User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Where's Access Denied?

He (Access Denied) isn't using accounts for socks now, just a very narrow IP range of User:201.123.... The IP is mainly focusing on disrupting punctuation pages, my "wiki-friend" This lousy T-shirt has been tagging them into this category. I can't find that "whois" thing, could you do a query for those IPs? Thanks. BTW thanks for unblocking me --Perseus8235 15:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

One place to get information about IP addresses is http://www.whatismyipaddress.com - however be careful about mentioning anything from there back on Wikipedia, as there's a small risk of such mentions being misinterpreted as outing or stalking or something. Whether there is much benefit in your following the IP addresses around, I won't comment on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Perseus, out of curiosity, how did you come to this conclusion? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohh, and they are obviously all from the same IP range, but querying them won't do anything unless you know Access Denied's IP (which you don't). Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

user:NPz1

Hello, I have noticed you have already dealt with this user. He continues edit warring on multiply articles, keeps inserting POV. Maybe it is time to topic ban him on I/P conflict.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I second Mbz1's request. Frankly, I don't think any of NPz1's edits have been constructive. NPz1 has been blocked for 31 hours and then for a week, with no discernible effect on editing behavior. Maybe a community ban discussion would be appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Jeff_Bedford#Update:_HelloAnnyong_and_HJ_Mitchell.2C_How_can_I_help_you_out.3F

You're probably already aware of that, but I'm just making sure. Cheers, my friend.  Chzz  ►  23:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

YouTube.

Would This Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7pLw_ORWNM count as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic Savior (talk • contribs) 04:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would guess at no. What statements, in what article, is that video explicitly confirming to be true? And, secondly, isn't that video a likely copyright violation anyway? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the essay WP:RSEX has more on the use of YouTube videos as sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP

Hi. I need your help regarding this BLP issue about Kaveh Farrokh. I just want to follow the rules of wikipedia. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 05:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps interested

Hi, you might be interested in checking out this article that I suggested and ErrantX started. Schenecker double murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"the annoying flashing gif" at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

That was kind of the point, to make it more annoying so that it wouldn't get ignored so often. There haven't been any NOTNOW cases in the time since I added it and enlarged the text. I like the rest of your changes, but I think we should put the animation back. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It's also only been 35 days since you added it, do NOTNOW RfAs happen that often? :p demize (t · c) 00:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently our keepers of statistics say there are 1-2 each week, which jives with my general impression of it, but it is admittedly too soon to tell. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Block needed

Hi HJ, you blocked this user but they've returned as this. Obviously they have an axe to grind with the school. AD 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Soap blocked them, see block log. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:51am • 23:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco

Hi HJ. Would you have a look at this report, you blocked an account recently adding some KKK accusations and another user is continuing, there is a report about that at BLPN here - but the main issue I want you to look at is the two accounts ... that are quacking loudly imo - any advice is good.. Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your on a little break and I made a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thetaxmancometh, - enjoy your lucky break, best wishes - Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You are serious admin, this is serious kitten

Panyd has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thank you for your well-wishes. They were very much appreciated and made me feel a lot better during my time off. For your kindness I present you with a kitten! May it love you and keep you. (And I hope to see you at the upcoming events!) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yo

Howdy,

May I have rollback please?

Cheers!

Egg Centric (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You'd probably get a faster response if you asked here. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 12:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm patient ;) Egg Centric (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you a yay or nay in the morning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe it's yea :P —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 12:30pm • 01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK question

Hi HJ, may I please ask what happens to a DYK hook, if it was promoted by 2 editors, and marked as "possible" by another, whose objections have no ground, and who refuses to engage in any feature discussion about the hook? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking in abstract terms or is there a particular hook you want a fourth(?) opinion on? If it clearly meets the criteria and there are no other issues, it can be moved to the prep area at the discretion of whoever is building the sets. It may just be that nobody has noticed it—I have a nomination of my own that's been waiting for a "yay" or "nay" for nearly a week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about specific hook. At first the user marked it as "possible" because in their opinion "Pinocchio is a known liar, which means that any statement he makes might be true or false." Then, when I have done much more explanations at the user talk page and in DYK nomination, and added info to the lead, the user started claiming it is not the Liar paradox, although the reliable source clearly states it is. So I proposed alternative hook, in which I took off the link to Liar Paradox from it, but the user did not remove their objections.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks like a third editor has stepped in and approved it. I'm too tired for anything that requires thought, but I'll look into it in more detail if you;re still having trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I am ready to explain all questions you might have, when you are not so tired. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit of incivility

User:Ashiva2010, after a 31-hour block and additional warning for this edit, returned with this. Can you take a look, or should I notify Chaser? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Charming. They can have themselves an indef for that. It doesn't have to be infinite, but I don't see much good coming from another finite block. At least not a short one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I see you're back from your short wikibreak! Did you enjoy it? Also, in your state of sleepiness from waking up from said wikibreak, you appear to have forgotten to remove the wikibreak notice from your userpage (or I'm just lightning fast :p). demize (t · c) 19:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Give me a chance! I've only just got back and I've spent all day on a train! Bloody engineering works! There are few things more frustrating than sitting on 125mph train that's going... nowhere fast! Alas, 'tis what you get for travelling on a Sunday, but, being English, I do like to moan about it! It was pleasant being away from everything for a few days, except when I realised I'd forgotten to note my departure, but lucky I had Ironholds' mobile number! Did I miss anything interesting? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's this Wiki Guides thing going on now, but other than that I don't think so. demize (t · c) 20:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did get called a "silly sod" by Ironholds. :) Welcome back, Dude :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back. I hope your slow moving train kept you warm and dry. I was silly enough to go out in the rain to try and take photos of Catkins. - JuneGloom Talk 23:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back - missed ya!--5 albert square (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. It's nice to be back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammys

Aside from notifying you of how much I modified your blurb, I wanted to point out that I contested (on ITN/C) the point that Lady Antebellum and Arcade Fire are adequately updated. -- tariqabjotu 17:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think for a C-class article and a GA, the updated are sufficient. It's nice to have a GA on ITN, but we don't want to load it down with recentism. It may have been a better idea to update 53rd Grammies, but there's only so much you can say beyond "they won an award that nobody will remember in a few months". Why did you remove Arcade Fire from the blurb? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, according to our ITN criteria, they aren't. But I don't know why I bother. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy of File:Labyrinth game box.jpg

Hi, This file had been tagged for violating non-free use policy, with the recommended action in the tag being to discuss on its talk page. I did add an amplification of the rationale on its talk page, and there was no further discussion there until the file was speedied earlier today. Did I misread the tag? I had interpreted it as saying this was the appropriate way to at least postpone its being speedied, perhaps on the way to a FUR discussion. Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Eraserhead1's talk page.

Ya 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--5 albert square (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Romy Rosemont

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism

I'm not sure if you've seen Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Pseudoskepticism, but it seems like there's a developing consensus to unlock Pseudoskepticism (which you protected following a RFPP) now that there appears to be some fruitful discussion and more attention to the topic. Swing by and take a look. Cheers, — Scientizzle 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic area or the regulars there, so I'll leave it up to you or any other admin who wants to call it. I'm perfectly happy for it to be unprotected if that's what the consensus is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Hello I see you issued me a warning?Could you be more specific why?Also there are several other editors that edit the same articles that I am. Have you issued a warning to them too?--Shrike (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just a formal notification. If you edit in accordance with the expected standards, you have nothing to worry about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It just a warning that is given to all editors in I/P articles?--Shrike (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

At the discretion of the admin, yes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wanting advice on possible new BLP article

Hello! I'm trying to write a BLP of author Fern Reiss (my draft is currently located here: User:WikiTome/Fern Reiss). This being one of my first BLPs and not being completely clear on all the rules, I was wondering if you might check it out and give me some feedback on what I should improve before it would be accepted. I'm worried it might sound a bit too promotional. I know you're probably pretty busy, so feel free to do this at your leisure, or not at all.

Thanks so much! WikiTome ^Talk 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Typical! Just as I start work on an article! Ah well, I'm sure it would have been someone else—this talk page is ridiculously busy. I'll take a quick look now and then look in more detail later on. Are you wanting to move it to mainspace soon or is it a longer term project? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this is an unimportant article that doesn't need to be published in the near future, so don't in any way feel obligated to help me with this, I have plenty of time. Thanks a lot, I appreciate the time you took to respond and take a look at the article, and I also appreciate the feedback, negative or positive as it might be -- I want to eventually make it into a good article, not be praised for my writing. I just saw you commented on the article, so I'll go upgrade =)

Thanks again for everything! WikiTome ^Talk 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

  ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Access Denied

AD's account is globally locked, so he can't edit on any other WMF projects. --Perseus8235 12:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Eraserhead1's talk page.

Bot

Hey. Just to check, did you create HJMitchellBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? - JuneGloom Talk 16:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked that account because I don't believe it's actually you. But if it is, then I apologise and am happy for the account to be unblocked! Just a precaution really. –anemoneprojectors– 16:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy, another one! No, not me. If I need any more accounts in future, I'll always create them from this account and make the connection clear on the userpage. Thanks for blocking it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional issues

This rollback removal was a good call; curious as to whether Twinkle should be revoked as well given this major mistake yesterday (delinking "Patna" from 300+ articles via Twinkle with no clue how it came about). Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell! I don't know whether to add them to the Twinkle blacklist, block for incompetence or ask why the hell the unlink feature is available to non-admins! What do you think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): I would blacklist TWINKLE for now (that can always be readded no problem) plus a note explaining why. I would also ask about the unlink feature. I would leave the block for if the behavior continues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well they haven't made any monumentous cock ups with Twinkle since then. I can't see any legitimate reason for non-admins to be using the unlink (I didn't realise til now tat it wasn't admin only) given that it's only real use is removing links to deleted articles and the WT:RFA crowd will never allow non-admin a delete button. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I would just monitor their contribs, if problems continue, then put them on the blacklist. I haven't the slightest clue how to use the damned button to be honest. I know it is there, just not sure what to with it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Click it on an article and hit confirm and it removes every single link to that page (be there 2 or, in this case, 200!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow...yeah, that needs to be admin online. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The funny-but-not-so-funny bit is that when he made the error he went straight to his userpage and upped his edit count by a couple hundred, then when he had to roll all of the errors back he immediately upped his edit count again. An additional 400 - 500 edit count for a mere hour of work? Priceless. That being said he seems to be genuine in his desire to contribute - I think he's a good candidate for mentorship. A good mentor should be able to determine if his skills just need honing, or if there's a genuine competance issue. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Procedural question

Hypothetically speaking (as in the rhetorical equivalent of "my friend has a problem..."), how does the four-warnings rule work in regard to repeat violators? For instance, if an editor has received several vandalism/disruptive warnings, and maybe even been previously blocked, does the next offense start the clock over at level 1? If so, what sort of time frame would indicate a start-over as opposed to a continuation of the count? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That would depend who you ask, really. In the case of a shared IP (unless it's clearly the same person), I'd give one low level warning and one level 4, but then it's very rare that I'll give a vandal more than 3 warnings. If it's an account or an IP that doesn't look shared, I'd make sure they understand the problem and then block if they do. If it's blatant vandalism and they've had previous warnings and blocks, report straight to AIV and mention their history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent unblock of NYyankees51

For someone that received the benefit of your leniency, User:NYyankees51 has surprisingly jumped back into editing the same sort of controversial articles that prompted his socking and subsequent block evasion in the first place. Instead of following your advice to take "the opportunity to become an upstanding member of the community" and his promise he "absolutely will work hard to gain the trust of the community" he seems to be surrounding himself with conflicts -- see: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated religious attacks by WikiManOne and his recent edit history. He certainly hasn't gained my trust...

I don't really have a horse in this race since I haven't edited any of the articles that he has, but if I had an inclination to, I think I'd avoid it since I know I'd be stepping on a can of worms. Maybe I'm wrong, but when I read his acceptance of your deal last month, I expected he would keep a low profile and edit Geography articles or work on the Great Backlog Drive or something else less controversial. Perhaps you could have a talk with him and maybe rein him in a little bit. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mojoworker - thanks for bringing this up. I've been having similar problems with this user, particularly on Jim Moran and Bobby Schilling. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I would just like to say that it was not the controversial articles I typically edited that got me blocked. I was blocked because I was using socks to vandalize Alexandria Aces (Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball) (see here and here. Granted, I created other socks after my block to edit my regular scope of articles, but the whole mess was due to a baseball article. As you can tell, the vast majority of my edits are on political or otherwise controversial articles. I didn't get the impression that HJ Mitchell wanted me to avoid controversial articles, and I apologize that I didn't. I just don't really think I have a whole lot to contribute outside of those topic areas. I do admit I have been belligerent on a couple of occasions so I will try to tone that down. I just feel that if I'm not allowed to contribute to those kinds of articles, I can't really contribute at all. I appreciate all of your concerns and if you have any others don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's telling you that you can't edit those articles, just that you should watch your temper and make sure your personal views don't interfere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback revoked

You have removed my rollback rights. I want to know which IP should I talk to? The user keeps changing his IP (some of them are 165.124.86.204, 165.124.98.189 , 165.124.98.61 etc. No repeat reverts are from the same IP. The point in question was added by User: Devanampriya. See his contributions. It is based on some consensus on the Indo-Greek article. I have done a few mistakes in the past like I removed some of the backlinks to the Patna article accidently. The rollback feature enabled me to undo these changes very quickly.

I feel you should have looked into these facts in a little bit more detail before revoking my rollback rights. Anyways, I am happy with your decision. Atleast now I won't have to try hard to keep Wikipedia pure. I can now just go away from all this. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 09:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because he's using multiple IPs, doesn't make him a vandal and rollback is only supposed to be used for vandalism. Needing to revert gross errors of judgement that had me and another admin tempted to remove your access to Twinkle is not a valid reason for reinstating it. Try discussing the dispute on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you block me till 4am please?

Well... not me specifically, but my underlying IP. I have no need of being blocked myself of course... but as I don't need to edit and am already quite intoxicated, so I could be blocked for a bit with no problem.

And importantly have computers lying around on this internet connection, with many drunk people shortly to arrive here, and one of them is a wiki vandal... it would be good to stop that. Heck you could just block the udnerlying IP not me if you want. Obviously I'm gonna do my best to stop any of that shit but pre emption is better :)

P.S. This may be the 3rd time now I've asked ya for a favour, cause you're a nice chap... if these are a nuisance please let me know!

P.P.S. You're obviously a brit... Where you based? I'm in 3 parts of England and 1 part of Scotland regularly (live in London), if any of them correspond we should have a pint some time ;)

Cheers Bud,

Egg Centric 19:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You underestimate my magical powers! I can block you and your IP (which I've redacted, in case your sensitive about that sort of thing) in one fell swoop! Drop me an email when you're sober and we'll see if we can't make plans to get drunk! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

ITN request

The ITN timer has gone over 24 hours, but WP:ITN/C#Belgian government deadlock is ready to post. Giving you a poke as previously requested! Modest Genius ^talk 22:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I've posted it. I'm in the middle of writing an article and trying to keep my focus, so I's appreciate it if you (or someone else) could do the credits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

RD#2

I think this applies. Thanks in advance. †TE†Talk 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User 74.92.27.193

Since your block of Special:Contributions/74.92.27.193 on the 21st of January, that IP has made 8 more disruptive edits, all reverted by bots or users. That IP was previously blocked on the 18th of November 2010. In all, the user has ignored 11 warnings or blockages to make 31 disruptive edits, all reverted by bots or users, and has made no constructive edits at all, other than a promise to not do it again, after which came the majority of vandalism: 26 more disruptive edits. Copy of this notice sent to User:Daniel Case, the first administrator to block. Anarchangel (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone's in need of some time on the naughty step. Blocked for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Curious

I was wondering, what do you look for in an admin candidate? I've seen you support RFA's I never would (Rami R; in which I went neutral), and oppose others that I would support. It cannot be length of service (I agree with you on this), edit count (also agree), or activity (I disagree here).

(By the way, I waited until after Rami R's RFA to ask you because I didn't want to be the asshat who badgered supporters into opposing ;). Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. How I evaluate candidates has certainly changed in the ten months that I've been an admin. Normally, I look for a few fairly simple things and none of them depend strictly on mere statistics—if suitability for adminship was decided by a combination of edit count, tenure and other things measured by X!'s tools, we'd have a bot that went round making people admins when they meet certain criteria and the constant squabbling at WT:RFA would be over whether candidates should have 10 million edits or whether 9,999,999 would suffice! I look for enough clue/common sense that they could use the tools without breaking the wiki and a practical ("hands-on") knowledge of policy and how it's applied (not just a theoretical knowledge, anyone can regurgitate what policy says, but what it says and how it's applied aren't always the same thing), preferably gained by being helpful in an area dominated by admin work.

I think it's important for a candidate to have got their hands dirty in the mainspace. I would be more inclined to support a candidate with a few FAs/GAs/DYKs to their name, but I wouldn't not support because of a lack of them. It's important to know what it feels like to have been involved in collaboration and discussion (even dispute), so you can understand why some people lose their tempers and go over three reverts, not that edit warring is justified, but strictly enforcing it as 4 reverts = block isn't always the best approach. I couldn't care less what percentage of their edits are "automated" or to which namespace. I think roughly 6-9 months' experience is sufficient, but I've been known to oppose candidates with more and support some with less.

The most important thing is to be able to trust the candidate with what they want to do, whether it's keep the wheels turning at DYK or block vandals. It's worth remembering that I'm far from the most tenured editor at RfA, but I've been !voting for longer than the majority of editors in some of the more recent RfAs have been editing. Had Rami R 2 been his first RfA, I probably would have joined you in the neutral section, but I supported his first and maintain the belief that he should have been an admin then. When he withdrew it right at the end when a 'crat could (in theory at least) have closed it as successful and gave such a good rationale when Pedro asked him about it, I had no doubt I'd support his second attempt. It's just a shame it took him so long to submit it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for replying! Actually, as it turns out, my opinions on an admin candidate are not much different in yours—I like to see participation in admin-related areas (except ANI), work in mainspace (i.e. FAs, GAs, copyediting, referencing, backlog reduction, ITNs, DYKs, etc.), respect for other editors (although simply using the f-word is not in my opinion a cause for oppose at all; it takes a serious personal attack to make me oppose), and a good amount of clue. I also agree that blocking immediately after 4 reverts commonly causes the edit warriors to get more upset and angry, and a simple warning and dispute resolution often help solve the problem (protecting the page also helps!). I am active as a third opinion wikipedian, and regularly see these types of conflicts. Thanks again! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2011 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--5 albert square (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And before I go out, I've sent you another email :) --5 albert square (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers!

`Will email ya shortly - or maybe find you on facebook... Egg Centric 21:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not on Facebook, but email's good. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

reviewer rights

Hi, I think regarding this discussion the user agrees to have the right attached to his account. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hj. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Tony Blair

Your suspicion is justifiable, but I can explain. I have never had the page on my watchlist, but it is a subject which interests me. I read the article and thought it was good. I also thought that for a subject of such high interest, a high-quality article is important, and a GA review can do wonders for an article. With regards to your concerns, I guarantee I am committed enough. I honestly can't promise you that I am knowledgeable enough, but I'm currently studying politics and have done work experience in the Palace of Westminster – I let you make your own mind up!! Thanks. —Half Price 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well knowledge can be gained through research (I'm actually three-quarters of the way though his autobiography and have an A-level in politics, so I'm probably in a good position to judge the article's comprehensiveness), I just want to be sure that any concerns I come up with aren't going to be left unanswered. You also need to understand that this won't be an overnight process—it could take several weeks, if not months, but if you know what you're getting yourself into, I'm happy to take it on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready when you are! —Half Price 16:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck. As the only editor to get a British prime minister to FA (Neville Chamberlain), I assure you it is like running uphill under heavy fire.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was about to write "Pah! The British managed it at Spion Kop". Then I realised that they didn't and I was actually thinking about the film Zulu! Doh! —Half Price 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ermenikend

I think your protection ran out on that article, and the recent history is nothing but IPs edit-warring... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

edits

Hey,

I started a discussion at Template talk:Talkback#Styling regarding the change that (probably fairly) warranted this revert. We've got a few "user note" type templates right now which all used hand-hacked divs instead of centralised styling like most message boxes; IMO we should migrate them all to do so, either using {{tmbox}} or a new design if (as suggested in that edit summary) there's general agreement that {{tmbox}} is unsuitable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've no objection to what you were trying to achieve—you were trying to make the template space more accessible to idiots like me, which can only be a good thing, but the turd colour really doesn't look great when the template is employed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection of The Amazing Race 18

I probably should have contacted you first about this. I have requested unprotection of The Amazing Race 18 at WP:RFPP. My full rationale for this request is at RFPP. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Lifting of topic ban

Hello, you previously told me that you might lift my topic ban after one month. I was also blocked one day before the topic ban came into effect.

I am now asking if you could lift my topic ban (?) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So what do you say? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GHcool and SD were topic banned simultaneously for identical offenses. IMHO, and in fairness to GHcool, if a topic ban is lifted against SD, it should also be lifted against GHcool.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. --GHcool (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Barrons

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Harry, you can go ahead and transmogrify.Kudpung (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Er, I made a possible mess of this. Could you please check. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

=O (support +1) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Block of 138.162.8.57

I just noticed that you indefinately blocked the IP 138.162.8.57. I certainly understand the reasoning but in case you are unaware this is the proxy IP that shows whenever anyone within the Navy and Marine Corps Intranet accesses the internet. So that effectively blocks 2 or 3 million people from editing Wikipedia. Not trying to change you mind I just wanted to make you aware. --Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for James Dutton (Royal Marines officer)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Daniel 1992 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of James Bucknall

Hello! Your submission of James Bucknall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply on DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Colin Boag

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your input please...

Could you please take a look at this discussion to rename New York City Subway to New York City subway? I think the discussion has gotten out of hand. The requester is continuing to beat a dead horse, and the 7 day discussion period is long over. His argument is basically that we should ignore the owner/operator's capitalization on the logo used on the sides of the trains as well as the capitalization on the official map and rename thousands of articles pages to lowercase because WP:I don't like it. Thanks! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

modified by Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Closed as no consensus by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs). →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 16:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

I think your archiving was sort of a sensible thing to do, although there really is room for continued discussion. ArbCom basically can do whatever they want now—it's more obvious than ever—but there needs to be some other way to let the community voice their opinions; December is a long way off. Do you have any ideas? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh. de-archived, so never mind, I guess. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry HJ, I undid that, because people are still discussing, and some of the recent posts are more about how to handle these things in future, so something constructive might come of them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom can do whatever the hell they like. The only thing that's changed is that now it's 18 elected editors rather than Jimbo. I think de-archiving it was a bad idea because there's nothing that can be done until and unless Rod requests a case or appeals to Jimbo. One could always start an RfC on the extent of ArbCom's powers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, the idea behind ArbCom is that it can do anything and is supposed to be able to do anything, but using reason. It exists to forcibly solve conflicts between groups of editors that otherwise would not be solved at all. It should be a last resort, and should only take cases when every other available method of resolution has been attempted. But that's my opinion based off of my understanding of ArbCom, it may not reflect anybody else's thoughts. demize (t · c) 22:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness

I was not going to second guess your decision to lift the ban early since it was done in the best of faith. However, I have requested that it be reimplemented for the full two months. I very well could be wrong but either way, your input as the involved admin would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Supreme Deliciousness.Cptnono (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, the enforcement I filed against user Jijutsugy is 100% legitimate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's legitimate or not, it somewhat knocks my willingness to AGF when you go and file an AE request against JJG within hours of the topic ban ending. That you've been collecting diffs on him during your topic ban clearly shows that you haven;t been abiding by the spirit of it. Next time, I won't be so naive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been collecting diffs during my entire topic ban, in the end when you said you was going to lift it I started preparing it. I couldn't file it during my topic ban right? So what was I supposed to do? Forget about these legitimate concerns? What difference does it make if I had waited 1 or 2 days until you lifted it before I started preparing the enforcement? Please look at the things I brought up . --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point, and, what's more, if you can't or won't see that it's not the point, then I think you would benefit from a lengthy absence from the topic area. I'll leave JJG's AE case to be decided on its merits by other admins, but your disingenuous request for the topic ban to be lifted early only to go and start an AE thread to eliminate your opponent is textbook battleground behaviour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, I did not mean to upset you, and I apologize if I have. You told me from the beginning that you might lift the topic ban after one month, and this was without me asking for it. I requested the topic ban to be lifted so I could return editing all the articles I want to edit, and it was not a disingenuous request to file an enforcement request. I understand now that it came out wrong, as you have reacted to it, it wont happen again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't upset me, but I don't appreciate being made to look an idiot. More to the point, it's hardly encouraging that the first thing you do when your topic ban ends is file at AE, which suggests the topic ban hasn't served its purpose. If I were you, I would make damn sure that all my contributions in the topic area from now on were unambiguously helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No one has made you look like an idiot. I made a mistake. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

SD when you say you "made a mistake," can you tell us what you really mean?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As I explained before at enforcement:[1] "Ani Medjool had very strong language" (about Israel and other things) "and what I meant about that was that he might get banned if he continues....... so I told him that if he feel the way he feels he should be quiet about it. For the sake of the encyclopedia, to avoid unnecessary drama.". Jiujitsuguy can you explain to HJ what you meant when you said: "Any attempt to defend Israel is immediately quashed by hordes of Jihadists and like-minded anti-Semites." "Throughout Wikipedia, the Islamists and their Western enablers are winning by concealing Israeli perspectives while highlighting negative coverage. They are able to do so largely because they have the numbers (and patience) to drown out, shoot down, and quash all dissenting opinions, no matter how well-sourced. It is therefore incumbent on us to counter the Islamofacist influence on Wikipedia by opening up accounts and begin a campaign of productive editing." ? [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

SD, I just asked JJG why he was bringing me 16-month-old diffs, so what do you do? You come back at him with comments made on another website even longer ago! What part of "Wikipedia is not a battleground" is it that you two are having trouble understanding? Can you not just attempt to keep on opposite sides of the street? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, I have no idea why he is bringing to your talkpage old things I have been sanctioned for and that I have explained over and over again and that he has already posted at the enforcement. I didn't even want to say anything here, but then he linked to his accusations where he misrepresented what I said, and then he continued to post old things that I have already explained, forcing me to explain myself again and again, that link I brought of him was only to make him understand what he is doing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate usernames

Hi HJ - I happened to notice a bit of revision deletion you were doing in the past little while that involved a highly inappropriate username. (Incidentally, good work, thank you for addressing that.) I'm not sure if you're aware, but oversighters have an ability to block/reblock accounts with the username suppressed so that it does not appear on edit summaries made by the account or in any logs (one still has to do some RD for sinebot things or some users' reversion summaries, and often the content is pretty awful too). Just one more tool in the project's arsenal, so please don't hesitate to ping the oversight list if you see that in the future. In this case, I've just done the reblock, but let me or another oversighter know if there's something else that needs to be done. Risker (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker, I didn't know that. I thought it was only stewards who had that ability. Thanks for the reblock, that should take care of anything I missed. Out of interest, does it remove the name from the original block log entry, or do we have to do that the old-fashioned way? Thanks for the tip! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for James Bucknall

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with DYK

Hello HJ, around a week ago I wrote an article about a book. The topic of the book was very sensitive, and I did my best to make sure I got it right. I asked administrator Ironholds to edit the article, while it still was in my user space, and remove any POV he'd see there, and only after this move it to the main space. Ironholds did as I asked. He also suggested a DYK hook that I ended up using. DYK hook was submitted and promoted on February 22. In a meantime the article was edited by a few users with a different editing background, but the article has never been tagged. Then on February 24 user:Gatoclass added their objection to the nomination. I would have not bothered you with that, if it were the first case user:Gatoclass objects DYK hooks on certain topics with no reason at all. One time they removed my DYK that was promoted by another administrator from a queue and were advised by Sanstein do not this again. There are dozen of similar examples of objecting valid DYK by user:Gatoclass(the differences could be presented by request).On February 26 user:Gatoclass wrote in DYK "I'm currently working on this article. I will leave a note here when I'm done.", but it was more than 2 days ago, and the user has never touched the article although they were active. I used to engage in a long discussions with that user on DYK nominations, but I would not like to do it anymore. Could you please give me an advise how to proceed? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've given it the magic tick, because, while Gatoclass's concerns may or may not be reasonable, they don;t seem to be based on the DYK rules. If there's disagreement, we can discuss it on WT:DYK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope this will do it.Thanks to user:Gatoclass my other article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) has never made to the Main page even after it was re-written by user:George. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

SupremeDeliciousness

Hi HJ. I want to point something out to you. In the month that SD was topic banned, I believe there were at most, two AE actions in the Israel-Arab topic area. Upon your lifting of his sanction, in fact within a day of the lifting of his sanction, there were four! This is directly attributable to his involvement in the topic area where he brings the most aggressive battleground mentality as compared to any other editor. He's glued to his computer 24/7 and edits non-stop until in exhaustion, you just give up. I also would like for you to respond to this comment[3] It is an extremely serious matter and needs to be addressed in a serious way--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to these accusations. JJG has misrepresented what I said. And he has also brought up old stuff that I have already been sanctioned for and twisted them as well into something that I didn't say. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

SD. That is an outright lie. You’ve never addressed these charges as the previous AE that raised them was prematurely closed on procedural grounds, having nothing to do with the merits of the case.[4] No admin has ever addressed the matter in an AE forum. The fact that you were topic banned later for the unrelated offense of GAMING has absolutely nothing to do with edits, which on the face of it, appear blatantly racist. There are also diffs that present themselves as subtly racist, for example placing the word “Jewish” before the noted historian Bernard Lewis, as if somehow, his being Jewish taints his opinion.[5] I’ll also not that the topic area experienced an unusual level of calm in your absence and the moment you appeared on the scene, four AE actions (two of them involving you) were commenced. I’ll also note that you’ve got nearly 450 posts at AE [6] an astonishing figure considering that you’re not even an admin.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

SD, can you tell everybody what you mean by double speak? Please enlighten us.

May I ask why you're bringing up diffs from before SD's topic ban, the latest of which is 16 months old? More to the point, why are you bringing them here? Was AE redirected to my talk page while I wasn't looking? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, HJ, I did that for you. Thought you might like it, but I'll go undo it now >:P (Although, it would appear you're involved and that Jiujitsuguy believes you should be the one to go to, but I'm not sure.) demize (t · c) 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)