User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 87

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

No action on vandalism this time?

Why this decision to take no action on the vandalism I reported? There's been more vandalism since report below yesterday.

• F.leviadin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Jewish population by country (diff): actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. See [1]

My PS question was answered about RFCU (and the answer was what I would have guessed it would be), but what about the vandalism? I'm guessing you didn't mean to take no action on that, as you blocked before for the same edit.

--Elvey^(t•c) 19:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the context here. I see somebody else has blocked that account, but if it comes up again, perhaps you could explain what's going on and why the edits are vandalism. You might also get a better response at ANI than AIV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's all laid out in a short(!) post at [2], which is a link I provided from my AIV post. I considered the edits vandalism because you had already done so (reason you gave for block of IPs performing the same content edit: "Vandalism".) No big harm came from your deleting the report without taking action, since the user has finally been blocked, for socking, along with Harronn, so this is all just FYI. (Initially, I was a bit disturbed, wondering why on earth you'd deleted the AIV report without taking action or explaining!) --Elvey^(t•c) 06:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Utility of Force

The article The Utility of Force you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Utility of Force for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, You blocked this user User:Mohsen1248. per my request tonight, thanks for that. is it possible to block or delete (or whatever) his talk page too ? because he copy/pasted my userpage into his talk page and I guess he will add more nonsense (personal attacks about me) later. thanks in advance. Mohsen1248 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted back to my edit (the block notice) and revoked their talk page access. That should solve the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks. Mohsen1248 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

• Featured content: Go West, young man

• In the media: Wikipedia a trusted source on Ebola; Wikipedia study labeled government waste; football biography goes viral

• Maps tagathon: Find 10,000 digitised maps this weekend

• Traffic report: Ebola, Ultron, and Creepy Articles

• Recent research: Informed consent and privacy; newsmaking on Wikipedia; Wikipedia and organizational theories

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hey HJ

I've had to remove this edit from the public archives. However I'm confused so asking your advice, surely this should've been blocked by an edit filter? 5 albert square (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@5 albert square: sorry it took me a while to get back to you. That's the kind of edit RevDel was invented for! If that's not RD2, I don't know what is. I'd have thought it would have been caught by a filter, but then it doesn't use any of the obvious phrases that the filters are set up to catch. Might be worth asking at WT:EF to see if it should be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha thanks. Just done that :-) 5 albert square (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot III

Hi @HJ Mitchell:

I am looking for your advice regarding ClueBot III.

The problem we have with ClueBot III is that it is editing whilst logged out under this IP. However, some of the archives are failing and I'm not sure why.

There have been a few discussions raised on ClueBot Commons' talk page regarding this which I have pinged all the active ClueBot admins in to make them aware, no response. There has been a discussion raised at WP:BOWN which I made ClueBots owner aware of but nothing. I believe other users have tried to make contact through other channels but no difference. Yesterday I emailed all ClueBots active admins but no response as of yet. If they don't respond to my email I really don't know what else I can do to alert them and I don't know what to do next.

Only some archives are failing so I'm not sure if this is the bot that's faulty. Would this be enough to assume that the bot is malfunctioning and for me to turn it off?

Or can you suggest anything else? 5 albert square (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to ping me on me on talk page, y'know! ;) Bots aren't allowed to edit logged out, so that's reason enough to shut it down (I see somebody has blocked the IP). You've contacted he people who look after it, so it sounds like here's not much more you can do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Adventure Time characters and Sonic Boom (TV series)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've put it up to indef. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What about Sonic Boom? --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've extended that. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a thought; have you a penny?

I'm thinking right now: while I appreciate the thanks that you sent to me, I am reminded that it's been far too long since I told you hello; or that I remain thankful to you, for welcoming me, and for helping me learn and enjoy building this encyclopedia. I will not take a penny, this time; for you paid a pence forward; long ago. I hope dividends return unto you, even if it is only a small measure of what you have given. For you will then certainly have a surplus of available means. I hope you've been well, and that you remain in good cheer, and I hope we meet often again, so I can often thank you anew. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS rfc

Per your close of the prior discussion about use of headlines of news articles for contentious claims, there is an RfC at [3] Collect (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Page move

Are you around? Could you possibly take care of the speedy tag at Zac MacGuire for me, please?

Sure. I'm just on my way to bed, but I'll make that my last action of the day. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you, kind sir! :) - JuneGloom Talk 23:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary needs zapping?

Hi HJ, saw your recent block of 70.160.90.139. This edit summary of theirs seems potentially damaging: [4]. Also, I have another problematic Vietnam IP. Please check my talk page at your leisure. I know you're busy. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that needed to go (though it's better to use email for that sort of thing to avoid drawing attention to it). I'll loo into your IP, but he rangeblock calculator is down at the moment (thank you WMF for replacing the unreliable Toolserver with the even less reliable Labs! Grumble grumble) which makes life that bit harder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I too am upset at all the downed tools lately. Editor Interaction Analyzer doesn't work like it used to, edit counter doesn't work half the time, blah blah.  :) Thanks for the continued help, HJ. Next time I'll use email to report libel. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Finding Nemo

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Extended to indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamma ray

What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And that one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Toronto municipal election, 2014

And this one? --George Ho (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The election's over now so I think I'll just let this one expire. Thanks, George! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding Category

Hello, hope you are fine. I want to know is there any method by which I can add category in pages with speed. It is difficult to copy category name, then edit page and than paste. I can search and add category in Urdu Wikipedia by just clicking plus sign button bellow page. Is this needs some special rights? ..Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to install HotCat (there should be instructions on how to do it on that page—you don't need any special rights). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Undeleting some templates

Hi Harry. Can you undelete some templates for me? The templates in question are {{TonCwt to t}} and {{CwtQtrLb_to_kg}}. I'd just to check their functionality/documentation/history in relation to a discussion at Template talk:Long ton.

I've not done an undeletion request before. Where do the undeleted files go? Into the requester's user space? The requested templates are now redirects to {{long ton}}.

Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I've temporarily restored them to Template:TonCwt to t and template:CwtQtrLb_to_kg so you can review them. I'll have to delete them again in a couple of days unless you want to talk to the deleting admin and get them to agree to them being restored permanently. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Robevans123 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Template:TonCwt to t seems to have gone back to a notice saying its "under discussion for deletion", but with no description/history etc. I guess that admins can see all previous revisions even though the template has been deleted? Does Template:TonCwt to t need to go back another revision or two? Same for [[template:CwtQtrLb_to_kg]. Thanks again for your help. Robevans123 (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the TfD notice just needed to come off. There isn't anything else to restore—the entire history is there; there just isn't much of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again... From the brief history, I see that "DePiep moved page Template:TonCwt to t to Template:Convert/TonCwt to t: given the reliance on {convert/...} templates, turn into a true subtemplate." Kept capitalised sp. See also categorisation" This was last year sometime so presumably there was a redirect which is how I had seen the template in the past... Presumably the history goes with a move. So, the second (sorry) request is can you temporarily restore Template:Convert/TonCwt to t to as it was before it was up for deletion review? Thanks again. Robevans123 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is as it was before the deletion discussion. If you want a permanent link without being redirected, it's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:TonCwt_to_t&redirect=no. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - its Template:Convert/TonCwt to t that I'm now after - this should have the original source/documentation/history that I'm looking for... Robevans123 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing there to restore—it was moved without a redirect to Template:Convert/long ton, and that in turn seems to have been moved without a redirect to Template:Long ton. I'm beginning to think you might be better of talking to User:Jimp, who did the rearranging—I'm struggling to keep of what's where. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling too... I'll get in touch with User:Jimp. Thanks for your help. Robevans123 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

• In the media: Predicting the flu, MH17 conspiracy theories

• Traffic report: Sweet dreams on Halloween

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Block of Stephenmeachamsballs

Correct me if I'm wrong but you have recently blocked Stephenmeachamsballs here. But, s/he did not recieve enough warnings, and most importantly, s/he did not vandalize wikipedia after the level 3 warning. Therefore, you shouldn't be blocking him/her. If I'm wrong, please point that out because I don't see a policy relating to this. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 23:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no policy that requires anyone to go through all four warnings—just because there are four levels doesn't mean that you have to start at level 1 and work up to level 4; the system wasn't designed to give obvious vandals five chances to cause disruption. Obvious vandalism-only accounts (and an edit like this is about as obvious as it gets) should be blocked on sight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition, the username is obviously unacceptable, which in itself is grounds for a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

list vandalized pages

Can you please list what the user Rdshdt vandalized on my talk page.

@Amaris Monteon: see Special:Contributions/Rdshdt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Serius admin biznus

Harry, I accidentally uploaded a watermarked version of File:Trinity Test - Oppenheimer and Groves at Ground Zero 001.jpg to Commons, but I I tried to revert it, it said it had already been revert. But it is still there. Could you have a look at it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I fixed it by uploading another version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Chatterbox

Hey HJ, I'm confused what to do here. Please take a look at this dude. The bulk of his edits are to talk pages where he chatters about things technically related to the subject, but none of what he talks about has anything to do with improving the articles.[5], [6], [7]. I've reverted and removed a ton of his comments, but I'm starting to get a strange feeling about him. He's also added content to articles that come off as chatter in articles. Example here and there is some clear editorializing here "What the stories lacked in modern day science, they more than made up in great reading" and here with "[the character's qualities] combine to make a character that succeeds in being highly entertaining but which rarely attracts the reader's lasting sympathy." This is absolutely WP:OR. See also this edit where he seems to be venting about "moderators". What do we do? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you've left them a note. They've not edited since then, so there's not much that can be done for the moment. If they carry on, they'll need a sterner reminder that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and that talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles rather than their subjects, and if it comes to it, a block might be in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Matilda Cullen Knowles

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Malala Yousafzai

HJ, I'm trying to understand what's going on here. Previously, the article had PC (to expire 12:10, 11 November 2014) but was otherwise unprotected; today, Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) altered it to semi-prot for one year and no PC; and within a minute you reinstated the PC and shortened the semi to one month. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Redrose, you must surely know that MediaWiki doesn't give any notification of protection conflicts. I just responded to an RfPP request. I wasn't aware of Dennis's protection until I read this. I'm on a phone at the minute so I'll replt in more detail from my admin account in the morning. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Redrose: My action was seven seconds after Denniss's, so presumably we were both accessing the protection interface at the same time and he hit the button first. As I said above, MediaWiki doesn't give any warning if two admins attempt to protect a page at the same time. Dennis: If you want to reinstate your one-year protection and reset the PC, feel free; I hadn't meant to step on your toes, so I won't consider it stepping on mine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. You seem to have some access that I don't, in order to determine that it was 7 sec. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Popups. According to which, Dennis's action went through at 17:54:11, mine at 17:54:18. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalizing, racist, harrassing, IPs

These IPs, 79.176.24.227, 79.177.107.25, 201.240.62.82, keep removing the Arabic names of Israeli politicians while leaving the Hebrew translation alone. They also attack my user pages. Can you please block them all. Also, just in the last minute it looks like they made an account called Simon Wtekni Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It is the second time in 24 hrs that I have had to revert a perfectly justifiable Arabic translation of PM Netanyahu's name. Was unaware that activities were more widespread. A polite word on their talkpage should be enough. Blocking is an overreaction IMO at this point. The ed has at least bothered to register. Irondome (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that blocking would be an over-reaction. It's not immediately obvious to me why why would need the Arabic translation in the articles on Israeli politicians (that's not to say that I'm taking sides, it's just a personal observation that if it's not obvious o me it might not be obvious to them, and so they might be motivated by something other than racism). A polite conversation on their talk page might be productive. What we don't want is to block them and then have them sock for years to correct a perceived injustice—we've got enough of them as it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

My main issue was that Arabic is an official language of Israel, with Hebrew, and that Arabic spelling is justifiable. I agree that a block is O.T.T at this point, although the guy is an irritant. (Reverted me again overnight) I disagree with the rather hysterical title heading up this thread. I do not think it is "racism" that is the prime motivator here, more likely ignorance of facts. I will wander over and have a quiet word when I get my thoughts together. Probably in a couple of beers time. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Although two of those IPs geolocate to Israel so I wonder if this person does... Still, explanation and discussion is always the place to start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I will attempt sweet reason first. It's probably just the Israeli branch of UKIP having a moan. The IP(s) concentrate on the Arabic spelling thing and the term "Illegal immigrants" favoured over "asylum seekers", re migrants in Israel. Low level stuff but will attempt to nip in bud. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Irondome as well makes terrible edits such as [8] where he purposefully puts a place in the wrong country for ideological purposes. I suggest they both be blocked. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr. R.R. Pickles, I'm not going to get into the content dispute, but accusing an editor of making "terrible edits" and for "ideological purposes" is a personal attack. I recommend you strike that. If you have proof, AE is over there→; if not, you're very likely to find yourself sanctioned if you keep making accusations like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Content dispute"?!? HE PUT A PLACE IN A WRONG COUNTRY ON PURPOSE! Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, HJ. I put a friendly note on User talk:Simon Wtekni talk page, as we discussed yesterday. I have also offered mentorship. Feel free to go and take a look, and ed. if you see anything inappropriate. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Irondome must have forgot, HJ, Maybe you could give the edit warring account a warning or a block. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A question: where is the boundary of authority between an individual admin and the ArbCom ? I see that you closed the AE request I opened and blocked the user for only one of the 5 violations I listed. Does it have anything to do with the attack being on your talk page ? Should I have just contacted a single administrator to complaint about the personal attack on me ? Thanks, “WarKosign” 20:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin has the authority to impose discretionary sanctions for misconduct in (or related to) the relevant topic area, and we can act on our own initiative. In this case, I'd decided to block the editor before I saw your AE report, so I closed it when I saw it because I thought it was redundant to the action I'd already taken. It wasn't a comment on you—there was sanctionable misconduct, and AE is the place to report that. Bringing it to the attention of an individual admin is acceptable, but AE is more transparent and it might be quicker (the admin you alert might be asleep, or eating their dinner, or doing any number of things). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you close the enforcement request?

Why did you close it when it's clearly in ArbCom's ball park? Additionally, it is -not- a conduct issue, it's a remedy issue. Tarc was restricted from admin noticeboards and it's in ArbCom's view, not your view. I've unhatted it. If you rehat it I will go to a noticeboard--either it's actionable or it's not. It's unacceptable for you to deny ArbCom the opportunity to review it. Tutelary (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, WP:AE is meant to be handled by administrators, whether or not sanctions are handed out there is not a matter of automatic rule application but a matter of administrative judgment, and HJ Mitchell was perfectly right to close a thread he judged to be moot. Stop forum-shopping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) As Fut. Perf. pointed out, AE is an admin noticeboard, run by admins. I made an admin action by closing the thread because it had already been discussed at ANI. I will be nice and assume that you're not just trolling, so I'll point out that if you do want to raise the issue with ArbCom, you can go to WP:ARCA, which is run by ArbCom. I would recommend against that, though, unless you can do it in a way that doesn't look like forum-shopping for the result you want because ArbCom won't look favourably on that, no matter how much you believe Tarc should be sanctioned (and, frankly, he probably should have been, but he knows he's on thin ice, and he'll be blocked if he does it again). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Result!

I got a thanks from Simon W. I assume it's in response to my note and mentoring idea. I find it cheering that a Mensch approach so often works, that you actively encouraged. Moments of Reprieve (to shamelessly plunder Primo Levi) in the often dark days of the human condition on WP are always greatly cheering. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That is good news. Hopefully our faith in humanity will be rewarded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well we turned a potentially embittered socking vandal into a registered ed who appears to have clue. His ed summaries were informative. Will leave a F/U note. Added to W/L. Again thanks for the encouragement. Cheers HJ. Irondome (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Declaration of Independence

It's never been protected before. I know that unconfirmed editors are not contributive to this article lately. Maybe lower to indefinite PC and reduce to one-year semi-protection? --George Ho (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't imagine I intended to protect it indefinitely; I probably just forgot to set an expiry (I usually dislike indefinite semi—it too often gets forgotten about and lingers for years after it's necessary). It's been eight months so I've unprotected it and we'll see how that goes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

TFA

Hi Harry, happened to notice you're on. There's some (IMHO of course) barrow-pushing going on at Goodbyeee and it's past my bedtime now. Are you interested in weighing in, either from the editorial or the admin perspective?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've stuck it on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it as far as I can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Head Keyboard

Head Keyboard (talk · contribs), whom you recently blocked continues to abuse the unblock request template on his talk page. You might want to consider disabling the ability of him to edit his TP.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps they'd have more success if they took their head off their keyboard! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2014

This Month in GLAM – Volume IV, Issue X, October 2014 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: National Library Conference; Feminist Art Edit-a-thon Finland report: Edit-a-thon Course "Bring Culture to Wikipedia" France report: Edit-a-thon & Mass upload Germany report: GLAM on tour Sauerland; WMDE World Café at the Conference of National Cultural Institutions Italy report: War Books; EAGLE project; National Library Conference Netherlands report: Images donated by Nijmegen municipality archive; World Day for Audiovisual Heritage Sweden report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Europeana Task Force UK report: The breadth of UK GLAM work: chemistry, ballet, tanks and more USA report: News from Philadelphia & New York City Open Access report: Open Access Week; peer-reviewed OA journal publishes Wikipedia article Calendar: November'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 23:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Pikachu

Well, seems you indef'd it again. However, I've been watching the page for a long, long while (since 2010) and I don't think the level of editing justifies semi-protection anymore. It's not like it's Naruto where back when it was unprotected it was vandalized daily. Given that the article could go for weeks without any edits (good or bad), pending was probably the better option (vandalism is reverted quickly anyway). So it would probably be a better option to revert to pending unless vandalism picks up to a point where semi-protection becomes a pressing need. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that misses the point of pending changes. PC is intended to filter out good edits from bad ones, but there weren't any good edits; I saw one IP edit in the nine months it had been on PC that had been accepted but never-ending vandalism over the same period. It was very stable under semi-protection and leaving it unprotected would likely have led to a gradual degradation of the quality of the article. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and a balance has to be struck between those two, sometimes contradictory, halves of our mission statement. But in this case, the decision wasn't a difficult one—the benefit to the encyclopaedia massively outweighs the drawbacks of sacrificing open editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Now, as a compromise, could you maybe shorten protection to a year rather than indef instead? If that would be allowed, then after one year, we could experiment with a period of no protection whatsoever (whether semi or PC). If there's still too much vandalism, then the article could probably be indef'd for good. Even WP:PP (or another page I saw, I forgot exactly which one), recommends that many (but not all) semi'd articles be unprotected once in a while to see if the level of editing warrants a protection, and given the level of vandalism/editing in the article, indef is not the best option (though again, quality could suffer if it's not protected at all and vandalism gets through; after all, it's a good article). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I mentioned my views on indef semi in the section above. I usually avoid it as far as possible because it's too often applied to articles where vandalism will die down eventually as the subject decreases in prominence. But in this case, the vandalism has been around for years, and Pikachu is a popular culture icon, so there's no realistic prospect of it going away in the short or medium term. In most cases, I'd be only too happy to try finite durations, but in this case not only would it not do any good, but it's already been tried—I unprotected it an put it on PC back in April, before which it had been stable on semi-protection for three and a half years (following multiple spells of finite protection). Now consider that, as far as I could tell, one edit was accepted while the article was on PC; all the rest were reverted. It's not even as if we're dealing with one troll who can be blocked—it's drive-by vandalism, and it's every few days. In most cases, I'd passionately agree with you, but in this case I think anything other than semi-protection for a very long time (multiple years at least) would be folly, and would lead to a lot of wasted time and a degradation of the article. Sorry, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Victor Ibarbo

This gentleman received a permanent full protection, basically through becoming a meme from a recent video game, causing completely false information on the page. The article was reverted to a very short version, removing actual cited information. May I request either that this full protection is shortened for a time to "let the heat die down" and then downgraded to permanent semi-protection, or that permanent semi-protection is activated immediately. If you feel that would be appropriate, of course '''tAD''' (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realised I'd put that on full protection. I've lowered it to semi. You're welcome to revert to any clean version you can find or to manually restore the good content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd never seen anything on full protection for even a week, co I was slightly taken aback '''tAD''' (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Take5productions asking for an unblock for a rename

RE your block of User:Take5productions: I'm trying to help him with a rename request. Meters (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked them so they can make the request at CHU. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Meters (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Daley Blind

Can you extend pending changes? Edits are low, but the article still needs the current level of protection. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've given it a year. We can re-evaluate in a year's time. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian

You should probably reinstate indefinite semi protection on this since it was lost when your full protection expired yesterday, and since she is one of the most controversial women in the gaming community. Everymorning talk to me 16:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just incidentally, if it's urgent (as it may or may not be, given the nature of the matter), posting at WP:RFPP may possibly get a faster response. It wouldn't be overturning any HJ decision, since the protection has expired. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, one of the most controversial women in the gaming community; I don't know much about this nonsense, but that seems to be quite a long list! Anyway, I've restored the semi, but only for a year. She'll be forgotten about in a few months when the current controversy blows over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1RR problems

Hi, You are right that AE is not the right place for theoretical discussions on merits of current defitinion of 1RR.

I think the main problem is the lack of definition of "revert". One interpretation is that a partial revert is anything that undoes another user's work - so any edit that deletes or replaces a single letter, including fixing a typo, is a revert. Another interpretation that revert is returning a piece of text to a state that it existed in previously. Your interpretation now was that there is another criteria for revert - the editor has to be aware of the previous edit they are undoing.

For 1RR I think most of the problems can be avoided by re-defining it as "do not commit an edit that was already done in the last 24 hours". This would handle the following situations better than current definition:

• A user re-applying their own controversial edit that was reverted by someone else, violating BRD. Now re-applying would be performing the same edit and would violate 1RR. Instead the user who did the original edit would have to use the talk page to reach consensus on restoring the edit.
• Group revert war. N users performing an edit, while M other users undoing the edit, each doing it only once per day and not violating current 1RR. The outcome is determined by relative sizes of N and M. With the new definition, the first one of the N users would perform the edit, then the first of the M users would revert it, and the next of the N users would not re-apply the change since it would violate the rule. Instead all N+M would be forced to discuss the merits of the edit.

The definition can be extended to 3RR or any number, even or odd. Do you see any problem with it? “WarKosign” 20:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for dropping by. I'll mull this over and get back to you tonight or tomorrow probably. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism help please?

Hi, HJ Mitchell! Thank you for blocking the vandal I reported, Jfkftw23‎. I'm having trouble with another vandal, who I believe is one user editing from several accounts, on Emmanuel Sanders. The user continuously adds a death date for Sanders, although Sanders is in fact alive. I've reverted the same types of edits on several accounts, and requested page-protection for the page, but I don't know how to warn the user because s/he keeps switching accounts. What should I do? Thanks, kara❈talk 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

S/he also seems to be editing from multiple IP addresses, if you check the page history log. kara❈talk 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the quickest way to deal with it is a short semi-protection. I'll look into it in more detail in a moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I've indef'd all the accounts involved and blocked the IPs for 31 hours, but it might be prudent to leave the protection in place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! In the future, is asking for page protection the best way to deal with this situation? I made a request before posting here, but the request page is back logged so I was wondering if there was something faster (since I couldn't just warn a single user 4 times and then report as usual, and because it was kind of a serious type of vandalism). kara❈talk 21:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Protection is the best way to solve the problem, yes. Some days I feel RfPP might as well redirect here, but that is the place to ask; when you ned an admin urgently, there's always WP:ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still pretty new and don't know Wikipedia's policies well. kara❈talk 21:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism help please?

Hi, HJ Mitchell! Thank you for blocking the vandal I reported, Jfkftw23‎. I'm having trouble with another vandal, who I believe is one user editing from several accounts, on Emmanuel Sanders. The user continuously adds a death date for Sanders, although Sanders is in fact alive. I've reverted the same types of edits on several accounts, and requested page-protection for the page, but I don't know how to warn the user because s/he keeps switching accounts. What should I do? Thanks, kara❈talk 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

S/he also seems to be editing from multiple IP addresses, if you check the page history log. kara❈talk 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the quickest way to deal with it is a short semi-protection. I'll look into it in more detail in a moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I've indef'd all the accounts involved and blocked the IPs for 31 hours, but it might be prudent to leave the protection in place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! In the future, is asking for page protection the best way to deal with this situation? I made a request before posting here, but the request page is back logged so I was wondering if there was something faster (since I couldn't just warn a single user 4 times and then report as usual, and because it was kind of a serious type of vandalism). kara❈talk 21:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Protection is the best way to solve the problem, yes. Some days I feel RfPP might as well redirect here, but that is the place to ask; when you ned an admin urgently, there's always WP:ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still pretty new and don't know Wikipedia's policies well. kara❈talk 21:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

• In the media: Amazon Echo; EU freedom of panorama; Bluebeard's Castle

• Traffic report: Holidays, anyone?

• Featured content: Wikipedia goes to church in Lithuania

• WikiProject report: Talking hospitals

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator assistance

Could you pass your eyes over the editing at Rochester and Strood by-election, 2014 and pass it on to a suitable admin for action- it stops being an issue on Thursday at 10pm. I don't wish to take this any further personally being too close to a previous sitting MP. Facebook are having similar problem- and it that case the police have become involved. Two of the candidates are engaged in a poster war on the ground, and WP needs to demonstrate NPOV and UNDUE. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Clem, I see quite a bit of back-and-fort. I could fully protect it, but I'd be inundated with complaints because lots of people are going to want to edit it over the next few days. Also, since the servers in the good ol' US of A, WMF Legal's position is likely to be that UK electoral law isn't relevant (at least to Wikipedia itself, obviously applicability to individual editors is another matter). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Santa Claus Doesn't Exist

User:Santa Claus Doesn't Exist appears to be a vandal-only account. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry—trying to read the ArbCom candidate statements and block vandals at the same time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wlglunight93 and arb enforcement

HJ, noticed you didn't leave a talk page message, which is required by the DS procedures... Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the reminder. I'll sort it when I've decided whether or not to indef him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've now indef'd him and completed the paperwork. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE#Wlglunight93

• Wlglunight93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keramiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You're the last admin to block this editor, and you used a duration of 3 months. Now they are reported again at AE, this time for evading their block by using Keramiton as a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93. Why am I telling you this? You're the admin who blocked Keramiton. Anyway, why don't you complete the circle by taking whatever action you think best at WP:AE#Wlglunight93. I doubt there will be much controversy either way. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I thought I'd see if any other admins wanted to chip in, but I think there was only one way it was going. I've indef'd him, concurrent with a one-year AE block, and closed the AE thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

1RR problems

Hi, You are right that AE is not the right place for theoretical discussions on merits of current defitinion of 1RR.

I think the main problem is the lack of definition of "revert". One interpretation is that a partial revert is anything that undoes another user's work - so any edit that deletes or replaces a single letter, including fixing a typo, is a revert. Another interpretation that revert is returning a piece of text to a state that it existed in previously. Your interpretation now was that there is another criteria for revert - the editor has to be aware of the previous edit they are undoing.

For 1RR I think most of the problems can be avoided by re-defining it as "do not commit an edit that was already done in the last 24 hours". This would handle the following situations better than current definition:

• A user re-applying their own controversial edit that was reverted by someone else, violating BRD. Now re-applying would be performing the same edit and would violate 1RR. Instead the user who did the original edit would have to use the talk page to reach consensus on restoring the edit.
• Group revert war. N users performing an edit, while M other users undoing the edit, each doing it only once per day and not violating current 1RR. The outcome is determined by relative sizes of N and M. With the new definition, the first one of the N users would perform the edit, then the first of the M users would revert it, and the next of the N users would not re-apply the change since it would violate the rule. Instead all N+M would be forced to discuss the merits of the edit.

The definition can be extended to 3RR or any number, even or odd. Do you see any problem with it? “WarKosign” 20:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for dropping by. I'll mull this over and get back to you tonight or tomorrow probably. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

bump “WarKosign” 07:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare 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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey HJ! Hope you've been fine, my friend. I was wondering if you could have a look at Talk:El Marino/GA1; nope, it's not for you to review it, but rather to comment on an accusation made towards me, of a conflict of interest. Thank you in advance! Diego Grez (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diego, I've left a note there. I don't know whether it will have any effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Blp

You missed a spot. On a related note, do you think there is a higher standard as to what can be kept in article histories (not revdeleted) for BLPs?--64.233.173.170 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)aka Googleman

Thanks. I was asleep when that happened (it was 05:00 here), but I see Yngvadottir has beaten me to that one, and Drmies RevDel'd the rest and Courcelles protected the page, so I missed a good party! As a rule, yes, the threshold for RevDel on a BLP (or for content about living people posted elsewhere on the wiki) is lower than for other matters. Trivial vandalism shouldn't be RevDel'd, but anything that would cause the subject significant distress or sully their reputation should be. That's not what Wikipedia is about, and it serves no encyclopaedic purpose, so we lose nothing by deleting it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw the RFPP request go by and started blocking the hell out of those editors, figuring it wasn't an attack but rather one person with a bunch of accounts, and that's why I didn't protect the article after I was done. I thought I revdeleted them all, so thanks. These edits are, in my opinion, good examples of what needs to be scrubbed. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

RfPP

Hi HJ - do you think the RfC at RfPP needs formal closure? It doesn't really seem necessary to me, but it's been listed at ANRFC so I thought I would check in just in case it would be useful. Cheers, Sunrise (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Not really. The outcome is clear. I'm just waiting on technical implementation. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 11:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Sunrise (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)