Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 78

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80→Archive 85

Self-requested blocks

Hello, Harry. For some time I have been considering possibly adding myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Before doing so, I thought it might help to see what a few of those already in the category think about a few matters. I should be grateful if you would give me an idea, via either talk page or email, of your ideas on the following questions.

  1. Why do you think it is that such requests are commonly refused? (Obviously, in a way this is more suitable as a question for admins who are not willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, but you may have some thoughts on the matter.)
  2. Some admins in the category have a list of requirements for such blocks, but as far as I can see you don't. Do you actually have such a list? If not, do you just take the line "I will block you if you ask me to", or would you refuse a request unless you thought it was suitable?
  3. In your experience, how often, if at all, do you get such requests?
  4. Do such blocks ever cause problems of any sort, and if so, how? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi James, always nice to hear from you.
  1. I evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis; I suppose they're frowned upon because it's not really what the block tool is for, and people see it as a little bit silly and self-indulging, but I son't see that it does any harm in general.
  2. I don't have a list of requirements, but it has to be a sensible request. I won't indulge requests that are obviously aimed at avoiding scrutiny or that strike me as somebody just being silly, but if somebody wants to be forced to take a wikibreak, I don't see a problem with it.
  3. I've been in the category since not long after it was created (which is a few ears now), and I've had maybe half a dozen requests. I've never declined one, but they were all from editors in good standing who wanted an enforced wikibreak.
  4. I've never known one cause problems, but that's not to say they couldn't. For example, if somebody was in the middle of an RfC/U and decided to have themselves blocked for a month, only to come back and carry on as if the RfC/U were never there, that would be problematic. But I would hope that no admin would be stupid enough to make such a block. I wonder about the sanity of the admin corps (and humanity!) as a collective, but individuals are usually rational!
All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
talkstalk sez... self-requested blocks have a downside: if the WP:ADDICTED-craving overcomes the I-am-not-a-sockety-sock-sock self esteem, you end up with the editor creating a new account and "technically" evading their block. Since it was a self-requested-block, I'm not sure if that "counts" as block-evasion, but it seems like their is a moral risk to the editor's standing, outside those you mentioned above. HTH. p.s. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Meet

Hey Harry, did you all meet up in Manchester? Was fun had by all? Please post any juicy gossip or tasteless photographs. Best to all you Brits/English/et ceteras, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes we met up (sadly Eric was unable to join us), and yes we had fun (and drank a lot of beer. Or at least I did. It took me most of the train journey home to sober up!). I think a couple of people took photos, but I've no idea if they're up yet. As for juicy gossip, I'm not sure there is any. Or perhaps I should be more dramatic and say that what happens in Manchester stays in Manchester? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Great minds and all that ...

Sorry, Harry.
The coincidence of my words exactly mirroring yours caused that revision to your post. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought so. Not to worry—no harm done. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Aye caramba!

Thanks for the barnstar; I think you deserve three or four of them yourself for dealing with that unholy mess! — Scott • talk 23:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks. An unholy mess it certainly was, but it's done now! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for closing discussions listed at the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrators' noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Armbrust. You do valuable work there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

pseudo-namespace RFC

It's formatted in a skinny column. Is there anything that can be done to make it wider, for better readability? —rybec 02:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I don't know if someone's fixed a syntax error of mine or something else? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Tim Ball

Hi! I came here from there. (Which, of course, is the only way to get anywhere, no? Here to there?) Anyway, I appreciate your offer there; if you still have time and inclination, would you care to look at this conversation? In the last AfD's, I don't remember seeing this book or this one. Hoggan's has sold like hotcakes at Amazon; the one authored in part by Ball is currently #436,003 #240,080 on Kindle at Amazon, (and #2,946,035 in Books) which is respectable.

So, there are some changes this time--more sources with deeper coverage. There seems to be no question that Ball is notable (or notorious) as a climate skeptic. From Hoggan's book: "Ball-the-climate-expert seemed to be everywhere--on the radio, in the newspapers, on the lecture circuit, even testifying before a committee in the Canadian parliament." How could he not be notable?

Hoggan, p. 143, quotes the Calgary Herald with a view that parallels my own, given at a link just above and also here, of why Ball is notable, not as an academic, but as a denier: "The Plaintiff [Ball] never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming . . . The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry, rather than as a practicing scientist.."

Thanks for your time. Yopienso (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay... Forgive me for getting straight to the point, but what do you want from me? Certainly at a glance, there looks like enough to establish notability form the first of the books you link (which discusses him in some detail), but I'd be worried about a BLP that was based on one major source and lots of other mentions stitched together for such a controversial subject. In general, I would always err on the side of caution with a living subject who was notable mostly for lying about his credentials. The risk is that even a neutral, well-referenced article looks like Wikipedia itself is trying to discredit the subject. In this specific case, the best thing to do is probably to get consensus, perhaps at a second DRV or, if you really think your case is solid, move it to mainspace and make your argument at the (probably inevitable) AfD. With the inclusion of the new sources, I'd say it probably doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under G4. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comments. What I wanted from you was that you review the latest version of the article and consider moving it from Jinkinson's user space to mainspace, per "That said, I will make a standing offer to anybody who feels the subject is notable enough to sustain his own article to compile a draft version in their userspace. I (and hopefully NW) will be happy to review such drafts and consider moving them to mainspace."
I am not Jinkinson and I never heard of him until his new and quickly deleted article about Tim Ball showed up on my watchlist. Yopienso (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you should probably talk to Jinkinson first, since it's "his" (or her) draft. As for moving it to mainspace, I'm reluctant, because of the concerns stated above and because it would look like I was somehow endorsing the article in my admin capacity, not least because I closed the last DRV. As I say you (or Jinkinson's) options are probably to move it yoursel(f|ves) and await the AfD, or to make your case at a second DRV. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. I've notified Jinkinson, but am puzzled by your reluctance. Imo, Jinkinson has indeed leaned toward discrediting the subject and has stated that Ball is notable mostly for lying about his credentials. I disagree, and said so on the talk page; Ball is mostly notable for being an aggressive climate-change denier, and he happens to have inflated his credentials. In a BLP on Ball, we can handle that as delicately as we did Michael Mann's claims to being a Nobel laureate. Here and here. You can see starting 21 Feb. 2012 it took some work, but we did it. I think as long as the goal wrt to Ball is to inform and not discredit, we can create an article that will be useful to readers who hear about him and want to know more. Yopienso (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I fully agree that a deletion review (presumably with regard to JohnCD userfying the page a few days ago) is in order here, given that I (and others) have identified some reliable sources which were not mentioned in the previous AFD, most of which were discussed above. In retrospect, it seems as though Yopienso has a point about how I put a lot of emphasis on Ball claiming (incorrectly) to have been a professor of climatology for 28/32 years. While much of the coverage in the draft currently pertains to this issue, there is also some coverage in major Canadian newspapers under the "skepticism of the consensus" section; thus he is not a BLP1E. Jinkinson talk to me 22:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Then it sounds like there's more material to add to the article. Why not flesh it out a bit more in your userspace and then look at having it moved to mainspace? The more material summarised by the article, the more it will place the subject and his career in context, and thus the less it will look like Wikipedia itself is trying to discredit him, even if the consensus of the sources is that he's a fraud. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have taken your advice, HJ Mitchell, and have expanded the page in my userspace with some more reliable sources. I would like to get some feedback on whether it is ready to be moved into article space. Jinkinson talk to me 20:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That looks quite good actually, now that it's fleshed out a bit. May I make a suggestion, though? The headers seem to tend towards editorialising, and even if they weren't, they'd give an at-a-glance impression that the article was overwhelmingly negative. It might be better to group material chronologically with sections for each career phase or every few years (eg 2012–present, or 1767—72). That way, we avoid titles like "credentials and controversy", "lawsuit [..]", and "Accusations [...]". It's just a suggestion, but it would make me a lot more comfortable, and it might mitigate the BLP concerns some people have. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done I have changed the headings in response to the above suggestion. Also, to clear up any confusion, I'm a he, not a she. Jinkinson talk to me 22:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm quite happy with that. It looks neutral and well-researched, and it's three times the size of the version that was last in mainspace. I'm not an expert on CSD, but I can't see how anybody can make a decent case for G4. If it were entirely up to me, I'd advise moving it back to mainspace, but since I'm not the last admin in the chain, the best thing to do is probably to get JohnCD's opinion or to go back to DRV before you do anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Human.

Hello. In 2011 you indefinitely semi-protected the Human article due to persistent vandalism. As it has now been almost three years perhaps a lower level of protection (perhaps PC?) could be implemented, at least on a trial basis? --LukeSurl t c 14:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't see any good coming from it (that's one of the few cases where I'd put aside my reservations about indefinite protection), but it's easy enough to re-protect it if necessary, so we'll give it a go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm unhappy about this. The article has been on my watchlist for several years, and it is on the watchlist of a sizable number of established editors who are ready and willing to deal with edit requests as they arise. Guess what, though . . . they arise only rarely. There's the occasional POV-pusher objecting to evolution being presented as fact, the occasional racist troll objecting to the main image being of Asians, and the occasional prude objecting to an image of naked people—and that just about covers it. On the very rare occasion there's a constructive change proposed, it gets taken care of promptly and cheerfully. There just isn't any evidence that valid edits are being deterred by the indefinite semi, but it's a rather high-traffic article and the switch to PC is liable to make it an irresistible target for would-be vandals. tl;dr version: If it ain't broke . . . Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you, except that I don't think there's any harm in trying PC for a little while. If all we get is vandalism, it can be re-protected with minimal effort; doing that every few years doesn't do any harm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm of the opinion that PC is a "solution" whose employment should demand actual evidence of a problem. But tinkering with protection levels is your prerogative; that's why they pay you the big bucks. Rivertorch (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, if only that were true! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
But it is true. They pay you ten times what they pay me (but you deserve it). --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps I should try paying for my shopping with barnstars! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Good close

Excellent call on the medical disclaimer RfC. Our RfC suffer from similar issues far too often, and it's always controversial when the closer makes a consensus call without considering things like response bias, nonresponse bias, splitting of votes between very similar options, etc.

I've previously run RfCs where just one proposal was considered, and if it drew significant opposition, it was withdrawn and rewritten in a way to attempt to address the objections. The community was confused and upset by the idea of an RfC that could actual work toward a real consensus. Oh well. Gigs (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, there wasn't really anything else I could do—I try to find a definite conclusion if there's one to be had, but I don't think any reasonable closer could have done it differently here. I do agree that RfCs are often structured in a way that makes it difficult to get a clear consensus for anything. We could, perhaps, hold an RfC on holding RfCs, but the risk is that it gets closed as "no consensus" and we ahve to have another RfC on that RfC about RfCs! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

West Midlands Police Museum editathon

You are invited to an editathon at the West Midlands Police Museum, Birmingham, on Saturday, 15 March 2014. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that's interesting, Andy! I suppose it will be more about West Mids Police than about policing in general? Still, not the sort of opportunity that comes up every day; I'll be there hopefully. Btw, is its omission from WMUK's events list deliberate? Just that that's the first place I went to check the date. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The diary listing is now done; thanks for the reminder. The primary focus of the event will be WM police, but there's plenty of material to inform more general articles. I look forward to seeing you there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2014



Headlines
  • France report: Public Domain Day; photographs
  • Germany report: WMDE-GLAM-Highlights in 2014
  • Netherlands report: New Years Reception; 550 years States General; Content donation University Museum; Wikipedians in Residence; OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey
  • Sweden report: Digitization; list creation
  • Switzerland report: The Wikipedians in Residence of the Swiss National Library have started their work
  • UK report: Voices from the BBC Archives plus Zoos, coins and Poets
  • USA report: GLAM-Wiki activities in the USA
  • Open Access report: Open Access Media Importer; Open Access File of the Day
  • Calendar: February's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 02:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

RfA

Hello, I'm considering putting myself forward for adminship and was hoping you wouldn't mind reviewing me. Any potential nomination would actually be my fifth, as I put myself forward under my old username Wikiwoohoo. The last time was in March 2009. Out of all of these, I'd only really consider the third and fourth ones to have been really serious attempts. The links to these attempts are here:

As an admin I'd most likely concentrate on working through the backlogs and clearing through the files for deletion pages.

I look forward to hearing from you. Cloudbound (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, nice to hear from you again! I'll get back to you. In the meantime, you could email me your answers to the first three questions if you wanted. At least I'd have something to mull over until I can reply in more detail. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't mind putting my answers on a sub-page of my user page, unless you'd prefer me emailing them to you? Cloudbound (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Wherever you want, my friend, but I'm not making any promises just yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hi there HJ. Been a long time since I've communicated with you, but I was wondering if you may be able to do a favour for me - I've recently been researching and expanding out some of out existing articles on obscure Edmonton, Alberta politicians. Today I was able to perform (what I think) a substantial expansion of Charles May (Canadian politician) recently, just under fivefold. Though not eligible for DYK under expanded articles, I do intend to nom it for GA soon in hopes of getting it to DYK as a newly promoted GA. Through around a few hours of research and writing, I believe that I've exhausted pretty much everything there is to know on him into a comprehensive bio. Think you could maybe do some general tweaking and copyediting (not too confident in the lede in particular) to maybe get it up to snuff for GAN to hopefully make it an easy pass? Maybe if I'm feeling ambitious sometime I may try my hand at FAC, though it's on the shorter side, I definitely feel the comprehensiveness could make up for it. Anyways, anything you can do to help me out would be awesome; thanks so much in advance and I look forward to hearing from/keeping in touch you again! – Connormah (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Connor. Great to hear from you (I seem to be having a week of old friends calling in favours!). I'll take a look, of course, but it'll probably be next week—this week's been a bit busy, not least with an FA project of my own, and I'm travelling at the weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks and sorry for my late reply! – Connormah (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Since I can't request all Barney articles at once, perhaps let's focus on one-by-one instead. A Day in the Park with Barney was infrequently edited before protection. Lower to PC? --George Ho (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable test case. I've lowered it to PC, so we'll see hoe that goes. If there aren't any real problems after, say, a month, we can look at lowering some of the others. I'd prefer to do it in phases just to be on the safe side, but if it goes well, we could gradually lower all or most of the articles to PC. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

RE Operation Flavius article

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I reverted my last edit as I didn't wish to be in violation of 1RR. However, I believe the edit is salutary, and most certainly not tweaking for tweaking's sake. I believe the term "judicial personnel" is quite unclear, almost intentionally vague, whereas "members of the judiciary" is far clearer.

Anyway I don't want to get into any kind of edit war regarding good faith editing, so I wanted to know if you could look again (via edit history) at the rewording I used and let me know if you have any problem with it (and why) so I can TRY to reword it for mutual agreement, if possible.

Yours, Quis separabit? 20:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I'm familiar with the 1RR; I've enforced it a few times as an admin (though obviously I couldn't do so here even if I were so inclined). The best thing to do is for all three of us (and anyone else who wants to join in) to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. In other words, we use the talk page to explain our thoughts, and decide whether to revert or reinstate by mutual agreement. I'm well aware of the sorts of things that have happened on other "Troubles"-related articles, but I'm hoping we can set a precedent by resolving any disagreements like adults. (cc Scolaire). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what I wanted to do but I was advised by User:Murry1975 to revert my last edit as it violated 1RR. Quis separabit? 22:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Bensonjs

This user, whom you blocked indef for vandalism almost four years ago, is now requesting unblock. I think enough time might have gone by to allow that he might have grown up a bit. Your thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, thanks for asking, but frankly I've made so many routine vandalism blocks that someone from four years ago isn't likely to ring even the faintest bell. If you're happy to unblock, I trust your judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem ... I will. Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Nice Tireless Work!!! Pritishp333 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Slovenski Volk and WP:ARBMAC

Hello HJ. Recently Slovenski Volk participated in WP:ANI#Ivan Gundulić which is a current ANI thread about a Balkan matter. Since you are the admin who closed his ARBMAC ban discussion do you consider this a violation? If so you might leave him a note. Your ban notice mentioned 'articles' but the AE discussion looked like it was endorsing a full WP:TBAN which includes talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I'm honestly not sure. There was just a request at AE that also concerned edits to ANI and which was decided to be outside of AE's remit. That and the fact that SV was mentioned by name by the initiator of the thread mean that I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Waht do you think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There has been a recent tendency to use WP:TBAN as the wording whenever an AE ban is issued. I would favor that interpretation though I wouldn't block someone who simply misunderstood the terms, except on a second offence. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I've left SV this note advising that the topic ban should be considered to apply everywhere on Wikipedia, but I'm not inclined to do anything more draconian because he was mentioned by name, which is not the same as offering an unsolicited opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your note to Slovenski Volk. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude

I agree with you on the substance of the clarification request (I'll compose a supporting view sooner or later), and perhaps this is just my inner bureaucrat speaking, but the delightful color you injected into the wording, while both delightful and colorful, is not overly diplomatic, which may cause your actual message to get lost in the shuffle. Just a thought. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought, but I think the added colour was necessary to impart the stupidity of the decision (in my humble opinion, of course!); I wasn't overly strident about anyone in particular, and my thoughts on ArbCom are hardly a secret, so I don't think it really risks derailing the discussion (which is progressing much better than I'd anticipated). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
Thank you very much for coming all the way to Scarborough to work with my students on the WWI editathon on articles related to the Scarborough Bombardment (and Lovebytes). Glad you saw the Education Programme in action and we hope to see you again in Scarborough very soon. ToniSant (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Toni, and you're more than welcome. I'll come back up nay time you'll have me—it's a nice place, and the journey wasn't too bad. How can I access the list of articles your students are working on? I'd quite like to see how they get on, and of course keep a watchful eye on the articles in case there are any problems. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Easiest way to access the list of articles the students are working on is through the course page.--ToniSant (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Great; I've added the articles to my watchlist, and I thanked a few people for edits while I was looking through. I also found out why that user right I assigned myself is handy—it lets me add myself as a volunteer for the course, and then alerts me when I'm looking at the contribs of a student from the course. That's quite useful! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

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 Wikipedia. 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

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.[1] 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.[2][3] -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)

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)

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 Wikipedia) 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)

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)

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 Talk 00:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I might easily have missed that, but I've indef'd him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Interfase

Hello HJ. This diff suggests you may have lifted Interfase's AA topic ban. If that's the case can you please log the change in WP:ARBAA2, along with any new terms? An editor has opened a ban violation complaint at WP:AE#Interfase and the case is quite blatant if the block is still in effect. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am compelled to emphasize again that the discussion about the possibility of lifting topic ban on Interfase, especially without a formal appeal, sounds totally unreasonable, weird and frivolous. If you decide to vacate him from topic ban I will give you a long list of editors who came under such sanctions for far lesser misdeeds, and you will need to release them as well to be fair. Otherwise, this would be a strange form of selective enforcement of AA2, and will be fully investigated. Hablabar (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

TFA request for Mike Jackson

Just letting you know that tomorrow I hope to be making a TFA request for one of your featured articles, Mike Jackson, as an alternative nomination for 21 March. Minima© (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:03, 9 March 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 Wikipedia.

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?[4][5][6][7] 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[8][9] 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 Wikipedia), 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)
This sounds totally unreasonable to me, unless you vacate from topic bans all editors that came under such sanctions for far lesser misdeeds. I don't understand these give-and-take little talks with Interfase, who never acknowledged his misconduct or expressed remorse for them. This is a strange form of selective enforcement of AA2, and should be fully investigated. (Courtesy ping for User:Sandstein). Hablabar (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I note your objections, but at the end of the day, it is my prerogative to vacate or modify sanctions that I impose. Having reviewed this one, I think a sweeping topic ban is disproportionate to the offence, which is why I've proposed an alternative. If Interfase's conduct continues to be a problem after the topic ban is vacated, you can report them to AE or bring it to my attention and Interfase can be sanctioned—the effort required to re-impose the topic ban, should it prove necessary, is minimal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2014



Headlines
  • France report: National Archives; Sèvres & mass uploads; Wikipedians in the European Parliament
  • Germany report: Claim open culture, again and again
  • India report: National Museum, New Delhi, India (January 2-5, 2014)
  • Netherlands report: Art and Feminism; Wikipedian in Residence; War memorials
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Candelas (Master Planned Community), Arvada, CO

I was a little surprised to see the full protection at Candelas (Master Planned Community), Arvada, CO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At RPP I posted the facebook link where an activist group was encouraging users to restore the dubious content to the article, and the version you protected actually uses that facebook site as a source. Certainly discussion would be preferable, but since the article is getting reverted by a canvassed IP-hopping range with no inclination to discuss, semi-protection seems more appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Ubie the guru

The link to the SPI in the template is redlinked; I don't know if this is intentional?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, sorry for the bother; it's that twinkle bug. I've only seen it in AfDs so far, but obviously it's here too.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The joys of Twinkle! Still, it's a million times easier than working out how to do it manually. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

  • By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_78&oldid=1178737736"