User talk:HJ Mitchell: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:44, 19 April 2015

Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically

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.

The Nostradamus troll is back yet again!

Dear HJ Mitchell.

I am messaging you with regards to the continuous abuse from an anonymous user/troll, on the Nostradamus Wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nostradamus (The person concerned is currently posting as 199.27.175.60). They have been continually attacking both PL and myself, the latest instance of this has been within the past 24 hours. Please may you look to remove or suspend this user from the page, as their comments are totally unacceptable and inappropriate. Smithsurf (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to support Smithsurf. The troll Dennis Markuze (199.27.175.60) has been posting unsigned deranged poisonous personal attacks for years in forums concerning Nostradamus, and should not be allowed to turn Wikipedia into a personal battlefield too. They are currently at a peak. Please block him indefinitely and remove his posts, which have little or nothing to do with the article they purport to be commenting on. Having done that, please add the Nostradamus Talk page to your Watchlist, so that you can act at once in future as soon as any of his unsigned posts appear, as they undoubtedly will (it's quite easy -- he always posts anonymously, whether from the above address or from the other one that he has been known to use, and you'll have not the slightest difficulty in spotting his style!)

Meanwhile, please refer to http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Markuze

--PL (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for six months (We don't indef IP addresses because they change from time to time); we'll see where that gets us. I've added the article to my watchlist, but it's a long watchlist and I don't always have time to check every edit, so you might need to give me a poke. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! As you'll have seen from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Markuze, we're up against a pretty serious case with wide ramifications!I'll keep my poker ready, but if he appears it'll probably hit you in the eye! --PL (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks HJ! Hopefully this shall be the end of the issue anyhow, but I appreciate that there are a large number of pages here (and so yes I shall let you know if anything else related crops up). Cheers. Smithsurf (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPCL page RPP request

The edits on Southern Poverty Law Center are between IPs from Australia (and one new account) and registered users. And it's continuing with another IP in this edit. Please reconsider the RPP request. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir, Looking at that page's revision history, you appear to have "edit warred" as much as anyone else.

I urge you to re-read WP:BRD, specifically this passage:

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

Examining the talk page where one would expect to find those reasons, we see multiple contributions from each of the "edit warring" editors, even IPs - except you. You raise exactly one objection "Academic Questions ... does not appear to be peer reviewed", which in fact it is and proof was presented on the talk page. Did I miss your response? I encourage you to return to the talk page and discuss. Page protection should not be used to settle content disputes. 104.156.240.153 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't IP hop to try to force my edits on a page. I'm glad discussion finally started. But don't hurt yourself falling off your horse there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see CBW has protected the page. I have mixed feelings, but hopefully that will allow tempers to cool and discussion to prevail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julio César Chávez

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhyiddin Yassin

What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave that one to expire. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

protection of Ali pages

Hi HJ Mitchell. I checked the history of Ali article. After 19 February 2015, i see one edition war. In whole the article is good and i think it's harmful for article. What should i do? Can you guide me? Thanks!Savior59 (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a month's protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harry...

...while I have you on the line, would you mind taking a look at Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Demographics of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina? They're being hit by an IP-hopper geolocating to Serbia who is deliberately misinterpreting the 1907 edition of the "Catholic Dictionary", claiming that 98% of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina were Serbs in 1895 (including the Muslims and Catholics, i.e. the people who now self-identify as Bosniaks and Croats). Or maybe he just can't see things in a historical perspective (Croatia etc didn't exist back then). I've reverted him a few times, and pointed him to WP:BRD and the talk pages of the articles, but he just keeps going, accusing me of vandalism for reverting him. I'm close to 3RR so I'd appreciate if someone else would look at it too. Thomas.W ^talk 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see CBW has semi'd all three. That's probably the best way to go. Hopefully your friend will get bored, although knowing the sorts of people that topic area attracts... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been good at taking it easy, and leave the difficult cases, such as spammers trying to promote their websites, people with a fairly obvious COI trying to delete controversies and politically and religiously motivated POV-pushers, to someone else, so it's been a bit turbulent here the past couple of days. With "bad guys" who are more persistent than ever, and clearly know their way around here. Thomas.W ^talk 20:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock reinstatement request

Hi. About a month ago you instituted a rangeblock against 2602:306:8B2C:5350::/64 due to persistant IP-hopping vandalism (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phillip_Pham/Archive#08_March_2015). Well, that block expired, and it looks like within a few days Phillip Pham is already back to their old tricks (as I've tried to document at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phillip_Pham). Maybe a longer block is in order. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist has renewed the rangeblock for three months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Is there any chance you could look at the other IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phillip Pham? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

News and notes: Erik Möller leaving Foundation; annual plan grants under community review

In the media: Saving Wikipedia; Internet regulation; Thoreau quote hoax

Blog: Single-User Login provides access to all wikis

Traffic report: Furious domination

Featured content: Au-delà de les Alpes, le chien lit de Sainte Bernard. Sous les pavés, les trimes d'argent! Mes enfants, suivez-moi!

Unclosed cases at AE being archived

Hello HJ. I just restored the timeout to 4 days but noticed that this is a change you made in late January. I found myself bringing Ohconfucius back from the archives twice in the same week. Putting the timeout back to 4 days would avoid this embarrassment. Let me know if you object. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ, you should consider coming back to WP:AE ;=) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I don't object, Ed. We had quite a few closed requests sitting at AE at the time and the page was getting quite long. It can easily be changed up or down as necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AE is awaiting your return, if you have the time. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

96.255.237.17

Just checked that you had unblocked this IP. Consider reading User talk:Bishonen#Clarification, this IP is abused by a long term sock puppeteer, and he is already promoting his meaningless theories[1], also consider reading this talk page section of the IP. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow am I glad I followed up on my hunch to check OccultZone's contribs to see if they are still Formshopping and behold this discussion appears on the list. So, as I mentioned to mysterious and suspicious "OZ", I am not the editor in question and I suspect if they had some actual proof, rather than unproven conjecture, they would take it to ANI rather than run around to a few different admins pages who have high block counts looking for support for their conspiracy theories. Anyone who bothers to compare will see I have not done any edits or made any comment that even look like the blocked editor they are accusing me to be. These comments are nothing more than poor faith and a disruption to the project to justify blocking an IP to give themselves some street credit. I expect there is any number of accusations that could be made to justify blocking my IP, but that I am the editor in question is not among them. Cheers! 96.255.237.170 (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Do you have any actual evidence? IP geolocation should be taken with a healthy dose of salt at best, and IP addresses are reassigned periodically. Not to mention that over the time scale you're talking about, people move house/change jobs/switch ISPs. The IP is obviously an experienced editor logged out who has a bee in their bonnet about admins. But there are no shortage of long-banned editors who blame all the problems with their own conduct on "admin abuse", and the community at present seems to place a higher value on such editors than on admins who keep the wheels turning but have a low tolerance for bullshit. If you don't like the IP or you find them boring, just ignore them, but your scattergun accusations of sock-puppetry are getting tiring. At some point, the best thing to do is to say "sod that" and go and do something else—not everybody who pisses you off on the Internet is a sockpuppet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, editors also keep the wheels turning but you are correct that not all admins are a problem. I also am not blaming them for "my behavior", I blame them for theirs. Unfortunately some are not deserving of the privilege they have and they are allowed to be that way and cause a lot of damage to the morale and reputation of the site. I would also add that if the environment here wasn't so prone to indefinitely ban everyone, there would be a lot less of those long banned editors returning to comment or edit. For what its worth, my bonnet looks like this...but I cannot play the pipes! Cheers! 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do, but a small group of admins are effectively Wikipedia's last line of defence against things that nobody should ever have to deal with. Those sorts of admins, including Beeblebrox and I, are the reason you don't see Jennifer Lawrence's boobs every time you visit Wikipedia; the reason you don't have to read about what some sociopath would do to a female celebrity at 3am; the reason Wikipedia hasn't become a platform for allegations from a BLP subject's previous career; the reason spambots haven't taken over the place; the reason you won't find links to malware or attack sites on Wikipedia; and the reason that good editors can focus on writing the encyclopaedia, blissfully ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes. In my experience, most of the people who have thick enough skins to deal with that kind of crap tend to be quite jaundiced and sometimes have a short fuse. Whereas I know plenty of lovely, happy, cheery admins who do brilliant work and have seemingly infinite patience but happily concede that they couldn't stomach the darker side of admin work. Wikipedia needs both types of admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IP(of Kumioko) is now blocked for block evasion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad the Impaler

Extend PC time or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps any, this article has not come up on the Special:PendingChanges list lately, but it is a regularly appearing article on that list. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: Okay, you're the admin for five minute. What would you do? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I would say keep the level, at the very least, that keeps it on the Pending Changes list given the number of IP edits that are garbage or outright vandalism. Upgrading it to the level where only autoconfirmed Users can edit wouldn't be so bad either. I find it interesting that this article is vandalized year round. Obviously the high-point of the year is between Thanksgiving until just after Halloween. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll leave it as it is for the minute (but reset the duration to indefinite), and we can look at short spells of semi-protection if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thx! And thanks for asking my opinion...! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valvecraft

	Ehem
	WHY DID YOU REMOVE MY VALVECRAFT PAGE?! I WORKED SO HARD ON THAT! YOU WILL PAY FOR THIS! Micahmpj (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Because to quote your own statement, "its to help me raise money and to keep our server up and to help people out of where current stuff is in the game". You admit that you are trying to promote your own project and raise money. That has no place in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 ==96.255.237.17==
 Just checked that you had unblocked this IP. Consider reading [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=657062023#Clarification User talk:Bishonen#Clarification], this IP is abused by a long term sock puppeteer, and he is already promoting his meaningless theories[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=657050220&oldid=657049670], also consider reading this talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:96.255.237.170#Enough section of the IP]. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 17:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
-<s>:Wow am I glad I followed up on my hunch to check [[User:OccultZone|OccultZone]]'s contribs to see if they are still Formshopping and behold this discussion appears on the list. So, as I mentioned to mysterious and suspicious "OZ", I am not the editor in question and I suspect if they had some actual proof, rather than unproven conjecture, they would take it to ANI rather than run around to a few different admins pages who have high block counts looking for support for their conspiracy theories. Anyone who bothers to compare will see I have not done any edits or made any comment that even look like the blocked editor they are accusing me to be. These comments are nothing more than poor faith and a disruption to the project to justify blocking an IP to give themselves some street credit. I expect there is any number of accusations that could be made to justify blocking my IP, but that I am the editor in question is not among them. Cheers! [[Special:Contributions/96.255.237.170|96.255.237.170]] ([[User talk:96.255.237.170|talk]]) 19:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)</s> <small>Ban evasion by Kumioko</s></small>
+:Wow am I glad I followed up on my hunch to check [[User:OccultZone|OccultZone]]'s contribs to see if they are still Formshopping and behold this discussion appears on the list. So, as I mentioned to mysterious and suspicious "OZ", I am not the editor in question and I suspect if they had some actual proof, rather than unproven conjecture, they would take it to ANI rather than run around to a few different admins pages who have high block counts looking for support for their conspiracy theories. Anyone who bothers to compare will see I have not done any edits or made any comment that even look like the blocked editor they are accusing me to be. These comments are nothing more than poor faith and a disruption to the project to justify blocking an IP to give themselves some street credit. I expect there is any number of accusations that could be made to justify blocking my IP, but that I am the editor in question is not among them. Cheers! [[Special:Contributions/96.255.237.170|96.255.237.170]] ([[User talk:96.255.237.170|talk]]) 19:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
-::{{ping|OccultZone}} Do you have any ''actual'' evidence? IP geolocation should be taken with a healthy dose of salt at best, and IP addresses are reassigned periodically. Not to mention that over the time scale you're talking about, people move house/change jobs/switch ISPs. The IP is obviously an experienced editor logged out who has a bee in their bonnet about admins. But there are no shortage of long-banned editors who blame all the problems with their own conduct on "admin abuse", and the community at present seems to place a higher value on such editors than on admins who keep the wheels turning but have a low tolerance for bullshit. If you don't like the IP or you find them boring, just ignore them, but your scattergun accusations of sock-puppetry are getting tiring. At some point, the best thing to do is to say "sod that" and go and do something else—not ''everybody'' who pisses you off on the Internet is a sockpuppet. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 20:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC
+::{{ping|OccultZone}} Do you have any ''actual'' evidence? IP geolocation should be taken with a healthy dose of salt at best, and IP addresses are reassigned periodically. Not to mention that over the time scale you're talking about, people move house/change jobs/switch ISPs. The IP is obviously an experienced editor logged out who has a bee in their bonnet about admins. But there are no shortage of long-banned editors who blame all the problems with their own conduct on "admin abuse", and the community at present seems to place a higher value on such editors than on admins who keep the wheels turning but have a low tolerance for bullshit. If you don't like the IP or you find them boring, just ignore them, but your scattergun accusations of sock-puppetry are getting tiring. At some point, the best thing to do is to say "sod that" and go and do something else—not ''everybody'' who pisses you off on the Internet is a sockpuppet. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 20:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
-<s>:::With respect, editors also keep the wheels turning but you are correct that not all admins are a problem. I also am not blaming them for "my behavior", I blame them for theirs. Unfortunately some are not deserving of the privilege they have and they are allowed to be that way and cause a lot of damage to the morale and reputation of the site. I would also add that if the environment here wasn't so prone to indefinitely ban everyone, there would be a lot less of those long banned editors returning to comment or edit. For what its worth, my bonnet looks like [[Feather bonnet|this]]...but I cannot play the pipes! Cheers! [[Special:Contributions/96.255.237.170|96.255.237.170]] ([[User talk:96.255.237.170|talk]]) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)</s><small>Ban evasion by Kumioko</s></small>
+:::With respect, editors also keep the wheels turning but you are correct that not all admins are a problem. I also am not blaming them for "my behavior", I blame them for theirs. Unfortunately some are not deserving of the privilege they have and they are allowed to be that way and cause a lot of damage to the morale and reputation of the site. I would also add that if the environment here wasn't so prone to indefinitely ban everyone, there would be a lot less of those long banned editors returning to comment or edit. For what its worth, my bonnet looks like [[Feather bonnet|this]]...but I cannot play the pipes! Cheers! [[Special:Contributions/96.255.237.170|96.255.237.170]] ([[User talk:96.255.237.170|talk]]) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 ::::Of course they do, but a small group of admins are effectively Wikipedia's last line of defence against things that nobody should ever have to deal with. Those sorts of admins, including Beeblebrox and I, are the reason you don't see Jennifer Lawrence's boobs every time you visit Wikipedia; the reason you don't have to read about what some sociopath would do to a female celebrity at 3am; the reason Wikipedia hasn't become a platform for allegations from a BLP subject's previous career; the reason spambots haven't taken over the place; the reason you won't find links to malware or attack sites on Wikipedia; and the reason that good editors can focus on writing the encyclopaedia, blissfully ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes. In my experience, most of the people who have thick enough skins to deal with that kind of crap tend to be quite jaundiced and sometimes have a short fuse. Whereas I know plenty of lovely, happy, cheery admins who do brilliant work and have seemingly infinite patience but happily concede that they couldn't stomach the darker side of admin work. Wikipedia needs both types of admin. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 23:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 :::::This IP(of Kumioko) is now blocked for block evasion. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)