Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smsarmad (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 7 March 2014 (correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

WP:AE and discretion

Placed here, as not to clutter an already lengthy section with an essentially digressive comment, but feel free to move, link, or notify as you find necessary.

I agree generally with your position that admins should have discretion, and conceptually we can impose less severe restrictions in lieu of a block. Most of the time I've seen, when challenged, it comes down to sheer force of personality by the admin imposing the sanction, which can be pretty costly in stress levels and time spent explaining actions over and over again. Also, given the developments over the years giving enforcement actions special protection from other admins, I think a little extra solicitousness to doing things carefully is in order in general, I don't wish to suggest that I think you or any other administrator in particular cannot be trusted.--Tznkai (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for dropping in. I've been working at AE on and off for a few years, and one thing that continually strikes me is the inability of most admins there to think outside the box (or at least to consider actions that require thinking outside the box). I firmly believe that admins' duty at AE is not to roboticly impose sanctions for technical violations, but to do what they believe is right for the project. And that might involve doing something that isn't an arbitration enforcement action per se (that is, the arbitration remedies are one more tool for dealing with disruption, but we're not obliged to use them). Toddst's block of Yozer1, for example, was a perfectly valid admin action, and could have stood as it was, with the AE protections lapsing after a year (something that has happened plenty of times before, but isn't exactly routine). Of course I agree that we need to take (even) more care with AE actions than with regular admin actions given the toxicity that surrounds arbitration and the special status afforded to AE actions (with which I don't entirely agree, but reluctantly accept are necessary)—that's why we spend so long discussing things, even though any admin could act unilaterally. While I don't think we should rush into things, nor should we refuse to do something just because it hasn't been done before, nor even be afraid to use our discretion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, mostly. The mostly is where discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is the best time for creativity, and often the time it is most needed. I've certainly tried it myself over the years with limited success. And we certainly can't keep playing not to lose, as opposed to playing to win, which is what mechanical application of rules can get you. But I've become much more aware of how much AE is playing with fire - I've seen it, if not abused outright, misused. I've always thought administrators, at AE and globally, owe everyone else solid explanations of all they do, to provide clarity into our bureaucratic nonsense (a sour spot of enough hurdles and jargon to confuse, but not enough resources to support) - nonsense that is made worse by our near universal disdain for bureaucracy. Anyway, I think I agree with you in principle, just not as applied here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:AERFC?--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Page "camping"

Hello. I would like your admin and maintenance at Kalki_Bhagavan since if would not an urgent matter, please, advice. Thanks in advance!

Making OTRS human.

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

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

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

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

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

Then

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

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

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

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

• Forum: Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

• Featured content: Odin salutes you

• WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience

• Special report: Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest

• News and notes: Wikimedia chapters and communities challenge Commons' URAA policy

• Traffic report: Snow big deal

• Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Interfase's topic ban

Hello, HJ Mitchell.

I ask you to lift the topic ban on Azerbaijani topic from me. The most of my edits are related to Azerbaijan topic as I am from Azerbaijan. Another topics are not interesting to me. I'll promise that I will not took part in any ethno-conflict topics and edit warrings (and accusing anybody in vandalism as well). Because some users say that due to such peaceful edits I could be blocked. Also that sanction was made without opportunity giving to me to explain may position. If you let me to edit Azerbaijan topics, which are not related to any conflicts, I will thank you for this. If you also review my edits in articles you will see that all of them have a purpose to provide the readers with useful information about Azerbaijan and improved the Azerbaijani topic in English Misplaced Pages.

Also I want to ask you to give me an opportunity to seek adviсe to you in case of problems with users, who will not be agree with my edits.

Regards, --Interfase (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Could I make this edits? Because without the description of these monuments in the articles their photos could be deleted. --Interfase (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't consider the topic ban to cover Azerbaijan topics in general—just topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. So editing an infobox about a university (for example) would be fine, as long as you don't add, remove, or modify any content related to the conflict. I'd suggest you be careful about it so you can't be accused of deliberately testing the boundaries, and if you're not sure whether an edit would be covered by the topic ban, don't make it or at least ask me (or another uninvolved admin) first. I also don't see a problem with the other edits (adding descriptions of monuments), as long as the subjects aren't connected to the conflict with Armenia. If you keep your nose clean for a few months, we can look at lifting the topic ban.

If you have problem with other editors, the best thing is always to try to resolve things through discussion, but yes, you're welcome to ask for opinions or advice, especially if it relates to the topic ban. Does that answer your questions? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Mitchel. Thanks. I'll try to keep far from topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. --Interfase (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mitchel, you said that I can ask you about my edits, when I am not sure. So, I added description of the monuments of the victims of Black January and Khojaly Massacre. But user LGA says that I couldn't do this as the topic of Khojaly Massacre and Black January are related to conflicts. I agree that any monuments for victims are related to some conflict. But as I think these monuments are modern monuments which topics are not disputed. So my question is whether the descriptions of the monuments could be added to the articles Black January and Khojaly Massacre Memorials? --Interfase (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, HJ Mitchell. I'm a little confused about this topic ban, myself, because the edits that led to the topic ban in the first place this diff and similar ones, had nothing to do geopolitical conflicts (at least not contemporary ones); they were about the name of Azerbaijan. So I'm not following how a ban specifically from Armenia-Azerbaijan is suited to prevent future instances of the same. Let me know your thinking when you have time, thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I've looked at this and thought about the best way to proceed. @Interfase: it does seem that your conduct was problematic, which is why several admins agreed that you should be sanctioned, but in hindsight, I think an indefinite topic ban was a little over the top. Nevertheless, I think something should be done, so what I propose is:

• I vacate the topic ban.
• In its place, you are prohibited from describing any edit as "vandalism" unless it meets the definition at WP:VAND (that is, it is an edit made with the deliberate intention of causing damage to Misplaced Pages), and
• For any reverts you make in mainspace that are not of clear and obvious vandalism (specifically, they would be recognised as vandalism by somebody not familiar with the topic), you must go to the article's talk page and give your reasons for your revert.
• Violations of the above will result in a block and/or the reinstatement of the topic ban.

Does that sound reasonable to you? (Courtesy ping for Heimstern Läufer). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review

You reviewed Anjem Choudary and gave it a GA status in 2010. I just put it up for reassessment. I thought I would let you know.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Audie Murphy

Hi Harry. It looks like we were both working RFPP at the same time; you were declining this request while I had already protected it. Sorry about that; it was not meant as second guessing your decision. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, not to worry; it was borderline, so I'll defer to you. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection

How you doing Harry? Pleased to meet you. I see you're working hard as an administrator on Misplaced Pages. I see you've been semi-protecting a lot of articles lately but the only problem is you seem to be negating the expiry dates on most of them that you protect. If you're having trouble putting the expiry dates on the protection template, just view the source of any article that has page protection with an expiry date. Thanks and happy contributing. MegaGardevoir68 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, don't know what you mean. I've just had a look through the log, and all the protections I've applied recently have expiry dates (I use indefinite semi-protection only very rarely). I'm certainly not having any trouble—I've used the protection interface many thousands of times. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think they mean the expiry parameter for the page protection topicon, rather than the protection itself? In which case, removal of protection templates from pages whose protection has expired is handled by a bot, so there's no real need to do that. (Actually, I thought addition of those templates were also handled by the same bot, though I see that it looks like it's User:Tbhotch that's doing it.) In any event, not really a big deal. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't add them—there's a bot that does that, and as you say, it removes the templates when the protection expires, but there's some software magic that means the template doesn't show up unless the protection is active. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

refunding a page

I thought I could get this reversed at WP:REFUND, but I'm told otherwise there:

(copy of the response I received)

Public Interest Advocacy Centre

• Public Interest Advocacy Centre · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) ·

This was deleted in 2011 in a brief deletion discussion as not having an assertion of significance. Apparently someone tried to recreate the article and it was deleted as a recreation of a previously deleted article. One of the two delete votes in the discussion was based largely on the statement that the name is non-unique as there are both Canadian and Australian organizations with this name; however, according to the report of the Canadian organization, they assisted in setting up the group in Sydney. Since the argument is one of notability, I see no problem with restoring the article at least to Draft namespace pending further documentation, which doesn't seem difficult to find. -Wnt (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The person to ask that of is the admin who closed the AfD, HJ Mitchell (talk), who I will ping by that reference. JohnCD (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(end quoted material) Can you do this?

Hi, it's all yours—User:Wnt/Public Interest Advocacy Centre. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

RFPRV

As you have reviewed a lot of requests for Reviewer permission recently, can you give me a short feedback about my edit history and chances to receive Reviewer permission in the near or far future (or now)? I have already applied once, but back then I didn't realise that only my contributions to this project (not the German Misplaced Pages) were taken into account. Thanks in advance, FDMS 12:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to know what you're doing. Contributions on other projects can be taken into account, but the key is your understanding of the key policies on enwiki. I think you have that, so you're now a reviewer. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Serendipity

Check this out. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Great minds think alike? And apparently simultaneously! Either that or there's a telepathic connection! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Muhammadshahzadkhan

Hello HJ Mitchell. You may like to review this user Muhammadshahzadkhan (talk · contribs) that you blocked yesterday for edit warring and as soon as that block expired, he was back to the same articles and again edit warring. I would also like to add here that by the looks of it, this user appears as a sock of Bhural (talk · contribs) (SPI), and I may file a report if I find time to collect some diffs. -- SMS 00:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)