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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:35, 9 May 2011 editHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,843 edits →Your RFA: r to Malleus← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:33, 7 January 2025 edit undoZyphorianNexus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers1,205 edits →Block inquiry for recurring IP issues: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Administrator topicon}}{{oversight topicon}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma"><span style="display:none;">User talk:</span>'''HJ Mitchell'''</span>}}
{{User:HJ Mitchell/header}}
<big><center><font color="red">'''This page is currently protected due to vandalism. If you cannot edit this page but wish to leave me a message, you may post on ] instead.'''</font></center></big>
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 52 |counter = 138
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(36h) |algo = old(150h)
|archive = User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{bots|deny=SineBot}}{{User:HJ Mitchell/header}} }}{{bots|deny=SineBot}}
<!-- ******New messages go AT THE BOTTOM. Please don't edit above this line. Thank you.****** -->
{{-}}
==Block inquiry for recurring IP issues==
I've encountered a recurring issue where I'm temporarily blocked from editing due to suspected use of an open proxy or VPN. However, I don't use any such tools, and I suspect the issue might stem from dynamic IP allocation by my ISP.


The blocks usually resolve after some time, usually between a few minutes and a few hours, but they've been happening more frequently, which disrupts my ability to edit and contribute. Could you help me understand the reason behind these blocks or suggest a way to prevent this from happening often? ] (]) 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- ******New messages go at the bottom. Please don't edit above this line.****** -->


:@] it depends a lot on your ISP I think and how they allocate traffic/addresses. Sometimes multiple people are routed through one addresses or a small range which looks like a proxy, or sometimes proxies/VPNs come and go but if the IP has been reported as a proxy in the past it still looks suspicious years later. If you're asking because you're seeing blicks I've made, most of my IP hard blocks are aimed at spammers; sometimes SEO firms use dozens of accounts on a range to spread spam links so I block the range so that any undetected accounts can't continue spamming. If you're having frequent problems, I can look at granting you ], which would allow you to edit through hard blocks. I'd have to look in more detail including running a check on your account but if everything is as you say it is it should be straightforward. ] &#124; ] 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
== Just a ping.. ==
::Thanks for the explanation. I've been affected by some of the blocks you've made. I've run into this issue a couple of times, and it's been a bit frustrating. Today at AfC, I wanted to address and decline a problematic submission, but I couldn't because the block occurred again. I'm worried it might keep recurring.
::I'd really appreciate your help with this. Since granting an IP block exemption would prevent these interruptions, I'm happy to move forward with that. Let me know if you need anything from me to sort it out. ] (]) 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
Hey HJ, I've tried to go further as a result of your reply. Thanks for the appreciation, I hope my explanation goes into some detail where I'm coming from here. ] (]) 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks, I'll take a gander in a minute. My appreciation was sincere, even if it was followed by a "but" (although I'm frustrated, I'm not just ranting). ] &#124; ] 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::As a matter of pure curiosity, if you were an arb, what would you try to do about the rule that you call 'daft'? (I don't like using another user's name repeatedly for that purpose) And how would you specifically reduce the reliance on DS? Like, in your words, how would you move DS from being "substitute" to "supplement"? You have what seems like a stackload of cases you can refer to; how would you handle one or two of them differently (if at all) and based on the evidence presented at the time, would issuing additional sanctions have reduced the reliance on DS? <small>Sorry, when I start getting curious, the questions keep coming (which is apparently annoying to some people)!</small> ] (]) 04:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:::I share Ncmvocalist's curiosity. If HJM can think of any cases where the arbs should have done more, and left fewer decisions to AE, which ones are they? ] (]) 05:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::::No need to apologise, I'm always happy to discuss things, especially when I've been rather vocal in opposing the current system. I'm not sure I'd ever want to be an arb, because I'm busy enough as it is and already have a talk apge that has to be archived more often than AN. However, if I were, or I had some influence on the current Committee's decision-making, abolishing that rule as it stands would be one of the first things I'd seek to do. That's not to say I'd allow admins to give AE blocks the same treatment as any other block, but I'll get to that in a minute. I think principles like BRD are at the heart of a collaborative, volunteer project like this, which is why I don't think it's right that we assume admin A's judgement is impeccable and admin B's is faulty until proven otherwise.
::::So, how to make AE blocks stick? My suggestion would be to mandate that admin A provide a detailed rationale, citing diffs and arbitration remedies where applicable, for his action (ArbCom seem to have considered mandating this, but left it as more of a suggestion). Then, instead of a complete prohibition on overturning the block, other uninvolved editors and admins should comment on the blocked editor's talk page and if a certain number of admins (perhaps three, if there's no opposition) agree that the block is unjust, unnecessary, ''ultra vires'' or better replaced with some other form of sanction, then the block can be reversed. The idea of forcing admin A to provide a detailed rationale and admins B, C and D to wait before they act is that ''hopefully'' neither the block nor the unblock is done without due consideration. We hope that all admin actions are carefully considered and alterntives explored, but we all make mistakes and we all sometimes have varying opinions.
::::As for discretionary sanctions, I would like to see ArbCom make more of an effort to identify those who are causing the trouble and then determine if the project, the topic-area or a narrower area like a specific article, would be better off without the presence of those individuals. Obviously, in an area like, say, ARBPIA (just an example), the problems are much bigger than just a few editors and that's one of the areas where discretionary sanctions are useful and, indeed, necessary to maintain ''some'' sense of decorum in that topic area. Banning editors directly instead of applying discretionary sanctions which eventually mean admins are forced to do it might not make arbs popular and it might mean they have to work harder to resolve cases, but they weren't elected to be popular. Similarly, they could also utilise more 'practical' sanctions, like 1RRs (or 0RRs), requiring editors to discuss their reverts, interaction bans and other restrictions. More than that, ArbCom should try to get the parties to the dispute to talk to each other and seriusly attmept to resolve thier differences. That, to me, is what dipsute resolution is about, but it's fair to say that many arbitration cases have already passed that stage. Apologies for such a long post. ] &#124; ] 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
== RFA nomination ==


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Hi - I decided to withdraw because I felt the objections raised were ones I wasn't in a position to counter, and I didn't have good answers to the additional questions. To be honest, I hadn't considered adminship until my nominator approached me asking if I would like to be and I didn't fully understand how tough the process would be. I may reconsider and reapply at some later stage, but until then I'm quite happy chugging along with my wikification edits. Thanks for taking the time to leave a message. ] (]) 01:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
:That's fair enough. I think it shows strength of character to withdraw it when you realise you're not prepared rather than than trying to blag it. The most important thing is that you enjoy what you do, so carry on doing what you enjoy. ] &#124; ] 13:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
== ] ==
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
{{hat|One venue is sufficient, thanks.}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
I have approval for the task as I was used. Check ]. -- ] (]) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
|]
:I don't care. You don't have approval to violate policy and AWB rules of use by changing "birthplace" to "birth place" and other changes which have no effect on the output. Please do not restart the bot until this is settled at ANI. ] &#124; ] 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
|]
::Which policy? AWB rules of use are not a policy. -- ] (]) 22:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
|]
:::Really? You, a bot op and an admin, need me to explain that bots have to adhere to ]? No wonder we're having problems. ] &#124; ] 22:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
|]
::::Which part of this policy is not fulfilled? -- ] (]) 22:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
|]
:::::Just a note but if the bot was approved then there was sufficient justification to allow the task to proceed and it would also indicate that the BAG folks were satisfied with the task according to bot policy. There is no need to stop the bot every couple days because you personally don't like it. --] (]) 22:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
}}
:::::::Is there something ambiguous about ]? The version I'm reading says in black and white that a bot taks should be useful, "''' not consume resources unnecessarily" and "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines"'''. Opinions don't come into it, this bot task is useless, unnecessary, a waste of resources and a policy violation. I do wish Magioladitis would cease restarting it every time the heat dies down, becuae at this rate, they're headed straight for an RfC/U. ] &#124; ] 22:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:] ]
:::::::Bot requirements fulfilled. The task serves the purpose of infobox standardisation. Check the edits of ] too and probably others. -- ] (]) 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:] ]
{{hab}}


</div>
== A pie for you ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
{| align=center style="{{Round corners}}; font-family:Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; border: 3px solid #3AAB67; padding: 6px; background: #B8F9CF;"
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|<font color=#297447><font color="#082567">]</font> <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup> <sub><font color="#008000">]</font></sub> has given you a ]! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{tls|Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
</font>
|}<!-- Template:Wikipie -->
:Cool. Pie! Thanks. ] &#124; ] 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
== Howdy ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
It's been awhile eh? Think I've been in retirement for several months now and Unfortunately this is not the end of it. However, while I was checking up on things I found that ] is still adding the same rant on the talk page and possibly the article, and did so even after the last revert. Would you mind keeping an eye on it? I hope all is well and am glad to see you've become such a great Admin :). Regards, --''''']''''' ] 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
:Good to see you on here, mate! It certainly has been a while. Sorry to hear it's only short-lived, but I hope you'll come back to your former levels of activity at some point. Anyway, I reverted your friend again and when I get my bit back, which hopefully should be later this evening or early tomorrow, I'll think about a block or a semi for the talk page if (or rather when) he returns. ] &#124; ] 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== Your RFA == == You've got mail ==


{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=<span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 21:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I'm happy to inform you that, due to your successful request for adminship, you have now been promoted to an ]. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or stop by the ]. Congrats! ''']'''] 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:Impeccable timing, I just found a vandal in need of a block. Thank you very much for the closure. I don;t have any questions at the minute, but then I have been doing this for a year. ;) ] &#124; ] 20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::Let me be one of many to say 1000 congratulations on your successful RFA - or is that a reRFA. I hope that number of supports shows how many editors there are that appreciate all that you do. On another note my apologies for the kerfuffle about the admin userbox on your userpage. I am glad that it can be restored - with distinction and honours I might add. Cheers. ] | ] 20:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Congrats from me too, not least for the respect that you have shown for the wishes of the community! --] (]) 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Thanks guys. ] &#124; ] 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:I know you probably don't have any questions, that's the boilerplate congratulations note I give to all "new" admins. ''']'''] 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::I thought as much. I think I saw it in another RfA somewhere. But thanks for closing the RfA, it's good to be back. ] &#124; ] 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:Congrats! :-) --] (]) 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks, Sarek, and good luck in your own. You've got an hour left, which is just as well because it will take the 'crat that long to decide how to close it! ] &#124; ] 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair play to you HJ for putting your money where so many put their mouths. ] ] 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks. It's been an interesting week. ] &#124; ] 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:33, 7 January 2025

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.

Block inquiry for recurring IP issues

I've encountered a recurring issue where I'm temporarily blocked from editing due to suspected use of an open proxy or VPN. However, I don't use any such tools, and I suspect the issue might stem from dynamic IP allocation by my ISP.

The blocks usually resolve after some time, usually between a few minutes and a few hours, but they've been happening more frequently, which disrupts my ability to edit and contribute. Could you help me understand the reason behind these blocks or suggest a way to prevent this from happening often? ZyphorianNexus (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZyphorianNexus it depends a lot on your ISP I think and how they allocate traffic/addresses. Sometimes multiple people are routed through one addresses or a small range which looks like a proxy, or sometimes proxies/VPNs come and go but if the IP has been reported as a proxy in the past it still looks suspicious years later. If you're asking because you're seeing blicks I've made, most of my IP hard blocks are aimed at spammers; sometimes SEO firms use dozens of accounts on a range to spread spam links so I block the range so that any undetected accounts can't continue spamming. If you're having frequent problems, I can look at granting you IP block exemption, which would allow you to edit through hard blocks. I'd have to look in more detail including running a check on your account but if everything is as you say it is it should be straightforward. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I've been affected by some of the blocks you've made. I've run into this issue a couple of times, and it's been a bit frustrating. Today at AfC, I wanted to address and decline a problematic submission, but I couldn't because the block occurred again. I'm worried it might keep recurring.
I'd really appreciate your help with this. Since granting an IP block exemption would prevent these interruptions, I'm happy to move forward with that. Let me know if you need anything from me to sort it out. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)