Misplaced Pages

User talk:HJ Mitchell: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:09, 6 October 2014 editAndyvphil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,372 edits →Perms← Previous edit Revision as of 17:49, 6 October 2014 edit undoHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,844 edits →"Full protection" means...?: rNext edit →
(9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 63: Line 63:


At 20:23, 3 October 2014 you fully protected Thefederalist.com‎. I understand this means it can only be edited by admins, but I'd like some clarification as to what that means. I understand that (a) admins can do housekeeping edits, (b) make edits '''required''' by policy (e.g., remove actual BLP vios) or (c) make non-controversial edits requested on the Talk page. But does the admin bit mean an admin is free to (d) work on a protected page as if it were not protected? ] (]) 07:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC) At 20:23, 3 October 2014 you fully protected Thefederalist.com‎. I understand this means it can only be edited by admins, but I'd like some clarification as to what that means. I understand that (a) admins can do housekeeping edits, (b) make edits '''required''' by policy (e.g., remove actual BLP vios) or (c) make non-controversial edits requested on the Talk page. But does the admin bit mean an admin is free to (d) work on a protected page as if it were not protected? ] (]) 07:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
:Hi, (d) is definitely out, and even (a) can be controversial. Adminship is about enacting (and sometimes enforcing) consensus and, by extension, policy (which is a codification of policy). Admins shouldn't act unilaterally, and they have to respect full protection like anyone else. So they can make edits requested on the talk page that have consensus or are uncontroversial (eg typo fixes), and they can remove serious policy violations (copyvios, I would say it would have to be a serious BLP violation, vandalism, and other serious issues), but they shouldn't just edit through protection as though it wasn't there, even though they have the technical ability. ] | ] 12:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
::That was my impression, but then I encountered this edit: . It seems it may be related to the edit war currently going on at ], though I didn't find out about that until later. There was another one a few days ago on the ] page, but in that case the admin (Mastcell, iirc) who took sides in the ongoing edit war there by deleting contested material from a fully protected page at least ''alleged'' a BLP vio, though I find that contention dubious. But in this case the edit was simply to add scare quotes, which hardly seems to address a "serious BLP violation, vandalism, other serious issue". What do you think? ] (]) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
::Ah, yes, here's the MastCell edit, through full protection:. IMHO, the Weekly Standard is perfectly adequate sourcing. I would have preferred it be explicitly credited in the text as the origin for the not terribly incendiary claim (which turned out to be true) that "no evidence exists..." but the fact that it's cited for that claim would seem to obviate any '''necessity''' for the edit. ] (]) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I can ''just about'' excuse MastCell's edit (a statement like that should have unimpeachable sourcing), although I'm sorely tempted to haul the next admin who does that to ArbCom. People are relying far too much on BLP to edit-war over things that aren't libel and it gets on my nerves. Drmies' edit, though, was quite plainly against the letter and the spirit of policy and I've asked him to self-revert (I won't revert it myself because admins edit-warring through full protection makes a mockery of the whole process). ] | ] 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

==Thanks==
Thanks for granting me permission for rollback rights on Misplaced Pages. Also special thanks for providing me some important links that has provided me vital information about the feature. I will try to make best use of it in an efficient manner. ] (]) 08:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Keep up the good work. As long as you're sensible, you should be fine. ] | ] 12:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

== Dispute resolution? ==

Hello,

Yesterday I made a request for a temporary semi-protection of ] due to chronic disruptive editing by new accounts, which you closed for being a matter you felt would be better handled by dispute resolution? I'm sorry - how is dispute resolution going to put an end to this? The edit "in dispute" was resolved by a consensus made on the main talk page of ''American Dad!'', and a hidden note was posted on every affected article explaining this consensus and that any disagreements can be brought up there. Unless I'm missing something valuable here, I still think this page needs semi-protection, so I would appreciate a small explanation from you on this. ] (]) 14:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
:The template is a bit silly really (I have to use a template so the bot knows to archive the request), but in essence the issue is a content dispute, not vandalism or other deliberate disruption. Frankly, the whole thing strikes me as a bit daft—I'm sure people could find a middle ground if they tried, rather than just reverting all the time. It's obviously a source of confusion to readers, and semi'ing the article is not going to resolve the confusion; people would just start changing it again when the protection expired, or people would make their ten edits to get autoconfirmed so they could change it. ] | ] 15:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:49, 6 October 2014

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.

86.218.51.15

I noticed your block of User:86.218.51.15 on en.wikipedia.org. Who could block that ip address on ty.wikipedia.org (if it's not already blocked). It's commenting out pages, see http://ty.wikipedia.org/Spécial:Contributions/86.218.51.15 Faolin42 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you'll have to find an admin on tywiki or go to Meta and ask for help from a steward or a global sysop. m:Steward requests/Global might be your best bet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

72.10.156.114 and 24.114.106.217

Hi HJ

Thank you for protecting the Nostradamus article until November. However, the user concerned (who posts both from 72.10.156.114 and 24.114.106.217) is now going completely wild on the associated Talk Page. It's complete chaos there! What seems to be needed is a complete block on both addresses until further notice. Of course, it won't stop him mounting new personal attacks from a new address (he's that wild!), but we can but try. Talk about destructive editing! Any chance of applying a block? Thanks in advance. --PL (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. They're both blocked at the moment. I've just upped them both to a week. We'll have to see if that has any effect. If it doesn't, we can look at longer blocks and/or semi-protection. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User rename

Hello. FYI. -- zzuuzz 06:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks, Zzuuzz. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: 114.204.202.95

Hey HJ, appreciate the message. I ususally leave them one more warning before heading to AIV, depending on the type of vandalism; sometimes if they realise they're still being watched they disappear without the need for further blocks, which means less work for everyone. Cheers, NiciVampireHeart 08:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I usually just re-block them for longer if it's clearly the same person but perhaps I'm just a cynic! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

It's-a me, Mario!

Mario Emblem
For being a hero of the List of programs broadcast by Teletoon Retro article. _|/\CKED 14 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Happy to help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Perms

Hello! Recently, I requested permissions for Reviewer and Rollback but they were both denied by you. Could you give me some advice as to how long to wait and/or what to do to request these again? Cheers :) st170e 16:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what, I've given you reviewer. If you come back in a fortnight or so, I'll look at how you're getting on with that and think about giving you rollback. Does that seem reasonable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
That's superb, thank you very much! st170e 18:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Full protection" means...?

At 20:23, 3 October 2014 you fully protected Thefederalist.com‎. I understand this means it can only be edited by admins, but I'd like some clarification as to what that means. I understand that (a) admins can do housekeeping edits, (b) make edits required by policy (e.g., remove actual BLP vios) or (c) make non-controversial edits requested on the Talk page. But does the admin bit mean an admin is free to (d) work on a protected page as if it were not protected? Andyvphil (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, (d) is definitely out, and even (a) can be controversial. Adminship is about enacting (and sometimes enforcing) consensus and, by extension, policy (which is a codification of policy). Admins shouldn't act unilaterally, and they have to respect full protection like anyone else. So they can make edits requested on the talk page that have consensus or are uncontroversial (eg typo fixes), and they can remove serious policy violations (copyvios, I would say it would have to be a serious BLP violation, vandalism, and other serious issues), but they shouldn't just edit through protection as though it wasn't there, even though they have the technical ability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
That was my impression, but then I encountered this edit: . It seems it may be related to the edit war currently going on at List of Misplaced Pages controversies, though I didn't find out about that until later. There was another one a few days ago on the Neil deGrasse Tyson page, but in that case the admin (Mastcell, iirc) who took sides in the ongoing edit war there by deleting contested material from a fully protected page at least alleged a BLP vio, though I find that contention dubious. But in this case the edit was simply to add scare quotes, which hardly seems to address a "serious BLP violation, vandalism, other serious issue". What do you think? Andyvphil (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, here's the MastCell edit, through full protection:. IMHO, the Weekly Standard is perfectly adequate sourcing. I would have preferred it be explicitly credited in the text as the origin for the not terribly incendiary claim (which turned out to be true) that "no evidence exists..." but the fact that it's cited for that claim would seem to obviate any necessity for the edit. Andyvphil (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I can just about excuse MastCell's edit (a statement like that should have unimpeachable sourcing), although I'm sorely tempted to haul the next admin who does that to ArbCom. People are relying far too much on BLP to edit-war over things that aren't libel and it gets on my nerves. Drmies' edit, though, was quite plainly against the letter and the spirit of policy and I've asked him to self-revert (I won't revert it myself because admins edit-warring through full protection makes a mockery of the whole process). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for granting me permission for rollback rights on Misplaced Pages. Also special thanks for providing me some important links that has provided me vital information about the feature. I will try to make best use of it in an efficient manner. Owais khursheed (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work. As long as you're sensible, you should be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution?

Hello,

Yesterday I made a request for a temporary semi-protection of Virtual In-Stanity due to chronic disruptive editing by new accounts, which you closed for being a matter you felt would be better handled by dispute resolution? I'm sorry - how is dispute resolution going to put an end to this? The edit "in dispute" was resolved by a consensus made on the main talk page of American Dad!, and a hidden note was posted on every affected article explaining this consensus and that any disagreements can be brought up there. Unless I'm missing something valuable here, I still think this page needs semi-protection, so I would appreciate a small explanation from you on this. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The template is a bit silly really (I have to use a template so the bot knows to archive the request), but in essence the issue is a content dispute, not vandalism or other deliberate disruption. Frankly, the whole thing strikes me as a bit daft—I'm sure people could find a middle ground if they tried, rather than just reverting all the time. It's obviously a source of confusion to readers, and semi'ing the article is not going to resolve the confusion; people would just start changing it again when the protection expired, or people would make their ten edits to get autoconfirmed so they could change it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)