User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 45

This is an archive of past discussions with User:HJ Mitchell. 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 43

→

Administrator

It seems we've reached a conclusion regarding Wayne and adminship -- if this were to be continued, it should be done on Wayne's talk page.Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Am I ready to become an administrator if you review my account? WayneSlam 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Not even close. You'll know when you're ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What do I need to do in order to become an administrator? WayneSlam 00:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)One of the points I believe HJ is trying to make is that if you need to ask, you're not ready. He could be getting at something entirely different though. demize (t · c) 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@Wayne: A lot more experience and demonstrated dedication would be a good start. You need to be familiar with policy and one of the best ways to develop that kind of knowledge is to spend some time in the project space and the WT namespace and I think a lot of people at the minute would question whether you're mature enough too handle it at the minute, so you'll have to work hard to prove that you are if you want to be an admin, but, if I were you, I would focus on other things for the foreseeable future.

@Demize, that was exactly my point. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How can I do it without any anti-vandal fighting tools to use? Can you run for adminship without rollback? You have to have some vandal fighting in there. What I do is new page patrolling and vandal fighting with the undo button. I need help about article creation since I want to become an autoreviewer. I want to become an admin in late May or early June which may not be enough time to be ready. WayneSlam 01:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to have rollback to become an administrator; however, since your rollback was removed, I recommend acquiring it again before running, just to show the community that you can be trusted again. And you must also work on the things Harry and Demize have brought up, such as maturity and familiarity of policy. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 01:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How come this didn't take long after you started editing Wikipedia? WayneSlam 01:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I wasn't familiar with policy at the time. I didn't know what qualities I had to have in order to become an administrator. Plus, I admit, I was slightly power hungry at the time. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 01:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is a good part of why you weren't successful. That's not to say that neither of you will ever be admins, but, Wayne, thoughts of adminship are extremely premature at the minute, as they were for Utahraptor at the time of his first RfA. FWiW, adminship really isn't that exciting. 90% of it is pressing the same button over and over to clear out a backlog that nobody notices (until it doesn't get cleared) and that will be back the way it was within a day or two! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

RfA is a tough place, Wayne. A lot of people on RfA, whether they admit to it or not, try to find a reason to oppose rather than try to find reasons to support. They take one mistake and blow it out of proportion. You don't want to give them anything to blow out of proportion, so I think you should wait a while. While waiting, get to know Wikipedia's policies better and work on content. As your mentor, I know you will make a fine administrator someday, Wayne, but it's going to take some time. As we said before, when you're ready, you'll know. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 01:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wonder when that day will come. I hope it's this year. An administrator told me I took being an administrator like if it was a prize which something he said similar to what I put here. I do want to be trusted with rollback again, Utahraptor and HJ was the user who gave me rollback. I want to prove the community that I can still succeed with rollback even though I was reported to ANI. WayneSlam 01:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in but I'm afraid from the tone of that first two sentences in your last message, if you ran at RFA I wouldn't support. As Utahraptor said, that just sounds power-hungry. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So, does that mean I have to be patient? WayneSlam 01:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, you remind me of me in my earlier days of editing. I always figured my ultimate goal was to become an administrator. Then, after this train-wreck of an RfA, I realized that my thinking was incorrect. I then realized that my ultimate goal should be to improve the encyclopedia, and that focusing on becoming an administrator was getting in my way of achieving that goal. That's why I decided to never have an RfA; it kept stopping me from improving the encyclopedia. I'm not saying you should give up on becoming an administrator, I'm simply saying that you should take a break from thinking about being an admin. Take a break and begin focusing on improving the encyclopedia. Isn't that why we're all here? To improve the encyclopedia? Adminship's not that big a deal; what's really important is keeping Wikipedia alive and healthy. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 01:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but do you think about making a third RFA soon, Utahraptor? I have not contributed to GOCE for a while and I have done some new page patrolling lately. Anyway, I want to be back in the vandal fighting field as rollbacker. Do you think I'm ready for that, Utahraptor? WayneSlam 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to become an administrator get in my way of improving the encyclopedia, so I don't see myself having a third RfA in the near, or even distant, future. At this time, I don't think you're ready, Wayne; however, check back with me at the end of the month and we'll see how you're doing then. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(multiple ec's!) At the minute, Wayne, it does look like you're thinking of adminship as a prize. Wikipedia isn't a race and adminship isn't the gold medal at the end, nor is it particularly exciting. I guess it's easy for me to say that having been an admin for the last 9 months, but being an admin doesn't mean I'm any less fallible than anybody else and it's not some kind of status symbol. Like I say, at least 90% of admin work is really quite boring and 8 of the other 10% just beings unnecessary hassle and drama. Btw, Utahraptor, if you think yours was a train wreck, my first was a disaster, despite what the tally says! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to everyone else's comments wayne, do some article work. I can't find any evidence that you have contributed to any GAs, FAs or DYKs in an meaningful way. While vandal fighting is important, that can't float you though a RfA. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, some users go through peaks and valleys with their RFAs and other stuff. I've nominated one article for DYK that was successful which was Kenny Francis. I contribute to articles of various genres such as sports, hip-hop, and NASCAR but I need to create more articles and I have yet to nominate an article for GA and FA. WayneSlam 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And let me add that with 78% of your edits being "automated" (i.e, your use of Huggle and Twinkle), any RFA you might do would be doomed to failure because most peeps think even 40% is too high for automated edits. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the stupidest rationale I've ever heard for opposing anybody. "Automated" tools (aside from not being automated) are not something to be regarded with suspicion, they are essential given the sheer number of articles we have and the number of edits made per minute, there's no way to keep up without such tools as Huggle and Igloo and WP would be much less efficient without things like Twinkle. I've made over 10,000 edits with twinkle (mostly block notices and page protections). All of those edits needed to be made and, without Twinkle, would still have been made but would have taken a hell of a lot longer. Then there's the matter of the hundreds of scripts that X!'s tools don't measure (including most of those in my monobook.js), so it's not even an accurate measure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Trust me, it happens. Oppose #2 in my first RFA, it was mentioned as one of the reasons was that my auto-edit percentage was 40% (for the record, it's now 34.4%), so it does happen. I agree that automated tools are important, but lately it seems that if you're not a content creator, then your RFA is doomed from the start. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, does this work both ways? Would someone get opposed for having a very small (tiny, even) amount of "automated" edits? - JuneGloom Talk 15:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. In fact, they might even be embraced as someone who "doesn't rely on automated tools". I think if you did a search on non-successful RFA's that auto edit count opposes come up quite a bit. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, the convention "wisdom" is that the less "automated" edits you have, the better. Or, to be more precise, the less edits with the half dozen scripts X!'s tool actually counts, the better. This idiocy had all but died out until recently (it was the oppose rationale a year ago), but now it's rearing its ugly head again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with HJ here, to a point - an admin should know the content policies, not just fight vandals. Of course, about a third of my automated edits (which make up 60% of my total edits :o) are with Twinkle, and a lot of those edits come from NPP, which isn't really automated IMO. People should look at the work a user does and how it shows they understand policy. If a user's low amount of edits is 99% automated, and 95% of that is huggle, they don't necessarily know the content policies, but if most of their automated edits are Twinkle while NPPing, then it shouldn't harm them since NPP shows an understanding of the content policies. demize (t · c) 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

By saying "I hope it's this year", you're setting it as a goal, which is should not be. Someday, some wise and longstanding admin or an arb or even a bureaucrat might come up to you and say "hey, did you ever consider..." Until then, put it out of your mind. It's not why you're supposed to be here. There will be people who even use your responses to this thread as ammunition as to your hunger for power - and let me say, it's bloody obvious. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So, when should I run when it's the right time? WayneSlam 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Think of a list of editors in your head. On that list should be highly experienced editors (admins and non-admins) that you tend to bump into at least every now an again. When at least two people on that list come to your talk page without being asked to and ask you to consider an RfA, then you might be ready. Until then, focus on improving/maintaining/building the wiki. That's what we're all here for,a t the end of the day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're one of them. Utahraptor is one of them. Marek69 is one of them. I want to vandal fight too. I have also done new page patrolling, too. I may need to be patient, right? WayneSlam 20:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal fighting is up to Utahraptor, but, if you spend another couple of weeks proving that you can be trusted with tools a bit tamer than rollback, I wouldn't have a problem with re-granting it (assuming Utahraptor didn't, of course). You might have to wait a little longer before using Huggle again, though. Maybe spend some time doing "old school" recent changes patrolling—you don't just come across vandalism, but you stumble across all sorts of interesting articles, discussions, problems that need fixing and your bog-standard vandals so you can show us (and yourself) that you really understand what is and isn't vandalism. Alternatively, do you think GA reviewing would interest you? I've done 60-something reviews (though I'm a little rusty), so I could help you out there. Or there's all the glorious backlogs in this elimination drive thingy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't mind still doing recent change patrolling as well as new page patrolling. No I don't know how to nominate an article for GA or review. I want to be the best at this stuff. WayneSlam 21:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What I would recommend doing Wayne, is one forget about adminship right now. Secondly, start reading and studying. Start with The Five Pillars and go from there. At the bottom of that page is a collapsible box that states "Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines". That entire section is a MUST READ for any potential admin, because that section helps governs your actions as an admin. The simplified rule set isn't bad reading either. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what a personal attack is as well as edit wars and some others. Are there other ways a potential admin can do besides reading? Is new page patrolling worth it for a potential admin? WayneSlam 21:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This might interesting reading for you, Wayne. The more you obsess over adminship, the less chance you'll ever get it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)NPP is an absolute must so that you can become familiar with notability and whether or not an article passes it because as an admin, you are required to know the speedy deletion criteria. Given that, it is also important that pages are tagged for speedy deletion properly while you are an editor as that is another issue that will doom an RFA (and quickly, based on my own experience). ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have to also learn how to block users and delete and protect pages.

@HJ: It means that the brain is on one paticular object. I did nominate a user for adminship and it didn't go so well. WayneSlam 21:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What HJ means that if you continue to give the impression of making a bee-line for adminship, and basing all your actions on how well you think it will improve your chances at RfA, you are only going to decrease your chances, and annoy the community. Put it out of your mind. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't continue to be letting the community know about this until it's time for my RFA. WayneSlam 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If you still desire to be an admin after all the above and I agree with User:HJ Mitchell - it can be one hell of a slog some nights trying to clear yet some new backlog, only to find when you decide to click the final delete button that someone else did it 30 seconds earlier... then keep reviewing all the current RfA's, no doubt you will see applicants with weak experience in similar areas to yourself - note how that if often used as a target for the opposes, and how that often snowballs to a swift run of more opposes (often hard to stop!) - then make a note to gain that experience - often there will be suggestions for the other applicant to follow. Once you have sufficient experience in most areas then maybe the time will have come for your own RfA. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

At least you were able to succeed with one RFA due to knowing a lot of those areas. Many users succeed on their second or third RFA months and maybe years after their first RFA. Adminship cannot be fun sometimes due to a lot of work than an ordinary user. WayneSlam 22:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I opposed Ron's RfA. I can count on one hand the number of times I've regretted an oppose, but that was one of them. Elockid was definitely another. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you will support me on my RFA. You co-nominated a user with Utahraptor and her RFA is currently going on with nobody opposing her. I don't think Ron voted on your RFA or did he? WayneSlam 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're still harping on the topic. Right now, the earliest that you should run for RFA is probably March 1, 2012. It will give you time to learn, practice, and have this thread disappear. You should gain another 5,000 edits, at least 75% of them being non-(semi)automated. You should study the concepts in WP:CSD, WP:N, WP:RS, and indeed the entire WP:5P. If you even mention wanting to be an admin between now and 2012, reset the clock for another 12 months. When the time comes, somebody will let you know - and nobody will decide to support at that time you unless they see valid and useful editing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, don't let this discourage you, remember we are here to help you. The fact that you have to ask if you are ready to be an admin shows you probably are not -- but that does not mean you never will be ready. Listen to what Bwilkins said, and keep working. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder who will still edit Wikipedia at that time. At that time that he said which was March 1, 2012, I will be Huggling and rollbacking, and the automated edits will be more. There may be too many users who started editing this year and may be having one year of experience. Will all of you still be editing at that time? Will anybody be working with me or will I be on my own? WayneSlam 14:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'll be here. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably HJ, too. WayneSlam 17:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Username block

Hi HJ Mitchell,

I noticed a block you made on new user User:DownWithHosniMubarak!, who I came across when editing the same article as them. You were clearly acting in good faith, but I feel that the indefinite block you gave them was pretty bitey. The neutrality policy that you cited doesn't mention usernames, and a username expressing a point of view doesn't seem to be explicity banned under wikipedia username policy (they didn't seem to be advertising a specific group or organisation). Also, I don't think there's any way the new user could have known their username was wrong until the block: it would have been better to talk to the user first and explain the problem.

I expect they're long gone by now, but wanted to leave you a friendly reminder not to bite. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I endorse HJ's block of this editor as the name is pointy. With a name like that, you can very much bet that the editor clearly knew what they were doing when they chose to use it. This particular username falls under the Disruptive usernames category. ArcAngel (talk) ) 02:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that you're assuming DownWithHosniMubarak!'s bad faith here, ArcAngel. The user's contributions look to me like a complete newbie, so I just don't see how he (presuming it was a he) could have known that what he was doing was wrong. Put yourself in his shoes: the only thing he would have read about username policy is the little box on the "create a username" screen, which says:

"Username policy prohibits usernames which are promotional, misleading, or offensive

promotional usernames:

o containing existing company, organization, group, or website names (including non-profit organizations)

o containing domain names or email addresses

misleading usernames:

o close to names of celebrities, notable world figures or events, or known Wikipedians

o containing words like "bot" or "script" which refer to automated editing processes

o containing titles like "admin" or "sysop", which imply authority on Wikipedia

offensive usernames

For technical reasons, a username cannot include the #, / and \ symbols. Any underscores will be converted to spaces. The first letter of a username is automatically capitalized."

It wouldn't be clear from reading the box that a name expressing a political opinion is banned. On the rest of the internet its common enough to find such usernames. If we are going to block people for this, that's fine, but either it needs to be very clear that it's banned before they sign up, or they should receive a friendly warning with an explanation of how to change their username before getting blocked.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you not see where I said the name fits into the Disruptive username category?? And, Wikipedia isn't the rest of the Internet. ArcAngel (talk) ) 14:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ArcAngel: I'm not arguing that the username was necessarily fine, I agree with you that it's not a great username. I should have been more clear about that. I'm saying that the way the block was made was bitey because the new user had no way of knowing why it was wrong, and no warning to change it, until he received an indefinite block. How was he supposed to know about disruptive username rules and WP:POINT?

HJ - sorry to start an argument on your talk page, that wasn't my intention. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why there's this huge block of text on the talk page explaining WHY the block happened, and how to request to be unblocked. it even includes links to the username policy, and the reasoning for the block - so it's all explained right there. True, it happens after the fact, but at least the editor in question now has an idea (perhaps better than before) that their name is not suited for Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems he's now been found to be a sockpuppet, so this whole discussion is moot! Oh well, nevermind. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the point of the discussion isn't moot. It is a disruptive username in that it's clearly making a political point. Usernames like that aren't common (maybe one every few weeks), but, when they pop up, they're routinely blocked. It was only a soft block (no autoblock), though, and the block template {{uw-ublock}} actually encourages them to create a new account after reading the username policy. That said, we can't allow people to edit with usernames like that any more than we can with names like "fuck the admins" or the names of companies. That doesn't mean their contributions are unwelcome (hence the soft block), just that making them under that username is not conducive to the kind of editing environment we're trying to foster. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

While the discussion is moot regarding the imposition of the block, it is somewhat valid regarding interpretation of what constitutes an offensive username or is potentially disruptive. The blocked username is in my opinion a blatant violation of both and the block is not only justified but prudent as well. Thanks for here considering my 2 cents. Best regards. My76 Strat 18:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If this happens every few weeks, could we add a couple of words to the box on the "create a username screen", saying that overtly political (or however you think it should be phrased) usernames aren't allowed? That would save goodfaith newbies the discouraging experience of getting blocked and admins the trouble of finding and blocking them. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

STiki autoprotection

Hi HJ. Earlier today, you indef-full-protected my page at Wikipedia:STiki/blocked. Thank you very much for that.

However, this had a bit of an unintended consequence, since your protection, although a "null edit" of sorts, became the "most recent" on the page.

I wonder if you could, (1) blank the page, then (2) restore the version prior to that. In that way, the most recent diff will look like this.

This is due to my tool showing (1) only diffs, and (2) only those most recent on a page. While a more elegant solution is in the works, I'm a bit busy with real-life right now, and this is a hacky solution against abusive users (and we thought we had one on our hands this morning).

Thank you very much, West.andrew.g (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there's anything else you need. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Perseus block

Eh? He's a different account, why should he be blocked for claiming he used to be a different account?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Because he's claiming to be the "original" Perseus but, so far, without verification. I'm not entirely convinced that he's the same person, so I've blocked the account as a precaution because I would rather not have someone else impersonating an editor in good standing. I'm discussing things with him off-wiki and if he can satisfy me that he probably is who he says he is, I'll unblock, making sure to explain that the block was not for misconduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nine to the Universe

Hey HJ, do you know who repunctuated the original hook and introduced a comma error on the front page? If you have magic powers, can you please remove that comma? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It gets worse: the hook for Gris-Gris is entirely incorrect--please look at the discussion on the Suggestions page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea how to peruse the history of the prep and other areas. At some point, after my hook was moved, a comma error was introduced. The same editor moved Gris-gris. I don't know if they a. introduced a comma error and b. disregarded the entire discussion on the hook for gris-gris, and failed to see the ALT hook, which is the one that was approved. Your input is appreciated--this is not good. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You've lost me. The Hendrix hook looks like it's missing commas around the subclause "in his final years" and the gris-gris hook looks fine to me. Remember to read it as the full sentence, starting with "did you know that..." Also, bear in mind that's it's only my sig on your talk page because I'm the last human to touch it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

HJ, I know that. I discovered who the editor is--see my comments on User talk:Bruce1ee. Please pull or tweak or whatever the hook for gris-gris: it is factually incorrect; it is not fine. That amulet was in the top three of methods of birth control known to women, not used by women--it's a huge difference, and if I were a Senegalese woman I'd be very offended. The hook was moved here, and you can see the discussion. See also Gris-gris_(talisman)#Contemporary_use, which I corrected after reading the source carefully.

The Hendrix hook has a comma added after "jams" and it's incorrect, plain and simple--it's a half-assed attempt at making the title stand in apposition to "collection of jams", if you want to get grammatical (that's what I do for a living, unfortunately).

I'm asking you because you just put the template on there, so I know you're on call; you're an editor with common sense; and you're an admin--surely I can't edit the front page, can I? and that DYK stuff is probably transcluded anyway. Well, I'll take the egg on my face for the comma, but the gris-gris hook has to be pulled or changed. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I thought you were talking about commas still. Give me a minute... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hey, I hope you don't think I'm penis fencing here! (Isn't DYK great?)

One more thing: I really don't want to investigate the other hooks moved by the editor (that's a lot of browsing around the history of Suggestions), but should I? Drmies (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Now, if you could remove that comma also... ;) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Does this solve the problem? I would say it was an honest mistake, and one that's very easy to make—the temptation when moving hooks to the prep area is to only look at the hook and the comment attached to the tick. I would guess that they didn't take in the whole discussion and didn't realise you were only approving the alt and not the original hook. Bruce is one of the better non-admins who build the hook sets and, in my limited experience, his work doesn't normally need correcting. The cock-up is as much on me, since I moved the hooks from the prep to the queue and evidently didn't check closely enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, I'm more inclined to add a comma after Nine to the Universe than remove the first one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it needs to go--see Comma#Parenthetical_phrases. I'm going to lay off Bruce--I know the valuable work they're doing; it's just that two errors on the front page = panic. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Slightly bolting the door after the horse has bolted (but I'm sure lots more horses are planned so I will go ahead); I always recommend doing ~~strikethrough~~ on any non-approved hooks if only approving one hook, as it helps to avoid mistakes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Demiurge, that's helpful. I left a note on Wikipedia talk:Did you know with some more (general remarks). Drmies (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Template:Attack

Can you please remove the move protection on Template:Attack? User warning templates are generally not indefinitely move protected unless there has been vandalism. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Tb

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Inurv2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

*_* (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

IP jumper

There's kind of a big issue going on with post-hardcore band articles. An IP that vandalized We Came as Romans so much to the point where it had to be protected is doing this to several other articles, most recently In Fear and Faith. I warned every IP he used, but he just keeps jumping digits. GunMetal Angel 22:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Gimme 2 minutes and I'll see if a rangeblock's possible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Without even using the rangeblock calculator, I can tell you that no rangeblock is going to catch them all. Are you sure they're the same person? That's a huge variety of IPs. The only thing to do is semi the articles affected. If you give me a list of the worst-affected articles, I can do a batch protection with Twinkle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Shit likes this just makes me think of the whole Grawp incident. Ugghhh; well he seems to attack post-hardcore bands such as We Came as Romans (which is already protected for quite a while) but In Fear and Faith seems to be the one getting the most recent vandalism, if anything else happens I'll let you know. I know it has to be the same person because he generally calls post-hardcore/metalcore bands "emo-pop" or "gay bands that all sound the same" in the vandalism. • GunMetal Angel 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

BabbaQ (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 01:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Perseus son of Zeus

Just curious — why did you block Perseus8235? It's hardly a blockable offense to create a new username when your old one has been compromised, and I've never seen any policy reason in such a situation to require the confirmation that you mention in the blocking summary. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above, I'm not convinced that the two are the same person. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Consult

Hi, I was wondering if I am good enough to be autopatrolled ? Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 15:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you created 50 articles? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Drawing your attention...

...as the admin of a recent block, to this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain...

Would you be willing to check out the alternative hook that I proposed here and tell me what you think? I thought that someone would see it before it went live but I guess that that didn't happen. Sorry for all of the ruckus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lehavre

Maybe we could increase the block on Lehavres initial IP adress which has continued to be used as vandal tool. 68.1.186.75. Would be a relief to have this vandal gone for a while.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is their IP, it will be caught by the WP:autoblock. If there are problems from that IP after the block expires, it can be blocked again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Bickering"

Hello! To what bickering were you referring here? Thanks. —David Levy 03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The needless arguing over things irrelevant to whether the item should go on ITN. It's doing nothing but cluttering the page and drawing other editors into the argument, cluttering the page even more, so I {{hat}}'d it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the exchange between Howard and me? I see the irrelevance, but that wasn't an argument; it was a minor bit of confusion that resolved itself. The {{hat}} template is appropriate, but the "Off topic discussion" description (used in the other instances) would be more accurate.

Also, did you mean to include Wikireader41's "support" message and my reply? Those are on-topic and largely unrelated to the rest. —David Levy 04:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

While both exchanges were doubtlessly in the very best of faith, neither was doing much more than clutter the page and inflame an already heated deabte. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the entire thread constituted pointless clutter/inflammation until discussion of a post-game article update began. I don't understand why we have WP:ITN/R if we're just going to debate these recurring events anyway.

Thanks for removing the word "bickering." —David Levy 04:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, feel free to hat the whole thing! I'm no fan of sport on ITN, but all that matters is whether or not the article is updated, not how many KBs of off-topic discussion and drive-by supports we can get. It would be pleasant if people would direct their energies to updating the article rather than arguing over the relative significance of American Football, but I live in hope! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I get dragged into these discussions, to be honest. I don't follow sports, didn't view the Super Bowl, and don't particularly care whether sport championships appear in ITN. I just find it extremely frustrating to see the same pointless arguments arise over and over again, even after the community has established sensible solutions to the underlying issues. I share your hope that we'll get past this one of these days. —David Levy 04:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're curious

here's the history. I've been enjoying obliterating the remaining traces of this non-entity. (Deleting the page really pissed him off. LOL) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That looks like a really old grudge! Always happy to play whack a mole with block-evading socks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(passerby) I can't find anything at WP:LTA or WP:SPI archives on him but very curious because he's in my backyard (if his name is correct). Anywhere that I can learn about this one? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The deleted history of the page probably has the most. Offhand I'd say there's a bunch of SPI cases that are him, that I just haven't noticed. I have a bunch of notes offline from back when I was tracking him (I'd gathered enough info to find him in RL with law enforcement if necessary -- but he's not a "death threat" type troll so decided just to let it go). Antandrus (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I can email you the deleted content, but beware the fate of the cat. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You may find this link useful, as well as this discussion which gives some of the history. I was going to make the same offer to e-mail you content if you want. Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just received I would like that, thank you. We've got nine lives! I hope that I might be of assistance and catch someone I've been after on here (wondering if it is same person). I'll study those socks' contribs, too.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

These socks are him. This isn't the one I'm trying to find. NCV lacks the sophistication, edits are boring & dull, and has (or had) too much time on their hands and hopefully is getting professional help. I'll know what to look for in the future and have watchlisted some of his target articles.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:DeWaine

If you have a moment, can you please ask DeWaine to cease with his personal attacks? Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Letsvisit

I did feel a bit guilty at having to block Letsvisit (talk · contribs), as I don't like to WP:BITE newbies. The request for a change of username is valid, and I've made an offer to unblock subject to your agreement and restricted to editing only in order to process the username change. Once this editor shows an understanding of the spam policy, they may be unblocked. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you're the blocking admin, so it's your prerogative, my friend, but that seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to me. Why not just unblock, prohibit them from editing anywhere other than CHU and their talk page until the 'crats sort the rename and then leave them to it on the sole condition that they avoid editing articles or adding links to do with "letsvisit" and that if they do, they'll be reblocked faster than a [insert fast-moving object]? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked to allow the CHU request. I'm going to AGF that Grant means what he says, so I've warned him against adding the link to the website, but he is otherwise free to edit. I'll keep in touch with him after he changes username, as there may be a very few occasions where linking to the website may be appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Protection of Cody Simpson

Thanks for protecting Cody Simpson. It needed it! Bped1985 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I think I've just kicked the can down the road for another 6 months, but I'm reluctant to use indef semi except as a last resort. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Helena von Schantz

How did Helena von Schantz get deleted again today, after you had restored it. When I last looked before the weekend (ie Feb 5th) - there were no comments on this, and it was deleted without notifying me or letting me respond to anyone's comments.That's not democratic, or constructive - I am trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of gender issues in Sweden, because they have become such powerful forces in the international policy arena. Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I restored it as a contested PROD, then sent it to AfD (of which I notified you here) because the subject is not notable. The discussion lasted for 10 days (the norm is 7) and the consensus agreed with me, so it was deleted by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about an hour ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Justin Duchscherer

It looks to me like the dispute over this article was whether or not Duchscherer had officially signed with the Baltimore Orioles. http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110130&content_id=16534394&vkey=news_bal&c_id=bal clearly states that the signing is official, so edits saying Duchscherer is an Oriole are no longer vandalism. Thus, you can unprotect it now. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've unprotected it, but the edits weren't vandalism to start with, hence the full protection. Anyway, if it's official now, it should be safe to unprotect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Antichristos back.

Hi HJ, as was to be expected, it looks like indef blocked user Antichristos (talk · contribs) is back as Jsdhgsdjhg (talk · contribs). See these edits. All the sources and most of the text is taken literally from the above collapsed section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Speed of gravity. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, I saw that on my watchlist and did wonder, but didn't have time to check it out. I've blocked the sock and I'll keep an eye on things. Let me know if any others pop up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Even within the AGF-philosophy, I'm pretty sure they will. I will revert the edits now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem

The IP hopping vandal is out again, please protect every album article for the band The Devil Wears Prada. • GunMetal Angel 00:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem user

Over the weekend you protected List of Pokémon: Black & White episodes. Well, TheLostHero2012 (talk · contribs) is not heeding the various hidden notes, the edit notice, and my comments on his talk page to cease his edits that have no sources and the like. He seems to have a history of these edits, if the messages from other users on his talk page are accurate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a note. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

BlennGeck?

I suppose the rules are subject to interpretation, but this user name seems to at least be extremely close to the line if not over it. Opinions? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If this was UAA, I'd probably say

Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear. Only edit so far looks constructive. Perhaps leave them a {{username concern}} if they edit again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I request an Administrative Action?

User:Damotclese has been acting up and pushing the borders of WP:CIVILITY on Talk:Scientology. I would Request you drop a formal notification of WP:ARBSCI topic area probation that all Scientology articles are under. If you feel the need to operate in full disclosure and link to this request with the notification I would not take issue with it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Is there anywhere I have to log it? I'm not seeing it on the case page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Dont think so, I have yet to see any one log such actions anywhere. Thanx Again hopefully it will work. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You only need to log it if you actually impose a discretionary topic ban. However, the notice you left doesn't fulfill the notice requirements. Specifically, you must warn the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outline the behaviors for which it is contemplated. I agree that a warning is in order given the turbulent history of this article. While Damotclese has refrained from editing the article text, at least recently, his unsourced claims on the talk page could sway the edits made by others. They also derail discussions backed by actual sources and make it harder to reach consensus on changes. Examples: 1 2 3. I'm neutral on this topic and I have no problem with adding Damotclese's claims if they have reliable sources. However, he asks us to add indictments that haven't happened because he's so sure that they will. That's just not how we work. While he actually gave a source in that case, it doesn't state that indictments are imminent. The New Yorker article referenced in the source has now been published. It has some useful material for the article, but it doesn't support his claims about indictments, organized crime and dismantling the organization. I independently found the reports claimed to be from the Clearwater police department. They are from 1983–1984 and were posted to a newsgroup in 1998. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, of those three diffs, only the first is remotely concerning from AE point of view. I don't find anything else troubling in their contributions without going back several weeks, so I'm inclined to leave my notice as it is. Frankly, in my experience at AE, it would probably be acceptable—it's not like ARBPIA where there's a specific notification template. Even if it's not, it should serve to bring their attention to the discretionary sanctions and hopefully they would conduct themselves better in future. If they cause disruption in future, then by all means bring it to my attention, but I don't think there's anything more that needs to be done right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Ironic that my first misclick on watchlist-rollback should be to a page requesting rollback! PeterSymonds (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The irony! ;) No need to apologise—I've done it plenty of times myself! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive boxes

Hi I wanted to ask you a favor since you are very computer literate. I was wondering if you could straighten out that mess that is my archive box I don't think its set up right and or there is two of them it should only be one. I would be most appreciative. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the two would appear to surplus to requirements, but, other than that, I can't see anything wrong with them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Which archive box would you perfer to use? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care which one I will leave that up to you thanks. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 05:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed one. If you liked the other better, I can switch them back. As for the "Status" notice on your userpage. You can scoot that over just so far and still leave plenty of room for topicons and such. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Idahowines

Actually, I was inclined to accept User:Idahowines unblock request for a name change, because I think this user can make useful contributions to the Idaho wine article, which is pretty short. I'll wait for another request, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI issue that may involve Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

I'd appreciate it if you'd look at WP:ANI#Why hasn't/can't Template:Palestine foreign relations be deleted? as I think there are issues here relating to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and I note you've been involved in AE requests there. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ignore this, unless you know anything about problems with deleting templates where material has been copied to an article leaving attribution history problems if deleted. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Doyle Bramhall

I don't understand what is happening here - this is a bit of a RickK moment for me. The section removed isn't unsourced - there is an inline citation there and has been the entire time this single-purpose editor has been making whatever point he's trying to make. Furthermore, any claims that anything in this article is potentially legally actionable are ridiculous; there's nothing even remotely controversial there. What gives? Chubbles (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Only one portion of the text seems to be properly cited/attributed. Although you don't have to cite everything it should always be attributable if the source is requested. The way it is usually considered is that refs are intended to support the the few sentences prior to is. So if the source covers the whole thing then stick it at the end of each of the paragraphs and that should do. *Usually* when non-controversial material is unsourced in BLP's the proper approach is to tag it - in this the original editor was a little quick to blank content. However, once it is removed as unsourced the burden is on the restorer to make sure all of the restored material is cited. In a BLP this is quite carefully enforced, no matter the merits :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So, if I take the citation that is already present and move it to the ends of the paragraphs instead of in the middle, I can be done with this issue? I'm sorry, but this is all a little WP:Randy in Boise to me. Chubbles (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all of the material being added is supported in that citation, so you need to remove the parts that are unsupported. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Have a two-sentence article. You're lucky you have one at all - I re-created this after a copyright violation. I like to think I am contributing to something that has value, but time and again I find roadblocks that make it not worth my while to try. Chubbles (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)