User talk:HJ Mitchell

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.

Rick Perry: Electoral History on Perry's wikipedia page

HJ Mitchell, I tried to add a website from Our Campaigns to the 2002 Texas Gubernatorial Election link on Rick Perry's wikipedia page, but it got messed up and I tried fixing it back to where it was last month.

Confirmation

Hi again, HJ Mitchell. I may have misunderstood you, but last week (Wednesday the 27th I think), you said you were planning to copyedit Grey's Anatomy around the weekend (of June 30). It has now been a week since the weekend you were referring to, and I was just looking for clarification. I am aware that you said you were not definite about copyediting it, so I am writing to see if you still plan on getting to it, or if I should search for a different editor. I hope you can still do it, TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm travelling right now. It will be the 18th at the earliest before I can look at the article. I won't turn you away, but I wouldn't be offended if you asked somebody else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting, if you can get to it around the 18th. Likewise, can you confirm that you will definitely get to the article? Also, just a reminder of what I'm concerned with: comma usage, MOS:LQ issues, run-ons, and awkward wording. Also, I don't know if I mentioned this but it's written in American English; hope that's okay! Cheers, TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC) (actually posted on 11th; but bot keeps archiving)

Jerry Sandusky

Good evening.

I have a question for you. I was browsing through Sandusky's logs and saw that you had blocked several things for grossly offensive material. I'm curious as whether or not it was related with what turned out to be his downfall.

Thanks 65.128.24.55 (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

those situations are usually someone making personal commentary that is inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Was a pleasure meeting you! --IShadowed 22:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania Barnstar

	Wikimania Barnstar
	It was great to meet you at Wikimania 2012! --evrik (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

• Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair

• News and notes: WMF enacts reforms at Wikimania; main page redesign; 4 millionth article milestone

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• Wikimania: Young chapter shows experience beyond its years

• Featured content: Taking flight

• Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June

• Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Disguising your opinions as a grammatical correction

[1] You are welcome to voice your opinion or to comment on the proposed decision on the talk page of the proposed decision. But do not change the content of the proposed decision: are you certain that there were allegations involving only one particular named individual? That notice is on the page for a reason. If you do not agree with the wording of a proposal on the page, go to the talk page and raise your concern. Risker (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Much as I enjoyed talking to you at Wikimania, Risker, that was a really fucking ignorant revert. Almost as bloody stupid as lynching someone for being the victim of harassment because it's easier than dealing with the real issue. My edit was perfectly justified and the revert served no purpose but to protect the committee's collective undue sense of self importance. Your wording suggests there are accusations made about Commons admins. But alas, bureaucracy prevails and arbs' egos are preserved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

HJ, it was an entirely appropriate revert, and your edit (and particularly your edit summary) was inappropriate. Do you know for a fact that there are no allegations against Commons admins, or are you just speculating here? Is there a reason why you had to publish your overall opinion of the case on a page that you very clearly are NOT supposed to edit? There's a great big talk page there waiting for you to add either your opinion on the case overall, or your concerns about the wording of that particular proposal. Go for it, let's talk about it there. This is your only warning, in keeping with the case rules (see here. The next one gets you blocked, admin or no. Your personal feelings on the matter don't justify this behaviour. Risker (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice use of an intensifier there HJ Mitchell, lucky that you're an administrator. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus; now why do I get the feeling I'm going to become you in 30 years or so? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been working recently on a High Court Judge, who despite all my initial prejudices I've actually come to rather admire for his uncompromising attitude to what he saw as right and wrong. All any of us can do is what we believe to be right and bugger the consequences. So if that's what you meant by becoming me in 30 years or so then I'd say bring it on. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely someone of your experience would know better than to revert a useful edit because the edit summary offended you? The sentence as it is is ambiguous at best and you would be able to see that if you weren't too busy putting me in my place. As for the merits of the case, I have better things to do (like write an encyclopaedia) than express an opinion which the committee would doubtless ignore. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

HJ, you are probably correct that the sentence is ambiguous - but you don't know what the actual intent was, and have made an assumption. Why do you think you personally have the right to determine what someone else meant there, and to be insulting about it while you were at it? Let's put it this way: if that edit was made by someone that nobody "knew", that editor would be blocked and possibly banned by now. Risker (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, contempt of ArbCom was not a bannable offence so please stop making vague allusions. If you're quite finished putting me in my place, kindly reinstate my edit or tell me I'm wrong. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not you're wrong, because I am familiar enough with the case to know that either could be correct (there were indeed concerns expressed about the Commons admins, whose actions are of course outside of Enwp Arbcom's jurisdiction). So I have asked the original author, who I believe is AFK at the moment. Risker (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept that apology any time, Risker. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You may not know that Fae somewhere in those great walls of words said they preferred the gender-free plural "them" to "him". I don't know if that is why it is being used here, but it does demonstrate how confusing the "singular they" can be. Bielle (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, your assumption that the Arbitration Committee would automatically ignore your (or any editor's) opinion regarding a pending case is mistaken. As it happens, the Committee has probably changed the outcome of an important remedy in another case today based in part on soundly reasoned community input, and I've just edited a proposal I made based on talkpage input as well. While ultimately each of the arbitrators uses his or her own best judgment, we all consider valid input from all sources, certainly including the thoughts of experienced editors such as yourself.

As for your specific edit to the Fae proposed decision page, let's put it this way. Editors other than the arbitrators (and sometimes the clerks) are asked not to edit the proposed decision page except for obvious, indisputable typos and grammatical errors. Since someone is disputing the change you made, by definition it's not indisputable. Therefore, please provide your input on the talkpage instead. That's all that should need to be said about this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

With respect, Brad, that's bollocks. The committee has no more respect for me than I have for it. Your second point is almost spot on, however, which is why the current sloppy wording remains. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to barge onto your talk page, HJ Mitchell. I'm confused. If ArbCom will listen to community input, will they look at information that has not been highlighted as of now? I thought that if any information became available after the evidence phase closed, it was worthless. Is that not how it works? NewtonGeek (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

HJ, you might not agree with the case or the finding, but arbitration cases would be chaotic if everyone felt they could tweak and change things at will. Risker was right to say that the talk page of the proposed decision was the best place to raise the matter. If you feel as strongly as your edit summary suggests, you really should make a public statement on the proposed decision talk page. It does actually help arbitrators to see statements like that, rather than expressed in edit summaries. Though if you feel that strongly, it might be best to ask someone else to look at any statement first before you post it. You should probably disclose any WM-UK affiliations as well. And I should probably say at this stage that I've also met Risker, Brad, and you in real life (as well as several others at various meet-ups). I've not had a chance to talk to Fae much in person (though he was at several events as well), but there should be ways to de-escalate this rather than escalate matters and end up with lots of bad feelings. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

About Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Some_comments_for_ArbCom_to_ignore

While I understand that you may be upset, please kindly remember that we should all try to be civil, even when we are upset.

Therefore I ask you, as an Arbitration Clerk, to change the intensifiers currently in use in that post. That's all I ask, as you can see, the conversations on the PD talk page can get out of hand in a heartbeat, and we rather prefer people to remain calm, whenever possible. Thank you for understanding. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No. There are no personal attacks in there, and nothing that is untrue. If my language offend you, I suggest you ignore it or grow a thicker skin instead of coming here and patronising me. A clerk you may be but that doesn't mean I can't attempt to stop ArbCom from making a disastrous decision (not that I expect they'll pay much attention), using whichever words I choose to get my point across and to make clear my strength of feeling. Oh, and if an arb put you up to this, tell them to grow a pair. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said anything about the content or the context of your post. I am trying to make sure that the conversation threads can remain civil and not spiraling out of control. While I understand that you're upset, please work with me, okay? If I were trying to patronize you, I would have been more stern (and my tone of voice would have been different than what I wrote above). That was not my intention. And no, no arbitrator put me up to this - if an arbitrator requested us to make sure the comments are made in a civil way, the tone of the notification would have been much, much different, and you would know the difference. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbortion article titles

Hi HJ. Have you got any thoughts on the latest thread here? Progress seems to have stalled but I wonder if there's anything we can do to help move things along. EyeSerene^talk 07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the proposal is worth considering, except for the risk that the articles remain there by default or due to stonewalling by those that favour those titles. Though at the current rate of progress, there's as much risk they'll end up languishing at the current titles, which everyone hates.

I suppose there are two things we can do. We could a) enact the proposal and move the articles to less-hated titles until we have a consensus to move them elsewhere, or b) really push the discussion forward, which probably means drafting the skeleton of the second phase ourselves and then inviting comments on the structure of the page before opening it up for discussion of the issues. My preference is for b, though they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's my preference too. I think we could certainly be more robust in facilitating the debate without crossing the line of WP:INVOLVED. EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)