User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 96

Archive 90

←

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

→

Archive 100

Help remove the one reminders/warnings

Hi! HJ Mitchell, I saw some people help maintain the Delta ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Electronics ) page recently and the information looks not bad. Just wondering could you remove the one reminders/warnings dated Jan. 2011 respectively on the top? Or they may confuse people who refer to the page. Thank you. Xilachang (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for you!

	Just for you!
	Your own banhammer! Awarding you with it for all your help with vandalism! 5 albert square (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. Must get me a real one of them! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like a personalised one just in case other admins try to nick mine! :p--5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Signing

You might want to re-sign this: [1]. Stickee (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2015

This Month in GLAM – Volume V, Issue I, January 2015 Headlines Belgium report: SOIMA 2015; Wiki Loves Art; European Commission; FOSDEM Czech Republic report: Czech GLAM discusses why institutions are afraid to release their media France report: Celebrating public domain and more Germany report: GLAM on Tour in Wuppertal Italy report: 1600 usages for BEIC images in 165 wikis Netherlands report: Europeana Sounds edit-a-thon; Symposium & Erasmus Prize; Honorary doctorate for Wikipedia; New years drink Spain report: Europeana Fashion Edit-a-thon; Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 Awards ceremony; Benito Prieto Coussent Sweden report: Europeana; Working Life Museums UK report: Armenian Genocide; Diversity in Film; Residency Hat-Trick USA report: Philadelphia & New York Open Access report: Wikidata for research: proposal submitted; Open Access Media Importer: featured media Catalan areas report: Catalan Network of Public Libraries Calendar: February's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jajadelera

Hello, HJ Mitchell. We have yet another sock: JDNew (talk · contribs).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Add also NewJaja (talk · contribs), Jdseriesnew4 (talk · contribs) and NewJajaDelera (talk · contribs) to the list.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh good, some exercise for the mass block script! All  Blocked and tagged, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions log entry

Regarding your log entry for Retartist's discretionary sanctions: is there a reason you linked to a version previous to the one finalized by your close? —EncyclopediaBob 16:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like to provide the oldid of the last version of the thread before the close, so that anyone evaluating it at a later date can quickly find the thread and easily view the diffs and the discussion between admins. I'll only normally link to the closed version if my closing remarks contain something that might be useful to other admins reviewing the action at a later date, and in this case they just stated the result. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your practice makes sense -- what I attempted to explain (clearly not clearly :) was there was a version in between the one you linked to and your close. —EncyclopediaBob 18:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I know, I want for the last edit to that thread before my close, rather than the last edit to the page (which had multiple threads open). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the version I linked to above contains an addition by User:Ryk72 to that thread specifically which yours does not. —EncyclopediaBob 18:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I've fixed it now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Not high priority but the reference link your log text "(see AE request)" still points to the incomplete version. —EncyclopediaBob 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi HJ! Thanks for that. Even though I'm mostly a lurker & focus my editing on gnoming, I'm a long time admirer of your work. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could look over the comment that I added in that diff. And also if you could add your thoughts to the thread at WT:BLP. I'd appreciate your insight as an experienced Wikipedian & admin. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

To Confirm/Learn

So, BANEX covers even talk pages, despite the user having been topic banned explicitly for battleground behavior and Ownership? I want to make sure, since the general consensus in that Enforcement Request was so, and your hatting it also said so, and I like to know this kind of thing in no uncertain terms. Thank you for your time. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Talk Page Stalker) Not to speak for HJ Mitchell, but a BLP violation is a BLP violation, whether it takes place in the mainspace, on a talk page, or anywhere else in the project. It stands to reason that the exemption for removing BLP violations would also cover all of those same areas. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 04:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I... get that and understand it from a policy standpoint, but doesn't that just open up a way for a topic banned editor to continue to meddle in an area he or she has been deemed to be a problem in? I get now why the Enforcement Request was incorrect, but I do also have to admit some wariness at that specific exemption. Though to HJMitchel since this is on the topic of exemptions, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a topic banned editor making an enforcement request on another editor a violation of said topic ban? That definitely does not fall under removing BLP content, and WOULD count as engaging in the topic banned subject. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and I share them to some extent—for me, topic-banned editors should stay away from the topic altogether—but I can't enforce policy that's not there. The community consensus is that BLP trumps everything, and almost all sins can be forgiven in the name of removing BLP violations. Personally, I think it should be a requirement to seek admin intervention immediately if a removal of an alleged BLP violation becomes controversial, but policy as it is allows people to violate topic bans or edit-war all day long as there's a legitimate BLP concern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd ask if there is anywhere I could propose a change, but after being bit by a long time editor AND an Admin... I am not about to think my proposals would be judged in the slightest on their merit, rather than who is proposing them. Though, since you seem a nice enough fellow, what I would have proposed is to make the BANEX also be a "SOCKEX", specifically, allowing the banned user to request an involved Admin or Long Term User to make the changes, rather than doing it themselves. This would provide a more neutral, and hopefully cooler, head to weight the decision. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you close that when he made non BLP removing edits here, here, and here and also on User talk:Jimbo Wales [2] [3]

I hadn't the last two, but they're three and a half days old; had they been reported at the time, he probably would have been blocked. The first three are legitimate as he's explaining BLP issues; if he was engaging in substantive discussions of content, he would be in violation of his topic ban, but we should encourage people to explain themselves when they remove BLP violations, as opposed to just removing something without comment and likely starting an edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

Wiki "statute of limitations"?

What is the "statute of limitations" ("had they been reported while they were fresh, you almost certainly would have been blocked") on topic ban violations? Where can I find information about this time limit in the Wikipedia policy docs and/or the allowance for it in the ArbCom decision? Also, can I have your assurance that from now on, other editors will not be blocked from this site for WP:NOTHERE if they write something like NBSB did? Thanks 96.245.254.115 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

References

There is no statute of limitations, per se, but we use blocks to prevent disruption rather than as punishment. In this case, the disruption was several days old and there was no evidence of ongoing disruption, so a block would have been purely punitive and would not have the effect of putting an end to disruption because there was no disruption at the time of the enforcement request. As a rule of thumb, if it's more than 24 hours old there would normally have to be a very good reason to consider sanctions (for example, if it's part of a pattern of violations or borderline violations, the wider pattern might be considered). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I guess I just thought that the ArbCom decision and findings of fact about this behavior done NBSB would have constituted that pattern of violation. I hope everyone else applies as much reserve with WP:NOTHERE for everyone equally, as you do. Cheers 96.245.254.115 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how NOTHERE is really applicable; that's about accounts (mostly) that don't do anything useful and are only on Wikipedia to cause disruption or push their agenda. And the findings that led to the topic ban don't show a pattern of violations of the topic ban. If he violates his topic ban again, by all means let me know or report it to AE and will act on it. Just as I would—and just as I do—with any other editor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my comment on Jimbo's talk page

It'd be appreciated if, in future, you would consult me before deleting, or otherwise interfering with, any of my comments on Jimbo's talk page or anywhere else. Regardless of what anyone else may have said, my initial comment drew attention to a significant article unfairly criticizing Wikipedia in a high-profile literary and political journal. Moreover, I stand by the observations I made about it. It's not pleasant waking up to find that they have simply been deleted after I'd given them some thought. I have been an editor and an admin in good standing at Wikipedia for many years, even if not all that active by some standards, and have never had so much as a warning in all that time. I've worked cooperatively and well with people here. I think I deserve some courtesy - but then again, I'd deserve it even if I were a newbie. If you want to watch the responses carefully and redact them as needed, you are welcome to. I might even have been open to moving my comment to a less prominent place on the page. I'm a reasonable person, and I do realize a lot has been said about Gamergate. But simply deleting the entire discussion, including my initial comment, without any attempt to talk to me about it first, was not the sort of act I'd have expected from a colleague here. Metamagician3000 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that by the time one starts removing the personal attacks and the other off-topic rubbish from a thread like that, and then removes all the replies to them (so as to not to leave a comment looking like it was made in a different context), there's not much left. Which would inevitably beg the question of why I didn't remove your comment. So I removed the whole thing wholesale to prevent it deteriorating further. I'm sorry that your comment was collateral damage, but consulting with everyone whose comments are removed in a messy thread like that is just not practical. I won't object if you want to re-post your comment in a day or two once tempers have cooled. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. The horse has kind of bolted, since I'd already restored my comment, but the current discussion seems reasonably civil. By all means watch how it goes, but could you please hesitate before simply deleting the whole thing again? I don't want to get into a war with another administrator, and I'd probably not take this further if it all went badly off the rails and you did delete stuff again, but there is now some reasonable discussion about reliable sources that deserves to be allowed to happen even if some of our more, um, volatile editors do end up taking the discussion in a bad direction. Best wishes. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the discussion is productive I see no need to intervene (I rarely comment there myself, but for some reason I get a flurry of emails when people take feuds there from gamergate—so only a few times a day!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

• From the editors: We want to know what you think!

• News and notes: One editor faces likely ban for work on Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales awarded $1 million

• In the media: Is Wikipedia eating itself?

• Featured content: A grizzly bear, Operation Mascot, Freedom Planet & Liberty Island, cosmic dust clouds, a cricket five-wicket list, more fine art, & a terrible, terrible opera...

• Traffic report: Bowled over

• WikiProject report: Brand new WikiProjects profiled

• Gallery: Feel the love

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bikeshedding?

Harrumph! -- Euryalus (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted, but I'm not sure how else to describe holding up a siteban to discuss the exact parameters of a concurrent topic ban. Well, not in terms I'd use in polite company, anyway! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

At the present moment there is a suit before the court which was commenced nearly twenty years ago, in which from thirty to forty counsel have been known to appear at one time, in which costs have been incurred to the amount of seventy thousand pounds, which is a friendly suit, and which is (I am assured) no nearer to its termination now than when it was begun.

—Charles Dickens, preface to Bleak House, 1853.

-- Euryalus (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It does all feel a bit Dickensian sometimes, doesn't it! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

One day you will look back and realise that it was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness ... Although perhaps you'd want to omit the first and third. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"We hoped for the best, but it turned out like always." -- Euryalus (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Weird redirect

Is this a CSD R2 candidate? I know what is intended, eg: WP:RSN to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but it is not an acronym and it seem odd to have a mainspace redirect to user space. Maybe it is common but just not something I've noticed before. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, while I would concur that this redirect is unusual, as I read the policy, CSD R2 only takes effect for Redirects... from the main namespace..., which this would not seem to be. It is a redirect from Wikipedia: to User: namespace, which IMHO is not covered by this aspect of WP:CSD. Hope this helps, even if it is not the answer that you might be looking for. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, it was the "mainspace" bit that flummoxed me. I was seeking no particular response and it has since struck me that we probably have a lot of essays in userspace that are linked with redirects, although I'm pretty sure those would be acronyms. Is WP:KK a better version (not WP:KKK - yikes!). I'm also now curious about how such redirect pages might be picked up if the userspace page is deleted. I know for sure that even in mainspace it is often the case that redlinks and redirects get left behind when admins delete a page, which is why I tend to follow through any deletion I was watching with a search of the "what links here". - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The most apropos I could find on "mainspace" was (serendipitously) WP:MAINSPACE, which suggests that it's "actual Wikipedia Articles". I must admit to not quite being sure about the reference to abbreviations; the redirect linked is from "WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH", not "WP:KK". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well but most redirects of this type are acronyms. No worries - I've got a whole load of more important stuff to deal with :) - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's odd, in that it's not actually any easier to type than the destination page, but it doesn't do any harm. As for redlinks, there's a database report for broken redirects that's populated by a bot every few days, and they're eligible for deletion under CSD G8. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Block modification

Hello, Harry. I just wanted to let you know that, due to this SPI, I unblocked the "master" IP address and replaced it with a block of the user's entire allotted /64 range. They were active on a lot more addresses than what single blocks would be able to keep up with. Feel free to extend the rangeblock if the disruption resumes. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The original block was probably from an AIV report so I wouldn't have looked much deeper than the one IP's contributions unless the report indicated that there were deeper problems. Glad it's dealt with, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Emma Sulkowicz

Hi Harry, would you be willing to close two discussions related to Emma Sulkowicz? I'm thinking it would be good for continuity if you were to do it, but if you're too busy, don't worry. In case you're willing, the discussions are:

1. Requested move 6 February 2015, due to close on the 13th.

   This began as a proposed move to Alleged rape of Emma Sulkowicz, but it now incorporates an earlier suggestion to move it to Mattress Performance: Carry that Weight or Mattress Performance (Carry that Weight), whichever is the correct punctuation. (One of the RM participants created an article at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) during the RM, which I've redirected.)

2. WP:BLPN#Should Wikipedia publish the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her?. Not a formal RfC, so it can be closed whenever you think appropriate.

All the best, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I'll happily close the RM; I'll look at it tomorrow. Since I've acted as an admin in relation to the issue discussed at BLPN, I think it would be better to get somebody who comes to it cold; I haven't read the thread so I don't know what the outcome would be, but if I closed it as "no" I'd be opening myself up to accusations of bias. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry, that's fine. In case there's consensus to move Emma Sulkowicz to a title about the performance art, I've been looking into the correct punctuation, and the one Sulkowicz herself uses is Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (see this photo). Another editor created that article after commenting in the RM, which has caused some confusion. I redirected it today back to Emma Sulkowicz, but was reverted. Just FYI in case you wonder why there are two articles. Best, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closing it. We will need an admin to move the article to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) because the latter will have to be deleted, given that it's been edited. Are you willing to do it? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Harry. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That was messy. The question is what we do with Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Old, which is where I've dumped the history of the premature article. I could history merge it, but that would make one hell of a mess of the history where there's an overlap. Or I could leave it where it is. Unless you can think of a third option, Sarah? Neither is perfect, but we were going to end up with a situation like this as soon as the article was created before the RM concluded. I don't doubt it was done in good faith, it's just annoying! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Old was a copy-paste without attribution of material that was in the main article (apart from a few words in the lead), so it was strictly speaking a copyright violation. If I were adminning this, I would either merge the histories, or delete Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Old, because it consists of a small number of edits possibly made to pre-empt the RM (the creator of the second article argued in the RM at 16:50 that there should be two, then at 17:00 created the second). Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello HJ Mitchell, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing,  - T H (here I am) 12:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Bad article move

Someone has just copy/pasted the contents of Bhagavankoil to a new article titled Bhagavankovil, then redirected the first to the new article. I feel that what they should have done, if the spelling is correct per COMMONNAME, is do a simple article move and thus retain the history in a linked manner. Please could you take a look if/when you have a moment. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(lurker) - have fixed up the move. But the page text suggests the accurate presentation would be "Bhagavan Kovil" as two words. Should this article actually be at that location? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. As I noted above, I've no idea what the correct spelling should be, sorry. This is a well-intentioned but somewhat insistent newbie who is making a lot of mistakes and right now I'm not feeling too well, so someone else will have to try to be a bit more welcoming than perhaps I have been. Off to bed, as I should have done about two hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, will have a look tomorrow and see if I can find any useful sources for either spelling. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If it helps at all, Bhagavan is a fairly common word from Sanskrit, usually translated as the English "Lord". W.r.t the concatenation, in my experience, for scripts other than Latin, spaces seem to be much less important than they are in English (and other European languages). However, as the article appears to be about a village in southern India, official sources in English might be available (but perhaps not online). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Baranof

Your interpretation of BLP that ostensible BLP defense excuses violation of an Arbcom topic ban by NxSBaranof is, shall we say, unique. That you have at the same time moved to topic ban off one of Baranof's innumerable opponents does not speak well for your judgment. Please consider yourself "involved" with respect to any future motions made against him — his site ban is coming... Carrite (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I earlier noted, anyone who takes action to protect the encyclopedia from BLP violations (as Harry has properly done here) is seen as proof of "involvement" by a certain set of people. That you choose to view Wikipedia as a game to be played between "opponents" rather than a project to write an Internet encyclopedia with sensitivity and human decency is self-explanatory.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Says the man who tried his best to Character Assassinate me. Those in glass houses, Mr. Baranof. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BANEX would be the policy that you're struggling to recollect, Carrite. More time gaining familiarity with Wikipedia policy and less time commiserating over bowls of sour grapes with TDA at Wikipediocracy would do you a world of good. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you did dodge that site ban this time around, Tarc. I forgot about you. Better luck next time. Carrite (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Come on Tim, you know me better than that. In fact, look a few sections up (once you've read Tarc's link). You could drive a coach and horses through BANEX, but that seems to be what the community wants. As a servant of the community, I can't go round enforcing policy that isn't there. And more to the point, there's not enough booze in the house to drown out the inevitable screeching at ANI if I did. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, now, H., let's read it together: BANEX: "Exceptions to limited bans: Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following: Reverting obvious vandalism (such as replacing a page with obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree...." — This action by NxSB in a banned topic area is not "obvious," it is contentious. It is a clear and obvious violation of an Arbcom-generated topic ban. Continue to act as an enabler at the risk of your tools. Seriously... Carrite (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The big, bad Carrite is in a threatening mood tonight, HJ...."at the risk of your tools", indeed. Maybe he'll pen a strongly worded blog post next. Tarc (talk)

Oh, I've been threatened with worse things than an enforced holiday from GamerGate! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'd read up on the history, Tim, you'd see that I proposed the bloody topic ban in the first place. And if you'd read the log, you'd find that I'd sanctioned editors on both sides of the dispute. Anyway, it's sufficiently uncontentious that four admins (East718, Gamaliel, Timotheus Canenes, and I) saw fit to sanction Retartist for posting it in the first place, and a fifth (Newyorkbrad) saw no grounds for sanctions against NBSB. Two of those were arbitrators who voted to pass the topic ban. I certainly have no interest in enabling anyone—I've said publicly on more than one occasion that if it were solely up to me I'd delete the article, salt it for a couple of years, and topic-ban anyone who's had made significant edits to it. But alas, I'm bound by policy as it's written, not as I'd like it to be. By the way, you should try impartially adminning in a controversial topic area; I can't imagine it looks like much fun, and I can assure you it's even less fun than that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, HjMitchell, but I must correct you on something. NewYorkBrad didn't say jack about he merits of the case, he voted no SOLEY (At least from what he said) on the fact I was the one to bring it up. Which is amazingly poor form for one in charge, even if the proper vote was no due to my misunderstanding of BANEX. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He has a point, in that editors filing AE reports normally have thousands of edits to their name rather than the 40-odd you had at the time (which is now 50-odd, largely due to your participation in subsequent discussions like this one); in other topic areas, it's suggestive of sock-puppetry, but in the gamergate area we just seem to have an influx of new editors who already know a lot about Wikipedia and are familiar with the workings of the wiki software. I wish they'd do something other than try to get people banned, like write an article or make sensible suggestions on talk pages but hey ho, "anyone can edit" seems to extend to the internal politics as well. Anyway, NYB was an arbitrator for many years and stayed on to hear the gamergate case so he'll be very familiar with the situation and with NBSB (to the extent that he voted on the topic ban); I'm sure he would have advocated for a block had he believed NBSB had violated the topic ban. And now I think we're at an impasse: the likelihood that NBSB is going to be blocked for the edits reported to AE is nil. I'm happy to discuss things in general terms (for which I'd suggest you start a new thread or join the other thread about BANEX below), but I think this particular incident has been discussed to death—even AE requests about tendentious editors in the Israel-Palestine area don't normally generate this much discussion (and you can imagine what that topic area is like, especially when the conflict flares up in the real world). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Question on Buaku

I saw you just indeffed Buaku - I'd like to request the release of the indef on the "Buaku" count and keep the Skimmed Milk one blocked. The editor was blocked for a week for abusing accounts, but in lieu of additional attempts to abuse accounts can we let this user try and contribute positively for awhile? I did ask about this user because I feared Niemti's return, but this user seems to be a novice. I'll help the user out and watch them, but I think the user needs to be clear abusing multiple accounts will result in an indef block. Could you please unblock Buaku for the time being? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted them once and they seemed to take the hint and starting on a more productive path, which left me wondering if I should bother filing an SPI case or not. I'd let them file their own appeal though, they should at least acknowledge they understand the reasoning for the block and will avoid the problematic behaviour. — Strongjam (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they understand - that's the problem. The editor was blocked for a week, but did not seem aware of the reason or why they were blocked, but has not given a reason for making a new name. Though it should be noted that SkimmedMilk was not reused and there was a good gap in time since the user tried to edit last. Wikipedia is byzantine to new users and I do not think this editor understands the policies at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd certainly listen to an appeal, assuming CU doesn't throw up any sleepers, but using multiple accounts to pretend to be different people and then creating another one a day later and doing the same thing doesn't bode well. They'd need to show some understanding that that's not on and stick to one account (I'm not bothered which). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but I do not see the editor being approached and asked about the issue. So that's why I've reached out. While the block evasion is not good, I do not see malice here. The fact the user makes obvious errors shows that they understand very little about policy and procedures, but the editor seems to have good intentions. I hope the person will become a good editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM Clarification Request Party Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I used to believe it....

....[4]...but based on what I've seen and experienced on WP in the past 2 months, I don't believe it anymore. Kudos to you for being an admin who still maintains and enforces ethical standards for BLPs. Atsme☯^Consult 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers HJ. I'd buy you a beer if we met. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless you live in the UK, Chris, and I don't either but chances are that I will see Harry again before you will so I'll do it for you. I've bought him a lot of beers in the past on various continents and I always felt that they were more than well deserved :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection request

Would you please again look at Legend (2015 film) and Testament of Youth (film) to which you recently gave protection - Morgan's fan club have returned. Thank you. Nedrutland (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wifione-paid editing amendment request

I've filed an amendment request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Wifione.

I think everybody has had their say at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed decision, so perhaps this notice is just a formality.

All the best,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Riddle me this, Harry

So, I'm apparently permitted to dispute BLP violations, even if under the tban. Why is it then, that I have this feeling that, the second I try to raise any concerns, I know that someone or the other from a certain group will ride up on their white stallion, and then whine enough for me to get banned because I'm violating some obscure alphabet soup "policy"? Yet, if said white knight were to flail around pages under the tban screeching about their noble quest of... Something, they would get merely a warning? I'm asking this, since I would like to raise a concern about a BLP violation, in the hopes it would be removed, so the hate group known as {redacted due to topic ban}, would have less ammo to harass women and minorities, including myself, that support the {redacted due to topic ban} consumer revolt. I mean, I thought that the rules were applied equally, but, I can't be sure, or can I? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to head off said group. One of the ban exemptions is "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban." So, I am preeeetty sure my revised understanding of Ban Exemptions says that this would be alright. (This is partly a question to Mitchell. Am I right?) AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't address me by my surname, AF; you can call me Harry—everyone else does. DSA, if this is the same issue you asked me about by email, it's not an obvious BLP violation to the extent that "no reasonable person could possibly disagree". Also, BANEX doesn't actually allow you to suggest the removal of the BLP-violating material, only to remove it (and, apparently, to explain the removal on the talk page and report the person who made it...). No, it doesn't make sense to me either (see my comment above about a coach and horses), but I didn't write the policy! My suggestion from my email stands, though: contact one of the regular editors on the article by email and see what they think; there's nothing to stop them from removing it or starting a discussion as long as they're satisfied that it's a legitimate issue that merits removal/discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I was also pretty surprised by the outcome of the discussion regarding NBSB. There are four points that I think need clarifying:

• Your closure comment says, "Removing BLP violations is exempt from the topic ban." That's not true of WP:BANEX; it says that removing obvious BLP violations is exempt.
• I'm not convinced the violation was obvious here. The 'violation' seemed to me to be posting a long list of links to sources to see what was usable - exactly the sort of thing encouraged in WP:BLPTALK. Clearly there needs to be a line somewhere, as a blanket permission to post links to talk pages is unlikely to be constructive, but I'm not sure this crossed it. It seems to me that the line should be between beginning a good-faith discussion of sources and a bad-faith attempt to spread dirt. Was this really the latter? I can understand that the history around the subject may well influence that assessment and that editors might get considerably shorter shrift than they might in other areas, but there seems to be this idea going around that posting any link to any source that repeats certain allegations is automatically an obvious violation of BLP. It isn't.
• The decision at WP:ARBGG doesn't mention 'subject to the usual exceptions' as is common in arb decisions. Granted that WP:BANEX says unless stated otherwise, but I'd like to see comment from the drafters of that decision on whether they intentionally left the standard exceptions out.
• Given the history of the topic and the arbcom case, at the absolute minimum I think NBSB deserved a hefty trouting for sticking his oar in here. If the BLP violation was really so obvious as to justify violating his tban, then aren't there enough editors around this subject to have done it? Closing the action with the comment, "Removing BLP violations is exempt from the topic ban," seems to me to be encouragement to continue exactly the sort of behaviour that landed him with the tban in the first place. Remember that a number of diffs in the FOF regarding NBSB are reverting (what he considered) obvious BLP violations (calling someone a SJW). Is encouraging NBSB to revert BLP violations really going to make gamergate a better place to edit?

It's nothing to do with me, of course, but I think just closing this was not the best way of improving the encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

PS I do note that you made the same point to him at his user talk; I wouldn't say his response is encouraging as such. GoldenRing (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's very late here, so you'll have to excuse my brevity. In order 1 & 2), see my response to Carrite elsewhere on this page—it was obvious that half a dozen admins felt it was obvious; 3) BANEX applies unless stated otherwise, even if the remedy were modified, the modification wouldn't be retro-active, it's not within my gift to go tinkering with arbitration remedies; 4) I agree, but he didn't do anything wrong according to policy. Is encouraging NBSB to revert BLP violations really going to make gamergate a better place to edit? I very much doubt it—at the very least he needs to take a long break from that cesspit—but I'd be promptly overturned on appeal if I blocked him for removing BLP violations or told him he couldn't do so. You see? Whatever I do, one side will interpret it as bias. If I block him, Wikipedia hates women; if I don't, Wikipedia is biased against gamergate/in favour of "SJWs". You're welcome to start an RfC on BANEX or an amendment request on NBSB, but there's nothing more I can do. I'm an admin, not a superhero. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite what the muckrakers like to hoot and holler about when not in intense sessions of hand-wringing and eggshell walking, I am a gamer. I have played many games, and won them eventually. However, there is that one game that, despite my best efforts, there is no way to win. Even after countless tries, the game is unbeatable. Do you know what I do then? I uninstall the game. Once I know it cannot, cannot be beaten, I simply delete it. Such games are not worth winning. Or rather, the only way to win, is not to play. --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually need to point something out... the GG side is not going to call you biased, at least not so long as I can explain to them that you are just following policy that would effect it even if the user was PRO GG. Some GGers (Myself included, I have been upfront about that so no one can claim I have a hidden agenda) actually do understand the situation with Wikipedia and the GamerGate Controversy specifically. Wikipedia's hands are tied, since the RS's are almost universally biased against GG, so thus the article is going to be biased. There has been a lot of work to explain this to the less... Wikipedia literate people among GG, and this has lead to a lot less animosity towards Wikipedia by GamerGate. I just wish I had a way to counteract the animosity by Anti-GG, since the current climate is not productive no matter WHAT you believe. (Also, sorry for using your surname. It is impolite in local culture to refer to one by their first name unless we are well acquainted. So I will switch to using your Username, if you do not mind) AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

the GG side is not going to call you biased, at least not so long as I can explain to them that you are just following policy Oh, that's absolutely hilarious. Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the difficulty, and I'm glad it's not me enforcing this. However, WP:BANEX defines 'obvious' as 'cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree'. There were people at A/E disagreeing that the violation was obvious, though I guess I lack the experience with them to say whether they are reasonable people. The only other admin comment on the request, AFAICT, was Masem, pointing out that it was part of a pattern of tban violations, though obviously the discussion re Retartist is related.

Bah, I don't know where I'm going with this, and I'm really sorry if this message keeps you up even longer (I'm not in that sort of timezone). GoldenRing (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not as common as you might think that half a dozen fell petty much exactly the same way. In fact, I've had lengthy debates at AE in the past when I've disagreed with other admins. Not those admin specifically as far as I can recall, but even among that group we don't always sing in harmony, so if we all agreed something was a BLP violation, it can't have been that ambiguous. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I'm new to editing in the GamerGate area but I am almost 100% certain that regular editors on the talk page were familiar with the particular website that was linked to and whose link was removed. It is a website solely devoted to presenting the pro-GamerGate side (and consisting solely of user-generated content) and I imagine that its status as an (un)reliable source had been discussed a lot over the past six months. So, it's not that it's any link at all, it was a link to a website that editors familiar with the article knew to contain BLP errors. So, in that context, it was obvious, even to a newcomer like me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh how Wikipedia loves its policy of argument to authority. It's like you people already forgot the oh so delicious ArbitrationGate. Aren't all things written by humans, in the end? I love it when people crowd around the latest manufactured outrage piece yelling its name guarantees truth. Did The New Dork Thymes write it? Or did a person write it? RS will be Wikipedia's downfall. VnT shouldn't be praised, but condemned. Look how well WP:RS worked out with ArbitrationGate. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the responses from 'regular editors' on Jimmy Wales talk page to their intentionally biased use of RS, I find it difficult, if not unbelievable that they are viewed to be here for constructive consensus building which would increase the value of the project. I fear that there will be considerably more administration actions regarding the page in the future. 31.53.246.245 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't include information we know (or strongly suspect, for example because the subject of it has complained) is false, no matter what the reliable sources say. But the option there is binary: it stays or goes; we shouldn't "fix" it based in original research. Wikipedia's purpose is to be a tertiary source and a summary of the secondary material, not to present original research. VNT is dogmatically misused in that sense—its purpose is to prevent claims like cunnilingus cures cancer from being presented as fact; they may be "true" (although this one is, erm, unlikely), but they're not supported by any credible evidence (ie verifiable). It's not supposed to be a bludgeon for forcibly retaining factual errors like the ArbitrationGate crap. The reliable sources standard is not perfect, especially without proper editorial controls, but Wikipedia is not perfect; the question is what we would replace it with. Replacing it with original research or "I just know it's true" opens the door to all sorts of loonies with agendas that are fundamentally incompatible with writing an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Damn it Harry, I was banking on that one, and the 11 aspirins a day thing. You have shattered one of my props. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha. You're not funny. See, here's the thing. We're not talking medicine, or 9/11, or anything IRL. We're talking about an internet cold war, essentially. Do you not remember "Hacker known as 4chan" from CNN, that exploding van thing on Faux News, etc. Do you _really_ expect me to believe that the muckrakers know the first thing about the internet? There are literally, thousands of archives. I do not trust people. People are finicky, smell bad, and lead by emotion. Software on the other hand, is very trustworthy. If, you can give me sufficient proof that, say, archive.today, for example, is a software that is pro-{redacted due to topic ban}, then I will eat a hat, videotape it, and put it on youtube. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 20:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

PS, while you guys howl about how its a conspiracy that the muckrakers, are... well muckrakers, think of it this way. 300 WHITE MALE SOCKPUPPETEERS HAVE CONDUCTED A MASSIVE HARASSMENT CAMPAIN FOR 7 MONTHS WHILE NOBODY HAS BEEN CAUGHT, WER'E SURE THAT ITS A HARASMENT CAPMAIN. JUST LOOK AT ALL THESE QUALITY(tm) SOURCES. FORGET ABOUT ARBITRATIONGATE THAT NEVER HAPPENED, LOOK AT THESE SOURCES IT MUST BE TRUE. LITERALLY WORSE THAN ISIS+NAZIS+KKK+EBOLA. Please tell me about how its a "conspiracy". Also Brian Williams. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 21:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, not to doubt your word, my friend, but I've only ever seen archive.today used by one side. but more importantly, somebody's Twitter feed or some random website does not make a reliable source, so why would an archived version of the same be reliable? I share your concerns about the media's understand of Teh Interwebs—look at the Grauniad's coverage of GamerGate, for example, not just the arbitration case; it's so staunchly anti-GG that it's blind to the flaws of the side it sympathises with. And that's not me taking a content position—I think both sides are nutters who should find something better to do. But what's the alternative? The best option, in my humble opinion, is to delete the article until there are books published about GamerGate. I very much doubt the gaters will like what the books have to say either, but there's a fair chance of the books being more through and thus more fair. Failing that, we have to rely on journalists, whom we hope do at least a little bit of due diligence but who all too often prefer to be spoon-fed a story that suits their agenda. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Liz:Understood; I'm not saying that it wasn't a BLP violation or that Retartist's tban was wrong; I endorse both. My concern is that NBSB sticking his oar in was unnecessary and only likely to create more drama; that his response to this being pointed out civilly is distinctly unpromising; and that AE telling him it's all okay and he's done nothing wrong is only encouraging another round of drama in a day or two's time with further pushing at the boundaries of the tban. In that context, for the tban violation to be okay, the BLP violation doesn't have to be definitely a violation; it has to be a violation so obvious that no reasonable person could disagree. Anyway, I think I've said everything I need to say on this, and more than once. I trust Harry's judgement in general; I was just trying to promote discussion about how harmony on the project is best encouraged. GoldenRing (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nor is it likely to promote harmony on the project when single-purpose accounts organized off-wiki fire off spurious arbitration enforcement requests and engage in an extended harassment campaign. I haven't and won't be intimidated by a band of thugs. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you too. GoldenRing (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, @GoldenRing:, is this conversation violating DSA510's topic ban on discussing GamerGate? In a strictly interpreted way, probably so. But admins and arbitrators are human beings, they consider the cases brought to them and use their best judgment to try and make fair decisions based on the presented evidence. I think that not strictly enforcing that topic ban isn't "encouraging" DSA510 and others. It's allowing for some gray areas, like WP:BANEX.

My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that individuals who are topic banned should stay away from those topics. Skirting the edges of a ban just can provide reasons for more serious blocks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to block for borderline topic-ban violations on this talk page. I can't promise nobody will seize on such and report them to AE, nor that a more zealous admin wouldn't block, but as long as we're discussing things in general terms (rahter than substantive discussion of content, which belongs on the article talk page anyway) and the discussion is being had in good faith, I personally have no problem with it continuing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

On a 'meta-meta' topic and the above re: Abuse of RS, you can see on the French, Norwegian and Spanish Wikipedia editions some relatively sane and balanced discussions on the topic. I do not believe that there is a lack of RS, rather an abuse of RS in creating the en.wikipedia version of the article. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't read more than a very, very basic level of French and Spanish and I can't read any Norwegian at all, but I'm aware of a concerted effort to give the Spanish article a skew that's favourable to gamergate. I won't get into substantive discussions of content issues because to be an effective admin I have to be objective and remain above the fray, but if you think that sources are being omitted or misused, say so on the talk page. If you feel an editor has demonstrated a pattern of deliberately ignoring or misusing sources, you can report them to WP:AE. But general statements like "RS is misused", especially when they're made on an individual editor's talk page instead of the article's talk page, don't get us anywhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been following the drama on the GG article pretty much since its creation back in late August (I wouldn't dare actually contribute), and I can tell you that the Gamergate "dossier" was linked to on multiple occasions on that talk page in the past without any redacting or admin actions. But what has happened here is so ludicrous I feel I actually need to speak up now. The only thing that is "obvious" about this BLP violation is that this is a very clear attempt to shift the goalposts to shut out yet more pro-GG material. The fact that the user was not even warned that this once acceptable-to-link-and-discuss source had now morphed into a redactable BLP violation, but straight up topic banned for this is absurdly heavy-handed and is just another chilling effect on anyone who would dare try to get that article neutral.174.45.178.216 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films

Hi HJ. Thank you for the protection to the page. If you wouldn't mind, could you add the page to your watchlist and keep an eye on it? I have a feeling this may still be an issue once the protection has expired. Thank you again, as always. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll stick it on my watchlist and see if I can do anything to help, but no promises. 11:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)