User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Good job!

Glad someone had the balls to do the right thing. → ROUX ₪ 17:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wheel warring is the right thing? God almighty. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL applies to the reversal of a reversal, not the reversal of an extension that might have been justified at the time but is now a moot point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but moot point my eye. There's an open ANI thread inviting commentary on the block where there is pretty obviously no consensus that it should be lifted right now. Doing it anyway is just going to kick the drama level up to 12 as it always does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

HJ made the right call here. Let's look at this with some perspective: how did MMN react to a post comparing him – however indirectly – to the God hates fags people? Did he reply with a stream of invective? No, he simply removed the post. Then other people began edit-warring to reinstate it. The original poster withdrew the post, and both he and the person whose talk page it appeared on supported lifting the indef block, so why are we still arguing about it? 28bytes (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The actions by this admin in reversing a block while an ANI discussion is ongoing are in stark contrast to the way they acted with Sarah777, but suppose Mick isn't Irish. Mo ainm~Talk 18:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, and I don't give a flying fuck, what Mick's nationality is. You'll also note that I unblocked Sarah, as well, even when nobody else was willing to. So you'll forgive me for being crude, but there is no decent response to your post but to tell you to fuck off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

After you attempted to make her jump through hoops and kowtow to you and being an admin you should be aware of NPA but wouldn't expect anything more from you. Mo ainm~Talk 18:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We're still arguing about it because this is round 9000 of the same game. While MMN might have been justified in removing the post once, he absolutely knew what would happen if he edit warred over it and did it anyway. So every time MMN misbehaves you've got a gang of people saying "awww, but you can explain that, man" and we've got to have a huge meta-discussion over why it's perfectly okay to edit war, or call people every name under the sun, or disrupt previously-okay discussions because you know, it's okay to have strong feelings now and then or whatever. Every single time. The project as a whole is tired of this. You know that when ArbCom eventually does something about it you'll have a vocal group declaring it to have been a string-up, right? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What I don't get, and perhaps you can explain it to me, is why all these other editors felt compelled to reinstate what MMN obviously thought was a personal attack against him, without discussing it first? My view is that ArbCom will probably tell MMN it's time to go, and I can't really blame them. But really, that doesn't mean everything MMN may do is unjustified. Comparing someone to a WBC member is really not that far a cry from comparing them to an NS member, and I don't think people should reinstate such comparisons so cavalierly. 28bytes (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, HJ Mitchell. I very strongly regret that you did not consider it necessary to contact me, or engage in the community discussion at ANI, prior to reverting my extension of the block. I ask you to please reinstate the indefinite block, because it is still necessary for the reasons I am in the process of explaining at User talk:Kirill Lokshin#Concerning the MMN arbitration case, the user in question has explicitly not requested to be unblocked, and there is (at least) no community consensus to lift the block. If you do not, I intend to request that you be added as a party to the ongoing arbitration case, on the grounds that your reduction in length constitutes wheel-warring.  Sandstein  18:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (Struck parts,  Sandstein  20:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

And your extension of the block wasn't? How does that work Sandstein? Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading the discussion on Kirill's talk page (of which I was previously unaware) now. You'll have my answer once I've read it, though my action was not wheel warring, at least not in the sense that I understand WP:WHEEL. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read the discussion, I am convinced that your extension of the block to indefinite was not unjustified, because he was clearly threatening to continue disruptive behaviour upon the expiry of the block. However, with the post to which MMN took exception removed by its poster and the edit war over, I do not believe there is any risk of that disruption continuing in 72 hours' (now 50-something hours') time. If you had intended your block to be a "a stable community-based solution" as a substitute for the arbitration case, you should have said so in the block log, because such a block would almost certainly not stand up to scrutiny. That being so, with the greatest respect to you, Sandstein (I do hope we don't have to take this personally), I will not be reversing my action. I would also point out that as your action was not reversing anything, it was the first in the chain, making my reversal of it the second and thus there is no wheel war unless a third admin were to reverse my reversal. But if you want to have me added as a party to the MMN case, you are quite within your rights to request that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to say at the outset that I also hope that this does not become a personal matter, as I have always respected your work as an administrator. But I do hope that you will reconsider reinstating the block after you have read the rest of the comments I've just added to Kirill Lokshin's talk page. In short, I consider that the block is still necessary, even though the content at issue is now removed, because MickMacNee apparently remains convinced that he did nothing wrong. Consequently the block remains needed to prevent the very likely resumption of the same kind of disruption as soon as the block expires, just as it did incidentally the last time my indefinite block was undone.

As concerns wheel-warring, you are the third in the chain: Slakr blocked for 72h, I overruled him to the extent that I considered an indefinite rather than a finite block was necessary, and you then undid that. What's more, you did so without any attempt at discussion either with me or at ANI, which is characteristic of a wheel war as per the policy: "Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action," and "Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation."  Sandstein  19:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (Struck parts,  Sandstein  20:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

Actually, on second thought, I withdraw my request that you reinstate the indefinite block. It's probably better not to continue the community-based line of dispute resolution, now that the initially problematic text has been removed and the risk for continued ongoing disruption after the block expires, even if still present in my view, is therefore less acute. Under these circumstances, it does appear reasonable – or at least it's one possible approach – to let the Arbitration Committee address the longterm aspects of the matter. Your re-reduction of the block duration is therefore justifiable on the merits, or at least not worth having a long argument over. Nonetheless, I consider that the manner in which you made this block reduction, without engaging in any discussion, constituted wheel warring, and I intend to say so in the arbitration case.  Sandstein  20:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well as much mud as we might throw at each during the case, I hope we can mend bridges after its conclusion. But for now, real life calls. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up HJ..

Considering the administrative action you took with regards to the Sandstein indefblock of MickMacNee, I've asked the clerks to list you as an involved party in the ongoing MMN ArbCom case, Please post there as to why you took the actions you did. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not making Sandstein do it. I can't say I didn't see it coming. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't think that the action taken would lead to a large amount of drama (especially with an active discussion going on, invited by Sandstein, I don't know what to tell you. SirFozzie (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification regarding MickMacNee case

By the request of an arbitrator, I have listed you as a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your blocking on ANEW

I disagree with it. Simply blocking them and hoping that the problem will go away solves nothing - ultimately what needs to happen is that somebody needs to help both editors either sit down, or topic ban one of them and prevent interaction between them. I am more than willing to help with that, too, but blocking them does absolutely no good. This is obviously a long standing conflict, and I don't see how you could possibly think that a 24hr break will help. Beyond that, I'd also like to try and keep both of these editors, and again this is not helping. Regards, Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in discussion with Lecen at the moment about the block. My rationale is at ANEW, as I'm sure you've seen, and my conclusion is that a 24-hour block will force a temporary cessation of hostilities between them. Both were out of line and neither has shown a willingness to discuss the issue. Lecen claims, not unfairly, that DrKiernan is harassing him, but doesn't address the edit warring and 3RR violation while DrKiernan addresses solely the 3RR violation by Lecen and fails or refuses to acknowledge that his own conduct is wanting. I've advised both to keep their distance from one another and to start an RfC (and I'm not the first to advise them to do either) and I'm willing to listen to any appeal of the blocks on the basis that they will take their differences to a talk page and make no further reverts on the issue of translations. I think I've been as reasonable as I can be given the protracted and disruptive nature of the dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree with your block. You blocked them hours after they stopped editing the article. Full-protecting the article and starting an RfC on the talk page would have been a much better solution. Also (building on what Aj says above), considering that Lecen already retired once and decided to give it one last shot... 'punishment', whether you intended it as such or not, will probably have little effect other than to aggravate both sides. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know now. I thought I was on pretty solid ground, since both are guilty of conduct that could justify a block, but the fact the Aj, whose comments I considered at length at ANEW, and you, an admin I hold in great esteem, are telling me I should reconsider sets alarm bells ringing. But I need to eat, and my dogs need a walk before it gets dark, so I might not be back for a few hours. If you think unblocking is the best way forward, please go ahead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock because I'm a bit involved in that Lecen and I have conversed at length, I've reviewed his articles, and we've shared sources before (probably should have added a disclaimer above! :/). But separating myself from that, I do disagree with the block for the reasons I gave above. Do what you think is best, and I'll help try to mediate the dispute as best I can. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC) PS: hope the dogs enjoyed their walk!

Right, I've unblocked both in the hope that some form of DR might yield results. I'd appreciate it if you could do what you can as a mediator/go-between in facilitating discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Miguel González

Hi HJ! Long time no talk! :P Can you please do me a favor and userfy that article? It was re-created as a redirect to a disambiguation, however I wrote a biography in its place, and the deleting admin apparently ignored my message at his talk page to userfy it for me. Can you? :) Diego Grez (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Diego! Always a pleasure to hear from you my friend! I trust you're keeping out of trouble? ;) Anyway, it's at User:Diego Grez/Miguel González for you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It was a royal pain to write that article, I just didn't want to lose it forever :) Thank you again! Diego Grez (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt

Please don't use admin action summaries to make sarcastic points. They are apt to confuse people unaware of the "gov com" in jokes. If you are not calm enough to use the tools in an objective manner, please don't use them. I've absolutely no issues with the action, just the bitchy attitude in a permanent record.--Scott Mac 20:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, before you bitch at me for this, we may have found some common ground.--Scott Mac 20:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

HJ: Could you explain exactly how you think arbcom has backed off the that arbitration case? The last time I checked there was nothing at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Post-case_clarification to suggest this. There have been recurring problems with excessive promotion on several articles, which by chance happened to recur again today. Please feel free to use email if you prefer, from my user page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the Carl Hewitt case to which I was referring, but the motion a few weeks ago that PC must be replaced by equivalent protection, which they very quickly declared to be "expired". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see; that makes sense. I don't follow them very closely, so I miss these things. Thanks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for List of Field Marshals of the British Army

Calmer Waters 06:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect on talk page

User:John Stattic has a redirect on his talk page, so I can't give him a warning. He seems to be on a crusade to change the year number system on articles away from BCE/CE to BC/AD as in [1], [2], and [3]. Looks like he's had a number blocks for disruptive editing in the past. Mojoworker (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You could always just remove the redirect, but I left him a warning to let him no (in no uncertain terms) that he should get consensus or move on. Personally, I think it's one of the dafter disputes on WP (a bit like the way some people fight over English vs British in articles), but there's no doubt that changing it at random so frequently is disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:PBC Frelon Technology.jpg

Is it too late to un-delete File:PBC Frelon Technology.jpg? An e-mail was sent on 1/4/11 (sorry for the delay, I some how missed this originally) to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org'. Was that not OK? Schbrownie (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it doesn't look like anyone's got to it yet, but I can venture over to OTRS and see if I can find it. When you say 1/4/11, is that 1 June or 4 January? And can you remember what the heading was? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

RE:Field Marshals

Nice work on that list, no problems about fixing the wee oversight. In my opinion it is definitely worthy of discussion in the list article and perhaps the VC article but I don't think it could hold its own as a standalone article. I don't think it is something particularly discussed by third party sources and worthy of an article. I think there are a number of instances that are worthy of some discussion such as Order of the Garter and the VC, the Garter being the highest Honour in the British honours system and the VC being the highest decoration. Only two have them both I think, Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts and William Sidney, 1st Viscount De L'Isle. They are certainly interesting tidbits but I don't think they would hold an article. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"GovCom"

I understand you generally use this satirical nickname for the Arbitration Committee in community discussions; but for greater certainty, might I suggest you use the official name ("Arbitration Committee") or one of the more generally-accepted abbreviations/acronyms (ArbCom, AC, the committee) at the arbitration case pages? I am thinking mostly of those who are less familiar with the project - who may be confused when reading your statements, and wonder to which body you are referring. –xeno^talk 15:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that it's an indication on my views of the said body (and probably a more accurate description of what it does), but if you genuinely think it's likely to confuse somebody, I will endeavour to use approved terms. But the MMN case is a show trial, so I doubt I'll be participating much further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(Comment from case clerk) On the topic of the MMN case, I reverted your most recent change to the workshop. You are completely free to express your views, but please do so with less clamour. Thank you. Regards, AGK [•] 22:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would ask you to reconsider. I made no personal attack, I misrepresented nobody, and apart from swearing, did very little that's not in keeping with policy, guideline or procedure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote was too heated. I cannot allow the comment to stand, unless you were to remove the cursing and use less acrimony. In my view, you could make your point just as well with a more level-headed comment, although I do recognise the value of a well-timed loss of temper. We only accept reasoned, professional comments in arbitration proceedings - although the reality admittedly can be different. Perhaps you might not agree with me if you are still rather upset with Sandstein, but your remark was over-the-top. One with your abilities of rhetoric can surely make the point by other means. Regards, AGK [•] 23:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I find that to be a standard enforced about as consistently as WP:CIVIL, but I've wasted enough time on Sandstein's bollocks for tonight. I had hoped to finish an article. Btw, I'm a long way over 500 words in my evidence submission. If you or AD think it's far too long, I can collapse it, but defending myself against mud-slinging and presenting my own evidence is not easy to do in 500 words. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr Mitchell You Have Mail!

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--5 albert square (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it, my dear. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way I have sent you mail too a few days ago and you hadn't responsed.Thank you--Shrike (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Hi. I am sorry that my arbitration submissions seem to have caused you distress. I stand by what I have said – I think you should abandon your habit of undoing administrative actions (even where justified) without any prior consultation and you should not have assumed good faith based on apparent sympathy, given MickMacNee's record (I am all for second chances, but not for twentieth chances). But I did not intend to thereby denigrate your many merits and accomplishments as an administrator otherwise. Maybe we can try to accommodate our respective outlooks by collaborating on a mutually acceptable approach to the underlying problem – what rules should apply to unblocks? – at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Change to Unblocking section? Regards,  Sandstein  07:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Circumstances change fast

Circumstances change quickly on Wikipedia, it seems. I find myself having ever more sympathy towards your view of "GovCom". I'm off for a short wikibreak to recharge and won't be taking further part in the MickMacNee case. Either way, do know I have nothing against you for supporting Mick and merely presented my proposals as I saw the need to. Unfortunately the recent turn of events involving the said Committee in an unrelated issue have led me to be more in line with your view of it. Anyway, I'll see you around in a few weeks. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't support Mick (in fact the guy could do me a favour and turn up to defend himself, I'm feeling the heat from the spotlight at the minute), but that doesn't mean I support leaving him indef'd for no discernible reason. As for GovCom, we have an election in December. That should be interesting. Anyway, don't lose faith in WP over them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

no discernible reason ... surely you can't mean that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal for outstanding work on Mike Jackson, Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham and Tim Cross, all of which were promoted to A-class between March and June 2011. Congratulations! EyeSerenetalk 11:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

postman

Hi Harry, I sent you two emails, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

George Earth

Hiya! I was going to start an article on George Earth, formerly of World Entertainment War and Switchblade Symphony and a bunch of other bands, and now of Small Halo (which article I also plan to do). Lots of recordings, including the above and with Lunatics and Poets. He's notable and has a long (and continuing) musical heritage. I wasn't aware of the prior deletion, but I am now, and you are the admin that handled the deletion, so I thought I'd see if you can share any thoughts, help get me a copy of the original article, if that's possible (not really necessary), and point me in the right direction (besides a better referenced bio) to roll that ball. I plan to improve all of those associated articles in the process. Thanks! duff 07:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a PROD, so I can restore it if you really want, but it was a stub with 2 lines of prose. You'd be better off starting from scratch if he's notable, and not worrying about the deletion (since it was a PROD, it can just be re-created or restored on request). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd really prefer to start from scratch, actually, as I am not even absolutely sure this is the same person, having never seen the article. The artist I'm writing about is notable, so that aspect won't be problematic at all. Is there any way that I can look at the PROD article's content without having to restore it? duff 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you enabled Wikipedia email, I could email you the deleted content for you to look at. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Alrightie, cool, thank you, & done! duff 00:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Y'wanna come check it out, mercilessly? =D I've still much to add: more cites, especially AMG/Discogs credits/citations on all the music + the whole dealio on the comic book, the talk show, and the talk show band, all of which I plan to do shortly, but I threw it out there last night to see if it'll swim and maybe attract some other editors. More good suggestions are more than welcome. Thanks again for the really useful notes from the first version. Were there any especially involved editors on that version that I should thank for the draft & perhaps invite to help with the article's development? duff 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi HJ, I am giving you this custom-designed Don Quixote Barnstar for your courage in going against AN/I mob and undoing unfair block of MickMacNee, and for naming the things with their real names.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not entirely sure I deserve a barnstar for losing my temper and swearing a lot, but I'm grateful that you (and others, it seems) see some merit in what I said and don't just see me as the crazy guy in the corner ranting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

HJ, you only proved that you are human, and not a robot who acts only in accordance with policies. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Ebe123's talk page.
Message added 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You hoo, it was there for 3 days! ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Block of Fry1989

I'm not actually certain your block was of sufficient duration to hammer home to Fry1989 that editwarring is a problem. You may wish to note the history of his talkpage, and note what content he removes from it. I doubt his motives are malicious, but editwarring is a common theme here and he's just not getting it when people give him warnings. → ROUX ₪ 21:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I blocked the other guy for 24 hours as well. It is a problem, and thank you for bringing it to my attention that it's not a one-time thing (I'll keep an eye out), but I generally start off with 24 hours unless they're way over the 3RR. Sometimes a short block prompts an epiphany, sometimes it only postpones my headache for a day, so we'll see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fry is, honestly, cruising towards an indef at this point. My hope is that a longer block might provoke this epiphany as warnings and attempts at reasoned discussion (see also recently declined Arbcom case) have utterly failed to do so. → ROUX ₪ 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, if the block were going to do anything more than foricbly postpone the edit warring, it would happen regardless of the duration. Let's see how they deal with the 24 hours before we start thinking about anything more drastic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Belated •"Support"

Hi HJ,

I don't think we've always seen eye to eye; I've always found you reasonable, and the fact that your opinions seem to correlate roughly with mine about 90-95% of the time is probably why I find the 5-10% of the time that I disagree with you to be more frustrating than, say, when User:No sense saying anyone's name and I disagree.

Anyway, FWIW, I just saw the barnstar above, and was curious enough to look at your comment and action that spawned it. Hopefully it makes things slightly better to hear another "well done" from someone else who doesn't always agree with you. While I've tried to distance myself from the drama around here, I still want to say I applaud the unblock, the philosophy (at least as I interpret it) behind it, and your statement. I think it says something good about your character that you said what you said at the case page.

Unfortunately for you, I'm late (otherwise I'd have perhaps said something at the time), lazy (otherwise I'd try to create an "Appropriate Use of the Word Fuck" barnstar) and weary of stupidity (otherwise I might comment at ArbCom). But I'll at least come here and tip my hat to you, and remind you Illegitimi non carborundum. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We've maybe not always agreed with each other, and I know you thought I was daft for getting Diego unblocked, but I think we've always respected (most of) each other's decisions. ;) As I said to Mila, I'm not sure I deserve congratulations for losing my temper and saying "fuck" a lot, but it's nice to know that some people agree with at least some of the substance of what I said. Still, I doubt anything will come of it. GovCom will either make a scapegoat out of me to make a point, or we'll get the same kind of "we've sat and watched for two months while this gets even more acrimonious and let you all trash each other's reputations, but we're going to do sweet fuck all about it" as we did in WP:AESH. Do you remember when you were a newly minted admin and your biggest worry was blocking that vandal, without accidentally deleting the Main Page or something equally stupid? I remember mine, but it seems like such a long time ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember being much less jaded than I am now, yes. <snip; Very long post - that, in retrospect, was full of bitching and moaning and things that would have gotten me into trouble - deleted at the last minute, right before I hit "save page". That was close.... /snip> Chin up, Harry. It's just a truly ridiculous website. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I don't think I've ever said this, but about DG: you were right, and I was wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) He's a good guy, he just needed keeping on the straight and narrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey there HJ. I know you don't know me and all, but I just wanted to stop by and say hi. "HI" .. lol. I saw your post about Arbcom on Jimbo's page. And I've seen some of your recent stuff. I just wanted to stop by and say 1: Thanks for all you do here. But 2: Enjoy life my friend. I love this project too. It's a great and wonderful thing to be a part of. Don't let the things that are wrong get to you. Don't get upset about a webpage. Life is so very short - enjoy the good things. Cheers and best my friend. — Ched :  ?  15:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am stressed, because I feel like I'm on trial and I'm not allowed to defend myself because it's against The Rules™, except the rules are determined in secret and the person enforcing them is just doing what someone else told them to do. In secret. But you speak much sense, as usual, and I will try not to let it get to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

HJ: To follow up on the discussion on Jimbo's page. A) I asked the clerks to look at your post because yes, I understand you're stressed, but think of it this way, if Sandstein had responded the same way and things devolved into a free for all, do you think that anything useful would have come out of it? Decorum as part of an arbcase is more important specifically because things are so heated already. As for the evidence counts (words and diffs), I hope you noted that you weren't the only one who was notified that your evidence greatly exceeded the limits, and others removed their excess as well. Anyway, coming from one completely stressed out person to another, I hope you're dealing with the stress well. I sure ain't *grins ruefully* SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you do your best, Fozzie, and I perfectly understand the removal of my rant at Sandstein (though I don't get why it has to be done by secret instructions to clerks), but this does stress me, and I'm not handling it very well. Ranting and swearing at another editor is quite out of character for me. But I feel like this is a witch hunt, Sandstein is the Grand Inquisitor and ArbCom is the jury that's already made up its mind. The Committee and the clerks try to maintain decorum, but every time I look at the evidence page or the workshop, Sandstein is throwing yet more mud at my reputation in the hope that some of it will stick. Arbitration aside, human nature is to think "no smoke without fire", and the longer his allegations (which range from mistaken to unfounded) stand, the greater the damage to my reputation as an admin. And to an admin, reputation is everything. I consider Sandstein's "evidence" against me to be nothing more than a personal attack, but I can't refute it in 500 words and I see no arbitrator or clerk telling him to at the very least get his facts straight before trashing my reputation. And now he's calling me habitually disruptive on the workshop (and that's not even an attempt to disguise the personal attack) and I feel powerless to do anything about it or to question his conduct.

I have to put up with this for two months, and the worst part is that I don't have any confidence at all in the Committee to prevent him doing the same to the next admin who incurs his wrath (just as he did to Trusilver, and Dreadstar, and attempted to do to Scott Macdonald) until eventually he not only thinks he's untouchable, but he actually becomes untouchable because no admin will dare question him. So I'm stressed.

I'm worried about my reputation, I'm worried that the final dispute resolution body doesn't seem able to resolve a dispute, I'm worried that I'm the only person in this sorry saga who has attempted to act with honour and integrity and yet I'm the one who seems to be faring the worst out of this (apart from possibly Mick, but a ban with genuine moral authority behind it, might actually be a good thing). And I'm not handling it well, but that's not to say I don't think there's merit in my post at Jimbo's talk page (I think there are fundamental problems with ArbCom and arbitration and I hope a discussion of those might result in improvements). At least having a good reason to avoid the project space means I can get on with some content work. Anyway, thanks for stopping by, and sorry for the no-doubt-longer-than-anticipated reply. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

If it's any comfort to you, I'm also stressed. When I made my block, I tried to stop trouble, not prolong it, and I did not anticipate or wish to have to perform in another months-long arbitration spectacle in which I have about as much confidence as you, and also have no time for. I'm not trying to set myself up as an inquisitor, or as untouchable, but the point I'm trying to make is: we're both administrators. We ought to be on the same side here. That's why we ought to treat each other and our actions with some measure of respect and at least talk to each other before we knowingly get in each other's way.

So here's a proposal to save each other unneeded stress and allow the arbitrators to focus on the original issues of the case: I'll withdraw my evidence and workshop proposal concerning you in the ongoing case, and agree not to place indefinite blocks on people who are party to an ongoing arbitration case, even if they are in the process of filling the main page with penis images. You, on the other hand, agree that you'll talk to your fellow administrators before you undo their admin actions, if you have reason to believe that they might disagree with you doing so, and you agree that you'll not undo such actions as long as a community discussion is ongoing that could still reach a consensus to endorse the action with which you disagree. Does that sound sensible to you? (If not, and you do not want me to post here, please tell me so, and I'll respect that.)  Sandstein  21:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable, and it's more satisfactory to both of us than I think we'll get from ArbCom (and I really can't be doing with another 7 weeks of this either). Fine, I'll agree not to make potentially controversial reversals of admin actions (but reserve the right to make completely uncontroversial ones) if we can both air our dirty laundry somewhere less public.

In a few weeks, I'd like to chat with you about some of the things we raised in our evidence submissions, but I'm still a bit too angry to do it without shouting and swearing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I'll withdraw the arbitration material now with a reference to this discussion (please tell me if you think I should make any changes to the wording I'm using to do so), and I'll be at your service to discuss these issues further as soon as you wish to.  Sandstein  21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be in touch when I've cooled down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Have some cookies!

--5 albert square (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS account

Hi, can you help me with this situation? I have uploaded this image and the image owner has sent the email to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and he said someone reply to him that he doesn't have to send the permission for verification. I have notified a user with an OTRS account before but he/she maybe too busy. Can you help me with this? You are like the third person I'm asking help. T_T SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 21:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I need the ticket number. Without that, it nigh on impossible to find the email, and literally impossible without more details (especially if it's already been replied to, because then it won;t be in the queue). Without a ticket number, it's a bit like looking for a really tiny needle amongst millions of haystacks. Unless you know who answered the original email? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to ask the user to send the email again, this time if the user has send the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I'll inform you straight away. Here's his email <redacted> . SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Get him to put "Harry Mitchell" somewhere in the title. Then hopefully someone will send it to me. And please don't post other people's email addresses on-wiki! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to email you, but when I tried to reply there, I read the notifications that better notify you here. But my bad, I overlooked the third rule. Hu3!! SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:NBA Draft template list

Can you add the 2011 NBA Draft to this? Thanks, Jrcla2 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reduce it to semi-protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee evidence

This communication is in my capacity as the clerk assigned to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. The maximum limit on evidence is 500 words and 50 diffs, but your evidence runs to over 2000 words. Please immediately reduce the length of your evidence. If you cannot, or are unable to, do so within 24 hours, a clerk will summarily redact or remove your evidence. Thank you. Regards, AGK [•] 23:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you're doing your job, but this is bollocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I really do understand your frustration, and, for whatever it's worth, I think your compromise with Sandstein was the best outcome. I hope things are well at your end, and that the case (and the project in general) aren't making you too stressed: volunteers should never have to endure stress. Best, AGK [•] 22:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(P.S.) I read some of your evidence before I posted this. May I begin calling you Mitchell…? </gallowshumour> AGK [•] 22:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, mate, I appreciate you stopping by. I'm a lot less stressed now I don't have two months of bickering and mud-slinging ahead of me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Romani language

Thanks for the 3 weeks. RashersTierney (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Skillet (band)

I don't know that it's necessary to lock the Skillet (band) article down because of a few random changes in genre first by an editor who didn't explain why Christian should not be used and the second by a registered editor who wants the world to see more goth. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly "locked down", it's semi-protected for a couple of weeks, and not just because of the genre changes of today—there are clearly problems with unsourced material and vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey HJ,

Hey HJ,

I was wondering whether you could userfy List of deaths related to Scientology so that I can review it for evidence in a ongoing WP:RFC/U? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if/when you're done so I can move it back and re-delete it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Done with it thank you for the help. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Email address

HJ, there was an email address on User talk:HJ Mitchell/Alternate that I redacted, but you might want to delete it. Mojoworker (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition

Hi

I noticed one of your pointers in the Harrier review was for "In addition," to always include a comma. Can you please point me to somewhere where this is mentioned in MoS or similar (if possible a ref to one of the published manuals of style would be great)?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Love Club

Hello again, HJ Mitchell. I hope it's not a bother, but I have another request for a PROD deleted article, this time one that you did not delete; however the deleting admin User:Kungfuadam, appears to be inactive at this time (though I have left a message for him), so I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction to peek at a copy of this article too: 07:45, December 23, 2006 Kungfuadam (talk | contribs) deleted "Loveclub" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 17 Dec 06) If there's a more general place for such requests, I'll make note of it so as not to disturb your work this way again. Thanks once more, duff 00:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There's not much there. Do you want me to email it to you or do you want the article restored? There is a noticeboard, WP:REFUND, but I don't mind dealing with requests like these (it's only two clicks to peek at the deleted content and another to restore it if need be). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I put up an article yesterday with sources, Love Club, so just an email would be great. I just want to see if it's the same topic & if it is, whether there's anything there to add. Thanks so much for your help. duff 16:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--5 albert square (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

DrKiernan

Hi, HJ Mitchell. I'd like to ask you a favor. Could you make DrKiernan stay away from me? Now he is arguing with another editor in my FAC nomination and I don't want him to turn it into a mess. I told you before in my talk page that it is he the one who comes after me, never the contrary, but unfortunately, it seems that you didn't believe. Here are a few helpful links to understand what happened: [4], [5], [6] and [7].

I don't want him blocked or punished in anyway. All I want is to have him far away from me. Since he has no interest in the subject of the articles which I usually write (except when the purpose is to harass me), I believe it won't hurt him. I would be very glad if you could help me, Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

HJ, I saw Lecen's post earlier today through this link,[8] which is my home page. I have spent some time in drafting a response.

I have nominated and reviewed articles at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for many years. I first encountered Lecen when he nominated Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, in August 2010. I reviewed the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná/archive1. The review seemed to go very well.

As a result of that initial contact, Lecen asked me to review Pedro II of Brazil,[9] José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco,[10] and Empire of Brazil.[11] I did not. There were problems with the latter nomination.[12][13]

At the same time as the Empire of Brazil FAC, Lecen nominated Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. I reviewed the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1 but initially chose not to support because I was uncomfortable with the translations. After a lengthy discussion on the FAC page and my talk I eventually did support.

The problems between us really began during the next nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil/archive1. The article did not meet the criteria, because of inappropriate translation, and so I opposed. Lecen broke 3RR: User talk:Lecen/Archive 8. Relevant discussions are [14], User:The ed17/Archives/39#Ok, now I'm getting scared, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive50#My thoughts on the FAC process and User talk:Dank/Archive 19#Maria Amélia of Brazil.

As you know, the problems continued with the next nomination. The article suffered from the same inappropriate translation, and so I opposed. There was an edit war which resulted in you blocking us: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive161#User:Lecen reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24h each). Lecen refused to accept he had done anything wrong and accused me of harassment, e.g. User talk:Lecen/Archive 9#June 2011, even though it was obvious I was coming to the articles through watching FAC not through stalking him. He directly stated that he disliked me [15].

Essentially, Lecen regularly asks people who support a nomination to return and review the next one. For example, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil/archive1 Ruby2010, Paliano, Gyrobo, The Ed17 and Paulista supported, and they were invited to the next nomination (Afonso, Prince of Brazil), e.g. Ruby2010, Paliano, Gyrobo, and Paulista01. Whereas Stifle, Nikkimaria, Dank and I opposed, and we were not invited to comment.[16][17][18][19] This pattern of behavior has resulted in his nominations becoming increasingly beset by problems because the articles do not meet the criteria but are supported anyway. Then, one of the regular reviewers will realise that the article has problems and opposes. That's when things turn nasty. Usually, this will happen well into the review, however, on this occasion I saw the nomination, suspected the article would have problems (correctly), made an admittedly cack-handed attempt to correct the article, and declared early with the ensuing results. All this has been compounded by language difficulties and misunderstandings.

I would like Lecen to understand two things: (1) that there is no personal animosity from my side, and (2) that I am coming to the articles through watching the WP:FAC page and regular editing not through watching him. His concerns over harassment or stalking are unfounded. I have assumed good faith in believing that his behavior in approaching favorable editors is due to unfamiliarity with the canvassing policy. I would be grateful if he could reciprocate and assume good faith on my part. DrKiernan (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't argue about DrKiernan's remembrances of when our "relationship" began or of my "method" of inviting possible reviewers. I believe it would only make this thread unreadable. I won't even give my opinion of him because I also believe it would be unhelpful. As you suggested, I asked for a RfC about the discussion over names translations (although I have to disagree with him with what he said above about "inappropriate translation". If you doubt, ask any Brazilian Wikipedian, then!). However, I reconsidered and realized that I was losing precious time with something that wasn't important at all. Thus, I removed the names' translations from both articles. I thought that this measure would please him and keep him far alway from me. Unfortunately, that did not happen and he started arguing with another reviewer in my FAC. The last thing I would want is a discussion between two editors in my FAC, because this would certainly scare other possible reviewers. Since the "language translation" debate is over, I have no idea to why DrKiernan is still hanging around. I don't know if he wants to provoke me or something else, but I believe he should leave me alone. That's all I ask. --Lecen (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone accuses me of being impolite or of harassment, then I am clearly going to respond in order to set the record straight and attempt a rapprochement. DrKiernan (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Placeholder so the bot doesn't archive this. I will get to it, but not right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ULAS J1120+0641 on ITN

Hi HJ. Could you take a look at ITN/C? ULAS J1120+0641 is ready for posting (use the blurb I added at the bottom of the discussion), as is the Jiaozhou Bay Bridge. Modest Genius ^talk 10:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tone sorted them both. Modest Genius ^talk 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wimbledon ITN

Please have a look at the Wimbledon ITN again. Maybe its good to go. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerned about something

I was telling this guy about his misuse of rollback on one of my edits. Can you weigh in on this? Because I believe as you've always told me, you cannot use rollback for anything but vandalism. • GunMetal Angel 20:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Navy blue84's talk page.
Message added 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--NavyBlue84 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

STL

Could you give your opinion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#STL_arrest_warrants? It has been sitting there without much attention. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)