User talk:HJ Mitchell: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:06, 31 October 2010

This page is currently protected due to vandalism. If you cannot edit this page but wish to leave me a message, you may post on this page instead.

Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

E-mail

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Hey Mid (contributions) 21:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of dubstep musicians

Thanks again for the 21 day break, but as predicted, 21 days has past and the anonymous IP are right back to adding in more non-notable artists. Would you like to reset the protection? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Semi-protected again. May as well add to the rather well-populated list of admins that have protected that article for basically the same reason... ~ mazca ^talk 23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mazca. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Halloween

(talk page stalker) Twice you've beaten me on reverts today! How are you? --5 albert square (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween

Puffin has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

Puffin ^{Lets talk!} 13:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween to both of you, as well! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 14:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get prepared! I've got a bunch of eggs ready to be thrown at the windows of your house ;-) Happy Halloween. --Diego Grez (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My house is thousands of miles away from you! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Some cyber-Halloween eggs for you then ;-) Diego Grez (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

Hi. I would appreciate your input on http://admintools.wikia.com/wiki/Admin_Tools_Wiki:Requests_for_rights/Heymid - thanks! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 14:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for the rollback rights. I promise to use them well. Matthewrbowker (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick

HJ, it is an established practice to impose editing restrictions on editors as an alterative to a block. If Mick would only cut down on the walls of text at AfD and DRV, coupled with the incivility that goes with it, then I'm sure his comments would carry a bit more weight. He is his own worst enemy here, as has been said by many editors. Contrary to what he says, I'm not out to eliminate him, nor to ban him completely from AfD and DRV. IMHO, he just needs to be reined in a bit for a while. As I said, I'm open to the restrictions being lifted over time should they be imposed. The alternative is that Mick stays indefinitely blocked. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. However, the problem is not in the replying to every reply. Even if it were, don't reply and the problem is solved. The problem is the incivility and the confrontational nature of the replies. If the replies were kept respectful and civil, there wouldn't (at least in my view) be an issue. It's for the closer to separate the wheat from the chaff and the vast majority of AfD closers are experienced in doing so. I don't, by any means, condone the confrontational nature of Mick's posts in multiple AfDs, but restricting the number of posts he can make is not the way to go. Your thoughts? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What alternatives are there? A complete civility restriction, or a complete prohibition on filing AfDs and DRVs, and participation therein. You'll note that I've not even mentioned a civility restriction in what I propose. Mick, is an editor that is of "fiery" temperament. We have to learn to deal with such characters in RL, and so we do on Wikipedia. It's just a question of being realistic here and accepting what we are dealing with. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we could come up with a workable, enforceable civility restriction of some sort, I think that would solve much of the problem. The problem is not the number of posts he makes to any given AfD, but the manner in which he contributes to the discussion. After all, when two editors disagree over the notability of something as strongly as you and Mick do over plane and train crashes, they should be allowed to discuss it. Civilly. Do you feel there would still be a problem if he were to challenge others' opinions in a less aggressive/confrontational/uncivil manner? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, adherence to WP:CIVIL would be a big step forwards. By that, I mean no swearing, no inferring that other editors are idiots because (according to Mick) they do not understand a certain guideline, essay or policy. Question is, would Mick agree to it, and is it something attainable? Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get Mick to work together on determining some editing restrictions ... to no avail so far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MJ: Adherence to CIV is something we should aim for, but not something we should expect to happen overnight. Swearing is not, in and of itself, uncivil, though. There's a big difference between telling someone to, say, "fuck off" and, say, "what the fuck does that have to do with anything". The former is obviously unacceptable, the latter, while not the best way to express oneself, is more than likely just an expression of frustration. Questioning another's understanding of a policy/guideline/essay is also not necessarily uncivil, though inferring one is an idiot because of said understanding very much is.

@BW: Give him time. He's still focusing on the validity of the block which is, frankly, slightly shaky, but hopefully he'll come to terms with the validity of the block itself being beside the point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor (and one who doesn't give a flying fuck about swearing) this edit summary is pretty rude - even if the post beforehand was a little WP:POINTy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little? Hopefully there won't be a repeat of that now that the editor who was baiting him is blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Color

Template:Color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I notice this page has an insane number of transclusions (30K+). Can you point me to the ANI discussion, because I'm otherwise heavily inclined to full protect it; notice, e.g., Template:Red (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#HJ_Mitchell_mass_fully_protecting_templates. If you feel it should be protected, then protect it. That's my understanding of WP:HRT, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MIckmacnee

Care to explain why you just undid my protection without a hint of discusison?--Scott Mac 21:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree I was coming to ask the same question. Mo ainm~Talk 22:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you just cut off a blocked editor when the issue was better dealt with in another manner—ie blocking the editor blatantly engaging in blatant baiting and disruption. My intention is not to step on any toes, but to give Mick at least half a chance to get himself unblocked. With respect, he can't do that while his talk page is protected and he was being egregiously provoked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who noticed the blocked editor's talk page access was revoked prior to Scott's protection, anyway? Courcelles 22:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, undoing an admin action without a hint of discussion is disruptive and likely to get you desysopped. I only preformed the action minutes ago, my talk page was open to discuss it. I've taken the matter to ANI.--Scott Mac 22:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 ::Because you just cut off a blocked editor when the issue was better dealt with in another manner{{mdash}}ie blocking the editor blatantly engaging in blatant baiting and disruption. My intention is not to step on any toes, but to give Mick at least half a chance to get himself unblocked. With respect, he can't do that while his talk page is protected and he was being egregiously provoked. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]]  22:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 :::Am I the only one who noticed the blocked editor's talk page access was revoked ''prior'' to Scott's protection, anyway? [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
+:::With respect, undoing an admin action without a hint of discussion is disruptive and likely to get you desysopped. I only preformed the action minutes ago, my talk page was open to discuss it. I've taken the matter to ANI.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 22:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)