Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 4 January 2015

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.

Spread_Co Article

• We are Anonymous*

This company is controversial in the UK. They are using their page as an advertising site and removing damaging but true content. We are asking for an edit to restore a neutral POV not their PR guy's POV.

Anons made an edit linking to legit secondary sources. There was a UK court judgement in which damaging comments were made against Spread Co. All the d0x was summarized in a motion in the British Parliament. Records like Parliament can be primary sources and therefore verb0ten original research but they can also be secondary sources.

We ask you to permanently lock the page and revert for now to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Spread_Co&oldid=639139704 which is an edit made by a genuine Misplaced Pages editor called UnbutteredParsnip.

We also ask you to lock out the IP address 83.244.154.99 and the user Csalas11 from editing the page as they are company employees.

We accept this is a major undertaking. Our own proposed solution is not perfect and we cannot pretend to be POV neutral but it is better than cruel PR lies. People invest their whole life savings in firms like this and Spread Co should not use wikipedia to hide information about financial risks from the people.

Do not let yourself be used by a greedy corporation.

We are Anonymous

We are Legion

We do not Forgive

We do not Forget

Expect Us

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year !!!
		Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

My page protection was mistyped slightly

Hello HJ Mitchell; My full protection request for "Alexia" was mistyped this morning, and it pointed to the disambiguation page rather than the Alexia (condition) page. My concern was to try to make as clear a statement of the matter in the subject summary that I overlooked adding the disambiguation parameter in the request. The protection for the "condition" version is still needed for one week only to avoiding edit reverts and avoid the fork of the articles with editors losing time on the "old" fork which has been replaced by the new "Dyslexia" article version discussed as described in the protection request summary. If you prefer, then I'll re-type the whole request and resubmit through regular channels since you were correct to decline the protection request for the disambiguation page for "Alexia" which needs no protection, only the Alexia (condition) article needs the full protection for the one week. FelixRosch (TALK) 18:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that protection is absolutely necessary. There have only been a few reverts and all of them by you and another editor. Since the other editor hasn't explained their reverts, I'd be inclined to caution them about edit-warring and block them for disruptive editing if they continued, but if you really want protection, protection you shall have... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. That user Talk page now has a template notification about edit reverting and the need for discussion. I will alter it if you think a separate notification is closer to what's needed. If it takes hold with the user then it might do what is needed, otherwise I might need to return with the request. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll leave things as they are for the week, and if problems resume after that we can look at other options. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ksolway has returned

Per your note on this user's GG Enforcement section that you closed, I'm informing you of his return, if you wish to write a caution note . It really doesn't look promising, as all this user does is edit-war to get a decidedly slanted POV into the lead; one, two. Tarc (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to caution him or issue a blanket topic ban? Your note on his talk page indicates the latter, your closure the former. He has raised it at AN, I do think a full-on topic ban is a bit much FWIW. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant to issue a blanket topic ban. Their edit suggest to me that their continued presence in the topic area is unlikely to be conducive to resolving the dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia - Alexia

So are you also part of this cabal conspiracy and not wishing to follow wikipedia protocols regarding the editing of articles, and not following protocols of discussing articles on the articles talk pages and providing notice regarding issues of mergers etc. dolfrog (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm just an admin trying to keep the peace. The other party was bold, you reverted, now it's time for you both to discuss. The talk page is there for you to explain your objections, and if you can't reach an agreement you can request outside opinions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

• News and notes: The next big step for Wikidata—forming a hub for researchers

• In the media: Study tour controversy; class tackles the gender gap

• Traffic report: Surfin' the Yuletide

• Op-ed: My issues with the Wiki Education Foundation

• Featured content: A bit fruity

• Recent research: Misplaced Pages in higher education; gender-driven talk page conflicts; disease forecasting

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

SWOT analysis

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Super Mario

And this one? --George Ho (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The Voice (Australian TV series)

And that one? --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

And done. PC seems to be keeping things under control in all three cases. Thank you kindly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

So, why didn't you give me a chance to present my side before blocking and topic banning me? Cla68 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Because you restored an accusation that named individuals had been involved in serious criminal activity; you know perfectly well that that's not acceptable in any namespace. And from your conduct in the topic area up to then, it appeared to me that you did it to make a point rather than because you believed the material had any encyclopaedic merit. Honestly, I seriously considered indef'ing you but settled on a week as long enough to deal with the immediate problem. Note that I also topic-banned the editor who originally posted the material; the only reason I didn't block them was that they are an inexperienced editor who was probably unaware of the severity of the transgression. Additionally, I had already decided on my course of action before I saw the enforcement request—I only became aware of the request when I went to your talk page to inform you of my actions. That's my rationale, but you are of course perfectly entitled to appeal to AN or ANI. Alternatively, you can sit it out and ask me for reconsideration in, say, six months. I imagine the controversy will have calmed down by then, so I'd likely be quite amenable to lifting the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So, you had an emotional response to my edit. That's cool that you're willing to admit it, but since there wasn't any danger of me redoing the edit, there was no danger in letting me give my side. Was your response so emotional in part because I had been so critical of yours and other admin actions related to this dispute on the case Workshop page? Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You criticised my actions on the workshop page? Oh well, after almost five years on the job the constant harping becomes little more than background noise. It's a bit like userpage vandalism or trolling from people using open proxies—generally an indication that one is doing something right. Of course, you're welcome to haul me off to ArbCom or a drama board, but I've made tens of thousands of admin actions. Of course I cock up from time to time, but I'm confident that at least 99% of them will stand up to scrutiny, and I'm always happy to have a sensible discussion in the event that somebody has a legitimate, good-faith question about one of my actions.

As to your specific sanctions, your history gives me no shortage of reason to believe that you would indeed restore it or do something similarly disruptive. If you had no intention of doing so, you need only have made an unblock request stating that and the block would have been lifted—had I refused to do so, I would rightly have been overruled at a noticeboard. As for my "emotional response", I think I'm a better judge of my own emotional state than you, and I generally aim to take a break and do something else for a while if I feel my blood pressure rising or I seem to be losing perspective. I don't think my response was emotional, and it was certainly motivated by nothing other than a desire to protect the project from disruption. If you think you've read an emotional response into my previous comment, I would respectfully suggest that you read it again, as I fear you may have read something that isn't there. As I say, you're perfectly entitled to appeal the topic ban to AN or ANI if you wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

SqueakBox

I believe your closure of this discussion, with a limited time for discussion during a holiday period when many editors, like myself, were unavailable, was premature at best. Many of the comments supporting the topic ban were cursory and inaccurate. For example, Scalhotrod cited edits to various porn awards pages as particularly destructive, even though the sourcing on those pages has been notoriously dreadful for years, and I have personally removed scores of supposedly "sourced" claims from such articles where the wrong person was identified as a sex worker. I also note that the initiator of the ANI discussion improperly WP:CANVASSED the porn wikiproject on the discussion, essentially assuring that thefirst wave of responses would support their proposal and unfairly prejudicingthe target of the complaint. I'd also note that such sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive, and imposing a broad sanction when only anarrow range of edits were objected to -- and over a subject where community consensus in previous discussions over the same target's similar edits supported much of his views about BLP issues -- is inconsistent with basic WP principles. I therefore believe you should reopen the matter to allow fuller and fairer discussion and cure the prejudice resulting from the OP's improper canvassing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think the discussion was hopelessly tainted by canvassing—many experienced editors commented, including several admins; the discussion was opened mid-morning UTC on 29 December and I enacted late in the evening on New Year's Day, which is at least three and a half days of discussion, only the last of which is officially a holiday. I do understand your concerns, and have some sympathy for SqeakBox's point of view wrt BLP, so I'd be happy to consider a narrower restriction if you can come come up with a a form of words that is unambiguous and which addresses the issue. I couldn't think of anything you couldn't drive a coach and horses through when I closed the discussion. What is clear to me, as somebody who is new to this particular dispute, is that SqueakBox needs to re-think his approach. I've seen many situations where two editors get into an edit war and one refuses to engage on the talk page and relies on the BLP exemption to 3RR, and in precisely none of the cases I've seen has that approach solved more problems than it caused. Essentially, SqueakBox needs to be less combative, more communicative, and when a disagreement deteriorates to the point where two parties are just butting heads, he needs to be quicker to bring it to a noticeboard for review and discussion rather than just relying on a technicality to edit war ad infinitum. We even have discretionary sanctions on BLPs, so admins can come down like a ton of bricks on anybody behaving seriously improperly, but that requires getting admin attention (AE works better than the drama boards for things that can wait a few hours for admins to get to it). But SqueakBox seems to be operating at the point where BLP and common sense collide—for example removing the name of an act(or|ress) from an article when their name appears in the title of the work (and thus the article) and who is depicted in the cover art is taking BLP well past the point of absurdity. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the issue, for whatever they're worth.

Tl;dr: If you can think of some narrower but unambiguous wording, I'm all ears, but I do think the discussion was fair and reached a consensus that SqueakBox's conduct was sub-par at best and that something needed to be done. (NB, I'm perfectly happy to have this conversation with SqeakBox as well if he wants.) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all I think a well-phrased warning would have been more than sufficient. Following the prior discussions/RFCs on rated issues (where much of SB's policy analysis ended up supported by consensus), SB's editing lined with the consensus outcomes, and there's no reason to believe he'd do otherwise here. Second, when you look at the prior discussions, which were lengthier and had much more extensive participation, the initial trend was similarly adverse to SB, but extended and more careful discussion reversed the trend and refined the policy discussion. Third, quite frankly, several of the major critics of SB here, including the OP, showed an extremely poor understanding of BLP -- for example, the OP faulted SB's edits to Dirty Diaries, but that article is extensively unsourced and some sections are heavily laced with OR, particularly the "Plot" section, which goes beyond plot summary and details someone's opinions/inferences about which sex acts are depicted and whether they are similated or unsimulated. This content violates BLP and RS policies, per the consensus at the unsimulated sex in films article(s). It would have been far better if SB had removed this material rather than the unreferenced list of names, but imperfect attempts to cure clear BLP problems do not support broad, indefinite topic bans. The Briana Loves Jenna edit was clearly a poor call, but it's also apparent that the article's sourcing has never been properly examined -- otherwise Helmut Newton would not have been absurdly listed as its screenwriter for nearly eight years. The underlying question here is not whether unreferenced cast lists for porn films are BLP violations, but whether those violations are substantive enough to justify summary removal. As the Helmut Newton idiocy demonstrates, such content is rarely given proper scrutiny. Rather than topic banning an editor for coming up with the wrong solution to a BLP problem, the ANI discussion should have addressed the policy interpretation issue, addressing sanctions only if a user defied whatever the consensus outcome was. While many users expressed dislike of SqueakBox's, the evidence of either disruption or policy violation was perilously thin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw that you had made an edit on my Talk page and when I checked the history, I was a little surprised to see that it was a deletion. I won't ask what it was about and trust your judgement, so thank you for looking out for me even if you are just "doing your job"... :) Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: You're welcome. It's since been oversighted, but it's nothing to worry about; it wasn't directed at you—just some loony on a mission. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks! Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

IP block

I think you could have blocked 204.93.60.53 indefinitely - it looks like an open proxy to me. I know there are a million others they could use but it would be one less to worry about. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: The thought crossed my mind, but I couldn't be certain and went for the conservative option of a small rangeblock for a week. It appears the ever-wise Courcelles was bolder, and blocked a bigger range for six months! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

I thought knowingly inserting false information was vandalism? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You'd have a hard time proving that a long-established editor was acting in an attempt to deliberately compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages (emphasis in the original), and even if they were the odds that they'd be blocked at AIV are astronomical. As a rule of thumb, if it takes more than a sentence to explain or more than a minute to evaluate, it doesn't belong at AIV. In this case, ANI might be more appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Understood, and I'm equally perplexed and confused. But here in 10 seconds it is:

• The cited source says the buildings are owned by Extell: "Extell Development Company has purchased the bulk of the Ring portfolio … Extell leased four of the buildings … to the Kaufman Organization"

• Yet he insists they are owned by Ring: "In 2014 it was announced that several properties in NoMad owned by F.M. Ring Associates would be redeveloped by the Kaufman Organization"

Honestly, I don't know what this about other than personality conflict rather than the facts. Maybe you could advise as an informal third party? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it was emotionalism, and he has now accurately written "previously owned by Ring." Wow, I am perplexed but I'm glad it's over. Thank you for being a sounding board. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. In future WP:DRN or WP:3O (for content issues) or WP:ANI (for conduct issues) are better than AIV for these sorts of things. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Move request

Hey HJ, Happy New Year! Hope you're well. Could you possibly move User:JuneGloom07/Serena to Serena Campbell for me, please? - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

And a very happy new year to you, too. :) I did the move, but restored the previous history because it wasn't trivial. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you! I might have another couple of requests soon. I'm trying to finish off all my drafts and cut down my to-do list. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI

I appreciate the fix on ANI. It was a fine accolade, though! I hope you realise that now it'll be your turn to be stripped of your admin tools? Bishonen | talk 00:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

Indeed, I thought you might have liked it to stay, but alas, they declined the offer to tell us who they really are, so we couldn't possibly evaluate your most egregious abuse of your tools properly. We can but wonder why! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Request

Since you handled a complaint about me recently, I thought you might handle a complaint from me.

A while ago I asked WPPilot not to post on my talk page. Well, he's now very, very angry at me, and he keeps dropping little unsigned notes there tonight, even though I reminded him about not posting there. Could you drop him a note and ask him to stop, it's getting annoying being interrupted as I'm working.

Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:BMK, I can't find where you actually literally asked the user to stop posting, I may have missed it. (There's this edit summary, but half the people don't read 'em.) I've put a note on his page. That said, I think you knew it was tactless to do a minor edit on his userpage, the way the situation was. Bishonen | talk 12:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC).

BMK: I tend to agree with Bish. She's asked him to step away; if you give him a wide berth, he should have no reason not to the same, and if he doesn't, we'll set Bishzilla on him! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit to the user page was completely unintentional on my part. I renamed a file on Commons, and a bot automatically renames the file on all the wikis it's used on. I had no idea it was on WPP's user page, and was chagrined when I saw it on my contribs. (The bot uses the ID of the editor making the name change.) I agree that if I had done it intentionally, it would have been a crass and tactless act. BMK (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I'm an admin on Commons too. My comment about giving them a wide berth wasn't a comment on that, just advice that I often give to warring parties—to put it another way, now that he's been asked to leave you alone, it would just be wise to avoid giving him a reason not to. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'll do my best to follow that advice. BMK (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that you made a page protected. Why not be fair and undo all chages made today January 4, 2015 and revert it back to 03:03, 30 November 2014 version. This is a case related to the recent US torture program and there might be somthing going (more than what meets the eye).....just my 2 cents!

IP-hopper accusation

See Talk:Killing_Jesus#HJ_Mitchell_accused_me_of_being_an_.22IP-hopper.22

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Momin_Khawaja
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Momin_Khawaja&diff=635979873&oldid=634742391