been deleted or oversighted, for example). I know it's unpleasant, but loonies are sort of my stock in trade as an admin—that's how I came to this mess in the first place—and I guess I've built up a thick skin over the years, and I have good mechanisms for blowing off steam when I feel my sanity is in danger.

I actually think you're one of the least worst offenders in all of this. You handled things less than ideally, but you didn't get into silly feuds or create massive timesinks on noticeboards, and you've certainly done a lot of good work in upholding BLP. It would be nice if there were such a thing as a "non-punitive topic ban", because I think you've had whatever dragging over the coals you deserved already; the issue is that for as long as you and Ryulong and Tutelary and TDA and a few others are active in the topic area, the focus is going to be on you and your actions and not on where the article goes from here, which is only going to preserve the acrimonious atmosphere. It needs fresh eyes. I don't think we've had any significant interactions before GamerGate, so it seems entirely possible to me that you've just spent too much time gazing into the abyss rather than that you are a 'bad editor'. I think it would be in everybody's best interests if you went back to writing about Alaskan wildernesses and agreed to voluntarily separate yourself from GamerGate.

Other people will step in to see that the topic area doesn't become a trollfest—I know it doesn't seem like it, but look at, say, Scientology or Israel-Palestine; once ArbCom has cleared the decks, other editors have stepped up. We'll also have discretionary sanctions, rigorous methods for dealing with SPAs, and better enforcement mechanisms (AE is much better watched and he procedures clearer and longer-established than GS/GG/E). While I wouldn't bet anything I'd care to lose that there won't be further disruption after the case, I do envisage it being dealt with more swiftly and more robustly—as I'm sure you've seen, I've been stamping on disruptive editors (on both sides) since I first got involved in this mess, and we're likely to get more admins being equally robust once the case closes (not least because the dozen or so admin parties will have the cloud of vexatious accusations lifted). Look after yourself—and I mean that sincerely, I know what you've been subjected to, and just because I'm hardened to it doesn't mean I'm blind to the toll it takes on people's wellbeing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You're too late to make that statement, Harry. The attacks on GorillaWarfare are Exhibit A of what will only be even more to come, against you and everyone else remotely involved. This is not some ordinary difficult topic area, Harry — this is a topic area saturated by vicious, dedicated trolls looking for any sign that their harassment campaign works, and the minute ArbCom tells them it worked, they will go right back at it with the next five editors. I have no interest in going "back to writing about Alaskan wildernesses" for a project that punishes dedicated, long-term encyclopedia editors for standing up against character-assassination campaigns. I'm not asking for a gold watch and a pension or even a simple "thank you" for holding off a horrendous smear campaign — I'm just asking for my scalp not to be handed over to 8chan and KiA. But you apparently think that's the right thing to do, so whatever. As I said, good luck and keep law enforcement contact info handy for when they come after you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The off-site coordination is a significant complicating factor, yes, but there are plenty of trolls in the geo-political battlegrounds who are just as nasty (and one or two who are probably even nastier) and even more determined—some of them have been at this for nearly a decade and show no signs of stopping. I don't want to see you punished. I do think it would be best for you and best for Wikipedia if you voluntarily walked away from the topic area at least for a while until your rediscover what it was you liked about this place. Can you imagine, for example, how big a target would be painted on your back if you were the lone survivor of the entrenched editors there? All the discussion—on Wikipedia and off—would be about you and none of it would be about the content of the article. I know I wasn't about when all this blew up and you got the thin end of the wedge. I'm sorry about that. Had I known what was going on, I'd have stamped on the abuse as hard as I could (as I've been doing since I entered the fray). I know it's very hard to see any of this as a 'good thing', but walking away from GamerGate voluntarily wouldn't be a scalp to your harassers (nor would a topic ban in my opinion, when you're about the only major party for whom there isn't a siteban proposed), and other editors will step up to stem the tide of effluent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

WilliamTillman35

Hey H, WilliamTillman35 seems like a duck of WTillman29? I've done zero due diligence, but on the name, it probably warrants an eyeball. Love, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As I look through the edit history, I notice this edit where the user attempts to suppose what's going to air in September 2015, which was the impetus for my AIV report that you responded to. Same goes for this prediction, which occurs after my reversion of the WTillman29 troll. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've indef'd the pair of 'em. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A tad bit of aid.

I don't want to come across as "partisan", as the fellow I'm about to ask about accuses me of, however, I noticed whilst browsing the newly created log for all discretionary sanctions that you "warned" JzG recently not to "bring up his administrator status during a content dispute". For the past few days, since he restored content unilaterally that was deleted by AfD (an action I took issue with), he has been hounding me with threats of "blocks". He opened a frivolous AN thread, which you may have caught. Finally, he's just done what you formally told him not to do. I'm getting tired of it. Yes, I will admit that I told him yesterday that I thought he should lose his tools for his flouting of policies. You know that I'm not a coolheaded person, but I genuinely believe what I wrote. However, I don't want to go into the details of this absurd dispute if I don't have to. I'm sure you are aware, even if only vaguely, of what has been going on with the "Cultural Marxism" article. Regardless of the business with that article, I'm just astonished that this fellow was able to unilaterally restore the article sans a deletion review, and that no one cares, despite the deletion policy. I'm also astonished that he is now allowed to actively engage in the content dispute, and claim that his opinion is worth more than other editors, as he did when he undeleted the article, saying that it was "notable" despite the deletion discussion result. Now he is trying to use his imaginary "rank" to badger me and "remove" an obstacle. I'm not surprised. RGloucester — ☎ 08:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi RG, just noting that I've seen this but I seem to have an awful lot of rabbits running in different directions at the moment. I'll look into it tomorrow (well, later today; ugh, bedtime!) hopefully. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm grateful for your reply. RGloucester — ☎ 03:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP violator is back

Hello! I'd like to notify you that User:László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (also editing logged out under the IP 213.114.147.52), whose 2-weeks block instated by you for ongoing BLP violations/unverified edits/ethnic warring expired yesterday, resumed adding unsourced information to BLPs: [4][5] 109.160.25.35 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've indef'd him and temporarily blocked his IP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey! I gave myself time like you said, about 3 months to be more precise, and dropped in a request for Rollback again after getting my feet wet with pending changes reviewer. Think you can take a look here? RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 12:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've responded, but I don't think it was the response you were looking for. Sorry, I could have overlooked that edit-warring report had it been less recent, but not when it came within hours of your rollback request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP who reported Aethiopia was a sock of Til Eulenspiegel

71.246.148.163 (talk · contribs) is Til Eulenspiegel, who has been socking since he was blocked. I'd given up on the range contribution tools until today, when I checked his range again and found him. The range has been blocked. You might want to seee [6]. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. I suspected there was something fishy going on, but I was just clearing an RfPP backlog and didn't have time to look into it much further. I've unprotected the article. The range contribs tool can be temperamental; sometimes asking for only a small number of results (like 10 or 20 isntead of the maximum 30) gets a better response and if I need more, manually changing the URL usually works. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Good tips, thanks. The contributions tool has just been discussed at[7]. I'm sure he'll be back on another of the ranges he uses. This is typical Til. I like seeing it on his talk page, shows what sort of editor he is. Do you remember his all caps rant about DBachmann and me that would have had him blocked had he not 'retired'? Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I can never understand this sort of person. I fully understand why you would want to retire with that sort of message... but after all of that show, why come back at all? All it is, is a waste of your time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Til is very devoted to the religious principles of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and, unfortunately, some of them are, well, kind of unusual, like believing that the bastard son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba was given the Ark of the Covenant when he left Jerusalem, and brought it to Ethiopia, where his descendants (more or less) are counted by at least themselves as a bit of a privileged people, a lot like the people of Israel saw themselves. The racial divisions between some of the ethnic groups in Ethiopia today are pretty extreme and intense, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the background, John. Luke (et al), I always find it slightly amusing and slightly sad that most editors manage to get along with each other just fine, or at least manage to avoid people they dislike as afar as possible, but that when somebody ends up blocked because they can't play nicely with others, it's never becuause of a problem with their conduct—there's always a conspiracy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• John, Luke, all we need is a Matthew and a Mark. Unless Harry and Ben want to write new gospels? :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the deal

Before I continue, can I be frank, or should I beat around the bush? --DSA510 Pls No AndN 06:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not pass "Go". Do not collect $200.00.

Make improvement of the entire encyclopedia your first priority at all times, and be sincere and devoted to that goal. Check your own assumptions several times first. Then, be frank, but not a jerk. You will get a good response. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: What Cullen said! Remarkably well-put, actually. There's no need to beat around the bush on this page—brevity is the soul of wit and all that—just think about the sort of response you're looking for before you hit save. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I don't remember making this. Eh, while I'm here, read the thing on my talkpage. --DSA510 Pls No AndN 17:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I wager that I was going to say something along the lines of: "you're all really stupid for not just deleting the article until 2016". I think. I still stand by that statement. But nobody ever listens to the madman. --DSA510 Pls No AndN 21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Were it solely up to me, it would be deleted and salted until 2020. Or maybe 2050! But nobody listens to me, either! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock assist

Hey H, could you please take a gander at this sock report? Somehow this guy is still editing freely. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ seems busy but I'm an SPI Clerk in addition to being a (talk page stalker) so I took case of that case for you. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why semi-protection move protection?

of Arbcom Motions page [8]? NE Ent 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC) corrected NE Ent 01:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) NE Ent: It was already SPP'ed since 2012. All HJ did was upgrade semi-move-protection to full-move-protection. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  As I said in the log, there's no need for it to go anywhere (and all arbs and almost all clerks—the only people who might ever have a legitimate reason to move it—are admins), and because it seems to standard for arbitration request pages (cf. ARCA and A/R/C), but most of all because Seddon's misplaced apostrophe was hurting my eyes! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Not all clerks are admins, and per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Procedures_and_roles it's the clerk's responsibilities to manage the page(s). But I won't argue with a IAR fix of an apostrophe so I'll state I consider the matter resolved. NE Ent 02:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)