Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55

Harrier work

Hello I have continued work on the article, and made actions in response to your criticisms so far. Coul you check this work has been carried out satisfactory to your detirmination, and leave more instructions for corrective/additional features to be installed? Kyteto (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Can pending changes still be applied? If so, would it be a wise option to protect April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak with it as a preventive measure so that statements get reviewed before going live? In an article like that, especially that's on the main page like that one, people have a tendency to change numbers, insert rumors, and stuff like that. Already there have been multiple IPs trying to post a rating for the Tuscaloosa tornado (which has yet to even get a preliminary rating), see [1] and [2], plus we risk unconfirmed changes to the death toll, see [3] (note no references changed with the death toll...we're just lucky that in this case the change was supported by one of the previous references). Also, besides possible pending changes, would move protection be a good idea (again as a preventive measure)? Being of high visibility (on main page) and having no reason for a name change, it seems like it could maybe fit within move protection policy. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. The trouble is that all high-visibility articles get that kind of thing (remember the Japanese earthquake and tsunami article? Or Fukushima I?). I'm not really sure PC would make much difference. You'd still have to go back and weed out the specualtion and unsourced additions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was mostly thinking to keep them from going live...but I don't know...whatever works best, I guess. I just feel that if incorrect statistics go live, they'll only propagate further...I just reverted an IP attempting to give the tornado EF5 for the third time and a partial section blanking that went unnoticed for over ten minutes...it just seems like it would work well to have these types of edits need to be accepted before being displayed to the general reading population. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

mistaken move

Hi HJ,

Since you are an admin can you help me move Jonathan Charles Gaunt back to Jon Gaunt.


Thanks, Nilem12

(talk page stalker) I've done it for you. –anemoneprojectors– 21:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you AnemoneProjectors for moving Jonathan Charles Gaunt back to Jon Gaunt.


Thanks,

Nilem12

Request

Hello Sir, I have created an article Mindstorm Studios about an games developing company in Pakistan, I gave full references and perhaps create an good. Please Sir, check it and accept it. This article had been already deleted once by someone. Now I meet it on requirements so please don't tag of deletion and help me in Wikipedia and encourage me. I hope you will help me as usual, thanks a lot.--—just feel it (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks alright to me, but I'm no expert. Not sure it would survive an AfD, but it should survive an A7 attempt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A request

Hello HJ Mitchell,

If I may, I would like to ask you to deliver user:Wladthemlat a "digwuren notice" as you did here [4]. But I hope that you do not consider my request to be insolent on the ground that I mistakenly interpreted the "digwuren notice" as a warning that you posted on the talk page of user:PANONIAN, whereby I may have been inadvertently suggested that you agreed with my standpoint in that case as a administrator, which was not true of course. However, not PANONIAN is the only one that I have had some problems with on Wikipedia, due to the fact that I have been editing Central European related topics.

Was contemplating the possibility of filling an ArbCom report related to Wladthemlat if the preliminary condition of an ArbCom report could be vouchsafed by having posted this type of "digwuren notice" by an uninvolved administrator for which it is you who I would like to ask if it is not a problem for you.--Nmate (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've given them the notice and logged it (which, I have to say, is a bit like reading the Riot Act. On another note, I noticed you've been at least partially involved in an edit war with him. I also see that you've already had a Digwuren notice, so it's worth pointing out that a sanction could be roun d the corner if an admin feels you're not meeting the standards of decorum expected. If I were you, I'd keep my head down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for your advice. I let myself cozen into an edit war for not having been cagey enough, unfortunately. --Nmate (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Keltz

I would like you to take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz. There was an article about this fellow that was sent to AFD in January 2010.[5] As I myself commented back then, I felt that while the fellow might be seen to meet WP:ENT, there was simply not enough reliable coverage at that time upon which to build a decent BLP. That has changed. In the intervening 14 months, the fellow has received growing coverage and recognition he lacked originally. And with the new coverage, available only since the deletion,[6] I feel it benefits the project to have this new version of the article return to mainspace to further grow and be expanded. There was no flaw in the reasoning for original deletion... but this is not exactly the same as the article that was deleted, due to actor's career and coverage not sitting still over the last 14 months. I seek your approval in its return AND in it not being mistakenly speedied as a G4 recreation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. I didn't remember the name at first, but the AfD I remember (it's not very often that you vote to delete something, my friend). Certainly there wasn't a lot to write about this chap back then. There's still not an awful lot to say about him, but I see he's had a few more roles in notable films. I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage, but he might just meet ENT. You have my blessing to move it to the mainspace if you think it's ready and I think it's different enough that G4 wouldn't apply. Did you re-write it from scratch or will you need the history restoring for attribution purposes? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
A rewrite from scratch, as I barely remember the original article myself... beyond the derth of sources in January of 2010. Thanks for looking in. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Always happy to oblige you, Michael! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
RHaworth gave his blessing to an uncontested return to mainspace,[7] and sent me a link to the version he speedied, which I then found in a google cache.[8] I can well understand his deletion of that version. Yikes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

YGM

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.

--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Shutterbug investigation

just a quick FYI, I have reopened a sockpuppet investigation which you had previously overturned. My reasons for reopening the case is that the editor in question has displayed a new editing pattern since the original sock investigation Coffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ITN Question

Wondering if this is significant enough for a mention on ITN:

AF447 Black Box

Looks like they found the FDR memory unit 23 months after Air France 447 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. It's certainly an event of immense significance to the aviation world but I'm not sure if the public at large agrees. Since you're pretty active at ITN I'm wondering your thoughts. I already went ahead and added it to the portal. N419BH 20:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems li8ke a viable candidate to me, but there's no way of telling if it will get sufficient support unless you nominate it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done nominated N419BH 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

 Hazard-SJ  ±  01:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Nmate's actions

Hello, your warning has been duly noted, but I face now a dilemma with the same user, who is apparently trying to provoke me into edit war again. Nevertheless, this edit [9] removes sourced info and refers to nonexistent discussion on the talk. Would you please advise on appropriate steps to be taken in this case? Wladthemlat (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My best advice would be to take it to the talk page. Explain your position ther and then invite him to explain his, but don't just revert him, because that risks him reverting you, then you revrting him and so on until I lose patience and end up blocking you both (which is not something I particularly want to do). Alternatively, he's had his own Digwuren notice, so if you feel he is "repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" and just being dusruptive (and have diffs to back it up), you can request action at WP:AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, Wladthemlat usually lurks after the most recent edits made by Hungarian users to Wikipedia and then makes demands about discussions ,in either order to remove those edits ,or to change them to be more anti-Hungarian. It has been 2 years that the most recent edits made by Hungarian users to Wikipedia are really all that interests Wladthemlat as a edit-warrior antipode and nothing else since that day he became a registered contributor here.
As for "I am trying to provoke him into edit war again", look here :[10] ,HJ Mitchell , and see that Wladthemlat too continued an extensive edit war over the article Golden Team without having ever shown any interest to edit articles in relation to footballers, or to sports on Wikipedia beforehand.
Please note that it is not me the only one who is aimed at by Wladthemlat; he is the "benefactor" of all Hungarian users in such a way, and we might as well be entwined with him. Also, he has a permanently obtrusive utterance like here [11], here [12] ,or here [13] in these edit summaries for instance.--Nmate (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tesco bomb campaign

The article Tesco bomb campaign you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tesco bomb campaign for comments about the article. Well done! Deryck C. 16:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No prob, keep producing good stuff! --Deryck C. 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

YGM

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.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your reconfirmation

The Admin's Barnstar
For setting an admirable example. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm flattered that you think I don't need to do it, but I really think something like this should be mandatory. Trouble is, if we had one reconfirmation a day, it would take about five years to get through them all and that's a lot of time and effort that would be better afforded tot he mainspace. Speaking of which, I have some time to work on my next FA project without all those buttons inviting me to procrstinate! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, as for something like this should be mandatory, you are preaching to the choir! Happy content editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've supported, with reservation. Frankly I think this is just a little bit attention seeking - and a waste of the communities time. Think harder next time. Is your RFA mark II honetly "improving the enyclopedia" or just giving you a fuzzy feeling of good will? I suspect the latter. Sorry to be bad natured about it, but I've lost a lot of respect for you over this rather than gained any. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry that we disagree, but I've never been a fan of this notion that little short of an act of god can remove an admin and I would like to see something like this become mandatory for all admins. That might even calm RfA down. As for the warm fuzzy feeling, I can get that by expanding an article and taking it to FAC and if I was only after 'nice' comments, I would only have sought feedback from people I knew would tell me what I wanted to hear. Anyway, I don't suppose there's anything I can do to convince you of the merits of admin reconfirmation, so we'll have to agree to disagree there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've now opposed and your invocation of a "god" makes me even more sure I'm right. You should retain the admin tools, IMHO. But I oppose you because you've gone very much the wrong way about things and it looks like an ego boost - plain and simple. It's only a website yeah? Anyway, no doubt you have many friends in ARBCOM so you can get them to add this to the super sekrit desysop Pedro page. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry, ArbCom collectively don't listen to a word I say. I can assure you, I'm not just trying to boost my ego (FAC is much better a that than RfA), but I don't think it will change your mind, so I'll leave it at that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The nomination statement contains a lot of typos. Can you copyedit it, please? -- Mentifisto 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ouch. I'm not at my regular computer, so I don't have my built-in spellchecker. I guess it shows! But I've fixed several typos. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If you'd like I can run mine and fix several more. -- Mentifisto 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If you have the time, that'd be grand. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good step forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award HJ Mitchell with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You've made so many content contributions that the tags on your userpage screwed up my browser! :) MacMedtalkstalk 22:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep versus SNOW

Hi. I noticed that you closed WP:Articles for deletion/Wedding dress of Kate Middleton as speedy keep while citing WP:Snowball clause. This is technically incorrect, per WP:Speedy keep#What is not a speedy-keep. I think that AfDing recent news is an exercise in futility, and I am not requesting that you amend your close. It is my opinion that imprecise speedy keeps (one of many factors) contributes to improper NACs and trouting/biting of those non-admins. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I kinda see what you mean. I'm very pleased that this was closed early (well, I would be - because I wrote it) because it allows it to proceed to DYK. But I suppose it should've been "Keep per SNOW" and a note on early closure, instead of actually saying "speedy keep" - if I'm correct in my understanding of this? It was kept speedily, but not speedy keep?  Chzz  ►  08:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Chzz put it well. I'm aware of the difference, but the AfD closing script (I don't think I know how to do it manually, especially not at 2 in the morning) only has a few options, and it doesn't have a button for an "early but not speedy keep". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think "early" should be preferred over "speedy", but "early keep" sounds odd. "Speedy keep" – paralleling "speedy delete" – is jargon with a specific meaning. Using User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD as an example, I think the option is Other / Don't delete, with a manual closure type like [[WP:SNOW]] keep, and hopefully with an explanation in the extended rationale. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I Agree with Mr.Z-man; I sympathize w/ HJ (and am very grateful for the sensible closure); I wonder if it'd be worth asking for a mod to the script, to allow just a generic reason to be entered? But, we should all remember "the principle of the rules is more important than the letter" (WP:COMMON) etc.  Chzz  ►  08:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If I'm reading Mr.Z-man's documentation correctly (I don't use his script), the manual closure type is already supported. I have no idea about any other closing script. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests

Hey HJ we have some interesting characters entering the WP:ARBR&I area. After discussing the Situation with Sir Fozzie I was wondering if you could drop them a notices about sanctions about existent sanctions in the Area. The editors who need informing are QuintupleTwist (talk · contribs) and 174.97.236.49 (talk · contribs). I do beleive they also need to be logged on the case page. thanx. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't, I gave up my bit when I went for reconfirmation, so for at least the next week and possibly for several months, you'll need to find yourself another admin, I'm afraid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Harmless

I hope my support comment does not seem facetious; whilst light-hearted, it is a good way of summarizing my opinion, and I saw little point providing detailed feedback, because I think you've got that from others. I applaud your choice to go through reconfirmation. I rarely go around saying "xxx admin is amazing", because mopping up is a shitty job, and perhaps the best one can hope for is to be seen as "doing no harm" - thus, it is really quite a ringing endorsement. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha! You'll not catch me complaining about a Douglas Adams reference. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

YGM

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.

--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The hyphen wars

Hi HJ. I noticed your comment on AN/I regarding the hyphen/dash foolishness, and wanted to get your opinion on a possible software change that would put an end to the move battles once and for all. (Full thread here.) Do you think this is worth proposing? Do you see any obvious downsides or unwanted side effects? 28bytes (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It might even be possible to do that on a local MediaWiki page, but I have no idea about that sort of thing. I can see how this might be a good thing, but I'm pretty sure MediaWiki used to do something like that and that we can now have – and — in titles as well as - is generally seen as an improvement. Even that, though, wouldn't end the edit warring, of which the horizontal lines in the article text itself have been the subject. Btw, I think you mean non-denomination horizontal line wars (or is that non–denomination horizontal line wars?). ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree, the move warring would be fixed, but the edit warring will likely continue regardless. Maybe the move-warring will die down on its own. Anyway, I'll give some more thought before proposing anything. (I'm occasionally tempted to use a minus sign or figure dash or (horrors) DOS box-drawing character inside Mexican─American War just to tweak both sides, but so far I have restrained myself.) 28bytes (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are not offended

I hope you are not offended at my opinion of your RFA. I honestly think that you do a great job as an administrator, and, if you had wanted a review of your actions, why did you not request and editor review or a administrator review? Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was an admin for a year. That gives you one hell of a thick skin, so you needn't worry about offending me. As for ER or admin review, I know they're great fora, but they don't get anything like the traffic of an RfA and thosew iwth distinctly negative opinions of me or my actions aren't likely to comment, becuase they don't think their comments matter in the same way they do in a forum where there's a real possibility of my head being on the chopping board. the people who think I should continue as an admin are naturally going to pull their punches, but you can rely on those who think I'm a crappy admin not to. If I've got useful, frnak comments on how I can improve, albeit from people who think I should never be let near a mop again (and I have), then it's not a wate of time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

your friends

You do know what the beetles were singing about when they talked about getting by with a little help from their friends???---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Beatles! Beetles are little creatures which end up inside your shirt! --rgpk (comment) 22:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually no, I didn't until 30 seconds ago! I always just kind of liked the lyrics. The double meaning never occured to me! Thanks for that, you made me laugh, if only at my own naivety! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, I didn't think you did... I think I should oppose your reconfirmation RfA for admitted drug use ;-)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Gbenga Daniel

Maybe you could take a look at the history on this one. Gbeneb (talk · contribs) seems to be a SPA determined to impose one version of this article over any edits. The subject is controversial. I don't want to be part of an edit war. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not much I can do. At least until Monday evening, I'm not an admin—I resigned my bit to stnad for reconfirmation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will check if any of the other editors who undid vandalism on this article in the past want to do it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Copyedits

I reviewed my last ten edits labeled copyedit and don't see any "controversial" edits. Can you provide some recent examples? Thanks Rillian (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I rarely find myself having to "nuke" so many edits at once so I wasn't up to date on some of the new tools. Thanks for the update and the links! Regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image resolution

Hello HJ, in the past you helped me in understanding the concept of size and resolution of non-free image (specifically used in infobox), and as I remember you asked me to limit the size not more than 300px300px. But this time some another user has disagreement over this. I might be wrong, so to resolve this matter, would you please take a look on my talk page, thanks. --Bill william comptonTalk 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


early close

Hi Hj, I am looking for someone bold to close a couple of Afd discussions a couple of days early - there is little resistance - its election day today - both have been well improved and are clear keepers - there has been one or two early delete comments which are prior to article improvement - I am also as nominator in support now - Tin Pei Ling - and Nicole Seah - admin talkpage stalkers also requested to be bold and close these two - Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Both closed as speedy keep, because you've withdrawn them as the nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

ITN and admins

Given your going through an RfA at the moment I'm going to make this comment here about ITN and admins generally. I think one of the issues with ITN and its continued success is when people oppose items. Now opposing items is fine to some extent, but even this year the number of opposes for items in general has significantly increased with people becoming too keen to oppose items before some extra effort has to be made to generally shut them up (and to be honest long term, I'm not convinced whining about the whiners is a productive strategy).

One reason for this is that opposing items is much easier than supporting them, opposition to items is generally successful if you can get about 33%-40% of the number of supporters to oppose the item, and generally you don't even need to manage particularly substantial arguments in opposition. In contrast the supporters need to present good arguments, and to do the important work of updating the article.

Now I know you get shit for posting controversial items, but to keep the section working you guys need to post some of the borderline cases occasionally. You don't have to necessarily post the items that I'm wildly in favour of (or anyone else) but making sure they go up when the opposing arguments are weak is needed. At least making sure the opposers have made a good case, as Kevin Mc E did for Ian Tomlinson for example, is at least some way to keeping some kind of balance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right that some people display a little too much zeal for opposing items, and oppose rationales often come down to little more than "I don't like it". However, weak support !votes is also an issue. I can name at least three editors (but own't), who think that it's perfectly acceptable to to post a support !vote that consists of no more than a dozen characters (including the seven in "support"). Back to talking about opposers, though. In the short term, the best way to defeat opposition to an item is to show that particular rationales are weak or invalid and to make the opposers work by challenging them (politely, of course) to provide a substantive rationale. Of course, they can then do the same to the supporters and that's one of the advantages of consensus-based decision making.
If nobody challenges oppose !votes, no consensus can be formed on the validity of that vote and so the admin who decides whether to post assumes they're valid, whereas if ther's a lot of discussion about a rationale, it shows it's controversial. That's not to say that borw-beating the opposition into surrender is a good way to get a consensus, and there are some editors who will post 1,000-character rants in response to each oppose. Show us (the posting admins) that an oppose is weak, and I for one will take that into consideration, but if we start pontificationg about what we think are valid arguments, we get accused of supervoting.
In the long term, what would really help with issues like this would be a less subjective way of deciding items. At least at AfD, people generally !vote in accordance with notability guidelines which present objective criteria, whereas ITN goes by "significance" which doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you or to Kevin or to anyone else and what's significant to us Brits might not be at all significant across the Pond or anywhere else in the world. Reworking the ITN/C instructions to include better guidance on !voting might also help.
From an admin perspective, though, I find it far more common that a viable nomination doesn't get an updated article than it failing because of lack of consensus. The latter can be overcome, but all the discussion about it is moot until there's an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a ping..

Hey HJ, I've tried to go further as a result of your reply. Thanks for the appreciation, I hope my explanation goes into some detail where I'm coming from here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a gander in a minute. My appreciation was sincere, even if it was followed by a "but" (although I'm frustrated, I'm not just ranting). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of pure curiosity, if you were an arb, what would you try to do about the rule that you call 'daft'? (I don't like using another user's name repeatedly for that purpose) And how would you specifically reduce the reliance on DS? Like, in your words, how would you move DS from being "substitute" to "supplement"? You have what seems like a stackload of cases you can refer to; how would you handle one or two of them differently (if at all) and based on the evidence presented at the time, would issuing additional sanctions have reduced the reliance on DS? Sorry, when I start getting curious, the questions keep coming (which is apparently annoying to some people)! Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I share Ncmvocalist's curiosity. If HJM can think of any cases where the arbs should have done more, and left fewer decisions to AE, which ones are they? EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologise, I'm always happy to discuss things, especially when I've been rather vocal in opposing the current system. I'm not sure I'd ever want to be an arb, because I'm busy enough as it is and already have a talk apge that has to be archived more often than AN. However, if I were, or I had some influence on the current Committee's decision-making, abolishing that rule as it stands would be one of the first things I'd seek to do. That's not to say I'd allow admins to give AE blocks the same treatment as any other block, but I'll get to that in a minute. I think principles like BRD are at the heart of a collaborative, volunteer project like this, which is why I don't think it's right that we assume admin A's judgement is impeccable and admin B's is faulty until proven otherwise.
So, how to make AE blocks stick? My suggestion would be to mandate that admin A provide a detailed rationale, citing diffs and arbitration remedies where applicable, for his action (ArbCom seem to have considered mandating this, but left it as more of a suggestion). Then, instead of a complete prohibition on overturning the block, other uninvolved editors and admins should comment on the blocked editor's talk page and if a certain number of admins (perhaps three, if there's no opposition) agree that the block is unjust, unnecessary, ultra vires or better replaced with some other form of sanction, then the block can be reversed. The idea of forcing admin A to provide a detailed rationale and admins B, C and D to wait before they act is that hopefully neither the block nor the unblock is done without due consideration. We hope that all admin actions are carefully considered and alterntives explored, but we all make mistakes and we all sometimes have varying opinions.
As for discretionary sanctions, I would like to see ArbCom make more of an effort to identify those who are causing the trouble and then determine if the project, the topic-area or a narrower area like a specific article, would be better off without the presence of those individuals. Obviously, in an area like, say, ARBPIA (just an example), the problems are much bigger than just a few editors and that's one of the areas where discretionary sanctions are useful and, indeed, necessary to maintain some sense of decorum in that topic area. Banning editors directly instead of applying discretionary sanctions which eventually mean admins are forced to do it might not make arbs popular and it might mean they have to work harder to resolve cases, but they weren't elected to be popular. Similarly, they could also utilise more 'practical' sanctions, like 1RRs (or 0RRs), requiring editors to discuss their reverts, interaction bans and other restrictions. More than that, ArbCom should try to get the parties to the dispute to talk to each other and seriusly attmept to resolve thier differences. That, to me, is what dipsute resolution is about, but it's fair to say that many arbitration cases have already passed that stage. Apologies for such a long post. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA nomination

Hi - I decided to withdraw because I felt the objections raised were ones I wasn't in a position to counter, and I didn't have good answers to the additional questions. To be honest, I hadn't considered adminship until my nominator approached me asking if I would like to be and I didn't fully understand how tough the process would be. I may reconsider and reapply at some later stage, but until then I'm quite happy chugging along with my wikification edits. Thanks for taking the time to leave a message. Katharineamy (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I think it shows strength of character to withdraw it when you realise you're not prepared rather than than trying to blag it. The most important thing is that you enjoy what you do, so carry on doing what you enjoy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters

One venue is sufficient, thanks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have approval for the task as I was used. Check Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't care. You don't have approval to violate policy and AWB rules of use by changing "birthplace" to "birth place" and other changes which have no effect on the output. Please do not restart the bot until this is settled at ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Which policy? AWB rules of use are not a policy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Really? You, a bot op and an admin, need me to explain that bots have to adhere to the policy? No wonder we're having problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Which part of this policy is not fulfilled? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a note but if the bot was approved then there was sufficient justification to allow the task to proceed and it would also indicate that the BAG folks were satisfied with the task according to bot policy. There is no need to stop the bot every couple days because you personally don't like it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there something ambiguous about WP:BOTPOL#Bot requirements? The version I'm reading says in black and white that a bot taks should be useful, "[should] not consume resources unnecessarily" and "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines". Opinions don't come into it, this bot task is useless, unnecessary, a waste of resources and a policy violation. I do wish Magioladitis would cease restarting it every time the heat dies down, becuae at this rate, they're headed straight for an RfC/U. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Bot requirements fulfilled. The task serves the purpose of infobox standardisation. Check the edits of User:WOSlinker too and probably others. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you

Armbrust Talk to me Contribs has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cool. Pie! Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy

It's been awhile eh? Think I've been in retirement for several months now and Unfortunately this is not the end of it. However, while I was checking up on things I found that My old friend is still adding the same rant on the talk page and possibly the article, and did so even after the last revert. Would you mind keeping an eye on it? I hope all is well and am glad to see you've become such a great Admin :). Regards, --SKATER Hmm? 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you on here, mate! It certainly has been a while. Sorry to hear it's only short-lived, but I hope you'll come back to your former levels of activity at some point. Anyway, I reverted your friend again and when I get my bit back, which hopefully should be later this evening or early tomorrow, I'll think about a block or a semi for the talk page if (or rather when) he returns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

I'm happy to inform you that, due to your successful request for adminship, you have now been promoted to an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or stop by the administrators' noticeboard. Congrats! Andrevan@ 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Impeccable timing, I just found a vandal in need of a block. Thank you very much for the closure. I don;t have any questions at the minute, but then I have been doing this for a year. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me be one of many to say 1000 congratulations on your successful RFA - or is that a reRFA. I hope that number of supports shows how many editors there are that appreciate all that you do. On another note my apologies for the kerfuffle about the admin userbox on your userpage. I am glad that it can be restored - with distinction and honours I might add. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Congrats from me too, not least for the respect that you have shown for the wishes of the community! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I know you probably don't have any questions, that's the boilerplate congratulations note I give to all "new" admins. Andrevan@ 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought as much. I think I saw it in another RfA somewhere. But thanks for closing the RfA, it's good to be back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Congrats! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Sarek, and good luck in your own. You've got an hour left, which is just as well because it will take the 'crat that long to decide how to close it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair play to you HJ for putting your money where so many put their mouths. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been an interesting week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations! Took a little bit of fixing to get this right though! ;) The Helpful One 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
"Right" is the right word! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The admins' T-shirt.
  • Congratulations on your successful RfA, HJ Mitchell! Here's the standard clothing for your new/old role, hope it fits. :) Best. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Congrats, HJM. Keep up the good work. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Congrats on your strong showing. Like I said somewhere else, I do approve of the result despite my criticism (which I hope you have taken as constructive criticism; you brought it on yourself mate, can't get mad :)).
    Not sure what to make of the whole concept of a reconfirmation RfA. I didn't share the view of Pedro and several others that you intended this to boost your own morale, possibly because I wasn't so sure of the outcome. Reconfirmation here turned out to be a good nucleus to invite community criticism, but requiring them for all is certainly too much of a distraction. A middle ground might be a mandatory admin review: nothing really on the line so nobody will feel the need to comment to try and tip the scales, but with enough participation and interest a loss of community trust should become quite obvious there. Or, much more likely, it would be a time hog and a a drama fest.
    Anyway, happy editing, and kudos for doing that. Amalthea 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Of course I considered it constructive criticism and RfA has a way of forcing you to learn from your mistakes by ariing them very publicly, which is something I think it has over admin review. It would be nice if we could come up with a way of doing something like this for all admins, but with 1700-odd admins, the logisitics wouldn't be easy.

      It's funny you should mention uncertainty over the result. Although it's nice to pass with 90% support, I had visions of it ending somehwere around where Sarek's has. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Contratulations HJ :) Go clear more backlogs... NAO! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:43am • 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Welcome back to the party! Going along with Ancient Apparition, there are backlogs calling you...and me too. Last time I checked WP:AFC had 120...120????!!!?!?!...pending submissions, and WP:NPP has pages in it from April 14...I'm gonna be busy tonight! N419BH 01:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

How are you able to impose an irrevocable block on a user? Indefinite I could understand (though you might wish to substantiate your claims of "racism") but permanent? I do not think you can do this. Some are suggesting that your actions in this are biased. Lovetinkle (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a way of physically preventing another admin from unblocking Sarah777. However, it is commonly said that an indefinite block is not intended to be infinite. In this case, unless Sarah777 seriously changes the way she approaches editing Wikipedia, I intend this to be the latter, which I hope any administrator will take into account when considering unblocking her. Not, I might add, because I have something against Sarah777 personally oir because I am biased (I'm not), but because her conduct has failed to adhere to the most absic principles of collaborative editing and has done for years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The easiest way is to make a convincing case that the user you want to be blocked is me. Logic has little to do with it, you'll get lots of support. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
While you can be a little rude sometimes (no offense, of course), I don't think the community would indef ban you right there for no reason :p demize (t · c) 00:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The blocking of this editor by this Admin is clearly inappropriate.[citation needed] There seems to be a conflict of interest.[citation needed] He seems to be grinding some sort of English nationalist axe[citation needed] which has no place in Wikipedia. Silent Billy (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on your resysop, HJM. I have some problems with your indefinite block of Sarah777; one of them is that as an Irish Nationalist editor (not in itself a crime) it will look like you have a potential COI problem as an English admin in making this block. If an indefinite block is to be placed on this user, it would be better if it came from someone who does not display the St George's flag on their user page. That's before we even get into the antecedents of the behavior for which she was blocked. I would not dream of unilaterally undoing your block, but I hope consensus can be reached at AN/I or elsewhere for that action, as I still believe she has potential as an editor if she can match her passion with the skills of working as a team that are so vital here. In the first instance, it would help me if you could outline for me with diffs, exactly why this block has to be extended from the one-week block placed by the first blocking admin. Whenever you get a chance I'd be grateful if you could put this together, either here or at my talk page. Thanks, --John (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • HJ, yes, Sarah's behaviour recently has been abhorrent. Likening the Union Jack to the symbols of national socialism is unacceptable, and Sarah777 was fully deserving of sanctions. Sanctions she had already received, from Georgewilliamherbert and Future Perfect at Sunrise. Instead of a week away, and a ban from a few topics that have given her trouble, you have sent off a long-term contributor in an action that is truly ultra vires. No single admin, ever, has the power to infinitely block another user. Ever. Even under the favoured treatment of Discretionary Sanctions, the maximum sanction is one year. You didn't even give the two other admin's decisions a chance to work. If her conduct on her talk page was unacceptable, the correct option would have been to lock her talk page for the week she was blocked, not to impose this draconian sanction. I'm giving you a chance to convince me here, or ANI, that this was the right decision, or I intend to reset Sarah777's block to the one week Future Perfect imposed. Courcelles 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I will reply further in the morning, but would consider it the utmost discourtesy if anybody unblocks such a disruptive editor before I have chance to comment furher (and that's from someone who is usually quite happy for his actions to be reversed). This comment is a well-put explanation of the reasons for the block in the meantime. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
A note to both HJM and Courcelles on this.
Courcelles, I have been administering and patrolling the British Isles naming dispute for about a year now. Sarah was quiet for the last 12-15 months but she has been a long term problematic user (in terms of civility and WP:BATTLE violations) and figures prominently in the related ArbCom cases. She has had years to reform and frankly she knows the rules here and knows what she's doing. I was at the point of indefing Sarah myself if she had made another inappropriate edit. She has indeed reached the threshold of a normal indef. Hate speech, partisan editing and general pointy and disruptive edits at the level Sarah777 reached are utterly incompatible with wikipedia's core principles. Her attitude and conduct must change. In such a situation a block of definite duration is not going to work (and as normal that would have to reviewed on request or after a year). When she expresses a wish to conform to site standards (whenever that is) she will be unblocked, per WP:BLOCK.
But HJM you don't have the power to permanently block. I would urge you to simply reblock with a normal indef clarifying that it is subject to the normal indef processes. Under normal indef conditions it would be inappropriate for anyone to unblock without consensus on ANI at this point.
Let me clarify further I support an indef block of Sarah777 (and would have done it myself) but HJM you do not have the power to impose permanent blocks. Simple as--Cailil talk 01:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
HJ, I really think you should reword what you wrote about that block to say not that it is an infinite block as that you intend the block to be infinite. From what you've said here, it seems like that's what you're really getting at, but that's not what you've said, and it appears that you are making a claim of having done something that you can't actually do.
Courcelles, please don't unblock Sarah777 without at least giving the discussion at ANI some time to arrive at a consensus. I will tell you that I unreservedly oppose this unblock without a topic ban being imposed in its place, and have said as much at ANI. No amount of long-term contribution can excuse this user's unabated battleground mentality. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have so clarified. I still object, in the strongest terms possible, to any unblock or conversion to a block of fixed duration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate a reply to my request here whenever you get a chance. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm sure I could find plenty of diffs for one grossly offensive comment after another and plenty more for her batlleground mentality, but the truth is that just a glance at ANI and her talk page shows sufficient cause for an indef block. There is no excuse for referring to editors with whom you're in a content dispute as "British nationalist" and POV-pushers, nor for comparisons of a national flag (regardless of which nation's flag it is) to a Swastika, nor for accusing a country of genocide, for attacking other editors and admins who disagree with you or for showing blatant disregard and for the Five Pillars. That alone is worthy of an indef block (and with the greatest respect to Fut. Perf., I think a one-week block was exceedingly lenient), but to keep it up despite being sanctioned by ArbCom and while blocked and topic-banned for exactly that makes me confident that Wikipedia is not the place for her. FWiW, I count three or four uninvolved admins at ANI endorsing my action and none, with the possible exception of yourself, suggesting that an indef was not justified. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I realise this is mainly an inter-admin discussion, but can I just add that as (I hope) a reasonably moderate-minded "British" editor living in England, I did and do actually find the identification of the British flag with the Nazi emblem extremely insulting and offensive, given that many relatives of mine fought in a terrible war in the utmost hardship to prevail against that particular evil. I would not dream of insulting the Irish flag or symbols of that fine country and I would urge rigorous punishment of any editor who did so. I hope we remain afforded the same treatment, even if amongst our ranks there are also (sadly) some editors who do not behave well. It may not be exactly "racist" to make such statements but it is I can assure you deeply offensive on a highly provocative level well outside the normal banter of Wikipedia talk pages. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_52&oldid=1178457728"