User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 40

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

→

The return of the "His favourite team is" editor

Hi HJ. It looks like our IP hopping [1] - "Colm Meaney's team is..." editor has returned with the change in the calendar. Edit protecting the page may be in order. Would you like me to wait and/or report it to the appropriate spot or would you like to take care of it when you get a chance? Let me add my kudos to you for the work at UAA. MarnetteD | Talk 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh! Not that again! Semi'd for three weeks. Hopefully that'll give him something better to do! Thanks for the kudos. It was pretty tedious, but it needed to be done and there were a few other great editors working on it at the same time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh is the right word for it. Thanks for the quick action it will give us a breather for awhile. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

heads up

i promised to avoid the article, but i just read something in the news so im posting on the talk page alone not the article.

Sticking to my promise,ill only edit once off itn.(Lihaas (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).

ive reverted as obvious vandalism from the ip (and possible sock of the other editor).

Ive also mentioned this on talk page to show his edit summary had nothing to do with the edit.(Lihaas (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).

page move

when is a good time to accept a move (Nubile) for lack of opposition (and hence uncontrovesial)Lihaas (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

re User Kante4

Hi Harry. May I ask you for some clarification re your removal of my talk from Kante4's talk page, and your rebuke on my own page? I like to be constructive, and obviously don't like to fall foul of admins - esp. ones with so many barnstars of appreciation.

You see, to me, supplying Edit Summaries (ESs) is being constructive. You're right of course that they are not mandatory (nor have I ever demanded them using that word). I expect you know all the following: that the Twinkle Single Issue Notice uw-2 supports the use of ESs, as do some standard Welcome messages, and the guideline Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary suggests it's good practice always to supply them, and there's the TOTD for February 9 which says "If you make anything other than a wp:minor edit to an article, it helps others if you fill in the edit summary.", and indeed there's Ad 2 which says "ESs are there for a reason: use them.".

Now, if a casual editor doesn't use ESs, that may may cause only a small no. of edits to be checked by edit-patrollers. However, well-established editors making over 24,000 edits may cause a much greater overhead to other editors. Should the established editors be 'above the law'? Are warnings to them just considered a nuisance to their chalking up their next 1,000 edits? You'll say it's not the law - yes, but the spirit is the same - we ask all editors to be thoughtful & help other editors, don't we?

So, to me, asking an editor to supply ESs seems constructive - after all, they can always put their own case back to me if they disagree. However, all Kante4 has done is to pretend to forget. Yes, I always assume AGF, but 24,000 edits suggests one should think otherwise. And that editor can't even be bothered to use the wp:minor flag. So, methinks it's more a case of Wonte than Kante.

This is why I still thought that sending an occasional (normally polite) reminder was constructive - certainly to date the editor has not objected himself to me per se (one can ask oneself why not).

So, why is it more constructive to always turn the other cheek, & just ignore an unhelpful (if prolific) editor? I prefer to see good practice followed and a good example set (I'm sure admins do too) - or at least a reason put forward by the editor concerned as to why he feels he's a special case, rather than me walk away. Is that wrong of me?

Please reply here if you would, & I'll watch out. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I personally have my preferences set to remind me when I don't leave an edit summary, so my edit summary usage is somewhere around 99% and while they are good practice and helpful, they're not mandatory (maybe they should be), so it's not reasonable to expect every editor to use them—I know several admins who rarely use edit summaries but have written fantastic articles and have many tens of thousands of edits. Leaving the same template for the same editor every few weeks, as it seems you've done for quite a while, is not particularly helpful, nor are comments like this. They got themselves into a spot of bother and evidently lost their cool, which got them a short block, so they should be left to cool down rather than berated for not using edit summaries. If you must continually take it up with them, you could at least do it in a non-template fashion. I apologise for the rebuke on your talk apge, which was probably a bit sterner than it needed to be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It's refreshing to hear you say you set your preferences to remind you re ESs. I do myself, of course, and can think of no good reason not to. Indeed, I've twice reminded Kante4 that such a facility exists.

It's also good to know you also regard ESs as good practice and helpful. Other reactions from editors might be:

"I didn't know about ESs."

Our answer: that's fine, you're a new editor. Please try to supply them. Happy editing.

"They're not mandatory." We answer: No, but they're good practice & helpful. You wouldn't want to wilfully follow bad practice &/or be unhelpful, would you?
"I write fantastic articles.". Well, that's great - so you should be well up to providing a short edit summary.
"I've got tens of thousands of edits.". That's fine, but surely you don't want to cut corners, sacrificing quality for quantity?
"I'm an admin." Then you must be (or have been) doing many things well. But you're not above following consensus. Quite the opposite - we look to you to be - if not exemplary - then at least appearing to follow the spirit of good practice & helpfulness. After all, you should be prepared - and will be expected - to encourage it and where applicable enforce it, so you above all of us should be seen to be setting a good example.

But it's good to see that you don't go along with those counter-ES arguments. Trafford09 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I believe edit summaries are important, but that's just my opinion. It's OK to encourage people gently every now and again to use them, but it's not mandatory and there's nothing we can do about it if they don't want to. Besides, not every edit with a summary is a good edit (even vandals have been known to use edit summaries) and many edits without edit summaries are perfectly good, so it's not a useful criterion for measuring whether an edit is likely to be vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue at all with those last points. I've added a 'bowing out' reply on my talk page. Thanks for your time, and sorry to have taken up more of it than I should. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Making edits "invisible"

Hi, HJ. Long time no talk... Happy New Year. Can you clarify a bit what kinds of comments or edit summaries qualify for suppression of visibility? The question right now is driven by this edit, but it's something I've wondered about a few times in the past as well. Thnx. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that one certainly seems to fit RD2. I tend to use RD2 for any gross BLP violation and other stuff that's more disgusting than just normal vandalism. It can also be used for copyright violations, potentially harmful links and a few other stuff, but it's not supposed to be used on "routine" crap. That's RevDel. More serious stuff, like outing cna be kicked up to oversight for suppression. Happy new year to you, as well, my friend! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My gut feeling was that it qualified, but like "terrorist"/"freedom fighter", one person's "grossly offensive" may be another's "barnyard childishness" (and yet another's "hilariously funny"). And unfortunately, the nature of the beast is such that one can't go look at prior redactions to gauge the type of material generally covered. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on GTBacchus' page

To me the whole discussion seemed to be Malleus baiting GTBacchus, with Malleus putting words into GTBacchus' mouth, in a rapidly escalating way. Please read it again and reconsider, in the light of Malleus' subsequent remarks on ANI (kiddo, etc), whether the unilateral block without any form of warning was appropriate. There was fault on both sides. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks like a bit of back and forth tit for tat incivility and then GTB unfortunately seems to lose it and makes a series of remarks that are not at all pleasant. There is no need for remarks like "You're dishonest, and emotionally a child." HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't make another admin overturn your block. There's a strong consensus at ANI that the block was too hasty. Just do the right thing yourself. I've been an admin for over three years, walked to hell and back during that time, and somehow survived. One of the keys is backing down quickly when in error. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 03:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. I can;t help but wonder whether the block would be overturned so quickly if a non-admin made such a comment to someone other than Malleus, but it's a moot point now. I was actually going to unblock on the grounds that it was causing more drama than it was preventing when I was beaten to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, I'm not upset with you over blocking me, but there's something I think I should point out. You blocked me for calling him a child. (The dishonesty was clearly substantiated with examples - pointing out bald-faced lies is not ad hominem.) In the discussion of the block, he called me a child twice, and called me dishonest once, and that was nothing? Since then, he's called me a dog twice. Even-handedness is awesome, and I see a lack of it. If you're going to block one person in a dispute, then it sends a pretty mixed signal if you let the other party slide for precisely the same behavior. Do you see where I'm coming from? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR

OK, but, it is my understanding that 3 reverts is not an "allowance". It was very contentious dealing with the editor in question. Had I simply re-reverted up to "my allowance", the situation would be no better (and posting a note on his talk page didn't stimulate him to discussion, either. Looking at his talk page, he's said previously he reserves the right to ignore warnings). Speaking of no better, the maintenance tag on the article has been removed, yet it is no better, either.

Thanks for your Admin'ing. Best wishes, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He's ony made one revert today and that was the first in days if we're talking about the same report. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking in the history, two reverts prior, then a break. Presumably, he was off-wiki during the interim. Regardless, my point is only that following "the process" (undoing his revert once, adding a warning to his talk page to stimulate dialogue, then not re-reverting again, but adding more commentary to talk pages) only irritated the other editor (apparently, based on his replies) but didn't solve the problem. The article still lacks a needed tag, but gosh forbid I put it back on, or it will be reverted in a flash by the other editor. So, I'll drop it from my watchlist, and the article will remain unreferenced. Meanwhile, "Etiquette" and all of the process on Wiki in that regards remains unenforced. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if it had come to my attention when there was an active edit war, I might have been able to do something, but there's nothing I can do at the minute. The only useful things I could do that you can't are block him, which isn't an option because he hasn't been reverting for days or protect the page, which also isn't an option because there's not enough disruption to jsutify shutting everyone out of the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said, I was trying to avoid an edit war (and did, I believe, as it takes two, or more, to "war", and I refused to go down that path). What I got in return for my effort to play it straight, follow the process, and be polite was nothing - the article wrongly had its template removed (and I don't dare replace it), and I got a lot of unpleasant notes from an unfriendly editor. That editor, however, has learned that being impolite (in all the ways defined in policy on wiki) has no consequences (see his talk page for examples, as well as the history on mine), and that the rules regarding removal of maintenance templates don't apply to him because he doesn't like them. All in all, not good for the project, in my opinion.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss with me. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This particular user does seem to get involved in disputes over trivialities. He had an edit war on iPad over a watermark header and refused to accept that a discussion had taken place because it wasn't about the exact thing he changed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen edit wars over much more trivial things. Like the placement of a comma, for example! I have to say, it's not really the end of the world if the article doesn't have a tag on it, though I understand that it can be frustrating when it feels like the other party is gaming the system. If they continue down the path of edit warring and incivility, I'll weigh in and ask him to play nice (they shouldn't, but people seem to give warnings from admins more weight). Then we can look at blocking if he continues to refuse to play nicely. Out of interest, has anyone really tried to engage him on is talk page (not just leaving warnings)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried engaging him on my talk page (in response to a very leading set of comments from him, and likewise on the article talk page and on his talk page. I couldn't get him to be WP:CIVIL no matter how neutral I remained:

He wouldn't restrict the discussion to one place, but placed comments on all three, repeatedly
He got angry, among other reasons apparently, when I overlooked a comment he placed on one of the three, suggesting we were 'all talked out' (I just missed it - 3 places is hard to track) and began hassling me in earnest. He then overlooked multiple suggestions on my part that we "agree to disagree" and move on, apparently because I had overlooked that comment of his.
His incivility on my talk page escalated to the point that I undid a comment of his, which he repeated on his own talk page (his right).
He ignored it when I asked him to stop posting to my talk page (but feel free to do so on his or the article's), and began posting accusations of me being a censor on my talk page. He even ignored my hat/hab template. (Trying to be fair, I then copied the comments I erased from my talk page, and pasted them to his, along with a note that I wasn't trying to provike him, but to address his concern of censoring, and he should feel free to delete them if he liked).
After more than one "poke" by him, he finally stopped editing my talk page.

I did try - valiantly, in my opinion. He seemed to revel in the dispute, as opposed to trying to have a constructive result. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell, it wasn't his editing, but his baiting (like described by Joe) and his refusal to accept that the issue was under discussion that was particularly annoying. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you checking the files?

You recently deleted File:Alicenk Kizkulesi.jpg under F4, but was tagged for lacking evidence of permission (F11). F4 and F11 are not interchangeable. Please make sure to check every file before doing mass deletions like this. I noticed more administrators have moved into this area, but I'm concerned that these files are being deleted outright without them all being checked that concerns were addressed, if they were even tagged properly or are being deleted for the proper reason. — ξ ^xplicit 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am checking them. I'm just using Twinkle to skip through each image. That one would be a human mistake, not an automated one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

That is a really funny tag at the top of your user page. I copied it and will make a deviously satirical copy on my user page. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

m:Meetup/London/41

Thanks a bundle for your RfA support; I'll give a better thank-you when/if I pass :P. Just a note that the date for the meet has been confirmed as the 9th; hope to see you there! Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. You'll make a damn fine admin, and 114 of our esteemed colleagues seem to agree with me! You can buy me a pint at the meetup! I saw the date was confirmed a while a go, I've got my train ticket, so I'll be there. I don't suppose you're around on the evening of the 8th? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am, as it happens; another Wikipedian and I are going to be playing around with a camera in central London. Quis? Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm heading in on the train on the Saturday. Don;t suppose you'd fancy meeting in a pub or something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You make me ~~jealous I live in the US~~ you live in the UK and I don't :P, grrr, I wish I could come...Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(wp:TPS to Tofutwitch11): In case you didn't know, there are meetups worldwide. Trafford09 (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There's going to be a meetup of all the Bigwigs in Raleigh, NC come August which you are welcome to attend. Interpret "bigwigs" literally; last time I turned up in the conventional English set of court robes, including a powdered, 90 year old horsehair wig. Ironholds (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me! Drop me an email and we'll sort the details. Cheers, Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand there is worldwide meet ups, but I wish I could go to the London one :P Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

See User talk:Cheers!-bot. Since it's flagged as a bot elsewhere, I've unblocked this account. Courcelles 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Block rqst for 72.66.110.50

Just a FYI - I've left a note at WP:AIV, about the school block request for 72.66.110.50. After looking up the whois, it's a Jewish Day school, so that could explain why the editing was done on xmas eve. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sent you an email about admin issue

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.— Verapar (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard Mackay (Yardbirds Historian)

I don't know what you mean about there not being anything at that page, but if you open the comments directly below the video, the entire article is right there. Corvus cornix_talk 00:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When I went to that URL, there was nothing there. I'll have another look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, it worked the second time, but I can't see the text of the article on there anywhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It got deleted. But if you go to the link, it's under the video, you have to open the uploader's text. Corvus cornix_talk 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Super late reply

[2] I remember the vandal IP address that you blocked and I do recall you commenting on it. I felt like replying but I misplaced it...and now that I found it months later and it might be outdated, I find it necessary to reply, just so you know. NHRHS2010 | Happy Holidays! 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was nearly five months ago! How on earth did you find that again? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely looking deeply through my contributions and using advanced search. NHRHS2010 | Happy Holidays! 00:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AWB request

Hello HJ! I have an AWB request here. However, the administrator who handled the request is hesitant to grant me AWB privileges. HJ, I will not be angry if I don't get AWB privileges, but it would be nice to know whether you think I'm mature enough to handle this tool properly. Thanks in advance. Hey Mid (contribs) 14:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you want to do with it? If you have a few tasks that you want to do or backlogs you want to help with or something, I don't see any compelling reason no to grant it, but make sure you're familiar with al the rules—for example, you shouldn't make just cosmetic changes or changes that have no effect on the output and you shouldn't edit ridiculously quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ. I'll let them decide. Cheers, Hey Mid (contribs) 15:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick help. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Just make sure you check with User:GorillaWarfare before moving it back to mainspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I did leave him/her a courtesy note, but didn't check before moving it. It appears to be a well-established, long-standing religious charity in the US with plenty of sources, and I can't spend time discussing the why's of deletion with a notable organization. If there had been any question of notability or problems with the article, I would have handled it otherwise, but as a straight A7 I can't imagine that GorillaWarfare will take issue with the restoration. Again, thanks for the help. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

I'm not sure I explained that all of User:Quimbc's actions were vandalism. Not sure how many warnings are needed to block a vandalism-only account. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

At the time I declined the AIV report, their talk page was still a red link. Personally, I think four warnings is three chances too many, but generally they have to have had at least one serious warning (level 3 or 4) and have vandalised after that to be blocked. I make exceptions for really gross BLP violations, attack pages and similar, but generally, I'd give a level one, then a level 4 if they keep it up, then block them (or report to AIV in the case of a non-admin). They have now been warned it seems, but they haven't edited since then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding King of the Hill edit

Hi, you removed my question without you answering. I figure this was since the question was not at the bottom of your page. I do understand that this is 4 months after the audit reverted being placed, but I figured I would still ask my question.

This is about a revert in regards to the "Bobby Hill" (King of the Hill) edit - Bobby's nickname edit that I placed. It has been removed and I am trying to find out as to why. The nickname is a valuable/constructive information which was directly stated in the "Torch Song Hillogy" episode during Season 6 of the show (so therefore it is correct/real information). If we are going to post the character's middle name, we might as well include the nickname too. If nicknames are not allowed in articles, we might as well remove "Jack" and/or "JFK" from John F. Kennedy's page since that was his nickname as well.

- robohoe (talk) 12:57,05 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles on people (real or fictional) generally have their full name and, if that's not the name they're commonly known by, the nickname they're most commonly known by, in the lead section. Other nicknames might have their pace in the body of the article, but you should raise it on the talk page to sort out where it belongs. Sorry if your message disappeared before I got it last time—a bot archives everything on this page once it's 36 hours old. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring--out of scope

[[:File:Scopelogo.jpg|thumb|right|130px|Are you really out of scope?]] In regards to this comment: HJ, thanks. I had already tried my luck at ANI, but there were few takers--who wants to stick their nose in this mess? In the meantime, Knowitall is temporarily blocked for socking--but how do I keep the article clean? I have already put way too much time and energy in it... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, sorry 'bout the unfair use... Drmies (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah it seems you've been on something of a wild goose chase. I've indef'd him for edit warring, socking and being an SPA, since it doesn;t seem they have any intention of doing anything useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That goose maybe wasn't so wild after all, after it turned out that the two wild geese were one and the same. I saw that the editor tried to make an unblock request but formatted in an improper manner (I think?). I left a note there for the next administrator who considers it (in which, I see now, I'm pretty much making the same case as you are). Now, it seems that the article is in calmer waters. I will keep my eye on it (on a goth band--sheesh!) to see if any suspicious IP edits start happening, in which case--you know what I'm going to say--I might ask for semi-protection. HJ, thanks: I think it's a good block. I hate indef-blocks, but sometimes they are necessary. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Knowitall seems to be using their talk page to either make suggestions or simply say that the article is wrong. I don't know if they want to be helpful or if they want to edit by proxy--the latest edit consists of information that was removed from the article because most of it was unverified; it became one single referenced item in the discography. Anyway, is it appropriate use of the talk page for a blocked user? I'm asking also because it turns that talk page into something of a mess. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted prod on Axis of Eve

Just wanted to let you know that I undeleted Axis of Eve, which you'd previously deleted as a prod, since the deletion was contested. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was ages ago. No wonder the name didn't ring a bell. Thanks for the note. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for lifting the autoblock. I'm on the only school Computer with Mozilla Firefox and I need it for the javascript tools I use, and it's just my luck that someone would have vandalized with this computer.-- Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. The autoblock is great, but it can be a pain when it causes collateral damage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:El Muñeco Shakes It Up, Baby pagemove

Hi HJ, I just noticed a pagemove that El Muneco had done of an article that had a fair use image, where he had forgotten to update the rationale. I was going to remind him to check for that when doing pagemoves, but his talkpage suggested talking to you first. Anyway, it's no big deal, just a gentle reminder, but here I am anyway. So, er, HJ, will you ask El Muñeco if he would like to be careful for those? (I feel so 14 again.) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

asks innocently* What did I do now? Diego Grez (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Diego has his own talk page, y'know. ;) Regardless, Diego, watch out for fair use images when doing page moves (one less mess for an admin to clean up later). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume he informed you about this because you are Diego's mentor. Hey Mid (contribs) 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do HJ :P They probably came here, Heymid, because I still have a "huge box" that says people should yell at HJ first :P Diego Grez (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re edits of EllipseUK (talk · contribs) a.k.a. JoeEUK (talk · contribs)

Hi,

I listed the former of the above users at WP:UAA earlier today, to which you responded and the listing has now been removed with no further action being taken. Please note that the name change from EllipseUK to JoeEUK took place in October 2010, however EllipseUK created the spam article Ellipse insurance only today. I don't know if it is normal to block the old name in the case of a username change, however in this case I feel it should be blocked because it goes against Wikipedia's policies and is still being used to create spam. -- role^player 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It was used to create spam four months ago. There's no point blocking it now and I didn't remove it from UAA, so whomever did obviously agrees with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Great to see you around always

Hi HJ:):) I've replied on my talk page and on Supertechguy's talk page. Best. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you my dear HJ Mitchell, I am very happy by getting this reviewer post. I hope you will further helping me.--—just feel it^(talk) 06:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Shamrock Rovers

Hi HJ. Many thanks for your help in semi-protecting Shamrock Rovers F.C. yesterday. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that consensus has now been reached on the dispute affecting this page and I've gone ahead and unprotected it. Best regards, Bettia (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the note. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

RfPP clerking

Hello! How does that "semi-auto-clerking" work? How do you do so? Hey Mid (contribs) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Rami_R/rfppClerk.js is the script I use. Add it to your /skin.js and when you edit RfPP (the whole page, not a section), you get a little button (I don;t know where it is in Vector, it's in the toolbox on the side in Monobook) called "RfPP clerk". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, does it actually clerk? Or does it only provide an edit summary? (which means that I have to manually do the actual clerk) Hey Mid (contribs) 16:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It actually does the clerking. It'll only do it when there's a certain number of requests to clerk, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Page protection?

HJ, as a preventative action, you might want to consider semi-protecting your user page – the nowiki vandal is back. Hey Mid (contribs) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that guy's persistent! I'll protect it if it gets bad, but he's usually blocked and reverted within a few minutes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Revdel

This looks sufficient to revdel under GRD2. Perseus, Son of Zeus 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This, too. Perseus, Son of Zeus 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

Dear Sir, I want to get help by you. Please tell me the way of reviewing articles, I read the wikipedia reviewing article but I don't understand. I hope you will help me in making me a good reviewer. I will be thankful to you.--—just feel it^(talk) 09:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be obvious, but I think what's being referred to is Wikipedia:Reviewing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: your reply

Re your reply yesterday (that is some fast archiving!) the point I was making is that the original username is obviously still in use and didn't get the point of why their name wasn't appropriate. If any more evidence were needed yesterday the old username posted this to another admin's talk page. Fine if no action is necessary, I'd just like some assurance that the isue is being watched, that's all.

PS the spam article was created two days ago, not four months ago. -- role^player 16:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Frank Habineza

Maybe you could take a look at the history on this one. Habinef (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing sourced material. Given the politics of Rwanda, and the nature of the source The New Times (Rwanda), he may have some justification. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RFA

Hello HJ. Sorry to bug you again. But I would like to ask you whether you think I'm ready now? Since your last comment, I have considerably changed my wikiself; my editing areas, attitude, (as well as my signature and userpage!). I have also been nominated (and succeeded) as an administrator on Commons, during this period. I quite frequently deal with images (and other maintenance tasks), and could really use a few extra tools to speed things up. Reh man 08:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rehman, calm down. You last asked as recently as in November last year, so it's been just two months since that. I don't have my opinion either way whether you'd pass an RFA now, but if I were you, I would try an RFA six months after I felt I was ready. I do believe that if other users think you're ready for the mop, they would nominate you, though we've had several successful self-nominations in the past years (though I do believe most sysops have been nominated by other users than themselves). Don't feel like having an obsession of getting the mop; many admins believe that being an admin is not a "big deal". Hey Mid (contribs) 10:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Heymid. I think you got me wrong, I do not want the flag for any "obsession of getting the mop" (no offence meant there). It's just that I quite frequently deal with tasks that could have been done much faster if I had the tools. My previous RFA was back in mid-July, and these notices on this talkpage is just me personally asking HJ (the person who closed my last RFA), if I am ready for the next... Reh man 10:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Hey Mid (contribs) 10:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of small ideas: "a few more tools would get the job done faster" is a poor reasoning for becoming an admin. Have you amassed 7500 edits since your last RFA? Do you feel that you have addressed the major and minor concerns since your last RFA? Has any admin come to you and said "I think you're ready" as opposed to you asking one? Since your last RFA, is there even one single "blight", or a significant number of minor glitches? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins. This thread is not the basis of any future RfA; "a few more tools would get the job done faster" is in no way my reasoning for RfA. You may find my reasoning at my past RfAs. This thread is simply me personally asking HJ (the person who closed my last RFA), if I am ready for the next RfA. Of course, all user comments on how I can improve myself can be directed to this page :) Reh man 13:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You could always take this to email if you don't like my stalkers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay :) Reh man 03:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Reh man 03:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(This conversation is rather funny with hindsight from my point of view) Reham, what admin related areas do you wish to partake in? Is there anything in particular? What improvements have you made since November? These are things that I look for in an RFA. (If you do run, I wish you the best of luck but I'd have to study your contribs and actions before I made a decision !vote-wise) All the best,--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) I have improved in the sense that I have increased my participation in CSDs and deletion areas such as FFD, TFD and RFD. I intend to take part mainly in areas relating to maintenance, as I am doing at Commons. You are most welcome to study my edits and help me on. We could discuss this further at my talkpage or here if you are interested. Kind regards. Reh man 03:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all over

The restrictions were lifted HJ! :D I can't believe it, it's been so... long until this finally happened. Anyway, even though you don't have to do it, I'll come here and annoy you on any problem I'll have (hehe, just kidding). Thank you, and Xeno, who has also helped me, and the people who commented in this final discussion! Diego Grez (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like...

you've got mail. :) - JuneGloom Talk 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My Name?

Mr. Mitchell who would i talk to about a name change? K.O.K Kev (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CHU. Your friendly talk page stalker, d m z 02:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Response waiting for you at Gimme Danger's RfA

Here :) Hi HJ! Best wishes. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Template messup...

Apparently, {{unblock-spamun reviewed}} did not include an accept parameter (wasn't available at that time), but it does include a default decline parameter which is not included in {{unblock-un reviewed}}. Hey Mid (contribs) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So I see. The latter seemed the closest to what I wanted. The accept parameter is fairly new. We used to have to use {{unblock accepted}}, which didn't include a parameter for the request reason. I suppose whoever added it to {{unblock reviewed}} etc overlooked the (little-used) unblock-spamun reviewed. I'm useless with templates, so I don't know how to fix it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected the template to {{unblock-un reviewed}}; all administrators are supposed to provide a rationale when declining or accepting an unblock request. Using a default decline or accept rationale if the reviewing administrator forgot to enter in that is unnecessary IMO. Hey Mid (contribs) 18:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they produce the same thing, minus the default decline, so that should be fine. It's the first time I've ever accepted an unblock-spamun and I'm a semi-regular patroller of CAT:RFU, so I don't think it's a heavily-used template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocking conflict

Aargh. Sorry about that, regarding User:64.235.102.2. Wikipedia really needs a way to notify admins if a blocking conflict has occurred. You and I were working on blocks at the same time. If you want to re-extend to 1000 days, I won't interfere. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, seven hundred and something will keep them out of our hair for a bit and if I meet them again, I might indef them and to hell with IPBLENGTH. No doubt I'll be even more cynical after another two years as an admin than I am after 8 months! I was about to leave you a note on something similar... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's funny cos its true ...

Well, I laughed. Great move. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad someone laughed! Drive-by {{cleanup}} taggings are one of my pet peeves and generally about as useful as a chocolate teapot. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi HJ Mitchell, I sincerely appreciate the unblock. I don't take you as an idiot and I won't make you look like one by blowing my second chance either! One question: Would you mind removing the blocked tag from my userpage? Many thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. We could all do with a second chance every once in a while and I really hope you don't blow this one, because you were quite lucky to get this one and another would be a near miracle. I've reverted your userpage back to the last version before the tag was added. It's still in the history, but you have a userpage now! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter manager

Hi HJ, my (talk page stalker)ness highlighted that you've just made yourself an edit filter manager; is this a particularly tightly-controlled userright due to its potential for abuse, and reserved primarily to sysops? I hadn't considered it until recently, but from what I understand edit filters work on the basis of regular expressions, and the userbox on my page isn't joking when it says "This user uses regular expressions to find everything around the house" ;) do you think I could be of use? I note that WP:Edit filter seems to indicate that the right may be granted to non-admins with community consensus (as opposed to admin discretion as with most of the others), but I'm not sure if that actually happens often in practice. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your career as an edit filter manager was short but fruitful(?) I see. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was considering tweaking the personal attacks filter after this evening's 4chan (I assume) vandal spree, but then decided to leave it to those more qualified and removed it because I don't trust myself with it! ;) Even admins aren't granted it by default (though they can just add it themselves) and there has only been a handful of non-admin EFMs, several of whom are now admins. It's very tightly controlled, not because many people would abuse it, but a typo in a filter or a good faith error of judgement can make a serious mess, so it's restricted to people competent enough to deal with it (which excludes me, I've decided, though in theory includes every admin). I think you'd probably be better off going to RfA (you should, btw, I think it's time to start pestering you about it), but if you want just the EFM (and the pestering from me!), you have to make a request at WT:EF and there'll be a discussion over a few days, like an RfA, but with fewer participants, so you might as well go to RfA rather than having two hell weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been considering RFA for a little while, but everytime I consider it I seem to become involved in some sort of messy dispute again. Nothing where I'm at all embarrassed about my handling of the disputes, but in the little experience I've had of the RFA process, I get the feeling I'd be judged harshly regardless. Perhaps it's nearly time to bite the bullet and hope the community recognises that a couple of minor disputes I've had aren't representative of my ability to use the tools fairly. I think I'd better put the latest incident behind me first though. Hope you enjoy the userbox by the way ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'd support you if you went to RfA, I've seen you around a bit and everywhere you seem rather helpful :p Of course, I'd have to look through your contribs and talk page first, but as far as I can tell right now, you'd be a good candidate. I suggest letting HJ Nominate you ;) d m z 00:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You got my support as well, but do it soon, I don't watch the RFA ~~mess~~ page any more so might miss it otherwise :). --Errant ^(chat!) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I trust you and I'd probably support too, but I have to worry that there are a lot of people who would never support a candidate who's only been active for 7 months. I've been wrong a lot about RfA, but I still would be cautious if I were in your position now. Regarding the edit filter, I think that the discussions for edit filter manager rights don't really deserve to be called "hell week", as they are mostly very quiet since only a few people even watch that page. —Soap— 00:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for the encouragement; I certainly wouldn't reject a nomination; I operate in a lot of areas where the tools would be useful to my work and to the project. I've heard some unpleasant rumours about the RfA process but ultimately I have to trust the community to make the right decision and hope that the occasional user I've had issues with previously can see past individual disputes as well. @Soap: I'm hoping the time I've been active will be less important than other factors, but either way I'll take your advice into consideration. I'm somewhat on the fence about my chances, but to be honest I think I can be trusted with it and can put it to good use, so if ultimately my relatively short period of activity thus far is insufficient for the community, perhaps they'll reconsider later. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're in a funny position, really. I would be lying if I said I expected to see WP:200 in unanimous support, but you're hardly in a position where it would be speedy closed. As long as you give the skeletons a bit of an airing in Q3, rather than waiting for someone to dig them up to prevent them suffocating, I think you'd have a good chance. It may be that it ends up as no consensus as Lear's Fool's very nearly did (and, indeed, Connormah 2, one of my nominations), but even if it does and you've been through the stress for nothing, you will have a clearer idea of the expectations to which you're not living up and so you'll be in a better position for a second attempt a few months down the line. I certainly think you're in good-enough standing that you'll command a respectable number and percentage of supports. I also think there is a need for more admins, particularly at UAA, where we often disagree, but where you certainly know what you're doing. That said, in my opinion, anyone who fully understands what admins do and still wants to do it should be welcomed with open arms! One last bit of food for thought: Courcelles (under his previous username) got over WP:100 and not a single oppose and he had only 6 or 7 months' experience and most of his edit count was courtesy of Huggle (not that that's a bad thing and why people at RfA think Huggle is evil just defeats me). If you want to go for it, and I think you should, I'd be more than happy to nominate and you've already got the support of three upstanding members of the community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks HJ; I definitely intended to air out the skeletons of my own accord as you put it. There's nothing I'm particularly ashamed of, and I doubt any long-time contributor can honestly say they've never gotten into a heated discussion with another user on wikipedia. In any case I'm not going to be disheartened if I fail, since as you said, the worst case scenario is it'll give me an idea of how to improve my contributions and pass a future RFA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem people have with Huggle (from my limited experience reading RfA pages) is that it amasses a large amount of edits in a short amount of time, and often people who use Huggle/other tools like it don't add any or much content, which some people believe is necessary for an admin. Personally, I believe as long as they help the community and can be trusted with the tools they should get them, but should be reasonably well-established. One thing stopping me from thinking I'd come close to passing an RfA is that I haven't exactly done much in the way of content - I've done a little bit in AfC, less in AfD, and some new page patrolling but I haven't created or contributed majorly to any articles. (Along with that, I haven't been around enough and I still don't feel I'm ready for the tools, but this isn't about me :p) But in general, so long as you've been around a while and are trusted enough by enough people, you should pass, or at least come close. In your case, I think you'd probably pass since you do quite a bit of work in the areas you'd be involved in anyway, and IMO new page patrolling shows the same understanding of content policies as writing articles does. Anyway, if you do go, give me a shout and I'll probably !vote in support of you :) d m z 01:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the encouragement; it's 2am here and I'm off to bed now, but if you still feel I'd make a good candidate, HJ, feel free to nominate me when you're ready. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- You make it sound like you have a choice! ;) You are, however, correct it's (gone) 2am and sleep is a valuable commodity, especially after a rather hectic few days in London! I'll do something about bluelinking your RfA in the morning (morning: noun: the time between HJ waking up and HJ wondering what he should have for lunch; not necessarily before midday.). ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Hi, I wonder if you can delete <redacted>, as both the edit and the edit summary are obscene. Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary's gone, because that's just unnecessary. The content is just trivial vandalism. Revert and warn as normal. I redacted the link and diff from here just to deter rubbernecking. RevDel requests should generally be handled by email, because a lot of people watch this talk page, just for future reference. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't totally sure of the procedure for handling something like this. I know for the future now. –CWenger (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail about a sock case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the RFA nomination, but some of the comments made by various users have led me to reevaluate my place in the community. I suspect that these views barely scraped the surface, and my contributions overall haven't been as constructive as I led myself to believe. Hopefully the good I have done will ultimately benefit the project. Thanks again. Giftiger wunsch (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Giftiger wunsch, you have done much good within this project, and do not ever think that you have not. RFA is a hellish type of place, however, the comments some opposes used rightfully offended you, and would have done so to me as well. I do not, what-so-ever, and I think HJ thinks the same, think that you are a net-negative to the community. I cannot force you to stay, nor can I post on your talk page (as you have shut it down) but if you do read this message, please re-consider coming back. Thanks. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Very nice HJ. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel very nice. I should have seen that coming. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel bad, HJ. Nobody expected this to happen. d m z 02:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, your comments on his talkpage were very kind. Lovetinkle (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cheer up, HJ! Like you've said yourself, we all screw up (a lucky few have even gotten to break the wiki

). I agree with dmz, and remember: no one can fault you for doing what you thought was right. :) --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody? I don't think so. Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

At least I can't. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Judging from his indentation, I think Malleus was responding to dmz's comment, but regardless, he's right. I fucked up and now some poor bloke's lasting memory of ten months as a Wikipedian is being told he's a net negative to the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that's what I was alluding to. I've thought for some time that RfA nominators ought to have a duty of care towards their nominees in the currently hostile climate. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

They should, and I've undoubtedly failed in mine, with the consequence that Wikipedia has lost a contributor who is flawed, but no more so than the rest of us. I know from experience that RfA can be tough on one's emotions and I'm sure your own RfAs weren't pleasant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

They weren't, and afterwards I felt much like I imagine GW does now. To be honest, I still do. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well misery likes company, as the saying goes. ;) I can't say I blame you. My first RfA still haunts me and that was fairly amicable for a no-hope RfA. I don't think even a hardened masochist would enjoy having every mistake or grievance aired so publicly as if it were a form of ritual humiliation. Thus, we end up with ill-fated RfAs like GW's that crash and burn quite spectacularly and many editors who would make good administrators unwilling to go through that. I've often thought, and occasionally remarked privately, that there's a stark difference between being a good administrator and being a good RfA candidate. I personally think you would be a damn good admin. The patience required for copy-editing comes in handy for clearing the tedious backlogs, but the longer RfA makes adminship some kind of demi-god position, the more perfection is demanded of candidates, when what we need is a few imperfect people spending a few hours a day behind the scenes to keep the cogs turning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel so bad, HJ. He may come back eventually, and he'll look back on this RfA and learn from it. Sadly, I can't understand how hard an RfA actually is, but it must be really hard on a person to have their entire editing career scrutinized. GW had it pretty bad though, the majority was good but people were (sometimes quite harshly) pointing out the small things. I know that sounds like RfA in general, but it was to a more extreme degree. Anyway, don't be so hard on yourself. On another note, I've changed my signature since it's proven in this thread to be more confusing than I would have liked :p (I did like my old one, but this one isn't too bad) demize (t · c) 03:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do feel bad, I let the bloke down when I should have seen that that RfA was going to be a shitstorm. Trust me, RfA is a hell hole and if you never go through an RfA, you should be grateful. My second attempt (hard to believe it was eight months ago) finished at 86% (it would have been unprecedented to close it as anything other than successful) and it was still draining. It's worse than any job interview I've been to I've been to quite a few. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was planning on !voting on the RFA myself yesterday, but the RFA never turned live before I shut down my computer, and it was live for just 90 minutes before it was withdrawn by the candidate. Personally I would've supported Giftiger wunsch in the RFA. I hope Giftiger wunsch decides to come back, though. Hey Mid (contribs) 15:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination criteria

Hi HJ, I know what it feels like to nominate someone who then gets rejected, but I think my nomination criteria are now getting closer to the communities expectations at RFA. Feel free to read and critique User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria, perhaps we can compare notes. One thing I have learned is to have higher standards for nomination than for support. Many people who I'm happy to support would struggle at RFA, and I'm trying to hone my nomination criteria to those who I think would make good admins and who I think can get through RFA. For example I'm happy to assess, and if I like what I see, support candidates with as little as 6 months tenure. But I won't nominate people with less than twelve months tenure as I know they'll get opposes for lack of experience. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)