User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

Need to be blocked

I need to be blocked, again. I'm about to engage in edit-warring, because an editor insists on destroying prose that I spent hours cleaning up. Therefore, I prefer an instantaneous block, rather than a 3RR report. That's too much burden on him. My next revert will break 3RR, so please be prepared. RGloucester — ☎ 01:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor he is talking about that was about to report him for a 3RR violation is me. And he just committed his fourth revert. I am also obliged to note he has threatened to continue reverting after he is unblocked. EkoGraf (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to be blocked. You need to just stop editing the airport battle article for a few days. I am sure User:EkoGraf would be amenable to a hold for a few days. The article belongs to us all. Nothing terrible will happen. I am sure you have many other areas of interest that you can edit which will cause you less stress. Please take these comments of mine in the spirit in which they are intended, an attempt to reach out to a colleague who is perhaps under some stress at the moment. I have suffered from this curse too. With kind regards Irondome (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Irondome I tried talking to him and find compromise wording, but when he says that whatever I do he will revert me even if he is blocked and when he is unblocked he will continue reverting until he is blocked again just so he could get it his way I don't see a lot of space for a compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since Salvidrim! has protected the article, I don't think a block would be in anyone's best interests. Perhaps both parties should sleep on it and then head to the talk page? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be willing to act as a bridge if both parties would be amenable to that, even though I have some real-life worries myself at the moment. I have been following the debate, and I have no POV whatsoever on the subject. I am also relatively competent. If not, that is fine. Regards to all. Irondome (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Irondome I would appreciate it really and be thankful if you could find a way to resolve the issue. My only request is that the bolded title of the article and the battle be shown in the first sentence of the article as we do with all of our battle articles. Nothing else. User:HJ Mitchell usually I would agree with you that sleep may make things easier, but I already had experience with RGloucester in the past and he was never in a compromising mood, and wouldn't hesitate to revert as much as he want without fear of getting blocked and even asked for it. Guess that's why he has already been blocked 3 or 4 times in the last few months. EkoGraf (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, my first block, the only one until last week, was caused by your same tendency toward meat grinder-cadenced English. The second one was farcical, and the third was self-requested. However, if you want to block me "three or four" times for fun, feel free, Eko. There is nothing to compromise on. WP:BOLDTITLE is clear, and it isn't in the interest of anyone to use meat grinder-cadenced English. If you have a better idea, feel free to pose it on the talk page (as I asked you to do before we even started this charade). RGloucester — ☎ 02:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I suggest we meet at the relevant talk page at 9pm GMT today for preliminary discussions and to find a way through. If RG does not wish to participate, then obviously I can do no more. If User:RGloucester is amenable, then maybe we can achieve our common goal, to improve the encylopedia. Regards to all Irondome (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:IrondomeUser:HJ Mitchell His statement There is nothing to compromise on says it all. User:RGloucester you again look at one rule of WP:BOLDTITLE while ignoring the first two and pretending they don't exist. Also, Wikipedia is not your private encyclopedia that you revert anybody who disagrees with you. And your calls for talks I have learned are empty. You call for talk but when a person tries to compromise you simply say My way or I revert. PS Forgot to mention his removal of sources. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "remove any sources". I remove a citation per WP:LEADCITE. The first two bits of WP:BOLDTITLE don't apply, which I've explained. I do not say "my way or revert". You simply haven't proposed a better way, nor have you discussed it on the talk page. We wouldn't be here at all if you'd followed usual WP:BRD procedure, and simply taken it to the talk page, as I asked you do to repeatedly. RGloucester — ☎ 03:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So will all meet at 9 tonight to resolve this on the talk page? If I get a clear refusal, of course I shall desist. That is all I can say. Regards to all Irondome (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester You removed a source that was agreed to in a previous discussion between three editors which is in violation of that established agreement. You simply haven't proposed a better way, nor have you discussed it on the talk page. Untrue, I have been discussing it with you all night and even re-arranged the text of the paragraph to try and compromise but you didn't like it again. And since we are on the subject, I didn't notice you proposing a better way except for always calling me a destroyer of prose and reverting each time. Since we are at it. Here's your chance. Make a proposition for a better way. I'm waiting. EkoGraf (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Irondome I appreciate your offer and like I said I would want to take it, but RG obviously said there is no compromise. PS 9pm doesn't work for me because I'm going to bed soon, its already 4 am where I am now, and am not feeling to well ether, got a cold for the last week. EkoGraf (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of any "established agreement", but I do know that "three editors" does not make consensus. You discussed it on my talk page, not on the article's talk page, excluding other editors. I don't see a better way. All I see is that we must follow the MoS, and that the MoS makes clear that this is the best way to write it. You've not provided any substantial sources to justify your claim that "Second Battle of Donetsk Airport" is either formal or widely-used. Regardless, content discussions should be done on the talk page (like I asked you to), so that editors can discuss with other editors. RGloucester — ☎ 03:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester It does make a consensus on a compromise when it was a dispute and discussion between the three of us and we reached a 3 out of 3 agreement. Even if you were included 3 vs 1 is again per WP policy enough for a consensus and we don't need your sole approval. Your main issue here seems to be that you don't like the title of the article and I already told you that you can request a name change per proper procedure, which you ignored. And once again, you ignored my request for what you termed a better way and disregarded the first two rules of BOLDTITLE. I ask again, what is your better way? EkoGraf (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The title is fine, but it is WP:NDESC, not a proper name. The first two "rules" don't apply. It isn't a formal or widely-used name. You've not demonstrated that it is, because you can't. RGloucester — ☎ 03:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester Even if it was not a formal or widely-used name, which I don't agree since we got a source (demonstration) that you removed, that does not negate the second rule. The second rule says that if it is not a formal or widely-used name to include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English. So in what way does rule number 2 not apply? EkoGraf (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't easily accommodated in the sentence without redundancy, and causing a crappy sounding sentence, which is also part of the guideline that you should read (note the "Mississippi River floods" example). One source does not demonstrate "wide-usage" or "formality", and that one source called it the "so-called second battle of Donetsk airport". I don't know if your English is good enough to tell you what "so-called" means, but it means that author thinks it shouldn't actually be called that. RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester Because it isn't easily accommodated in the sentence without redundancy And what is the redundancy in this case? PS I don't know if your English is good enough to tell you what "so-called" means I know what it means and there is no need to be condescending. EkoGraf (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Writing "The Second Battle of Donetsk Airport was a battle over Donetsk International Airport in Ukraine during the war in Donbass that broke out in September 2014" is dumb. When the title is a description, merely write it in prose, rather than trying to repeat oneself and work one's way around the description. That's what BOLDTITLE says. There was nothing "condescending" about it. If you know what it means, you'll know why it is not a good source for claiming that "Second Battle of Donetsk Airport" is "formal" and "widely-used", especially when it is the only source you have. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester That's not the sentence I put. And when you write it like that it really is dumb. What I wrote (in combination with some of your language as well) is "The Second Battle of Donetsk Airport started on 28 September 2014, as part of the ongoing war in the Donbass region of Ukraine between separatist insurgents affiliated with the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and the forces of the Ukrainian government. This battle followed an earlier one over control of the Donetsk International Airport in May 2014, which left it in Ukrainian hands." If we would only change the second sentence to maybe "This battle followed an earlier one in May 2014, which left the complex in Ukrainian hands." I am than not seeing any redundancy. Are you? EkoGraf (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing meat grinder-cadenced English that doesn't link to the airport. How about this?

Fighting between separatist insurgents affiliated with the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Ukrainian government forces broke out at Donetsk International Airport on 28 September 2014, sparking the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport, a part of the ongoing war in the Donbass region of Ukraine. This followed an earlier battle over control of the airport in May 2014, which left it in Ukrainian hands.

I believe this is a generous compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Its perfect. EkoGraf (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am comfortable with 9pm Friday evening. Talk page. An uninvolved editor volunteering to find common ground may help. I suspect all editors involved are deep in their trenches (I do nor include User:EkoGraf or User:RGloucester in that) An editor who has no opinion on the subject may help. I would like to hear from User:RGloucester on this. I believe the issue is quite straightforward and can be resolved. If I am rebuffed by RG, then very well. Even a piss off Irondome will do at the moment. Regards to all Irondome (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Irondome That would be good, I appreciate it, we will see how the situation develops until than. EkoGraf (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That was one of the other things that annoyed me. You changed one of my "then"s to "than". "Then" is for time. "Than" is for comparisons. RGloucester — ☎ 03:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And I really don't care. Not obliged to speak perfect english when talking to you. EkoGraf (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. However, you are obliged to write proper English when you produce articles, which was what I was referring to. RGloucester — ☎ 04:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think this hinges upon the short lived cease fire which came into effect earlier last year. This would appear to be the differentiation of the "first" and "second" battle. If we can find RS which support that there was in fact a cessation of hostilities for an appreciable length of time then we may be getting somewhere. Just initial thoughts. The ceasefire does not appear to be mentioned in the article. This may be grounds for further investigation and may change the direction of the argument. This whole dispute may be resolved if we investigate this line further. Initial impressions. Do we have consensus that the ceasefire was the hinge that dictated the line that there were in fact 2 battles? My last word for tonight. A charred dinner awaits me and a few hours sleep. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The dispute wasn't about anything substantial other than prose. The first battle was in May, long before the Minsk Protocol. Whatever. I'm getting back to working on drawing up a map for this idiotic battle. If someone feels like writing an article on cyborgs, please do. I'd love to help. RGloucester — ☎ 04:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A big Resolved tick is in order then. The cyborg article sounds interesting. Commented and left an additional BBC link on your talk earlier today. Would like to help. Regards Irondome (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd direct you to Draft:Cyborg (War in Donbass). I haven't started yet, but I plan on getting something going. RGloucester — ☎ 04:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Good night, or rather morning. I hope I helped in a modest fashion to clear this misunderstanding. Whatever. Anyway...Cheers all Irondome (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Nostradamus troll is back!

Dear HJ

I'm afraid your help is once again needed to deal with the Nostradamus troll Denis Markuse (72.10.154.213), who has returned to posting anonymous personal abuse on the Nostradamus talk page. Could you please block him for a good long while, since he is clearly immune to reason or good Wikipedia manners? Thanks. --PL (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

• From the editor: Introducing your new editors-in-chief

• Anniversary: A decade of the Signpost

• Interview: WWII veteran honors shipmates through Wikipedia editing

• News and notes: Annual report released; Wikimania; steward elections

• Op-ed: Let's make WikiProjects better

• In the media: Johann Hari; bandishes and delicate flowers

• Featured content: Yachts, marmots, boat races, and a rocket engineer who attempted to birth a goddess

• Arbitration report: As one door closes, a (Gamer)Gate opens

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Hi HJ. Need some help with a page move. Can Supergirl (2015 TV series) please be moved to Supergirl (TV series)? It will be the primary topic for the subject. I have moved the former page at that location to a more specific disambiguation that would suit it better. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. Got it taken care of. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That matter I asked you about

As my question was automatically archived without a full response, I wonder if you've looked into that matter. It would be most appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it might have been redundant to the more recent thread, and of necessity I have this page archived rapidly (36 hours I think the timer's set to at the minute). I'll look into it over the weekend, I promise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

I created this article and was tagged for speedy deletion because there was another article of the same name which was deleted because of lacking sources or other issues before I joined wikipedia but my article has reliable sources. Can you check the matter. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 10:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the original article was deleted as a result of consensus at AfD, so any recreation of it is eligible for speedy under criterion G4. You'll need to talk to Spinningspark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and get their permission or failing that get consensus at WP:DRV to recreate it. Havign a sourced draft in your userspace will help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Owais Khursheed: In my opinion, the page was not eligible for G4 as it was not "substantially identical" to the page deleted at AFD. Of course, AFD may well have deleted it again regardless if it had been allowed to stand. However, the point is now moot as the article has now been restored as a userspace draft. I suggest that the way forward is to either open a discussion at the main page on merging content, or else put it through the Articles for creation process to get it reviewed as a standalone article. I would not recommend unilaterally restoring it to mainspace without discussion as this will only invite another deletion. SpinningSpark 16:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ie; what RHaworth told me. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein

You know, I don't think blocking Mark for a month was a very good idea, especially on the basis of a comment about the arbitration proceedings on Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo has some authority regarding ArbCom, functionally ceremonial as it may be, and some authority regarding their decisions. Mark was clearly discussing the ArbCom case at Jimbo's page so I don't think his comments there should be considered a violation of his topic ban. I would also point out that it just kind of looks bad under the circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Arbs no longer give too much credence to the notion that Jimmy's the master of his own domain, remember? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Tarc (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That does not really change that commenting about the arbitration case on Jimbo's talk page should fall within the bounds of his topic ban's exemption regarding arbitration proceedings.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so either, but I for one welcome our new insect overlords. Tarc (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

sorry

Not ignoring you .. I promise to get you answers to your questions in next day or two. Best — Ched :  ?  07:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Perceived personal attack

Hi, I would like to ask for your advice about what I perceive as a continuous personal attack by Gouncbeatduke.

• GregKaye added a {{cn}} tag to a statement about Israel's declaration of independence in the lead of Israel (that the borders of Israel were not specified) and wikilinked to the UN partition plan that did specify the borders. I provided the missing source that proved that the declaration intentionally did not mention the borders suggested by the partition plan and removed the wikilink that became misleading with this source.
• Gouncbeatduke replaced the statement with another that is not supported by the source and is relevant to the UN partition plan, not to the declaration of independence. Edit summary was "(replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited)" which I see as accusing me of POV pushing without any attempt to explain why this content is better than mine (1). I reverted this edit with "Factually incorrect - UN revision plan suggested borders for "a" state, not "the" state that was declared", GregKaye un-reverted the edit without any comment. According to WP:BRD I would expect them to initiate the discussion on the talk page if their edit does not go smoothly, rather than force their favorite versions.
• Gouncbeatduke created a talk page section named "Edit warring by WarKosign", incorrectly stating that I've twice reverted the article (not reverts, constructive edits), removed all references to the UN partition plan (it remained referenced two sentences above) and "pushing" a certain version (this is actually the stable version that existed before their edits) (2). I responded explaining my edits, Gouncbeatduke dismissed my explanation with "I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits." (3) and wrote that my version was less NPOV (without giving any reason).
• I renamed the talk page section to more appropriate "Relevance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to borders of Israel" and continued discussing the content with GregKaye and other editors. The only contribution from Gouncbeatduke was accusing me "regurgitating the anti-Arab narrative" (4) and saying that "current version of the article is a much more NPOV", again without any usable explanation.
• After some more discussion I made (what I consider) a compromise edit and asked the editors to comment on it. Gouncbeatduke reverted the edit commenting "returning to last good version prior to User:WarKosign multiple edit warring reverts" (5), renamed the talk page section back to "Edit Warring by User:WarKosign" (6) and moved a statement up - together with an unrelated quote, effectively removing half of my compromise edit while removing a relevant source and introducing a source misrepresentation.
• I added a tag for Gouncbeatduke source misrepresentation and wrote on the user's talk page asking politely to at least take back the attack in the talk page section name.

Sorry for the wall of text, I needed to explain how I see the events. How should I handle a user that undoes my every edit, ignores any attempt of discussion while simultaneous accuses me of edit warring ? Thanks, “WarKosign” 07:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The heading business was wrong; currently, there's a more neutral heading by GregKaye, and I'll try to keep an eye on it and intervene if Gouncbeatduke changes it back again. But other than that, I don't see any personal attacks. I'm not going to comment on the disagreement between you, but it seems to me that apart from the header, Gouncbeatduke is criticising your edits, not you personally. I'll leave the hard part — advice about what you should do — to Harry Mitchell. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC).

Who would be an admin?

	The Who would be an admin without some liquid inspiration? medal
	Jeez. Take a few hits of this! Cheers H.J! Irondome (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

One day you and I will sit down and drink some of that stuff and we'll see who's still standing at the end of it! Sometimes I think it's more hassle than it's worth, and wouldn't it be nice if I could spend ore time in mainspace and less in the project space or editing this bloody talk page. But someone's got to do it. I take no pleasure from blocking established editors like Mark, and I'm pissed off that the arbs have chickened out of sitebans, but they are giving topic bans out like candy floss, which should mean I can spend less time dealing with established editors behaving like children and get back to dealing with long-term loonies! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just hang in there mate. Many are watching and quietly sighing I sense. I suspect this madness will blow over soon. Anyway cheers! in all senses. Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein block

Hi HJ, I have a concern about MarkBernstein's block, both the fact of it and its length. I'm not familiar with the details of Gamergate, so I don't know why he was topic-banned. But it seems to me – as a GG outsider, but as someone familiar with some of the reasons for the gender gap on WP – that he raised important issues in his post on Jimbo's talk page.

If it's true, as he argues, that "Wikipedia has been and continues to be used as a weapon against women in computing," it looks bad to block one of the people who are trying to draw attention to it.

Would you consider lifting or shortening the block? A month is a long block for one post that was in the wrong place. Can Mark's topic ban be modified to allow him to post somewhere other than Arb pages, perhaps so long as he doesn't edit GG-related articles or article talk? Pinging Gamaliel who imposed the topic ban. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, please read the GG-related archives regarding Mark before working on this further. Mark's behavior was and continues to be beyond the pale. Start here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to post further information detailing exactly why Bernstein fully deserves the block.[1] He should not be given a soapbox from which to speak about this issue, lest he start making false accusations about people again that inflame the situation and could leave them vulnerable to harassment. Bosstopher (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been talking to both parties privately and separately, but I haven't made any headway yet. Though I believe it was necessary at the time, I have come to believe the topic ban may have outlived its usefulness and may be punitive instead of preventative at this point. I think it would be in the best interests of everyone and the encyclopedia if we could collectively find a way to resolve this issue and perhaps remove the ban and replace it with appropriate restrictions and conditions. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

His behavior has, I assume, inadvertently set the internet on fire. You have got to be kidding. He's completely incapable of dealing with this topic in a responsible way. It's absolutely preventative to keep the nonsense off the project. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

He is allowed to have and voice opinions about Wikipedia. He is not allowed to disparage other editors on Wikipedia. If he ceases to do the latter, there is no policy-based reason to restrict the former. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So what has changed about his behavior that would make us want to reconsider? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont think there's good reason to believe his behaviour will change. His latest articles on the Arbcom decision are accusing Masem of being the head of a GamerGate 8chan conspiracy.[2] Bosstopher (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything in that article saying that; did I miss something? The Land (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"The BOSS" that Bernstein mentions is a thinly veiled reference to Masem, " It helps a lot if the Boss is an administrator."Bosstopher (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Thargo, if Wikipedia is being used as a weapon against women, someone has to draw attention to it. Gamaliel, could the ban be lifted, but with Mark cautioned that he must be careful to discuss the general issues, but without posting anything that could harm an individual. I don't know what Bosstopher is referring to above, but anything that might expose a named individual to harassment would have to be avoided. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as we can tell, Wikipedia is not being used as a weapon against women, and definitely not in the GamerGate space. This is a theory without evidence. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote my reasoning for the harassment thing on Mark's Talk page. 5 Editors of the Gamergate article have been doxxed and threatened so far (that I know of), including one that Mark heavily implied was part of a cabal that was out to physically harm him (the evidence he posted in no way supported this claim). Mark has quotemined misconstrued and overblown facts and comments by other editors, accused them of being rape apologists and supporters of violence against women. His entire approach to the controversy is the sort that miscontrues the actions of editors while putting them in the public eye of angry mobs leaving them vulnerable to harassment attack and doxxing. This is the same path that the eventual doxxing of members of the so called "5 horsemen" followed. He has become a more extreme anti-Gamergate version of Logan_mac (a redditor and KotakuinAction moderator absolutely with no relation to the wikipedia editor of similar name), publicly posting inflammatory quotemined and miscontrued comments about editors and making them vulnerable to harassment. Gamaliel if you wish to revoke the topic ban could you please bring the issue to ANI first? Bosstopher (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mark's numbers are inaccurate, and no sanction was ever proposed against TRPOD in the proposed decision list AFAIK. Ryulong has a long history of being disruptive outside of, and prior to, this topic area, and quite frankly should've been booted long ago. I would strongly object to anyone revoking the sanction against Mark, considering he is as bad as the people he criticizes, and certainly Gamaliel of all people looks like the wrong person to enact any revocation of sanctions, given that 4 to 6 arbitrators have at least some level of concern with regards to their actions. And I'm neither pro- nor anti-GG (although I am definitely anti-misogyny) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that I was the one who banned Mark Bernstein in the first place, I'm the only one who can revoke that sanction, outside of an AN consensus, so it would be impossible for me to leave the task in the hands of another administrator, as much as I dearly wish to leave the drama and sniping that comes with that responsibility behind. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is within your prerogative to lift the topic ban, but that would not affect the block as both the violation of the topic ban and the block preceded the lifting of the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, this is precisely why I contacted you regarding the block in the first place following Mark contacting me about it. Gamaliel (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, to all the third parties here, much as I appreciate your input, please let's restrict the discussion to the block in question and its duration. General discussion of GamerGate/the proposed decision/Mark's blog post/the Grauniad article/etc is not going to be helpful in reaching a conclusion on the matter at hand. For those of you on Facebook, there is currently an interesting thread on my wall about the wider issues. Anyone is welcome to express honestly held opinions there; I'm quite happy to host the discussion for as long as it produces more light than heat.

  As to the block itself, I feel both the fact of it and the duration are fully justified. Mark was topic-banned because his behaviour was disruptive to attempts to restore order to the topic area, and in particular for personal attacks. This suggest to me that he is far too invested in this extremely toxic topic area to be editing it—the only way the signal to noise ratio in this topic area is going to improve is if cool, neutral heads prevail. That's the background. Now consider that since being topic-banned, Mark has carefully avoided explicit mentions of GamerGate, but has otherwise carried on regardless, and almost all of his edits have been in some way connected to the dispute, and that he has already been blocked once (for a week) for violating it. That suggests to me that he has no respect for the topic ban and no intention of abiding by it. I had previously let this matter go on several occasions, especially in light of Mark's repeated statements that he is leaving Wikipedia, in the hope that Mark would move on and begin to respect the topic ban. But I couldn't ignore an outright violation on one of the most-watched pages on the wiki, especially not when it was brought to the enforcement noticeboard. I have already suggested to Gamaliel that I would be willing to consider unblocking after a fortnight (twice the length of the previous block), but even that would seem unduly lenient unless Mark gives some indication that he is willing to respect the topic ban.

  As to the substance of Mark's comments, it's irrelevant to the block because he shouldn't be making the comments on Wikipedia in the first place (I'm no stranger to adminning controversial topic areas, so imagine if this was Israel-Palestine instead of GamerGate, and Mark had gone to JW's talk page to complain that Zionists or Islamic extremists were using the article to attack the opposite group and that ArbCom was banning all the editors from his side just because of their politics—he'd have been blocked in seconds, probably indefinitely, and forgotten about). That said, he's fundamentally misunderstood what is going on (this comment succinctly explains what is going on; the idea that ArbCom would sanction a group of editors for being feminists is absolutely absurd. Several editors, from both sides, are being sanctioned because they have violated BLP, misrepresented sources, pushed their POV, edit-warred, conducted petty feuds, personalised content disputes, or misconducted themselves in other ways—and most have a long history of doing exactly that over many years and a whole host of topic areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I have to admit, as an administrator, I have to agree with HJ's block, both the point of it and the length of it. Mark is topic-banned meaning he is not supposed to discuss GamerGate anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone on Jimbo's page. From looking at his edits, he has been very careful not to mention GamerGate, though to me it was crystal clear that's exactly what he was talking about and, in my opinion, he knew what he was doing was wrong. The very fact that Mark has discussed this on one of the most-watched talk pages on Wikipedia to me indicates that he has little/no regard for the ban and I think HJ is completely justified in not only the block and the length of it but also warning him that if he comes back and repeats this behaviour then the next one will be longer. Hopefully Mark will use the time out to realise the error of his ways will come back with a different attitude to the topic ban.--5 albert square (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the crux of the problem isn't HJ or SV or Gamaliel or anyone's judgement: it's THE FOUNDER ^TM statement Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy#Statement_by_Jimbo_Wales the seems profound but in practice no one actually knows what that means. NE Ent 22:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, unless ArbCom tells me otherwise, policy is policy. Editors, including Godking, can have their own policies for who or what they will and won't have on their talk pages (though personally I can't think of anything sillier than "banning" people from one's talk page), but where that policy conflicts with site-wide policy, the latter prevails. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point of view and my posting is not meant as criticism of it, the problem I also understand the other points of view being expressed here; unfortunately arbcom kind of whiffed on making any sort of definitive statement Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy/Proposed_decision#Jimbo_Wales.27_talk_page. NE Ent 23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I know. I might go and whack them round the head with that when they've got less work on (doing it while one big case is winding down and another getting underway won't get it the attention it needs). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd do it on your schedule, not their (perceived) schedule, cause I suspect if you wait for a "quiet" arbcom time you'll be voting for next year's batch before it happens. NE Ent 00:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That concerned sock-puppets of he who shall not be named posting to our Dear Leader's talk page. In this case there is a very explicit justification. As noted in the section for ArbCom:

The members of the Arbitration Committee are appointed by Wales, following a voting procedure. He retains the authority to overrule or dissolve the Committee; when the Committee was founded in 2004, he said that he expected to exercise this right "basically never". In June 2008, Wales once again asserted his intention to overrule the Committee where he deems it necessary, but added that he did not expect that would ever come about.

I would genuinely hope that this does not become the unexpected case as it would be a true travesty under the circumstances and amount to capitulation to bullying from an ignorant media that didn't even bother to fact-check a blogger, but Mark should at least have the opportunity to plead his case before the throne of the Godking.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Perchance, do you know how to solve this?

Hi @HJ Mitchell, as you can see here, is there any other easier solution to solve this problem? Thanks. --115ash^→(☏) 12:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@115ash: It sounds like you need to change your preferences and untick the box labelled "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston and Mitchell, thanks. However, those things that you explained to me, were already known to me. Anyway, I think Wikipedia has not invented the thing that I wanted. Cheers! --115ash^→(☏) 10:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A question about revdels

Hey, quick question. You revdeled a handful of my talk page edits last night, and I was curious as to why. I'm not speaking for anyone else, and I'm not angry or looking to start a fight or anything, but just a little clarity so, if you can share. I don't do WP email and I don't need a copy of the edits (I had one link that I kept bookmarked), but just looking for a little information. Feel free to tell me to go screw if necessary. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It was collateral damage. I needed to RevDel something from a previous version that had gone unnoticed until the person who posted it was made aware of it, by which time 30-odd edits had been made. That's as much as I can tell you, but there was nothing wrong with your edits, and there was no misconduct or mal-intent involved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the quick reply. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Hoban

Hello, could you please unprotect Patrick Hoban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so I can move Pat Hoban to this.. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

request to reopen article Jeffrey Sterling

request to reopen article Jeffrey Sterling - can you please reinstate this article the guy was convicted yesterday thus BLP would not seem to be in order anymore.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The US Eastern District Court of Virginia convicts a disgruntled former CIA officer, Jeffrey Sterling, of leaking secrets to a reporter. All nine charges he faced stem from a secret CIA mission to derail Iran's nuclear weapons program. (AP)--70.190.111.213 (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That article was a three-sentence stub that contained no sources and it was deleted just over three years ago. There's nothing ot prevent a neutral, sourced version being created in its place (but you'll need an account to create it). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A potential live HarveyCarter sock

Hi, I don't know if you're already aware of this, so apologies if you are. I think I may have found a current live sock of HarveyCarter in operation. JimMacAllistair (talk · contribs) appears to be making similar unsourced changes to articles such as Gary Cooper (like this). I came across this following a posting on Talk:David Cameron which bore similarities to a previous discussion I'd had with an account that turned out to be a Harvey sock. I thought I'd contact you about this as you were involved in the original ban, so I hope it's ok to do that. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that's a name I've not head in a while. But that's certainly his style. I've indef'd the account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, four years...I'm surprised he hasn't given up by now. This is Paul (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I deal regularly with sockmasters who have been at it for more than twice that long! We certainly attract some very persistent people! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

IAR PC2

Hi HJ Mitchell, should anyone come complaining about your IAR temporary PC2 on Gamergate_controversy there is recent precedent to support this as a temporary extraordinary measure. This was also done with the Zoe Quinn article last year, and endorsed at RFPP. Best wishes, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful to know. Like IAR itself, I think PC2 can be valuable, but used rarely and with careful consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

File:The Famous Grouse Finest.jpg	Thanks!
	For your help with that Diana kid, a bottle of WHISKY! :p 5 albert square (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, proper whisky; none of that American whiskey stuff! Even if it is blended, but Grouse is pretty good for a blended. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 27 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 [3] "the smuggest and most patrocinizing most fucking assholish thing you have said", he has repeated this on-site [4]

"Loganmac, the only reason you're taking this calmly is because you are using a throwaway account and have no stake in Wikipedia. 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)

Rev-del block extension and talk page revocation

HI,

Think a refresh of the block and possibly this [5] 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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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

[6] -- 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)