Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 82

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75 ← Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85

Page move help

Hey HJ. If you have a minute, can you help out with a move? The newly created article at Batman vs. Superman has to be moved to Untitled Man of Steel sequel, as the former is a media/fan title and not official to the project. I placed the G6 template on Untitled Man of Steel sequel, as that page has some article history that would have to be cleared to make way for the move. Just requesting the help, if it has not been taken care of by another admin. Thanks so much! - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 06:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Silly question, but has there been some discussion about the move? I'm happy to mash the buttons, but if I do, there'll be nothing to stop the next person just moving it back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry! I forgot to add here, after I posted, that I opened the discussion on the article talk here. So far we have consensus for the move, but the request has not run it's course yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 16:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Since you've opened an RM, it's best to let it run its week. If nobody arrives to close it after a week, ping me and I'll do it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Will do. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 18:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Hi HJ, I have another page move issue I need resolved. I was recently working on crafting Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in my sandbox, encouraging other users to help me there. One user had been doing that, and then they moved my sandbox to the main space. I realized that, as with any move, it took my sandbox history to that page as well. So it would be much appreciated if you moved that page back to User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/2 and then I will work on copying the content back over the the main space, as I was intending the transfer to occur originally. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DNA editathon

We were at the Wikipedia Editathon on May 29th

Advice Needed

I did not completely get the riddles (or should I say Idioms) you used in declining my autopatrol request, can you please give me more specific areas you think I should improve so that the next time I make a request for autopatrol rights it will not be rejected, I have already glanced through the Wikipedia:Autopatrolled article many times so you don't have to wikilink it in your reply again. According to my own understanding, the basic requirement for Autopatrol rights is understanding and being able to write start class eligible Wikipedia articles without any copyright infringement. I have created more than 80 eligible Wikipedia articles thus far, my English is obviously far from being perfect but I am not that bad and I am improving daily. I am NOT requesting for reviewer rights so my wiki understanding does not need to be so perfect before I become autopatrolled. In terms of interactions I always stay away from disputes and I do not war over contents of articles with editors. I try to apply common-sense to the best of my ability. You definitely have your reservations about my edit history, that is why I want to know what I need to improve on to be accepted next time I make a request because I really need this right before I start my mass article creations. PS: Pardon my grammar, I wrote this note very fast. Darreg (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess "my mass article creations" is the problem. But seriously, what HJ Mitchell says is that he has concerns about your experience and quality of your references. Go on, learn and improve the quality and your chances are good for a application next year. Autopatrolled is not a automatic right. The Banner talk 07:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hello HJ

Could you please take a look at this IP page? I need some advice about the way the IP was warned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.131.57.101

It's the final warning that concerns me most as it appears to have been modified to call the IP hypocritical, personally I think that's a bit rude especially to a new editor. It's also the fact they've gone straight at a level 3 warning when the IP removed at best a dozen words. I've looked at the edits and to me they're good faith just the IP doesn't understand what to do. However the warnings appear very bad faith and unfriendly. Can you please advise? 5 albert square (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

They've not manipulated the template, just tacked the gratuitous insult on the end. I'd give them a talking-to about being rude (even if the IP was a vandal, it was unnecessary and unhelpful), and biting newbies but there's not much more to be done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Now what?

Leave it or pursue a proper close? I had a case opened on AN/I and that is now moved to the archives ([1]). I have the idea that Dmatteng got the message through that he is horrible annoying and that he better could take a walk in the park. But still it leaves me a bit confused what to do now. Drmies adviced me to ask you. The Banner talk 18:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd give him a wide berth and hope he reciprocates. If he doesn't, let me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
"a wide berth"? You mean, leave it the way it is and pray he does not start again? The Banner talk 09:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
In a word, yes. But he's been told to leave you alone now, so if he doesn't, you can let me know or go back to ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I hope he stays away from me. He was causing quite a strain. Case closed for now. The Banner talk 12:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

84.236.225.130's new IP again.

I found Special:Contributions/112.198.90.230 because it was the same edits on it. 183.171.172.250 (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I also found out another IP Special:Contributions/89.228.155.102, has only one edit. 183.171.168.152 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Possible inappropriate redaction in article by an admin

Hi HJ!

There's was an email sent today to the gendergap mailing list. In it, a teacher claims that both her student's additions as well as her own additions to National Library of Pakistan were redacted from the history of the article with the reason give of copyright violation. Without the full history I'm unable to judge if the actions were improper, but to me it sounds like possible abuse of redaction by an admin. As an admin, would you be able to look into this?

Thanks!

Lepidoptera (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like HJ's not online this week. There are some printed sources cited in the versions deleted as being in violation of copyright so I can't comment on those as I don't have access, however the parts cited to online sources so at a quick glance appear to suffer from close paraphrasing. I think some judicious use of quotes would have helped, for example when the objectives of the children's library were given, however I think suggested this is a case of admin abuse is going a bit too far. The admin was one of four Wikipedians to identify a copyright problem, and it was discussed at ANI. I've not delved too deeply, but establishing better dialogue and explaining what aspects were problematic would have been a step in the right direction. It's an unfortunate situation. Nev1 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very helpful. I brought up the possibility of abuse because the strict criteria for redaction for copyright being made is that it "can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used.", and User:Brooksky indicated that she'd made additions of citations (non-infringing) to work that another user (a student) had made (probably infringing). I guess my question is 1) is this the case (that she added citations to infringing material by another user) and 2) regardless, is there a reason that redaction was used instead the preferred criterion at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems? According to the criteria there, copyrighted material should remain in the logs unless the copyright holder requests they be redacted. As this confusion has revealed, redaction makes things very difficult to judge and I think added to the distress of the user. Lepidoptera (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

This Month in GLAM: May 2014



Headlines
  • Netherlands report: Libraries; Wikidata & DBpedia; Wikipedians in Residence; Open Culture Data
  • Norway report: 2 x GLAM edit-a-thons
  • Sweden report: Award, competitions and Coat of Arms
  • UK report: No trouble at t'mill; Assisting Metropolitan Police with image licensing enquiries; Wikimania is coming
  • USA report: New Edit-a-thons; GLAM at Wikiconference USA; Activities in New York City
  • Open Access report: WikiProject Open Access launched on the English Wikisource
  • Calendar: June'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 00:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Leeds

Hi Harry, do you think you'll be coming to the Leeds meetup this weekend? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Try and stop me! I've been off my feet for a little over a week since my op and I'm itching to get back into things. (@Bazonka:) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That's good news! I'm going to amaze and astound everyone by remaining entirely sober! Bazonka (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just had a thought... I'm going to be driving to Nottingham straight after the meetup, so I could give you a lift if you like. Anyway, I think I'll be seeing you tomorrow so we can discuss then. Bazonka (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
If you're offering, you'd be saving me a few quid in train fare and the conversation would be better (I'm usually the guy fixated on the laptop and taking up two seats on the train!). I make no promise of sobriety, though! ;) Anyway, you will indeed see me tomorrow, so we can talk then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Template:Location map Israel

User:Jackmcbarn has reverted your edit to the template, replacing the regular map with a map which shows Palestine and a part of Syria in virtually the same colour as Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

He didn't revert my edit—I only protected the template (though perhaps I should have opted for full protection; at least an admin would be risking their bit to kick the hornets' nest). @Jackmcbarn: perhaps you'd care to explain, given that you used advanced user rights to make a controversial edit and WP:TE is littered with dire warnings about proper use and revocation? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The RfC closed, and the closer said no consensus, and the closer said that in these cases, custom was to revert to the status quo. Also, the protection reason was due to vandalism, not due to edit warring. If I'm misinterpreting in any way, feel free to revert me. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, frankly, lie is too short to worry about what shade of grey something should be coloured on a map. Jack: there once was a time when I would have revoked your template-editor permissions without a second thought. These days I'm more inclined to think that it's more hassle than it's worth, and you were arguably just enacting the RfC closure, but using template-editor privileges to make a controversial edit like that without a clear consensus is really not a good idea—please don't make a habit of it. Sepsis, if you really want to pursue is, I suppose you could take it to ANI or AE, but as there's no consensus on which shade of grey to use, it's unlikely that you'd get a conclusive result. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Nocal is back and using 128.32.198.212 again. Sepsis II (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've blocked the IP. Again. And protected all the subtemplates. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful, I'm sure Nocal would give you a barnstar if he could, you just fully protected a dozen of his edits to templates which are now showing extremist Israeli maps. Hurray, who cares that no one recognizes East Jerusalem as being in Israel and such an idea has been explicitly condemned by the international community, let's post maps everywhere that say otherwise. Sepsis II (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert again per your prior warning, but I think according to Sunrise's close, they should be reverted to the original version, before any of the April 2014 edits. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't really give a shit; I just don't want edits made in violation of a block to stand. But really, I'd say nobody should be making mass changes across widely used templates without discussion. I'd suggest leaving it for a few weeks and then revisiting the discussion once everyone's had a breather. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Responding to the ping and talkback; just noting that I don't have anything to add here at this time. I would endorse HJ's suggestion to work on some other stuff for a while before trying to change things again. Sunrise (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help today, I had a great time and have been continuously stopped by others saying how great it was and that they'll be doing more edits. Total was 294 edits globally - fantastic, thanks to you and the wiki team!

Sisterprojects

Hi Harry, I saw you organised a edithon about Wikipedia. Do you also tell something about the sisterprojects, like the wikiversity? What do you say? I'm curious because I would like to put some effort in the promotion of wikiversity. I think that especially the wikiversity is a very friendly environment for new wikimedians. I would like to hear your thoughts. Cheers, Tim, Timboliu (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 15:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Edit Review Request

Hello HJ Mitchell,

I saw you listed here as willing to review edits by editors who would like to become admins. I am pretty certain that I am a case of WP:NOTNOW but I would like to know which areas I am lagging in (number of edits, inexperience in Afd, etc). This would set me down the right path to gaining the respect and trust of the community which is required for a successful nomination. If you would be willing to advise me I would be most grateful. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a bit busy at the minute, but I'll get back to you in the week. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Take your time; there is no hurry. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

84.236.225.130's return as new IP

His/her new IP Special:Contributions/2.125.151.34 just recently added alternative rock as its same edits. 183.171.166.43 (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

User:GeoffS1/sandbox

. --GeoffS1 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced articles

Can you protect this all articles as a #redirect International Indian Film Academy Awards?

That all are fails in WP:V. Actually i was try to remove all unsourced content, but user reverting my all edits without providing a source and i can't tag citation needed per WP:BURDEN, And i don't want to delete this articles, because edit history has better content and anyone can easly revert content with a source. Chander For You 19:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is going way out of hand...

I had a disagreement with Dr. Blofield regarding Grand Restaurant Karel V. And promptly SchroCat, Cassianto and Aymatth2 showed up to poke up the row. In a nice team, SchroCat and Aymatth2 are now busy to destroy the article. As it looks, because I did not agree straight away with the edits of Dr. Blofield.

This teamwork feels to me as harassing and has quite a chilling effect on me. The Banner talk 20:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So much for AGF on the motives of others when it comes to editing, and your constant edit warring on articles and incivility in talk page threads is something I find more chilling than anything else. Have you thought that it may not be teamwork ganging up on you, but the fact there is a genuine and honest consensus against some of your edits? - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL, what about your remark Removing obnoxious trolling. Is that the kind of civility you prefer? The Banner talk 20:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering your harassment on my talk page (at 16:50, 20 June 2014‎; 16:55, 20 June 2014‎; 17:04, 20 June 2014‎; and 17:10, 20 June 2014‎), you calling me "a henchman", and accusing me of tag teaming, followed by your edit warring against four other good and reliable editors, and then the hugely patronising talk page message, yes, I did lose my temper, but I think with some justification, given what I have had to deal with from you recently. – SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
More bloody Banner edit warring? You were introducing mistakes and you knew it. The Banner talk 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Not true. Even it it was true: you should not deal with it by edit warring: you need to use the talk page constructively to change people's minds, leaving the article in whichever state someone last left it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Use the talk page constructively? Like More bloody Banner edit warring? The Banner talk 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Asking, in complete bewilderment, why you haven't bothered with the talk page, but simply gone into edit war mode, is entirely understandable. I'm just saddened (but not surprised) that you hadn't bothered with the talk page yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I did not lose my temper, even given what I have had to deal with from you recently. The Banner talk 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
That's even more concerning: you were in full command of your temper, but still saw fit to harass me on my talk page? Still saw fit to insult me on several occasions? Still saw fit to edit war against the consensus of the talk page? Still saw fit to deal with others in a patronising and insulting way? If you did all that while in full control of your temper, then I am afraid that a consensus-led project is always going to be a bumpy ride. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
When played in a level playing field, like one-on-one, it is not a bumpy ride. The Banner talk 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But look at the history of the restaurant now. You're not meant to be reverting anybody under the terms of your return agreement Banner. Yet you've done so or restored former content/sourcing at least five times. And there was nothing wrong with my initial edits which you reverted in the first place. This was completely avoidable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I corrected this edit in which you introduced a mistake and in which you removed valid sources without explanation. And you ignore this edit. But you and friends get reintroducing the mistake three times. The Banner talk 21:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
That's another clause you've violated, labeling good faith edits as "introducing mistakes". You've dug a massive hole for yourself over this and what makes it worse is that you've now nominated a perfectly valid article for deletion. This could have been completely avoidable. Even long after we agreed on removing the irrelevant history info you sneakily added it back but without reverting to make it look as if it was constructive. I really want to assume good faith and get on with you as an editor but you keep doing things time and time again which make it incredibly difficult.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"I corrected this edit" isn't the truth tho, is it? If your complaint was around the chefs, then a tweak from "chefs include" to "chefs were" is all that was needed, not this: how is that helpful? What is better about "de period"?
You keep ignoring this edit. The Banner talk 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes because you didn't correct the "de" part and didn't restore the decent copyediting apart from my "error" with including.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Dr. Blofeld. But with a list of all chefs it is incorrect to state chefs include. That suggest that there were more.
And secondly, I came many times across your work when hunting links to disambiguation pages. Most of the time, I just skipped them. Why don't you skip my articles? Wikipedia is big enough for the two of us when we carefully avoid each other. The Banner talk 21:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If you exhibited common courtesy and decency towards fellow editors we wouldn't have to avoid each other. I don't make it a habit to troll your work. I simply came across it in the new pages and could see it needed some work. When created the article becomes as much mine as it is yours and I'm not content to see articles with seven citations for one fact and clumsy phrasing. I'm happy to wait for the dab bot to hit my page and then do it via dab solver. Couldn't get the cleaner thing you suggested to work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
And you are making a nice act of it now, but you skip the main problem of this discussion. So, I will ask it directly: why are SchroCat, Cassianto and Aymatth2 always showing up after I have a disagreement with you? The Banner talk 22:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I wil answer for myself: I am a tps of Blofeld, and look at his history from time to time when I'm looking for a distraction. This caught my eye, that is all. No drama, no conspiracy, despite you accusations of "henchman" and "tag teaming". - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
What is a "tps"? The Banner talk 22:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Talk page stalker methinks :) Irondome (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I had figured that out already. The Banner talk 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Before the internet, it meant "two-penny slut" ... but talkpage stalker is much more polite - not as fun, but polite :-) the panda ₯’ 23:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I must say it is quite interesting to see that you found the discussion as tps. It looks like this edit posted 13:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC) was the first one on Dr. B's talk page. But your first comment was 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC). So your comment was more than a day before you found the discussion as tps. The Banner talk 23:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep reading, rather than stopping after the first five words: I said that I "look at his history from time to time". It is from his edit history. Plastering diffs from Blofeld's talk is all well and good, but a bit meaningless! - SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Some people are stalk page talkers at more than one page at once. I, for example, watch both this (HJ's) page and Blofeld's page. A dangerous combination! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If you think that's a dangerous combo, I watch HJ's, Bloe's and yours the panda ₯’ 11:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Touché :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Commenting here is sort of like commenting on Jimbo Wales's talk page, unlikely to get much of a response!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Harry hasn't been around much lately, RW stuff. Maybe you should take this elsewhere? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (talkpage stalker)
  • Gents, please, if you can't play nice, can't you all give each other some space instead of pissing in each others' sandboxes? I'm busy at the minute, and likely to remain so for the next few weeks. I might have time to look into this in more detail over the weekend, but I doubt it's going to change my opinion, which is that this sort of bickering doesn't help anyone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

108.162.24.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Also - 64.134.179.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hello HJ,
This guy is back at it again for the third time. His block expired and he is back making the same nonconstructive edits again. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

IKMJ

Thanks but I do all the changes based on reliable sources like allmusic.com take a look at this : http://www.allmusic.com/artist/miley-cyrus-mn0000551762

It says: Genre: Pop/Rock Styles: Pop Teen Pop Dance-Pop

You make sure that you have any clue that Miley Cyrus is ROCK!!! Hi, HJ Mitchell. I have been Active for four months. Can I please be an admin? Johnsc1234 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Johnsc1234

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

Wikimania Fringe 2014 Awards

Fair use image removed Penny of Thoughts Barnstar
On receipt of a penny, in return for my thoughts. 930913 {{ping}} 14:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Demoting an administrator

Hello HJ, I was wondering if there were things administrators could do that would lead to their demotion back to regular editor, if they harass/stalk others via their contribution edits, or make bold edits without replying to ongoing talkpage discussions, or remove referenced information, or start saying that some references which are not there are "likely" to be there, while others which are primary not secondary are deemed "not notable," etc. They've also removed complaints from other Wikipedians about their edits on their own talkpage (only to add it back after I asked of there was a pattern here, of not accepting criticism.). I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and have only encountered this type of behaviour now, so I was wondering if there was nothing to do or if this could happen. Thank you and have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Always be careful to know the difference between abusing admin priviliges, and not following typical editing processes. The former would direct you to WP:RFC/ADMIN while the other would be a simple WP:RFC/U. Most of what you say above is not related to admin tools, but perhaps to "not modelling behaviour" - however, your explanation is nowhere close to something that would warrant a desysop the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I am asking a question. I don't think I need to "careful" before I ask a question, unless there is absolutely no freedom of speech left any more.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Who said you had to be careful before asking a question? Panda is telling you that you have to ensure that you choose the right venue was the message, or else it will be declined out of process. Admin action-related issues go to one RfC/Admin, non-admin related-actions by administrators go to RfC/U. If you start an RfC/Admin based on actions that did not involve their administrative actions, you will be told to take it to the appropriate venue (RfC/U). Also freedom of speech is not a component of Wikipedia. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You could also, of course, initiate an WP:ARBCOM case. Be aware, though, that arbcom case submissions where there has not been a full and thorough attempt to resolve the issue by other community processes, will be declined. (I think the admin you have in mind has been admonished in an arbcom case previously, which may go part of the way, but not really all the way.) The RfC processes mentioned by others above would be the most obvious "other community processes" to try at this point.
Someone told me long ago that an RfC/U rarely resolves the problems with a persistent troublesome editor (or admin), instead in most cases it is merely a necessary stepping stone to an arbcom case. In my experience this advice has turned out to be correct.
Finally, it is best not to regard the admin bit as a "promotion"; it is merely an indication that someone has certain technical rights to carry out certain dogsbody tasks as required and requested by the editing community. Thus of course, the removal of the bit would not be a "demotion", merely a period - indefinite or otherwise - of rest from such menial tasks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't have put it better than my colleagues (thanks guys—it's great to know I can rely on you when I'm busy!), although I dislike the promote/demote terminology. Admins can do a few things ordinary editors can't, but we're (at least supposed to be) servants of the community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the only publisher where moving from editor to janitor is considered a "promotion". --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2014



Headlines
  • Belgium report: Bouchout Declaration on Open Access to Biodiversity data; Virtual collaboration in the government
  • France report: Round table in Brussels; Video at Sèvres; 70th anniversary of the D-Day
  • Germany report: Exhibition photography
  • Mexico report: Edit-a-thon of Museo Soumaya; simulthaneous edit-a-thon in Argentina, Mexico and Spain about Spanish Exile; new cultural partner of Wikimedia México
  • Netherlands report: Music edit-a-thon; Library workshops; Videos, maps and Japanese art donations; Wiki Loves Earth
  • Sweden report: Wiki Loves Monuments is being prepared for Sweden
  • UK report: Free Culture; Image releases
  • USA report: A GLAM Day Out! in Philadelphia; Local History at the Local Library
  • Wikimania report: GLAM presentations at Wikimania
  • Open Access report: Open biodiversity data; Automated import of scholarly journal articles into Wikisource
  • Calendar: July'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.

April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period April to June 2014, I am delighted to award you these Wikistripes. During this period you undertook four reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Peacemaker! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/84.236.225.130

He/she did not attention once again. Can you please block him/her again? 183.171.172.185 (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, done. Let me know if they come back again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox curler

Hi Harry,

In your edit summary when you fully-protected the template today, you directed "take it to the talk page, folks". Well, it's been on the talk page for five days now, Template talk:Infobox curler #Recent improvements reverted with just one editor, Nikkimaria, maintaining opposition to changes (for what I would have to characterise as purely spurious grounds) against the arguments presented by four other editors. I'm going to ask you to reconsider full-protection as a means of resolving the edit-warring, in lieu of a solution that does not handicap one side of the dispute (Nikkimaria is an admin) and prevent useful improvements being made.

Nikkimaria has a history of stalking Andy and was admonished by ArbCom for editwarring: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes #Nikkimaria admonished - she made her first ever edit to the template only on 29 July 2014 to revert an edit made by Andy. Since then, she has removed the same piece of code a further three times (within the last day) against two other different editors. I am so exasperated by her edit-warring that I broke my self-imposed 1RR for the first time in six years, but I don't see why she should be able to get away with this style of imposing her version on articles, particularly when she often has no stronger reason than that the change wasn't discussed first. So much for WP:BOLD.

Nikkimaria was taken to ANEW a couple of days ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive249 #User:Nikkimaria reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Declined)) by BHG and even though the report was declined - despite four clear reverts - there was plenty of evidence of edit-warring on other articles as well.

Frankly, Harry, I don't edit-war and I'm dismayed that you've implemented a "solution" that prevents me from editing the page (but technically allows Nikki to do so), while the real solution is to stop Nikki from edit-warring. I have no intention of pursuing Nikki myself, as we have too many interactions for me to be objective about it, but you're an uninvolved admin and are capable of seeing the bigger picture. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been on the talk page where there was consensus to implement gender but not how to do it, which I pointed out when removing it; surely it would be more productive to finish that discussion before attempting to move on to another issue? Frankly, Rex, you do edit-war, and you have made several other false statements above. But don't worry, no one will edit through protection here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a lie, Nikki. I don't edit-war. My second revert was the only time I've done that in six years. You, on the other hand, are unlikely to go more than six days without a double revert. If you have another idea about how a decision may be implemented, just pipe up with it - I'm more than happy to discuss constructive ideas. What is not acceptable is gaming the system by reverting a possible implementation without offering anything in its place. That is destructive, not constructive editing and you need to understand that. --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Doug, you know me well enough to know that I'm not just going to swoop in out of nowhere with the banhammer. Your point is quite correct, which is why I reminded Nikki that discussion was the Wikipedia way. To go further, 10 hours after the most recent revert, would not have been preventative, and blocking Nikki would have arguably handicapped one side by prohibiting her from participating in the discussion. I'd also just remind everyone that it takes more than one person to edit war; the point at which somebody is contemplating reverting a revert is the point at which the reverting should stop until a consensus can be reached. If discussion is deadlocked, or one participant is obstructing the process, seek outside help. Both you and Nikki (and any other participants) are very welcome to ask for my input here; as you can see, even when I'm not around there are plenty of eyes on this page. As an aside, yes Nikki is an admin, but she is presumably as aware as I am that edit-warring through protection would be grounds for arbitration proceedings and likely desysopping; admins have been stripped of their bits for precisely that sort of conduct in the past.

Nikki, please don't make accusations on this page without diffs; the offer is open for you to bring me diffs, and I don't doubt your sincerity, but if I allowed unsupported allegations to stand unchallenged, it wouldn't foster the sort of environment I try to maintain here. Your suggestion of concluding the ongoing discussion before doing anything else is precisely what I was hoping to accomplish with the short-term protection, so perhaps the two of you could look past your grievances with each other and focus on creating a mutually acceptable solution? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A lie, Rex? Revert 1, revert 2, no more 1RR. Of course you needn't break 1RR (or 3RR) to be edit-warring; if the edit-summary search was working properly I could find more reverts in which you admonish others not to edit-war, but one example should be enough for the moment. Now, your "despite four clear reverts" claim should be easy to substantiate with diffs - care to try? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You picked the example for me there, Nikki. Your reverts on that same article were: revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4, revert 5 over two days. Oh I'm sorry, you wanted an example of just four reverts? Well from the very template that brought me here: revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4. If you'd like another half-dozen examples of your edit-warring, I'm sure I can oblige.
@Harry: I truly don't want to see Nikkimaria sanctioned; she does far too much good work elsewhere. I just want her to stop stalking Andy and Gerda, and to recognise she has a blind-spot when it comes to her edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I wanted you to substantiate your specific allegation quoted from above, regarding the AN3 case. But I accept the apology for falsely accusing me of lying that I expect you simply forgot to provide. We both edit-war, Rex; only one of us has failed to recognise it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You wanted me to reproduce the diffs from the AN3 case? Well if you insist:
Happy now? Nikki, when you claim that I edit war, you're not being truthful and you know it. You have a history of edit-warring longer than my arm - and I've got quite long arms. Feel free to bring up any other instances of me making multiple reversions. For each one that you do, I'll supply ten examples of your multiple reverts. That leaves me with the easy job. --RexxS (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope: I asked you to substantiate your claim of "four clear reverts", and that doesn't do it. I gave an example above of you edit-warring, and I can give more examples, but your proposal doesn't make sense: no matter how many examples you can show of me edit-warring, that doesn't change the fact that you edit-war. If you're unable to recognise that, and if you persist in saying I'm lying despite clear evidence to the contrary, then I'm not the one with the blind spot here. So let's leave poor Harry his page, as we've nothing more to discuss. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The fact is that I don't edit-war. My proposal was to demonstrate that you won't find examples of me making multiple reversions, but you do it all the time. Compare my talk page to yours; compare my block log to yours. If you want to accuse me of edit-warring, you'd better supply the diffs or you'll be laughed out of court. Put up or shut up. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There are already two examples of you making multiple reversions presented on this page, and as already mentioned you don't have to break 1RR to edit-war. But, again, since we're not going to agree there's no point to this. Feel free to have the last word. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I might have the last word? You should both give each other space. The merry-go-round of reverting, bickering, then arguing over whose conduct is worse doesn't do anybody any good. Can't you both just find something else to do for a while? Because as it is, I've half a mind to kick this back to ArbCom, but that would be a huge waste of everyone's time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll be happy to let you have the last word, Harry, but I can't let the impression stand that there is any equivalence between Nikki's behaviour and mine. I am completely sure that my editing behaviour will stand up to scrutiny at ArbCom; while Nikki's will show a pattern of stalking both Andy and Gerda along with regular edit-warring as her normal method of forcing her version onto articles. If you need to be convinced of that, I'd be happy to collate the diffs for you. But I don't want to see her sanctioned at ArbCom - I spoke against sanctions against her at her previous ArbCom case; I just want her to improve her behaviour and rely on debate, not reversion in her contributions. --RexxS (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_82&oldid=1178737824"