User talk:HJ Mitchell: Difference between revisions

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.

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.

Good morning young man. There is a empty glass on the table- awaiting your visit. How do you rate the NHS (stub, Start, C, B- or still pending?)

To business, can you have a look at this page and give your OTRS opiniion. Does it have all the detail OTRS needs to give the donated text a thumbs up.

Martin of Sheffield sent me a poke regarding a young man who had asked a webmaster friend if he could copy a chunk of the website onto a Wikipedia page. He did, and Martin just wanted a simple way to get Wikipedia approval. We ought to be able give him the correct text to make official I thought. I have spent the weekend playing Dungeons and Dragons with the official OTRS pages- they make Stalin's and the STASI look like a bunch of pussy cats. The language is a direct cut & paste from the Old Testament (/rant)

I think I said in Manchester that we needed some simple A6 cards, like the creative commons one, to encourage new people to get involved and to signal that the text & photographs on their websites was CC-BY-SA- and they would like WP to use it. So here we have a practical example of that almost happening.

• I have C&P ed the available text and customised- but does it hit all the points on your OTRS checklist? Can we point the young man at the page and let him get his friend to fill in the blanks.
• Is the format right?
• What have I missed?

Then

• How can we extend this into a Smartphone app? That will take some backend work
• Then what about a OTRS Tutorial for humans?
• Can we make the OTRS pages more encouraging, and less threatening?

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clem! Still pending wrt our beloved NHS; perhaps they're waiting for the Tories to privatise them completely. I'm already being seen by a private company that runs part of the hospital "under contract" from the NHS. I'll get back to you wrt OTRS when I have a bit more time. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually STiki doesn't have a separate warning option for spammers, it only provides us with two choices: "revert vandalism" or "revert good-faith edit". Therefore the tool doesn't understand the final warning others gave for spammers. The message you saw was automatically sent by the program when I hit "revert". ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough; I'll mention it the STiki folks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for approving my rollback request.

I'm well aware of what Spider Man said - "With great power comes great responsibility" - so I know that this isn't something to dork around with.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not that big a deal, but you'll be fine as long as you apply common sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you consider my request for protection as soon as possible. Possible Wikipedia:PUSH, WP:Soapboxing and WP:crystalball also.

I've seen the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously need your help. [1], [2] Shriram^Talk 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Many thanks for granting me Rollback. Have to say that I keep reverting with Twinkle sometimes by mistake. But nonetheless Rollback is very useful so thanks again.--good888 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Glad you find it useful! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He followed me to other articles after I told him to stop. After he was unblocked he has continued the same behaviour. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps assume good faith on that one. They did revert themselves, and they did apologise. Unless a pattern emerges post-unblock, I'm inclined to hope that they move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an accidental there would of been an autogenerated edit summary. The apology is disingenuous because it was obviously intentional.

He added OR to the lede but he claimed the text was verified. The text added to the lede was not a summary of the body. The references he added to the lede did not verify the claim. He was being disingenuous because he obviously ignored my comments.

After I told him to stop following me to other articles he did continue but has never apologised for following me.

It was also a strange coincidence that two different accounts made very similar edits.[3][4]

I thought it was important to give you more detailed information on this. I don't want the editor to move on to other articles to do something like this again in mainspace. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QG, it might just be best to leave it for the time being. They've hardly done anything since they were unblocked, and they've provided a plausible explanation for the one questionable edit. Frankly, you both seem to have an unhealthy obsession with each other; can't you just give them a wide berth? If they carry on the way that got them blocked the first time, there are plenty of other editors who can deal with it, and I'm sure somebody will bring it to my attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

We've been having problems with IP 68.228.67.228 on Space Elevator. However, I don't think it would be anywhere near as big a problem without the uncivil antagonism of Tarlneustaedter. In this go-around, Tarlneustaedter essentially baited 68.228.67.228 with 1) reversions based on the editor not based on the edit content (ad hominem), 2) Uncivil commentary toward 68.228.67.228 in edit summaries. IP 68.228.67.228 has a checkered past, but in this cycle he started out with good good-faith editing and only "went rogue" after abusive treatment by Tarlneustaedter.

Please review Tarlneustaedter's edits and see if you agree. If you do, please consider removing the protection you put on Space Elevator a few minutes ago.

Skyway (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis of the situation, but leaving it open just because the IP started out in good faith isn't a realistic option, especially when they've used proxies to evade blocks in the past. Perhaps you could encourage them to engage in conversation and make suggestions on the talk page, then we can think about lifting the protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll buy that. It's a difficult situation. We need the contributions of IPs to give us vitality, but the way things work, one determined rogue can place any article under siege. The protection periods get longer and longer with less and less review each time. Before we know it, we have permanent protection for "persistent vandalism" by just one person who long ago moved on to other things. I hope we can avoid that path here. Skyway (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. We have very few defences against anybody who's determined enough and patient enough, but we have to hope that that energy can be channelled into something positive. Permanent protection isn't in anybody's interests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have blocked user:The Banner for disruptive editing, especially edit warring for one week. There was a hope that after that he will act more responsibly.

However, after he had served his block, he has engaged twice in edit warring on article UE Boom. He also posted a number of uncivil messages on the article's talk page in the first section. He fails again to accept consensus, and engages in name calling. Please see him calling A merger of Roman Catholic parish article in AfD nomination as "vandalism". Overall, he continues the same pattern of behavior as prior to the block - disruptive and uncivil. Dmatteng (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the habit of indef'ing established editors on the basis of a single post on my talk page, but in this case it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had my own concerns about The Banner's conduct since their block expired, so I don't think I had any choice in this case. I've blocked them indefinitely; I hope not infinitely, but that's up to him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your post on The Banner's talk page, I think the block template is missing (and also mistyped 'yo' should be 'you'). Although I'm an involved editor, I would rather prefer that his disruptive behavior would cease without a block, however I'm afraid that it is rather not possible at this time.

Could you please also add conditions: 1) The Banner should remove all non-constructive messages on talk pages that he had posted; especially name-calling and other uncivil messages. 2) He will not engage in edit warring. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the typo for the time being to save annoying Banner. The template isn't a necessity, and sometime plain English is preferable to templatese. I'm not sure a restriction not to edit-war is necessary, as edit-warring is against policy anyway; obliging him to go back and remove previous edits would be unnecessarily punitive, whereas the aim should be to prevent further disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are probably the most active admin at RFPP, if I had a nickel for every time I saw an edit summary of yours saying protected for a fortnight, well I would have a lot of nickels. kelapstick(bainuu) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's very kind. I have some help with the edit summaries—User:Steel359/Protection js makes those sorts of things a bit quicker. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, that is a lovely script. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is. It really ought to be better documented. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going through MfD today, and was disappointed I couldn't find a script similar to AfD Close to use on it. That would be nice. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is one, but I don't have much to do with MfD. It might be one of Mr Z man's, so you could ask him or one o the regulars at MfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Harry, but I must formally decline your invitation. I took a look at WP:AE and I find this. Note the last sentence: I want to object to it because it seems as if there's WP:WIKIHOUNDing (by the filer) going on plus an implicit statement (by the responder) of "I've been waiting for an excuse to hit 'block' ASAP", which to my mind is just Not Cricket. But, at the top of the page, there's a pink box with a bunch of bullets that boil down to "if you even think about posting here to disagree, you'll be desysopped and banned for life. This is our patch: keep out". The attitude is just far too hostile: I cannot risk my neck even by posting a neutral comment, so the prospect of doing this more often is not what I am here for. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a shame, Redrose. Without wishing to discuss that specific request, I understand your feelings, and the perk of being volunteers is that we can opt to do or not do (almost) anything we please, but I think your decision not to participate (and that of other admins) contributes to the problem there, which is that it essentially an echo chamber. So few admins comment there that you just get the same opinions again and again, and it can be maddeningly difficult to get people to budge. The regulars know this, and they play it like a fiddle. Add to that the dire warnings of desysopping etc, and there's so little oversight that admins can get away with al sorts of shit. ArbCom are trying to change some of that with the DS review, but the problems really are with the process rather than the instrument, so the only way to really solve it is from the bottom up, with more admins offering opinions. And if that meant that I was in the minority, I'd be a lot more comfortable with that than I would with being shouted down by a tiny number of admins or with enforcement requests being summarily closed by a single admin with no meaningful oversight. That's why I've been mentioning it to admins I respect, including you, so I hope (though don't expect) that you'll reconsider, or at least share your thoughts with ArbCom. Ironically (since I gave them both a relatively hard time at the election), User:Roger Davies and User:AGK have seemed willing to listen to people who raise honest concerns during the discretionary sanctions review; perhaps they might have comments to make on your thoughts. Input from TPSs, especially admins, welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Iranian Embassy siege know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 30, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 30, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Iranian Embassy siege took place from 30 April to 5 May 1980, after a group of six armed men stormed the Iranian embassy in London. The gunmen, members of an Iranian Arab group campaigning for Arab national sovereignty in Khūzestān Province, took 26 hostages and demanded the release of Arab prisoners from jails in Khūzestān. Police negotiators gradually secured the release of five hostages in exchange for minor concessions. On the sixth day the gunmen, frustrated at the lack of progress, killed a hostage and threw his body out of the embassy. The British government ordered the Special Air Service (SAS), a special forces regiment, to rescue the hostages. During the 17-minute raid, the SAS rescued all but one of the remaining hostages, and killed five of the gunmen. The hostage-takers and their cause were largely forgotten afterwards, but the operation brought the SAS to public attention. It was overwhelmed by the number of applications it received from people inspired by the operation and experienced greater demand for its expertise from foreign governments. The building suffered major damage from fire (aftermath pictured) and did not reopen as the embassy until 1993. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again? Bencherlite, any chance you could spread these out a bit more in future? I won't grumble about this one (though it might have been nice to have held it back for the 35th anniversary next year or even the 40th in 2020, though that's a long way off), but it's a pain in the arse to keep an eye on a TFA, and this is the second of my FAs to run in the space of a few weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been the 25th anniversary coming up, then I might have waited a year, but the 35th anniversary isn't a particularly special number. And six weeks between TFAs isn't cruel and unusual punishment (last summer, one editor had two TFAs in three days, at his request I might add) - but I don't have any plans to run Richard Dannatt or Operation Barrass at present, which I think (after checking) are now your only two FAs yet to be TFA. I know TFA can be a pain but you are getting over 3 weeks' warning of the date, which I hope helps. Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 05:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi colleague, there is no "edit dispute" there but this article unfortunately is one of the targets of a well known cross wiki vandal. See here for the file. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (nl-wiki admin and global sysop)[reply]

Hi HJ, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request regarding Rich Farmbrough and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]