Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:03, 15 February 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.

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Baranof

Your interpretation of BLP that ostensible BLP defense excuses violation of an Arbcom topic ban by NxSBaranof is, shall we say, unique. That you have at the same time moved to topic ban off one of Baranof's innumerable opponents does not speak well for your judgment. Please consider yourself "involved" with respect to any future motions made against him — his site ban is coming... Carrite (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I earlier noted, anyone who takes action to protect the encyclopedia from BLP violations (as Harry has properly done here) is seen as proof of "involvement" by a certain set of people. That you choose to view Misplaced Pages as a game to be played between "opponents" rather than a project to write an Internet encyclopedia with sensitivity and human decency is self-explanatory.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Says the man who tried his best to Character Assassinate me. Those in glass houses, Mr. Baranof. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BANEX would be the policy that you're struggling to recollect, Carrite. More time gaining familiarity with Misplaced Pages policy and less time commiserating over bowls of sour grapes with TDA at Wikipediocracy would do you a world of good. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you did dodge that site ban this time around, Tarc. I forgot about you. Better luck next time. Carrite (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Come on Tim, you know me better than that. In fact, look a few sections up (once you've read Tarc's link). You could drive a coach and horses through BANEX, but that seems to be what the community wants. As a servant of the community, I can't go round enforcing policy that isn't there. And more to the point, there's not enough booze in the house to drown out the inevitable screeching at ANI if I did. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, now, H., let's read it together: BANEX: "Exceptions to limited bans: Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following: Reverting obvious vandalism (such as replacing a page with obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree...." — This action by NxSB in a banned topic area is not "obvious," it is contentious. It is a clear and obvious violation of an Arbcom-generated topic ban. Continue to act as an enabler at the risk of your tools. Seriously... Carrite (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The big, bad Carrite is in a threatening mood tonight, HJ...."at the risk of your tools", indeed. Maybe he'll pen a strongly worded blog post next. Tarc (talk)

Oh, I've been threatened with worse things than an enforced holiday from GamerGate! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'd read up on the history, Tim, you'd see that I proposed the bloody topic ban in the first place. And if you'd read the log, you'd find that I'd sanctioned editors on both sides of the dispute. Anyway, it's sufficiently uncontentious that four admins (East718, Gamaliel, Timotheus Canenes, and I) saw fit to sanction Retartist for posting it in the first place, and a fifth (Newyorkbrad) saw no grounds for sanctions against NBSB. Two of those were arbitrators who voted to pass the topic ban. I certainly have no interest in enabling anyone—I've said publicly on more than one occasion that if it were solely up to me I'd delete the article, salt it for a couple of years, and topic-ban anyone who's had made significant edits to it. But alas, I'm bound by policy as it's written, not as I'd like it to be. By the way, you should try impartially adminning in a controversial topic area; I can't imagine it looks like much fun, and I can assure you it's even less fun than that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, HjMitchell, but I must correct you on something. NewYorkBrad didn't say jack about he merits of the case, he voted no SOLEY (At least from what he said) on the fact I was the one to bring it up. Which is amazingly poor form for one in charge, even if the proper vote was no due to my misunderstanding of BANEX. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He has a point, in that editors filing AE reports normally have thousands of edits to their name rather than the 40-odd you had at the time (which is now 50-odd, largely due to your participation in subsequent discussions like this one); in other topic areas, it's suggestive of sock-puppetry, but in the gamergate area we just seem to have an influx of new editors who already know a lot about Misplaced Pages and are familiar with the workings of the wiki software. I wish they'd do something other than try to get people banned, like write an article or make sensible suggestions on talk pages but hey ho, "anyone can edit" seems to extend to the internal politics as well. Anyway, NYB was an arbitrator for many years and stayed on to hear the gamergate case so he'll be very familiar with the situation and with NBSB (to the extent that he voted on the topic ban); I'm sure he would have advocated for a block had he believed NBSB had violated the topic ban. And now I think we're at an impasse: the likelihood that NBSB is going to be blocked for the edits reported to AE is nil. I'm happy to discuss things in general terms (for which I'd suggest you start a new thread or join the other thread about BANEX below), but I think this particular incident has been discussed to death—even AE requests about tendentious editors in the Israel-Palestine area don't normally generate this much discussion (and you can imagine what that topic area is like, especially when the conflict flares up in the real world). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Riddle me this, Harry

So, I'm apparently permitted to dispute BLP violations, even if under the tban. Why is it then, that I have this feeling that, the second I try to raise any concerns, I know that someone or the other from a certain group will ride up on their white stallion, and then whine enough for me to get banned because I'm violating some obscure alphabet soup "policy"? Yet, if said white knight were to flail around pages under the tban screeching about their noble quest of... Something, they would get merely a warning? I'm asking this, since I would like to raise a concern about a BLP violation, in the hopes it would be removed, so the hate group known as {redacted due to topic ban}, would have less ammo to harass women and minorities, including myself, that support the {redacted due to topic ban} consumer revolt. I mean, I thought that the rules were applied equally, but, I can't be sure, or can I? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to head off said group. One of the ban exemptions is "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban." So, I am preeeetty sure my revised understanding of Ban Exemptions says that this would be alright. (This is partly a question to Mitchell. Am I right?) AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't address me by my surname, AF; you can call me Harry—everyone else does. DSA, if this is the same issue you asked me about by email, it's not an obvious BLP violation to the extent that "no reasonable person could possibly disagree". Also, BANEX doesn't actually allow you to suggest the removal of the BLP-violating material, only to remove it (and, apparently, to explain the removal on the talk page and report the person who made it...). No, it doesn't make sense to me either (see my comment above about a coach and horses), but I didn't write the policy! My suggestion from my email stands, though: contact one of the regular editors on the article by email and see what they think; there's nothing to stop them from removing it or starting a discussion as long as they're satisfied that it's a legitimate issue that merits removal/discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I was also pretty surprised by the outcome of the discussion regarding NBSB. There are four points that I think need clarifying:

• Your closure comment says, "Removing BLP violations is exempt from the topic ban." That's not true of WP:BANEX; it says that removing obvious BLP violations is exempt.
• I'm not convinced the violation was obvious here. The 'violation' seemed to me to be posting a long list of links to sources to see what was usable - exactly the sort of thing encouraged in WP:BLPTALK. Clearly there needs to be a line somewhere, as a blanket permission to post links to talk pages is unlikely to be constructive, but I'm not sure this crossed it. It seems to me that the line should be between beginning a good-faith discussion of sources and a bad-faith attempt to spread dirt. Was this really the latter? I can understand that the history around the subject may well influence that assessment and that editors might get considerably shorter shrift than they might in other areas, but there seems to be this idea going around that posting any link to any source that repeats certain allegations is automatically an obvious violation of BLP. It isn't.
• The decision at WP:ARBGG doesn't mention 'subject to the usual exceptions' as is common in arb decisions. Granted that WP:BANEX says unless stated otherwise, but I'd like to see comment from the drafters of that decision on whether they intentionally left the standard exceptions out.
• Given the history of the topic and the arbcom case, at the absolute minimum I think NBSB deserved a hefty trouting for sticking his oar in here. If the BLP violation was really so obvious as to justify violating his tban, then aren't there enough editors around this subject to have done it? Closing the action with the comment, "Removing BLP violations is exempt from the topic ban," seems to me to be encouragement to continue exactly the sort of behaviour that landed him with the tban in the first place. Remember that a number of diffs in the FOF regarding NBSB are reverting (what he considered) obvious BLP violations (calling someone a SJW). Is encouraging NBSB to revert BLP violations really going to make gamergate a better place to edit?

It's nothing to do with me, of course, but I think just closing this was not the best way of improving the encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

PS I do note that you made the same point to him at his user talk; I wouldn't say his response is encouraging as such. GoldenRing (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's very late here, so you'll have to excuse my brevity. In order 1 & 2), see my response to Carrite elsewhere on this page—it was obvious that half a dozen admins felt it was obvious; 3) BANEX applies unless stated otherwise, even if the remedy were modified, the modification wouldn't be retro-active, it's not within my gift to go tinkering with arbitration remedies; 4) I agree, but he didn't do anything wrong according to policy. Is encouraging NBSB to revert BLP violations really going to make gamergate a better place to edit? I very much doubt it—at the very least he needs to take a long break from that cesspit—but I'd be promptly overturned on appeal if I blocked him for removing BLP violations or told him he couldn't do so. You see? Whatever I do, one side will interpret it as bias. If I block him, Misplaced Pages hates women; if I don't, Misplaced Pages is biased against gamergate/in favour of "SJWs". You're welcome to start an RfC on BANEX or an amendment request on NBSB, but there's nothing more I can do. I'm an admin, not a superhero. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite what the muckrakers like to hoot and holler about when not in intense sessions of hand-wringing and eggshell walking, I am a gamer. I have played many games, and won them eventually. However, there is that one game that, despite my best efforts, there is no way to win. Even after countless tries, the game is unbeatable. Do you know what I do then? I uninstall the game. Once I know it cannot, cannot be beaten, I simply delete it. Such games are not worth winning. Or rather, the only way to win, is not to play. --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually need to point something out... the GG side is not going to call you biased, at least not so long as I can explain to them that you are just following policy that would effect it even if the user was PRO GG. Some GGers (Myself included, I have been upfront about that so no one can claim I have a hidden agenda) actually do understand the situation with Misplaced Pages and the GamerGate Controversy specifically. Misplaced Pages's hands are tied, since the RS's are almost universally biased against GG, so thus the article is going to be biased. There has been a lot of work to explain this to the less... Misplaced Pages literate people among GG, and this has lead to a lot less animosity towards Misplaced Pages by GamerGate. I just wish I had a way to counteract the animosity by Anti-GG, since the current climate is not productive no matter WHAT you believe. (Also, sorry for using your surname. It is impolite in local culture to refer to one by their first name unless we are well acquainted. So I will switch to using your Username, if you do not mind) AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

the GG side is not going to call you biased, at least not so long as I can explain to them that you are just following policy Oh, that's absolutely hilarious. Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the difficulty, and I'm glad it's not me enforcing this. However, WP:BANEX defines 'obvious' as 'cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree'. There were people at A/E disagreeing that the violation was obvious, though I guess I lack the experience with them to say whether they are reasonable people. The only other admin comment on the request, AFAICT, was Masem, pointing out that it was part of a pattern of tban violations, though obviously the discussion re Retartist is related.

Bah, I don't know where I'm going with this, and I'm really sorry if this message keeps you up even longer (I'm not in that sort of timezone). GoldenRing (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not as common as you might think that half a dozen fell petty much exactly the same way. In fact, I've had lengthy debates at AE in the past when I've disagreed with other admins. Not those admin specifically as far as I can recall, but even among that group we don't always sing in harmony, so if we all agreed something was a BLP violation, it can't have been that ambiguous. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I'm new to editing in the GamerGate area but I am almost 100% certain that regular editors on the talk page were familiar with the particular website that was linked to and whose link was removed. It is a website solely devoted to presenting the pro-GamerGate side (and consisting solely of user-generated content) and I imagine that its status as an (un)reliable source had been discussed a lot over the past six months. So, it's not that it's any link at all, it was a link to a website that editors familiar with the article knew to contain BLP errors. So, in that context, it was obvious, even to a newcomer like me. Liz 20:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh how Misplaced Pages loves its policy of argument to authority. It's like you people already forgot the oh so delicious ArbitrationGate. Aren't all things written by humans, in the end? I love it when people crowd around the latest manufactured outrage piece yelling its name guarantees truth. Did The New Dork Thymes write it? Or did a person write it? RS will be Misplaced Pages's downfall. VnT shouldn't be praised, but condemned. Look how well WP:RS worked out with ArbitrationGate. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the responses from 'regular editors' on Jimmy Wales talk page to their intentionally biased use of RS, I find it difficult, if not unbelievable that they are viewed to be here for constructive consensus building which would increase the value of the project. I fear that there will be considerably more administration actions regarding the page in the future. 31.53.246.245 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't include information we know (or strongly suspect, for example because the subject of it has complained) is false, no matter what the reliable sources say. But the option there is binary: it stays or goes; we shouldn't "fix" it based in original research. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to be a tertiary source and a summary of the secondary material, not to present original research. VNT is dogmatically misused in that sense—its purpose is to prevent claims like cunnilingus cures cancer from being presented as fact; they may be "true" (although this one is, erm, unlikely), but they're not supported by any credible evidence (ie verifiable). It's not supposed to be a bludgeon for forcibly retaining factual errors like the ArbitrationGate crap. The reliable sources standard is not perfect, especially without proper editorial controls, but Misplaced Pages is not perfect; the question is what we would replace it with. Replacing it with original research or "I just know it's true" opens the door to all sorts of loonies with agendas that are fundamentally incompatible with writing an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Apologies for the crude example, but it's the best I could think of without staying into controversial topics!

Damn it Harry, I was banking on that one, and the 11 aspirins a day thing. You have shattered one of my props. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Liz:Understood; I'm not saying that it wasn't a BLP violation or that Retartist's tban was wrong; I endorse both. My concern is that NBSB sticking his oar in was unnecessary and only likely to create more drama; that his response to this being pointed out civilly is distinctly unpromising; and that AE telling him it's all okay and he's done nothing wrong is only encouraging another round of drama in a day or two's time with further pushing at the boundaries of the tban. In that context, for the tban violation to be okay, the BLP violation doesn't have to be definitely a violation; it has to be a violation so obvious that no reasonable person could disagree. Anyway, I think I've said everything I need to say on this, and more than once. I trust Harry's judgement in general; I was just trying to promote discussion about how harmony on the project is best encouraged. GoldenRing (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nor is it likely to promote harmony on the project when single-purpose accounts organized off-wiki fire off spurious arbitration enforcement requests and engage in an extended harassment campaign. I haven't and won't be intimidated by a band of thugs. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you too. GoldenRing (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, @GoldenRing:, is this conversation violating DSA510's topic ban on discussing GamerGate? In a strictly interpreted way, probably so. But admins and arbitrators are human beings, they consider the cases brought to them and use their best judgment to try and make fair decisions based on the presented evidence. I think that not strictly enforcing that topic ban isn't "encouraging" DSA510 and others. It's allowing for some gray areas, like WP:BANEX.

My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that individuals who are topic banned should stay away from those topics. Skirting the edges of a ban just can provide reasons for more serious blocks. Liz 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to block for borderline topic-ban violations on this talk page. I can't promise nobody will seize on such and report them to AE, nor that a more zealous admin wouldn't block, but as long as we're discussing things in general terms (rahter than substantive discussion of content, which belongs on the article talk page anyway) and the discussion is being had in good faith, I personally have no problem with it continuing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

On a 'meta-meta' topic and the above re: Abuse of RS, you can see on the French, Norwegian and Spanish Misplaced Pages editions some relatively sane and balanced discussions on the topic. I do not believe that there is a lack of RS, rather an abuse of RS in creating the en.wikipedia version of the article. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't read more than a very, very basic level of French and Spanish and I can't read any Norwegian at all, but I'm aware of a concerted effort to give the Spanish article a skew that's favourable to gamergate. I won't get into substantive discussions of content issues because to be an effective admin I have to be objective and remain above the fray, but if you think that sources are being omitted or misused, say so on the talk page. If you feel an editor has demonstrated a pattern of deliberately ignoring or misusing sources, you can report them to WP:AE. But general statements like "RS is misused", especially when they're made on an individual editor's talk page instead of the article's talk page, don't get us anywhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been following the drama on the GG article pretty much since its creation back in late August (I wouldn't dare actually contribute), and I can tell you that the Gamergate "dossier" was linked to on multiple occasions on that talk page in the past without any redacting or admin actions. But what has happened here is so ludicrous I feel I actually need to speak up now. The only thing that is "obvious" about this BLP violation is that this is a very clear attempt to shift the goalposts to shut out yet more pro-GG material. The fact that the user was not even warned that this once acceptable-to-link-and-discuss source had now morphed into a redactable BLP violation, but straight up topic banned for this is absurdly heavy-handed and is just another chilling effect on anyone who would dare try to get that article neutral.174.45.178.216 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad article move

Someone has just copy/pasted the contents of Bhagavankoil to a new article titled Bhagavankovil, then redirected the first to the new article. I feel that what they should have done, if the spelling is correct per COMMONNAME, is do a simple article move and thus retain the history in a linked manner. Please could you take a look if/when you have a moment. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(lurker) - have fixed up the move. But the page text suggests the accurate presentation would be "Bhagavan Kovil" as two words. Should this article actually be at that location? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. As I noted above, I've no idea what the correct spelling should be, sorry. This is a well-intentioned but somewhat insistent newbie who is making a lot of mistakes and right now I'm not feeling too well, so someone else will have to try to be a bit more welcoming than perhaps I have been. Off to bed, as I should have done about two hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, will have a look tomorrow and see if I can find any useful sources for either spelling. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If it helps at all, Bhagavan is a fairly common word from Sanskrit, usually translated as the English "Lord". W.r.t the concatenation, in my experience, for scripts other than Latin, spaces seem to be much less important than they are in English (and other European languages). However, as the article appears to be about a village in southern India, official sources in English might be available (but perhaps not online). - Ryk72 13:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Question on Buaku

I saw you just indeffed Buaku - I'd like to request the release of the indef on the "Buaku" count and keep the Skimmed Milk one blocked. The editor was blocked for a week for abusing accounts, but in lieu of additional attempts to abuse accounts can we let this user try and contribute positively for awhile? I did ask about this user because I feared Niemti's return, but this user seems to be a novice. I'll help the user out and watch them, but I think the user needs to be clear abusing multiple accounts will result in an indef block. Could you please unblock Buaku for the time being? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted them once and they seemed to take the hint and starting on a more productive path, which left me wondering if I should bother filing an SPI case or not. I'd let them file their own appeal though, they should at least acknowledge they understand the reasoning for the block and will avoid the problematic behaviour. — Strongjam (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they understand - that's the problem. The editor was blocked for a week, but did not seem aware of the reason or why they were blocked, but has not given a reason for making a new name. Though it should be noted that SkimmedMilk was not reused and there was a good gap in time since the user tried to edit last. Misplaced Pages is byzantine to new users and I do not think this editor understands the policies at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd certainly listen to an appeal, assuming CU doesn't throw up any sleepers, but using multiple accounts to pretend to be different people and then creating another one a day later and doing the same thing doesn't bode well. They'd need to show some understanding that that's not on and stick to one account (I'm not bothered which). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but I do not see the editor being approached and asked about the issue. So that's why I've reached out. While the block evasion is not good, I do not see malice here. The fact the user makes obvious errors shows that they understand very little about policy and procedures, but the editor seems to have good intentions. I hope the person will become a good editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I used to believe it....

.......but based on what I've seen and experienced on WP in the past 2 months, I don't believe it anymore. Kudos to you for being an admin who still maintains and enforces ethical standards for BLPs. Atsme☯ 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers HJ. I'd buy you a beer if we met. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless you live in the UK, Chris, and I don't either but chances are that I will see Harry again before you will so I'll do it for you. I've bought him a lot of beers in the past on various continents and I always felt that they were more than well deserved :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM Clarification Request Party Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom & Admins

Your contribution to this case was largely resonsible for, and vital to, its conclusion by the arbitrators. I've already said how much I appreciate you having gone well beyond the bounds of duty to research your material, but I would like to illustrate how this particular case is important in more ways than one.

I particularly liked the admin in question and had absolutely no previous inkling of what came to be exposed at Arbcom. I somehow missed out on voting on their RfA, you supported it but no one can criticise you for that. Even the adherents of the anti-admin brigade were unable to to sway it to a non-promotion although it was a fairly close call.

The message the recent disclosure sends to us all therefore, is that anyone who is thinking of starting yet another perennial motion to lower the bar at RfA had better think again. We can't be careful enough when (s)electing our admins and we have a duty (including me of all people) to do more research before placing our !votes in the upstairs lobby. I already made the mistake of supporting one candidate who later turned into an unpleasant adversary and was finally desysoped for acting in a way totally unbecoming for the role we invest in our admins. See you for a beer as soon as possible. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you in principle. The trouble is we need more admins. We're short-handed here at the coalface. We have nominally ~1400 admins, but as I just said to Andreas, the number who know the difference between a bored schoolkid and genuine malice—and how to effectively respond to the latter (hint: it's not with "Welcome to Misplaced Pages, perhaps you didn't mean to threaten to blow Harry's head off with a shotgun")—is tiny. I'd wager closer to 14 than 140. So how do we get more good admins while keeping the bad apples out? More to the point, where do we find people who are comfortable doing this sort of thing in the first place? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 14 seems a fairly accurate estimate of those in the trenches - that makes you, me, and 12 others. We are recognisable from the scars we bear from stuff thrown at us at ANI and other places by the peanut gallery for just doing our job, and even I am not around 24/7 but fortunately I'm on another, far-away continent (not Alaska, although there are some brave people there) where I'm active while most other admins are sleeping. I think there are two kinds of admins (or potential candidates of the right calibre): jury admins who do the backroom work closing AfDs, deleting CSDs, doing histmerges, etc., and judge admins who hand out sentences. The first group are like the desk pilots in the armed forces (it takes 9 admin/technical soldiers to maintain one soldier in full battledress with his assault rifle in the front line ). They are symbiotic and their roles are all essential.

Most aspiring admins are too nice. Some of us are very nice sometimes and pretty scathing at others, though with measured responsibility and effect I've turned many a belligerent youth into a good contributor with words such as 'instead of being a toady and turning our work into trash, why don't you pull your socks up, your finger out, and help us combat some of that vandalism. I'll help you learn how to do it - just say the word.' But there's also the 'Thanks awfully for your valued contributions, but would you mind perhaps considering - if you have a moment of course - not using AWB to change all references to John Lennon, David Beckham, and Kudpung to God? Because I use a Mac and therefore can't use AWB I have to revert all those edits by hand, and it takes me away from from beating the children here with a big stick. Thanks in advance for being such a decent fellow.' While I admit some (fortunately few) admins are nauseous - and more often to each other than anyone else - people who complain about them being bitey are usually people who will look for any excuse to complain about something or other. There is of course the anti-admin brigade, but we are usually able, sooner or later, to get Arbcom to place them under special measures. But to your original question, I don't know the answer, except perhaps dragging them kicking and screaming to RfA ... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the work you do here. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, do you kick and scream by any chance? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I second that "thanks" having a basic understanding of the issues our admins are facing. I enjoy expanding articles for GA review with hopes of future promotion to FA. The most troublesome argument I've heard is "not all articles were meant to be GAs or FAs." The latter speaks volumes, and I hope admins who happen to read such a statement during a dispute will up the volume on their investigation. I doubt you will find many articles (if any) that have been promoted to FA that are fundamentally noncompliant with BLP or NPOV. IMO, some of the issues plaguing our admins could be eliminated if more attention was focused on adherence to policy and less on behavioral issues, the latter of which is a circular reference. Based on my observations, several good editors have been blocked while trying to adhere to policy, such as reverting contentious (or overly promotional) material, the latter of which is usually the handy work of advocacy (cabals or tag teams), and likely tied to paid editing or SP, and the like. 5 editors against 1 doesn't always indicate the 1 editor is causing the disruption but I've seen it play out unfairly on more than one occasion, and we're losing good editors as a result. Just look at the stats. The 3RR noticeboard is also lacking in its effectiveness because of admin time constraints. Instead of investigating a dispute, some admins will do a quick scan of the argument and make a judgement call which more often than not ignores the policy violations that created the reverts. In order to correct the imbalance, I think we need more admins who are experienced writers of quality prose like the teams of editors who review FA nominations. Perhaps having at least one FA to an editor's credit should be a requirement for RfA, or it may be necessary to create a subset of policy enforcement admins who review disputes for just that purpose. It will bring more qualified editors into the admin pool who understand what goes into creating and/or expanding articles that are policy compliant and meet the stringent requirements of FA or even the lesser GA, particularly in the area of BLPs. In the interim, our admins will remain bogged down treating the symptoms without ever curing the disease. My perspective is based on a 30+ year career as a publisher/writer which includes substantial experience in copyvio and defamation litigation - but never as a defendant. I hope to keep it that way. Atsme☯ 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection request

Would you please again look at Legend (2015 film) and Testament of Youth (film) to which you recently gave protection - Morgan's fan club have returned. Thank you. Nedrutland (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films

Hi HJ. Thank you for the protection to the page. If you wouldn't mind, could you add the page to your watchlist and keep an eye on it? I have a feeling this may still be an issue once the protection has expired. Thank you again, as always. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

An account you have blocked

I was fixing some of OJOM edits and found you had blocked a very similar account OJOM11 and thought you might want to know. I started a sock investigation (P.S. this user has made many edits, cleanup will not be easy :P ). Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks good Sir for you attention to detail. Thank you. (OJOM (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)).

@Mlpearc: I blocked OJOM11 for harassment/impersonation of OJOM. I hope you don't mind, bit I deleted the SPI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, no problem but, now OJOM is a problem. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Harry, I would very much for you, and maybe some of your stalkers, to look at that account. As far as I'm concerned, OJOM exhibits the hallmark traits of incompetence and POV that coupled with a pretty blatant disregard for RS all lead to a very unladylike NOTHERE. OJOM, if you're watching this, don't ever refer to me as a "gentleman". I live in the post-19th century. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wifione-paid editing amendment request

I've filed an amendment request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Wifione.

I think everybody has had their say at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed decision, so perhaps this notice is just a formality.

All the best,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)