| Revision as of 18:55, 9 March 2015 editHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators122,034 edits →Apologies: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:28, 22 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,312,095 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 138) (bot | ||
| (998 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Administrator topicon}}{{oversight topicon}} | |||
| {{User:HJ Mitchell/header}} | {{User:HJ Mitchell/header}} | ||
| {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma"><span style="display:none;">User talk:</span>'''HJ Mitchell'''</span>}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 138 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 1 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(150h) | ||
| |archive = User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}{{bots|deny=SineBot}} | }}{{bots|deny=SineBot}} | ||
| <!-- ******New messages go AT THE BOTTOM. Please don't edit above this line. Thank you.****** --> | <!-- ******New messages go AT THE BOTTOM. Please don't edit above this line. Thank you.****** --> | ||
| {{-}} | |||
| == Ban == | |||
| Hi @] I'm here to talk about my banning that recently happened a day or two ago. Anyways, i just want to talk about why you banned me from editing? I didn't vandalize any articles, didn't mess anything up, and sometimes i put information in tropical cyclone seasons with no citations (i get the in info from the infobox and just make a sentence off of it) etc. I don't use any VPN, and i don't even know how to use a VPN. So if you're kind enough, can my banning be resolved? Please? ] (]) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Landmark AE == | |||
| :The mere fact that you posted here means you are not affected by a block. ] (]) 16:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, the AE request on Tgeairn needed to be handled by one or more functionaries. That should have been made clear but it wasn't. Non-functionary admins should have been asked to step back since they didn't have the requisite evidence. | |||
| ::The OP didn't mention a block, but a ban. ]. --] 🌹 (]) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|331dot}} {{u|Redrose64}} the user is probably referring to their IP address (see their talk page) which is currently under a year block by HJ. ] (]) 00:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They made an edit, and posted here, subsequent to their unblock request, so they aren't currently affected by a block, thoigh its possible they were when they made the request. Many people use block and ban interchangeably even though they are different. ] (]) 01:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Also if i did any bad stuff to any articles please tell me please, i seriously want to know so i can avoid it next time (don't even know if my ban gets resolved) Anyways, i hope you read this in the future! ] (]) 04:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] the block was not aimed at you. And it appears you're correct that the specific IP address you were using is not a proxy. You've done nothing wrong but there are a lot of proxies on that range (group of IP addresses) that have been used to spread spam links, including from logged-in accounts. If it happens again, the important piece of information is your IP address. Make sure you include that if you ask about a block. ] | ] 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Pat Crerand == | |||
| The COI is unequivocal and the POV-pushing through sockpuppeting is unequivocal, among other issues. Callanecc said the sockpuppeting is obvious. That's not something to be ignored. | |||
| Hi, may I ask for your advice with anotherwise straightforward page move I cannot make due to an existing redirect? In summary, the redirect needs to come from "Pat Crerand" to "Paddy Crerand" and not the other way round: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pat_Crerand refers. Can you do the swap or tell me how to? Thank you ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The AE request needs to be evaluated on the evidence. The non-functionary admins who took part didn't have the necessary evidence and formed their conclusions without it. Would you please reopen the case and ask that it be handled by functionaries? Regards, ''] ~ ]'' 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No. You've conflated several different issues. First, AE is run by admins; functionaries who participate there do so in their capacity as regular admins, so the functionary corps has no mandate to take over AE requests. Second, the functionary corps has no mandate to investigate editors' off-wiki activities; if that's within anybody's mandate, it's ArbCom's. But all the arbitrators are subscribed to the functionaries list, and as it happens I spoke informally to two arbitrators and a functionary before I closed the AE request,none of whom suggested that ArbCom was inclined to take it over. Now, much more importantly, having a conflict of interest is not against policy, especially if it doesn't manifest itself in problematic editing. None of the admins who commented at AE saw Tgeairn's edits as problematic. You need to start focusing on content, not the contributor, and stop casting aspersions, stop alluding to private emails, and stop this unhealthy focus on Tgeairn. Otherwise you'll be sanctioned. ] | ] 12:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@] the redirect has a non-trivial history, so it would need to be deleted to make way for the move. This can be done by any admin but as you've opened an RM it's probably best to let that conclude. ] | ] 20:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello again HJ. I know that you have a lot on your plate, and I'm frankly tired of bothering people. BUT... Would you be so kind as to take a look at one or both of and These guys are just not letting up. I could provide dozens of diffs of more personal attacks, accusations, and general mud-slinging - but I think you've probably seen enough. I'm coming to you as you're most recently familiar with this, and I'm going to ping {{Ping|Cailil}} as well since he is familiar too (but hasn't edited in days). I don't care at this point if the result is to block anyone who even mentions new religious movements, I just want the incessant harassment and outright attacks to stop. Thanks for considering a look, and double-thank you in advance for looking. No need to even reply here unless you like. Cheers, ] (]) 22:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Much obliged. The redirect was leading to a rename/move request "renaming" the page to itself! Regards ] (]) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == AE-related == | |||
| Binksternet who is in the BLPN dispute as an involved party has also now restored the offending text at ], and the entire "Islamophobia criticism" sourced to weak self-reinforcing accusations. I'm not sure if Binksternet is aware of the AC/DS, but he is an involved party and I removed the offending text citing the BLPN and AC/DS. I don't care what version you restore, protect or something because it is not a top-tier BLP issue, but it this has gone on for months now. Nomo's attempt to call it a "gambit" shows the battleground atmosphere surrounding this page and I frankly think I should take it off my watchlist because this page is probably screwed for NPOV. ] (]) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Binksternet has changed the text, while I disagree with the material in its current form - this is not about winning or losing, so I've moved for a resolution section at BLPN. I've asked for clarification and citation of examples - not name-calling on Emerson. If any of the other editors can provide a citation of a single case, I'll switch to supporting the claim because it won't be sourced to "Islamophobe like Steven Emerson" which only verify the existence of the accusation and not of its substance. A ] matter in a sense. I'd still like 1RR on that article, but if this resolves quickly - it may not be needed. ] (]) 05:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Note - Xenophrenic has resolved the issue with there edits so I think the BLPN matter should be coming to a close soon. All that is left is for Atsme to agree or disagree to the changes before a (hopefully) unanimous resolution to the matter. I think the improvement and context results in a NPOV in this matter. I'd still like 1RR on the article to be safe, but this is wrapping up well. ] (]) 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not really sure a 1RR is possible. Yes, there are discretionary sanctions on BLPs, but they're there to prevent BLP violations rather than edit-warring. I'll try to keep an eye on things, anyway, and see how we go. ] | ] 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == BLPN discussion == | |||
| I mentioned your block of Cwobeel at ]. Please feel free to comment. ] (]) 16:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Restraining Nomoskedasticity == | |||
| Hi HJ, | |||
| Please warn user Nomoskedasticity against hounding me. The latest is where I have an with other editors on the talk page in which he doesn't even bother to participate. This is the second second time he does so, after giving ridicules explanation the . | |||
| He have no shame of even warning me of war edit when he ignores discussion on talk page clear mentioned in edit summaries. Not to mention he little participated in the AE request he opened. Obviously, getting me tied with it is 'mission accomplished'. | |||
| I am tired of him and Nishidani harassing me. The latest from Nishidani can be found . | |||
| Have a great weekend, | |||
| Ariel | |||
| :I'll speak only for myself, but Ashtul's went against consensus that there is an unresolved problem . I explained to Ashtul what, in my view, the error he made consisted of . This could have been easily resolved if ] (like it or not he documents closely what the Hebrew press writes) were accepted as pertinent to the issue, since his is almost identical to the one Roland made. Unfortunately, Silverstein is (wrongly) regarded as hostile to Israel (as opposed to his being a Jew writing for his idea of a democratic state detached from a policy of occupation). The solution is simple: | |||
| :<blockquote>'Drucker 'apologized', though one critic has interpreted the remark in which his apology was expressed as ironical.' </blockquote> | |||
| :And, Ashtul, I am not hounding you. I edited that page , and, proper to your admission that you follow me, you went there to edit , with because it expunged evidence () '''in defense''' of the integrity of Naphtali Bennett, which Drucker had questioned. After on 16 February, . | |||
| :To regard me as hounding you, when I have added material on several occasions in support of your POV since early January, and even given the reason why material you entered, which was subject to a revert, , is improper. We all make mistakes at times, and I'm certainly no exception. You make mistakes or bad calls of judgement, repeatedly, basically because you still can't grasp policy and method. That is the difference. ] (]) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nishidani, I didn't say you hounding me, but Nomoskedasticity. You just use language which is improper between editors. You blamed me of misconduct when a quick search on ] will show you are wrong. As per Bennett, why bring it here? ] (]) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::<blockquote>Please warn user Nomoskedasticity against hounding me</blockquote> | |||
| ::<blockquote>I am tired of him '''and Nishidani''' harassing me.</blockquote> | |||
| ::<blockquote>Nishidani, I didn't say you hounding me, but Nomoskedasticity</blockquote> | |||
| ::At ], ''harassment'' and ''hounding'' are interchangeable terms. On that I rest my case that you don't understand policy, and that it is impossible to negotiate with you because you write a lot, but ignore logic and the crucial niceties of language.] (]) 19:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::In light of that talk page thread, I've topic-banned Ashtul. {{ping|Nishidani|Nomoskedasticity}} I ''strongly'' suggest you leave him alone. And by "suggest", I mean that if a gentlemen's agreement proves insufficient, I'll upgrade the suggestion to a formal interaction ban. If you come across him in the future and his conduct gives cause for concern, bring it to me or AE (or any other appropriate board if it's not covered by ARBPIA) rather than engaging in lengthy and unproductive arguments. I think al three o you mean well, but nothing good is going to come from further interaction between you two and Ashtul, and Ashtul clearly feels aggrieved at your conduct towards him, so parting company would be best for everyone. ] | ] 20:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Extend PC time? --] (]) 19:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yep. That seems to be a case where PC is doing a decent job. ] | ] 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Double standards == | |||
| I would really appreciate if you could explain to me your warning vs. indefinite ban train of thought. It seems you have some misconceptions about the sandbox and other things. --] (]) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I've seen your question at AE, and I'll reply there to keep everything in one place. ] | ] 21:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Permissions for edit notice editing == | |||
| Hello, a proposal to change the permissions required for editing edit notices is taking place at ]; as you have edited recent pages related to this topic your feedback is welcome. Happy editing, — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The fellow who vandalized the Mazda article... == | |||
| Just hit ]. ] | |||
| ] (]) 01:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, I've renewed the block. ] | ] 11:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Jaja.Delera == | |||
| G'day, it's a measure of how tired I am that I opened an SPI for Jaja.Delera01 and then posted the Notification message to the Talk page of ] without even realising they were different accounts. I simply ''must'' go to bed now, could you deal with this please? Cheers ] (]) 11:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course. :) It's still mid-morning Sunday here! ] | ] 11:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == 1RR clarification == | |||
| I am bringing this to your talk page as opposed to AE because I don't care for sanctions to be levied on someone based on a question that even I don't know the answer to, but are ArbCom 1RR sanctions only applied to the article, or does it count on the talk page as well? ] (]) 17:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Assuming we're talking about gamergate, the 1RR only applies to the article because it was a specific discretionary sanction on the article. ] | ] 17:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. ] (]) 17:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Please review comments about other editors == | |||
| Again. Here. --] (]) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Brief Inquiry == | |||
| Hello! We have't really talked, but I believe you'd be the best person to consult about things like this, given similar successful inquiries made on your talk page. This edit (summary included) would probably be a breach of Retartists's Gamergate topic ban, yeah? I'm curious if this is at all actionable. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 21:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, but ... it was on their own userpage and they say they're taking an extended wikibreak. Do you see anything to be gained from blocking them for it? Of course, if they don't take their break and continue to make comments like that (some editors have been known to do that while escaping sanctions by claiming to be leaving, but hopefully Retartist won't be one of those), then a block would be in order. ] | ] 23:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::There might be an issue if such incivil remarks remain on their user page when other users have been banned for even mentioning that other editors exist. I wouldn't want to have to watch the users contributions to check that their wikibreak was in fact honestly declared or if it was an excuse to insult others. Surely calling other users 'faggots' is worthy of sanction, if only that this is noted in the block log in case the user appeals their topic ban in the future? ] (]) 23:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where did anyone call others 'faggots' on Misplaced Pages? ] <small>]</small> 23:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The edit summary is "bye faggots" ] (]) 00:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Okay, I've redacted the personal attack on the userpage; I'm not really inclined to do anything else, partly because sanctions would be punitive if they're taking an extended break and partly because it would ] to the remark (at present, it's unlikely that many people will see it, whereas an AE request gives it a much bigger audience; though thinking about it so does discussing it here, since 500-odd people watch this page). ] | ] 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == CU Candidacy question == | |||
| Hello there, I have left you a on the candidacy page. Thought I'd ping you here since it might not be easy to spot. ] (]) 11:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Do you remember == | |||
| ... promising me that you'd do an unbiased closure of a discussion for me sometime? Well, I'd be grateful if you look at the closure of ] and see if you find whether: (1) the closer, who has a history of removing infoboxes and conflict with Gerda, is a suitable choice to be closing the debate; (2) the result was an accurate reflection of the strength of the arguments for and against including infoboxes - particularly the interpretation that the closer can ignore arguments that he decides are general (he states "infoboxes are an editorial choice meaning that by definition general arguments balance out against each other" which could only be true if the strengths of the arguments were equal.) | |||
| This should be seen in the light of the clear canvassing at ] - a selective notification of a single project known to be hostile to infoboxes, per ] Vote-stacking. | |||
| This has been compounded by the closer's current meritless request at ] - one of the clearest pieces of harassment I've seen. | |||
| I trust your judgement on this as I know you are neutral on these issues. --] (]) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|RexxS}} I'm not exactly neutral on this, especially after my participation on the recent review; I have no strong feelings about infoboxes, but I very much doubt the "anti" side would see me as neutral. Anyway, for what it's worth, I probably would have closed that as no consensus (as in no consensus at all—no consensus for, no consensus against) and recommended further discussion. I'm not sure if Francis meant "no consensus" as in the proposal had failed to gain consensus or as in "no consensus at all", and his closing remarks don't shed any light on it. Frankly, the closing remarks read like a supervote. Certainly it would have been better left to an entirely uninvolved editor. The canvassing, if indeed that's what it was, might have affected the outcome, but there's not much a closer can do but recommend further discussion; out of interest, were any other wikiprojects notified of the discussion? As for the AE request, I'll have a look, but I don't think it would be proper for me to comment as an uninvolved admin—I think I'm uninvolved, but I've recused on all previous infobox-related AE requests (because they've all been brought against Andy). ] | ] 18:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Need help with an IP vandal == | |||
| Hello, Harry! I am looking for help with a vandalism-only IP with changing IP addresses. You have actually had previous interactions with several of them - when you blocked them for various lengths of time. I am wondering if a range block is possible. In particular ] is begging for help since his talk page has been under repeated attack. I have semiprotected his talk page while we sort this out. | |||
| These are all almost certainly the same person: | |||
| * 108.25.73.174 (used Feb. 7-10, blocked 3 times, latest block expired Feb. 24) | |||
| * 108.25.61.171 (started Feb. 18, blocked Feb. 19, block expires March 19) | |||
| * 108.11.63.56 (used March 2-3, never blocked) | |||
| * 108.25.60.172 (started March 8, blocked by me March 8, block expires March 11) | |||
| * 108.25.71.44 (used March 9, blocked by you March 9, block expires March 10) | |||
| Possibly also the same person (edited one of the same articles but a different form of vandalism from the other accounts): | |||
| * 108.35.201.23 (Feb. 9, made only 2 edits, never blocked) | |||
| Probably the same person (because 108.25.73.174 created their talk page): | |||
| * 49.204.247.64 (Feb. 10, made only one edit, never blocked; different form of vandalism from the other accounts) | |||
| I know these IP vandals can be very hard to deal with, but please do what you can. Thanks a bunch. --] (]) 17:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Melanie. I've had a look, and I've blocked 108.25.0.0/17 for 72 hours (that might need to be extended, but we'll see how we go). That'll take care of all the 108.25.*s; the rest might be whack-a-mole territory. A range that includes all the 108.*s would be far too big—the software wouldn't allow you to block it, and even if it would, the collateral damage would be enormous. That /17 is still quite big, but almost from it this year has been vandalism (you'll have to tick "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms" in preferences → gadgets → advanced for that link to work). ] | ] 17:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Harry. This stuff is ] but I'm very glad I have a friend who understands it! If we get vandalism from what appears to be the same person, but not in that IP range, we'll just deal with it individually as you suggest. And if we start getting 108.25's again after three days, I'll let you know. --] (]) 18:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're welcome. If you get more of it coming from lots of very similar IP addresss, let me know. I can't promise anything (rangeblocking is something of a last resort because it blocks potentially thousands of people), but I'll look. ] | ] 18:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Apologies == | |||
| Hi HJ Mitchell, | |||
| I apologize for the mistake once again on the use of reverting on BLP username abuse. I didn't notice until after right away. Another round of diff/comment removals. ] (]) 18:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Unless it's not as bad as the other one ] was working on... ] (]) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not to worry, no harm done. ] | ] 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:28, 22 January 2025
|
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
Ban
Hi @HJ Mitchell I'm here to talk about my banning that recently happened a day or two ago. Anyways, i just want to talk about why you banned me from editing? I didn't vandalize any articles, didn't mess anything up, and sometimes i put information in tropical cyclone seasons with no citations (i get the in info from the infobox and just make a sentence off of it) etc. I don't use any VPN, and i don't even know how to use a VPN. So if you're kind enough, can my banning be resolved? Please? Trixlll (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mere fact that you posted here means you are not affected by a block. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The OP didn't mention a block, but a ban. They're different. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- 331dot Redrose64 the user is probably referring to their IP address (see their talk page) which is currently under a year block by HJ. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- They made an edit, and posted here, subsequent to their unblock request, so they aren't currently affected by a block, thoigh its possible they were when they made the request. Many people use block and ban interchangeably even though they are different. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- 331dot Redrose64 the user is probably referring to their IP address (see their talk page) which is currently under a year block by HJ. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- The OP didn't mention a block, but a ban. They're different. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also if i did any bad stuff to any articles please tell me please, i seriously want to know so i can avoid it next time (don't even know if my ban gets resolved) Anyways, i hope you read this in the future! Trixlll (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Trixlll the block was not aimed at you. And it appears you're correct that the specific IP address you were using is not a proxy. You've done nothing wrong but there are a lot of proxies on that range (group of IP addresses) that have been used to spread spam links, including from logged-in accounts. If it happens again, the important piece of information is your IP address. Make sure you include that if you ask about a block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Pat Crerand
Hi, may I ask for your advice with anotherwise straightforward page move I cannot make due to an existing redirect? In summary, the redirect needs to come from "Pat Crerand" to "Paddy Crerand" and not the other way round: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pat_Crerand refers. Can you do the swap or tell me how to? Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Billsmith60 the redirect has a non-trivial history, so it would need to be deleted to make way for the move. This can be done by any admin but as you've opened an RM it's probably best to let that conclude. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Much obliged. The redirect was leading to a rename/move request "renaming" the page to itself! Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)