User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

YellowMonkey

So what exactly has your RFC done to help wikipedia?? We've lost two months of quality edits from him and counting not to mention some likely future FAs related to cricket and Vietnam (valuable content which we are crying out for). Very sad indeed. The bollocks over moving his poll from his user page too was the icing on the cake. I never thought YM would be the sort to leave wikipedia. He was a solid, no-nonsense admin who remained level-headed at the best of times but now it seems we've lost him. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Its not HJ Mitchell's fault that YellowMonkey's admin abuses were so wide ranging, serious and frequent and frankly its really difficult to draw any other conclusion from the evidence presented at the RFC/arbcom. Its perfectly plausible that he just needs a break and I hope he'll be back soon. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dr. Blofeld, there were several users who tried to solve the dispute. They did so by talking with him at his talk page, including informing him of the ANI discussion, yet he didn't show any signs of improvement. Sure, the RFC/U may have contributed to YellowMonkey's wikibreak, but at that stage, an RFC/U was a good way to go. Hey Mid (contribs) 10:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my above post with some statistics. Firstly I've personally successfully requested around 20 of his blocks to WP:RUP, which is frankly an extraordinary number of pages, no other user whose semi-protections I've looked at is anywhere near as bad, and the overall number on the indefinite semi-protection log which aren't for sock-puppetry or are obvious (e.g. penis) is really quite low. I even went through the older one on the first couple of pages on it, and turned out less than half a dozen which looked worthy of unprotection from a cursory glance (which is all I've done with YM's protection log).

With regards to vandalism blocks I was asked to check through his talk page edits after someone challenged me to during the ARBCOM request and I only found 3 notices placed on IP and new users talk pages (I might have missed a few of the latter) to warn them about vandalism whereas I believe he'd blocked 100 odd users, (and it looks like at least 50 non-socks) in that time period. With myself I don't know what my ratio of warnings to block requests is, but I'd guess that I leave at least 20 warnings for every block request. Maybe more than 20, and I'm hardly the world's most patient person.

It was hardly a slight lapse of judgement by YellowMonkey on a couple of occasions, and sadly there was really no other option but to escalate the matter. Certainly with the semi-protections I waited until I had successfully challenged 10 before taking it to WP:ANI, and it took a lot of pressure after that to get YM's semi-protections to a sensible duration (and even then, it wasn't that close to what most other admins do). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer help

Hi HJ Mitchell, in my absence the "reviewer" right got added to the list of userrights admins can hand out. I was wondering, what is the "average" standard for handing this right out? Things like rollback are down to admin judgment, and autopatrolled is mostly the same, but I viewed the recent request for reviewer on the requests page, which you answered, but prior to you granting the right, I hadn't been sure whether to give it or not. Do you have any advice? Thanks! Acalamari 21:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe the standard is if you think that they could use it well, you should give it to them. I know sysops have been giving it out to people getting rollback, and since it's not particularly dangerous to give out the standards are lower than rollback. demize (t · c) 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey! Reviewer is a funny one. There are no set criteria for rollback and autowotsit (were you around when the changed the name of that?) as you know, but there are unwritten standards that we all know and it's rare that somebody who doesn't meet those would be given the permissions (or vice versa). Reviewer is a much greyer area. There was a lot of fuss when pending changes was rolled out about it depriving autoconfirmed editors of something or other (total crap if you ask me), so the bar is pretty low. I look for a respectable number of edits (only once or twice have I granted it to someone with less than about 60 edits) and a basic understanding of BLP and vandalism. All they have to do is check edits to PC-protected pages and catch BLP violations/vandalism/copyvios and other serious issues before they reach the version the readers see, so the standards are similar to, but lower than, those for rollback (if I grant rollback, I usually throw in reviewer at the same time). Also, we're not generally concerned by things like edit warring blocks for reviewer, whereas we might be for rollback. Hope that provides a little enlightenment for you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw, User:Amalthea has come up with some handy scripts to make it quicker to grant permissions—just add importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeReviewer.js"); importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeRollbacker.js"); importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeAutopatroller.js"); to your monobook or vector.js and you get tabs at the top of user pages so you can grant a permission in 2 clicks and the comment is pre-filled. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both HJ Mitchell and Demize, for you helpful advice. There's been a few editors who I've encountered recently, and I was surprised they did not have reviewer, so I think I'll start handing the right out to them. I do know that Courcelles went on a mass reviewer-granting spree to reduce the backlog (he even knocked me off the top of userrights here :D), and obviously they were ones who got missed. For the record, when I went on a break in May 2010, I remember "autopatrolled" being "autoreviewer" back then, though I could be wrong (I came back with my alternate account a couple of months or so later, but I wasn't on my own internet until recently, and I kept to articles for the most part with that account and left admin-related stuff alone pretty much). It's also actually kind of funny having to ask about new userrights: I can remember when rollback for non-admins came out...and how much fun all that was. :) I'll have a look into that script too. Thanks again for all your help. Best. Acalamari 22:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I even had an account when rollback was rolled out (excuse the pun!) and autopatrolled used to be autoreviewer, it was changed a while back to avoid confusion with "reviewer" because the former has nothing to do with pending changes. I saw that Courcelles rocketed himself to the top of that chart (you'll just have to live with being the second admin to change more than 1000 rights). I only got as far as humble number 3 while you were away! Feel free to raid User:HJ Mitchell/monobook.js for any scripts you might find useful, but the permissions-granting scripts are great! The autopatrolled one was only made yesterday, though, or those lists would have been much easier to work through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this helps? Regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 05:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the reviewer and autopatrolled permissions. Just out of curiosity, what led you to notice my editing? EdChem (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK. I've approved a few of your submissions (some are probably still in the queue somewhere!) and you looked like you knew what you're doing, so I did a quick check of the article you'd created and thought I'd save some new page patroller a couple of minutes so he can catch the stuff that needs to be caught! Congrats on your 26k views, btw. That's bloody impressive to say she was only up for six hours! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... I was surprised to get as many views as that. I came across the hook fact which led me to write the article (which was a learning experience all on its own), but I wasn't expecting that it would be *that* hook-y. I wonder if it could really have had 100k views if the article had been displayed for 24 hours. EdChem (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Further thanks ...

For the autopatrolled permission. I'm still pretty much a novice, but trying to make a small contribution in my particular patch. All the best to you. Blarcrean (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

RevDel?

Hello HJ! Eventually you may also want to consider RevDel'ing the edits to my talk page today (including SineBot's). Hey Mid (contribs) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it, which is why I didn't RevDel it at the time. It's just a bit of trolling; it doesn't really meet any of the criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Request

Sir, What is Burhan Ahmed? He has some problems with me, perhaps he is jealousy with me for that, because I have become Rollbacker on Wikipedia. He is now teasing me, he is adding deletion tags on my files and articles without any reason. He had already add tags on my file and now on my photo Rafhan_Shaukat_01.jpg. Please sir help me, he is trying to make me loser. I hope you will understand my request and will help me as usual.. --—just feel it^(talk) 11:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

@HJ: Seems Burhan Ahmed has retired. He also was using your signature coding, though with his name. That could cause problems. An RFC might be necessary if he returns, otherwise, I wouldn't worry too much about it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That image is on Commons. There's not much I can do about that, you'd have to take it up with the Commons admins. @Homer: I know about the sig; it doesn't really concern me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Request

I saw your name in [[Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests]]. Can you remove the edit summary on this edit which is a definite violation of WP:RD2. Thanks --- Managerarc^talk 13:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to leave to leave it at the risk of the Streisand effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Little Miss Sunshine

Hi

I am relatively new user and I do not understand what you did with the 'Little Miss Sunshine' page. I am not being malicious, but I am just curious as to the changes you made. Thank you. (Galaxycat (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm guessing you saw my name somewhere attached to "changed revision visibility" of something or other? That's revision deletion—a way of hiding unpleasant edits and edit summaries from public view. In this case, Little Miss Sunshine was today's featured article on the Main Page the other day and was subject to some sort of coordinated vandalism campaign. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Discretionary sanctions

1. PER WP:3RR AND your own comment thereof on the page self reverts, 2. you will note that the edits i have discussed on the talk page when you see it. not just the controversial stuff, but even the tag that was removed without a response to my talk page comment. Also note that those tags need consensus for removal when controversial where George unilateryally removed it despite discussion (and near-consensus to solve it) Talk:Hezbollah#page_split_per_WP:Article_size hwere you can see the time stamp (mine: Lihaas (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)). vs. Grourge: 02:51, 19 January 2011)that nothing was responded to after my comment and his removal of the tag. because he appealed your decision you too kl the arbitrary stand? What then about his controversy on a controvrsial page?

are you looking for the excuse to sanction based on the above today? also note that page where everything is duly mentioned AND i respond to other peoples' concerns on talk page. other editors have willingly woked together where the said editor hasnt done so with ANY edytor.(Lihaas (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

Absolutely not. If I was, I could have just blocked you outright and labelled it as an AE block so it can't be overturned. I'm simply looking for the most painless way to end the edit warring on that article while keeping it open to editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

my point exactly that you agreed there was no war after my own revert of not just the old reverts but even Bold edits (not the christian/druze part which you cant now say i was or ever had warred over) AND edit summaries AND my response to both the long discussion on talk and geroge's concerns of who leads the March 8.

and why not answer my grievance as well then?(Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

Well, from looking at the history, it looks like you and others have been involved in a slow edit war over tat tag, among other things. As long as you stick to the 1RR and discuss/explain any reverts you do make on that article, you shouldn't even notice the restriction and it'll soon be lifted. I assume by your grievance you're referring to O Fenian and Republican Jacobite? I don't want to get involved in that. It looks like a bitter dispute over nothing much and you should either work it out, go to mediation or leave each other alone, but, unlike ARBPIA, it's not an admin issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

see this my friend. 1. he accuses of me lopholign 1RR when that edit wasnt at all a revert at any point, 2. ive also agreed to witholdthere on removals until more discussion. is that then good enough?(Lihaas (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

slow edit war? i added it and then the time after his own unilateral and deceptive edit summary (although you dont seem to have told to have clear edit summaries)

per the other thing then, we have tried other mediation disputes on the article and noticeboards, i then tried to hasten that by asking an admin but you dont want to get involved with it. numerous editors seem to support that. but ive already removed it from asking you. in addressing grievances of mine too i was talking abuot right here where george took itt off (see the aforementioned time stamp) despite not discussing and an apparent deceptive edit summary(Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

I can see what he means about "loopholing" the 1RR, but I don't believe that was your intention (I've seen people try to get round the 1RR before and the last person who tried it was topic banned for 4 months) or I would have given you a much tighter restriction. Why don't you try wiping the slate clean and interacting with George as if you'd never come across him before. In return, hopefully he'll be more willing to assume that you're acting in good faith and you can both work out your disagreements on the content issue on the talk page like friends (or at leas gentlemen).

OK, what would make you feel happier about me/you/George/Hezbollah? Would you prefer I impose the same restriction on him as I have on you? I'm willing to consider that if you have a legitimate grievance. I don't have an opinion on the other dispute and I don't want to get involved because I have enough on my plate as it is and some maniac using open proxies to vandalise the TFA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am, and i am discussing. what pissed me off was that the ANI bit was closed and agreed, i thought, on all sides with your reasonable commeny that the warring is not happening then suddenly voila i get that message on my talk because he personally appealed to you despite an agreement that crisis solves (see where he said hes game and would leave to the admin, then comes to you personally). I get attacked from all sides, your bound to see an adverse reacition. i also explained the tag on the top that he then removed with that edit summary that was not ereally AGF, and then i get told "maybe HED assume good faith..." at least give him some warning too, im not the wholly wrong party.

do you think the christian/druze edit was wrong? (note- NOT the other part that i agreed i was in the wrong for) if so how? (so i can then learn from it)

you see, time and time again i do try to use talk but many editors dont een wantt o see talk, let alone discuss, until they see siome warring warning. (see the national electoral clanedar for one) (of course im not saying i havent overstepped at times too)

i mean come one, im here nursing all these current articles and given up old tiffs (per agreement with you before, i think youll remember, even though the other editor was wrong (he has since been permanently blocked)) and then i get attacked. im bound to be have this powder keg reaction, its perfectly natural.

as an aside, do try to offer olivebracnhes (although i can predict with very accurate certainty the reactiob...)(Lihaas (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

This probably isn't the best venue to discuss this, but I'd like to address Lihaas's comment about "...the tag that was removed without a response to my talk page comment..." You started a discussion on January 10, which I replied to the very next day, on January 11, asking why the "too long" tag was added and arguing it didn't belong. You didn't reply, and on January 16 - five days later - GHcool removed the tag (not me). You then re-added it two days later, still having failed to address my earlier comment. Above you cite your own edit from 03:06, 18 January 2011 as proof that you were engaging in discussion on the issue. Really? Here is the diff of that comment. Where in there do you in any way argue to keep the "too long" template? You don't. GHcool removed it again an hour later (again, not me). You then reverted GHcool again the next day, still having not addressed the issue on talk. I then reverted you, noting in my edit summary that "nobody has argued for its inclusion since I asked why it was added 7 days ago."[1] Even today, you have in no way addressed my now 10 days old comment that the too long tag shouldn't be included. ← George^talk 18:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. george, you too agreed that it was resolved and youd acept admin views then resorted to individual and uninformed complaints to an admin (this) page.

2. your 11 jan claim that i didnt reply": mine came on 15 jan and then i responded to Supreme Deliciousness as well until your recent response. that cant mean the above is AGF [(Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)). ](Talk:Hezbollah#page_split_per_WP:Article_size)

sanctions

You sanction me AGAINST THE ADMIN TALK PAGES and ONE editors' personal complaint, yet THREE editors' complaintS of LACK OF DISCUSSION get no response. come on...?(Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)).

DYK images

Heads up: protect them for 3 days, any image, not indef. Longer time does not really matter for images from Commons (bot will delete their local copy), but it does matter for local images. I've checked all current images in queues/preps, their protection is Ok. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tend to protect them indef just in case (especially in the prep areas, in case a hook is pulled or something) and then just go through Category:Protected main page images every few days when I'm cleaning out the ITN images, but that works. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi HJ Mitchell. I think this is a good candidate for a revdel. Thank you for your time. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Gone. Generally, attacks like that should be left alone because they may end up as evidence for a block or RfC or something, but now it's been raised on a very well-watched talk page I don't have much choice. Could you use email for future RevDels? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not count on (talk page stalker) politics but I completely understand your point. Will do. Thanks again and sorry for the disturbance. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not your fault. It's just that RevDel is something, by the very nature of the edits being hidden, should be handled discreetly. Don't be put off requesting it, just do it quietly (ie by emial). ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the advice. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...

Shall put aside the info you gave me for the future when I come upon minor information. Also, appreciate that you trust me with reviewing. Thanks alot. Nate • (chatter) 11:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

Hi fellow editor. thanks for the comments on my talk page. I understand exactly what you are saying and you mentioned the three blocks I have had and I should know better. I feel I should know better not because I have been blocked but because I should not be breaching the WP:3RR rule. I have contested before and on this occasion that there is an alarming trend of some people to WP:GAME the system to get people blocked. On each of the occasions this has happened to me, I strongly feel this is the case. Please also do not judge me on the basis of 3 blocks. I have previously worked very closely with many Administrators to improve articles, and they have asked for my expertise in many areas. I been thanked for this help on many occasions. What I am getting at is whether you can Arbitrate on Talk:Jatt Sikh and also look into the other two occasions of when I have been blocked whether their is an element of WP:Game. You will notice I have tried to engage in this discussion and appealed to three administrators to intervene, but to no avail. You help would be much appreciated. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to get involved in the underlying dispute, but you might like to try one of the steps listed at WP:DR. Mediation might help. As for your previous blocks, I have worked closely with the admins who blocked you and I've found them to be very fair and even-handed. If you get into an edit war, you run the risk of being blocked, even if you don't go over the 3RR. That said, nobody will judge you based on a few edit warring blocks. We all make mistakes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Scrubs

I would like ask you to let me edit this page because the user who is making the edit disputes to the page edited again just before you protected and if this is not changed it is not going to make any difference to this user if it is protected or not. --Marker10 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be taking sides in a content dispute, which I'm not allowed to do. See m:The Wrong Version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:

I'm in the St. Louis, Missouri area. There is no actual St. Louis or surrounding area in the time offset, so I have it left blank. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

6 hours. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Since I haven't done this before, it's exciting!

EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection request

Could you please indefinitely semi-protect this page? Thanks, The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 21:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 02:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:PERM/RW#User:Waterloo Road ED

Hi there, I have answered the question you have raised at WP:PERM/RW#User:Waterloo Road ED, and look forward to your decision. Thanks Waterloo Road ED (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		Reducing the New Page Patrollers' Workload Barnstar
		Thanks for helping review several hundred candidates listed at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates—and also for being willing to do it again! WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you! I'll be glad to do it again because it makes NPP easier. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK

I guess we must have got the Swahili-Danish time exemption! (was worried we were late.)

It's a rocking DYK. Sex, illicit (in any society) sex, violence, turning into a tree and giving birth to a god. Juicy!

I feel happy for the main author who is new to wiki.

TCO (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to know that a newcomer got the recognition they deserve. I didn't do all that much, though, I just checked the hooks somebody else had put together, moved them into the queue for the bot and signed it! And for that, it's my signature that lands on your talk page. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You're so humble, man! ;-) Hey, I am (sort of) a newbie (was permabanned for a couple years). I got Wilmer W. Tanner ported over here and then upgraded the content, got an image donated, all that jazz. Someone told me to put it in for DYK, but I blew it off, thinking the subject not that "juicy". Would it help you to throw it in the queue (will be outside the 5 days also.) I would cite the thing about species discovered (got a copy of the subscription required main ref) and then probably use that as my hook. It's kind of a more "blah" topic, but it does have a killer image. I actually took it to FP and just missed out 4-1, needed 5 votes, in getting the star. And a little fascinating that the dude is still alive. He even puclished a paper two years ago. But I think he's getting ready to die. Donated all his papers to a uni library. Anyhoo, let me know if you want the nom.TCO (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting guy, and that pic would look great on the Main Page! You're a bit late, but you should be able to get away with it. Go to T:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on January 10, edit that section and follow the instructions in the editnotice. I'd do it for you, but there's a good chance I'll be at the other end moving it into the queue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rock and roll! TCO (talk) 03:17, 24 January 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

[CharlieEchoTango] 04:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

friendly request

As you perhaps know, all Wikipedia tags are all very carefully worded with 'maybe', and 'expressing concern that xxxx may be be' etc. Please consider being rather less explicit in your use of edit summaries, especially when they hint at incivility towards the Good Faith editor you are reverting. I !voted in your RfA because I thought you would lead by example ;) --Kudpung (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have a point, but it's difficult to take it on board without an example of where I've been more explicit than perhaps I should have been. Was there a particular comment/edit summary that raise your eyebrow? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, Harry, if you were to slow down a bit you may remember today's edit summaries. One thing you'll find is, however deep you dig, that I have never used back street language on this Wikipedia project. Does your behaviour now give me licence to use such language too, and pass my RfA with flying colours? Maybe there's an RfA cabal after all that prefers rude admins ;) --Kudpung (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Message from Supreme Deliciousness

See User talk:Supreme Deliciousness#To HJ Mitchel. JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 24 January 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Appeal

I have requested amendment to the sanction: [2]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you see this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

a clean start for an IP-editor

Hi, an IP-editor feels sorry about his/her previous actions and has undone almost all of his/her bad edits. This IP-editor wants the warning messages in the talk page to be removed, so he/she could have a clean start. I am not sure whether I am allowed to let it happen? or shall I ask an admin to do it? *** in fact *** ( contact ) 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, they can remove the warning. Anyone can remove anything they like from their own talk page per WP:BLANKING/WP:OWNTALK. The only exception is declined unblock requests while the relevant block is still in place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering me. About your delay, don't worry. I know you are VERY BUSY. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr Timothy Ball Article deletion

Is there some recourse to this page being deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball)? Dr Ball publishes routinely in the Press in Canada, and as such, many people are interested in his profile. Dr Ball often uses his credentials (a PhD) to assert climate denialist claims in the press - even when these claims have been solidly refuted by the scientific community. Its vital that people who are searching for the validity of his claims are able to find accurate information online about him. I believe that there is a concerted campaign to have the page deleted by a group who want to "proctect" Dr Ball's image - since his opinion is often quoted by climate skeptics. It is inconvenient for these lobbyists if Dr Ball's arguments, and credibility is shown to be in question - even if there are ample facts and instances to demonstrate this. For the general public on the other hand, access to these facts is vital. Please let me know if we can construct an objective page, simply discussing the validity of Dr Ball's published fallacies. Ncswart (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not really. The article was the subject of a discussion, where the consensus was to delete it. This decision was appealed and the appeal was closed (by myself, as an uninvolved administrator) as unsuccessful because there was no consensus to overturn the previous decision. It would appear that the gentleman is not sufficiently notable for an article. There were also some concerns about the article being used to criticise Ball's opinions, what we call "coatracking", which is contrary to our biographies of living persons policy. My suggestion would be to wait for a few months and then, if you cna find sufficient sources to prove his notability, you can appeal again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

New list of Autopatrol candidates

Please note this is a low priority task and can be done as time is available. I'm starting to post of HUGE list of Autopatrol candidates. I put the details at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 03:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Domodedovo blast.PNG

It's ok, I thought it would be acceptable, but I admit I'm not familiar with the full extent of the fair use policy. Btw this was from airport CCTV footage, if I could find it from a russian federal government site, would it be acceptable as fair use? --Ferengi (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Extent of topic ban

I'm wondering about the extent of the topic ban, am I allowed to edit articles where the main topic is not about the A-I conflict but the articles has texts connected to the A-I conflict? For example, in the Syria article, there is a Six day war section and Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights section, am I allowed to edit the etymology or literature section of that article?

Yesterday I also corrected a dead link at the forward magazine article [3] and right after an account showed up there and added information about Israel and Hezbollah, would my edit have been allowed if I had made it before the text about Hezbollah and Israel were added? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If I were topic banned, I'd be very careful not to make any edit that could be construed as a violation, especially in that area because if I stepped over the line, there's a near certainty that someone would report it to AE. However, I can't see a problem with you editing article that are not directly related to the conflict, as long as you don't edit the material to do with the conflict. Assuming your AE appeal is unsuccessful, I'll review things after a month if you toe the line. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have another question, User:Nableezy is also topic banned from the A-I conflict, he was allowed to send of-wiki information to admins about socks editing within the A-I conflict, can I do the same? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you have a legitimate complaint to report that's covered by your topic ban, email me or an admin you trust. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-block request

Hi. Last month you blocked 138.162.8.57 & 138.162.8.58, the latest of a very long line of warnings and blocks for these two IPs. He's at it again, continuing to vandalize. I'm very familiar with this guy's edits; his two IPs seem to have been static for over two years, based on the sleuthing I've been able to do. He's a sailor at a Naval Air Staion located in ... well, a certain smaller town in Florida, which I won't name here. About 85% of his edits are constructive, with the remainder vandalism, often very subtle and hard to detect, such as changing the year in which events occurred by one or two years. I've wondered sometimes if he might have been assigned the task, by the Navy, of keeping Navy-related pages up to date, e.g. with the names of new commanders as the old ones retire, that kind of thing. Anyway, he frequently uses one of the IPs to vandalize, and then reverts it with the other one, although he just as often vandalizes the same page with both accounts, a few minutes apart, too. He's been at this for a long, long time. Any chance of a longer block this time? Thanks for keeping all the wheels turning here; I appreciate your work, very much. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the IP is registered to the US Navy, which makes it "sensitive", so I'm really, really reluctant to block it for any significant length of time. I'll block for a short time and email the foundation to see if they have any objections to a long-term block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I understand. A month will work. I see you blocked 138.162.8.58 ; would you mind adding 138.162.8.57 , also? I didn't look for more, but here's one from that IP; the same person, I'm certain. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But of course! I emailed the Foundation basically (politely) suggesting they should let me block him for a year or contact the Navy and get them to do something about it. If they're happy, I'll just extend the block to a year as soon as I hear back from them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Since his IP is static the Navy should have no trouble finding him, I suppose, but if you or anyone from the Foundation needs more info about him, based on what I've gleaned from his edits (e.g. in one post he mentioned the date he transferred off a particular ship, stuff like that) I'd be glad to e-mail that, provided I can do so without violating "outing" policy at all. I'd think some Public Affairs liason office at his base would be happy to track him down, since he's made edits that are extremely disrespectful to the Navy. I won't reply again here (unless you specifically ask me to) since I know that "You have new messages" banner is distracting, but I do appreciate your time on this. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(tps) I really wish they'd pick the second alternative; I'm sure his/her CO would be highly amused by some of the edits. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That would be amusing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

IP Edit warrior

Hi HJ. As established quite a while ago, I'm not very good with forms and scripts, but can you take a look at this recent history and help out a bit? (There's also around 50K of "I didn't hear that" at the article talk page, as well as a couple of warnings at the user's talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh, you can't argue with the 3RR. I counted at least four reverts today, so I've blocked them for 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (Not that I expect it to stop them, but every little bit helps). Fat&Happy (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A Question

I noticed you blocked User:89.168.106.249 for persistent vandalism but the user has only had 1 contribution. Surely that isn't persistent? Of course I realise that it may have been the first in many vandalism edits, but surely there is another way? Thanks :-) ConconJondor (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Appearances can be deceiving. They made another edit, but it was disallowed by the filter because it was obscene. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I thought I'd ask rather than assume. :-) Thanks ConconJondor (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A filter that disallows obscenities? I'd really love to know what kind of criteria that uses, based on some of the edits I've seen that weren't disallowed! Or was that simply a shorthand for saying it was WP:Revdel'd? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There are certain words that have no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. For example, fuck and even the evil c-word have legitimate uses, but "poop" is almost always vandalism! This guy tripped a filter designed to prevent a particular type of vandalism, but the amusing thing about that filter is that even its false positives (which this was) are usually unplreasant enough to merit a block, hence a bot reports the user to AIV every time the filter is tripped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Being a tps can be not only entertaining but also educational. I assume that, like Cluebot, it has slightly more complex heuristics involved so something like "poop deck", your quoted usage above, or white-list edits would not be intercepted... Fat&Happy (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely up on the workings, but you wouldn't be disallowed just for adding one word. If you repeated it over and over, you probably would. Otherwise, it'd probably just be tagged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Permanent mentor

I need a permanent mentor since my current mentor is on an indefinite wikibreak. Will you be my new mentor? WAYNESLAM 01:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is this an alternate account of yours or someone trying to impersonate you. If it is an alt, please identify it as such and if not, well take whatever appropriate action might follow. Thanks My76 Strat 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think he's trying to impersonate him. I don't think that's his alternate account. His alternate account is Whiskey drinker. WAYNESLAM 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We should let HJ Block it for the glory: "HJ Mitchell" blocked "HJ Mitchells Clone" Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Came to ask the same thing as it has been reported at UAA. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

After the User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_30#User:HJ_Mitchell.27s_bot impostor he said that he would always announce alternate accounts beforehand. I think this is just another impostor. —Soap— 03:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did report to UAA because the account began contributing and I wanted to err on the side of prudence. My76 Strat 03:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. Given the previous discussion where he specifically stated he would self-identify any alt accounts I went ahead and blocked them. Sorry to rob you of the glory, but we don't want anyone besmirching your name. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for my name! Definitely not me. If I find myself in need of any more alternate accounts, I'll make it obvious that it's me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol

Hey. Many thanks for the Autopatrol heads up. I will try to keep on working! doktorb _words^deeds 05:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi HJ Mitchell: Thank you so much for your very kind acceptance of my contributions as qualifying for {{Autopatrolled}} status. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Autopatrolled

Thanks, I would never have had the initiative to ask for it myself. :) --Midgrid (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks ever so much for the autopatrolling rights nomination! Best of luck. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

You're quite welcome. Same goes for the folks above, as well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for granting me Autopatrolled permission. I appreciate it very much. Happy editing to you too. Figaro (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

wp:blanking

RE:62.172.89.238, If you're going to unprotect, then please make sure the other users involved stop playing with him.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comments

...at my RfA: I was thinking the same thing. It's a bit sad actually, will we still cross paths if I'm not banging on your door and bogging down various boards asking for help all the time? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would hope so. The banhammers coming down on those IPs changing ethnicity categories, the better and you can always join my merry band of stalkers! Good luck—RfA can be tough, but hopefully yours won't be too tough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Second opinon

Hi HJ Mitchell, I made a block here hastily, but do I think an indefinite block is warranted. I will be going offline soon and wouldn't mind another admin looking into this. Thanks. Acalamari 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks sound to me. An indef is the only reasonable response to that kind of thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much again for your input! As always, it's very much appreciated. It's been a while since I've made such a block, and didn't mind anoother look. Best. Acalamari 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No rest for Colm

Hi again. Sadly, our fan came right back to edit Colm Meaney's page [4] a day or so after your protection expired. I missed it due to that fact that my modem went kaput last Friday. It only got working again today and I am still trying to catch up on my watchlist. I also received a wonderful bit of trolling during the last protection but, though it came from Ireland, who knows if it was related to this. If you have any thoughts on what to do other than further protection please pass them on. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Again? Seriously? This guy's persistent, I'll give him that. I've made a couple of rangeblocks for a month each. Let's see if that has any effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh approach on dealing with this. Of course, I'll keep an eye on things and let you know if this person does an "end run" (no wait that is an American Football play) "offside trap" :-) around your blocks. MarnetteD | Talk 16:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If he does, I'll try another rangeblock or two. With a bit of luck, he'll run out of unblocked IPs before the the ranges get too big to block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: 82.198.140.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has previously added this stuff to various articles returned to Colm's page today. Wouldn't it be funny if he only liked rugby or hurling? MarnetteD | Talk 20:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. That one doesn't seem to be IP-hopping, so I've just blocked the one IP. If he evades, I'll block the range, but I ned two IPs to find it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again my thanks. I notice that this computer is in the offices for the Dublin City council. Makes me wonder if our editor is just wandering around the city finding whatever computer that might be free that s/he can :-) MarnetteD | Talk 21:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen people do stranger things. Nothing on Wikipedia surprises me any more! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Request to change name effectively denied

Per your request, I submitted a request to change my username to Atlantic 1919. The bureaucrat granted others' requests but seemed to be argumentative and did not deny my request but skipped over it. Therefore, effectively, your request has been denied. I tried my best and will keep my request up on the CHU board but sorry, no cigar. Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't denied, it just needs more discussion. It's not uncommon for requests that "need more attention" to take longer than simple ones even if they were submitted earlier. —Soap— 15:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Request is not denied, nor was my comment there argumentative. Just like every other user of Wikipedia, I'm a volunteer and am not required to take any action. I did not have the time to look further into it, so I simply put some information there to make it easier on the next bureaucrat. Useight (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sent mail

I have sent you a mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:40, 27 January 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

So have I. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 13:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of 38.116.204.34

Hello HJ Mitchell. 38.116.204.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Nlu (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC) On school blocks, while I don't advertise it, my usual preferred block settings are to block anon only and not prohibit account creations. Would it be OK with you if I modified the settings here to allow account creations? (Or, if you agree with it, you can also do it yourself, obviously.) --Nlu (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to send them off to ACC personally, rather than allow any potential pain in the arse to create an account and vandalise with it, but I'll leave it up to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm not an administrator, but I would have to agree here - if they want to vandalize because they're bored, this effectively prevents it. If it's anon only with account creation enabled, they can create an account to vandalize with, get it blocked and repeat. If account creation is disabled, they can either go through ACC or go home and register, but that most likely isn't worth the trouble for them. demize (t · c) 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to enable account creation, then. Thanks. (Demize, I respectfully disagree; I think the ACC process is too cumbersome even for adults, and for minors it is going to effectively discourage productive edits. Not all students will have home access, even in the United States.) --Nlu (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFUP request for Stéphane Sessègnon

Hi HJ, just letting you know about this since you were the protecting admin. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it. I'm leaving it for the next person foolish enough to get sucked into that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting how you really feel on this issue that can be easily resolved. I think I am finally due for wikibreak. Way to go admin..... — Joao10Siamun (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yikes

Both users in need of a block, neither will co-operate with each other after warnings on Raymond v. Raymond, page could do with protection as well. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Both blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephane Sessegnon

Hey HJ Mitchell, you indefinitely protected a page wwith, at this moment, incorrect information. On the page. Sessegnon does not play for Sunderland. There are "reports" that there are agreements, but right not nothing has been confirmed by either club and that is the consensus at WT:FOOTY when it comes to posting transfer news. Just letting you know, so hopefully, the page can be corrected. Later. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My hands are tied by policy. I can only revert vandalism and BLP violations while it's protected. If you can get a consensus on the talk page to change it, I can do it, or you can put {{editprotected}} at the top of that section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I did do the latter recommendation, but no one hasn't responded on the player's talk page. There won't be consensus because it was mostly IPs and a new user who was making the incorrect edits. I listed the page for a unprotected release and suggested that it should be semi-protected. I don't understand how incorrect information can just knowingly sit on a page for hours on end without nothing being done. Later. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ive got to agree with the above editor, Sessegnon is still not a Sunderland player as of 28th January and any information stating otherwise should be removed ASAP. It seems though there's special rules for Manchester City and Sunderland fans though. --The Mercenary 73 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cookie!

Elizium23 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I forgot to thank you for granting me Reviewer rights, so accept my apologies and this token of my esteem. Elizium23 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and thank you for the snack! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)