User talk:HJ Mitchell

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.

Re

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

Discussion

I'm scared you'll block me forever for being too young to edit Wikipedia so I'm keeping my age secret. Please help the discussion. I am currently on a 1 year Wikibreak because I'm scared to look at my own talk page. Please help and I'll check back my page tomorrow and decide weather to carry on editing for the next year. The discussion is too adult for me and I can't understand it properly. Also, talking like this in really good grammar is hard and annoying me. Puffin ^{Lets talk!} 09:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Thanks! - «CharlieEchoTango» 16:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the permissions! I will not abuse them! ~Darth Starbo 17:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I also just requested rollback, so if you could approve that that would be nice :) ~Darth Starbo 17:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Be careful and enjoy! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!

Darth Stabro has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

~Darth Starbo 17:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For the semi-protection, it is difficult to get through to this editor. Surprisingly Ronda2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not evade the one week block after his first attempt at block evasion, he did immediately revert back to his version with his first edit back. Could you possibly warn him about the discretionary sanctions in the ARBPIA case please? I am assuming that he will not be reverting more than once per 24 hours, but if he continues to make the edit every day and a bit (or greater) there does not seem to be any actionable remedy I could take to arbitration enforcement unless he has been warned of discretionary sanctions. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem on the semi. I'm glad Ronda didn't evade their block again. I've left them the template and logged it in case there are future problems that need to go to AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I call your attention to this exchange where I offer conciliatory gestures, attempt to resolve disputes amicably and even voluntarily restrict myself to 1rr so that I won't have any tactical advantage against someone who harbors different views. If you still think I was "going after his throat" and gaming, do as you please. PS, I'm sorry for posting here but I wanted to make sure you saw it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And just one more thing. He was blocked 8 or 9 times and has been subjected to numerous topic bans, article bans, interaction bans and revert restrictions. I was blocked just 3 times with no topic bans or other restrictions. I think that concepts of progressive discipline should be the metric when deciding to impose sanctions. I'll not bother you further. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that whenever you and I interact, it always revolves around ARBPIA, my friend? That was an admirable move on your part, I have to say. My issue (or rather the issue currently under discussion at AE) is the manner in which you seem to have made the edit that you're seeking sanctions against Nableezy for reverting. From where I (and, it seems a couple of other admins) are sitting, it looks like you deliberately waited until Nableezy was prohibited by the 1RR from reverting your edit to make it, which would be an attempt to game the system and to use AE as a means to eliminate an opponent from a content dispute. Regardless of whether or not that's what you intended, you have to see that that's how it looks from the point of view of an uninvolved admin. If the timing was pure coincidence, then I would suggest you say that at AE and, if the consensus is to give you the benefit of the doubt (I would be inclined to if you say it was a coincidence, but others might not), you might not get as severe-a-sanction, but I do see some sort of restriction heading both your way and Nableezy's way. AE seems to be taking an increasingly hard line on ARBPIA, I would think because we're all sick of the daily tendentiousness and bloody-mindedness. I've nothing against you and Nableezy, you both seem decent guys, but you don't half seem to rub each other up the wrong way!

As for your last point, for transparency reasons, it's better if we keep that kind of discussion on WP:AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that sophisticated that I would conjure up something like that, "waiting for an opponent to make a revert so I can make one." My mind doesn't go in that direction. I'll try to post at AE but I'm afraid it will get lost in the multitude of yapping--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll take your word for it, per AGF and since nobody has provided a diff to show that this is typical of you. I'll make a note in the uninvolved admins' section to say that you say the timing was a coincidence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

HJ, I think the issue here goes well beyond the one revert. I've posted an explanation in this edit to AE. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AE on Gilabrand

Hi, I'd like to let you know that a few similar AE on other users were closed after users reverted themselves. Please see here for example. Gila does not edit on weekends. Could you please wait until she comes back, to give her opportunity to revert herself? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Self reverting wouldn't solve the problem. It's not as if this is a simple 1RR breach. I counted three or four occasions on just a quick scan of her contributions where she has reverted an edit and provided no rationale on the talk page, as she is required to do within 30 minutes of the revert until February next year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The block itself and the duration of the block is wrong, as is the timing. I suggest you unblock Gilabrand now and at least give her opportunity to respond to AE. Why were you in such a hurry anyway?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply stating that it's wrong doesn't make it so. I'm not in a hurry, it's just a clear cut matter. She's under a restriction that requires her to discuss all reverts and she failed to do so on multiple occasions, I'm afraid it's that simple. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not all reverts, only those that are in the area of conflict between Arabs and Israel. In some of the reverts she made she reverted vandalism. For example Dead Sea never ever belonged to Palestinians and that's why it simply cannot be occupied territory. So she reverted vandalism. This edit has nothing to do with conflict because it was made in a general article about Kibbutz. Arabs have nothing to do with a general article about Kibbutz.Iran-Israel relations does not belong to the area of conflict. Iran is not an Arab state and so on. In any case Gilabrand should have been given an opportunity to respond. It is that's why AE requires to notify the editor.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to put Iran-Israel relations in that box, but even leaving out, I assume the reason you've neglected to mention SD's diff at AE is because you can't defend it. If she wants to appeal the block, then she can request someone do the paperwork for her at AE via {{unblock}} or {{adminhelp}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith? No, it was not the reason I left out SD's difference. Honestly I did not even look at it closely, but a few differences of alleged violations less should make a difference at least in the duration of the block. We both know how hard it is to appeal AE block. IMO you should have waited until Gilabrand responds. Anyway, I said what I had to say, and I am not going to take your time any longer. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If she doesn't want to go through the bureaucracy of an AE appeal, she's welcome to email me or request a TPS bring something to my attention. I'm not trying to be unreasonable and will certainly consider any appeals on their merits, but it's a clear violation of a restriction, as admirable as I'm sure Gila's other contributions are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• What Mbz1 says above is incorrect, the Dead Sea borders the West bank in the northwest, see this map: [1], and then we have the revert I brought up. Also the topic ban does not say that she only has to discuss Arab-Israeli reverts, it just says that she must discuss her reverts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that, being an ARBPIA sanction, the restriction applies to articles in that "area of conflict". However, respectfully SD, I fear your presence, as the editor who filed the AE request, in this thread may only serve to fan the flames, even if your intentions are to defuse things. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but either way she violated her topic ban as she reverted articles within the Arab-Israeli conflict at both the Dead sea and the one I brought up without discussing it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec):So what Dead Sea borders West Bank? It is not an occupied territory. Period. Oh yes, her topic ban concerning only her reverts in Arab Israeli conflict. Please re-read it as many times as you need until you understand it before making false claims. It very clearly states is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict --Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy-JJ case

In case you missed it.[2] Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that JJG's conduct is not being overlooked (the discussion half an hour ago was about topic-banning him for 2 months). I'll make a more detailed reply at AE when I get a moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled rant

Ok, Deleting MyTalk User page was very childish of you. It wasn't advertising because the page was pretty much hidden from everyone.It was for my own personal use. It wasn't an article or anything like that. It was a bloody My own little space!! I can suggest you read up on what Advertising really is! It was very unprofessional and uncalled for. To the point, I am considering deleting all my submissions from wiki. All because of your little childish stunt. I don't know what else to say to you without staying civilized.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitri1999 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Skarmee

Hi Harry. It's probably none of my business, but perhaps a large number of creations is not always indicative of the quality inside them. These kind of stubs do not encourage me when I am doing the totally thankless task of clearing up the hundreds of daily new pages at the bottom of the NPP list :) Cheers;--Kudpung (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if the stubs are on notable subjects and don't have obvious major problems, there's not much I can do. If they're obviously very poor articles (ie not just short articles) or have serious policy concerns, then maybe I'll think about taking the automajigga thing off of them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

move - groove

Hi Harry, help me out, will you delete this redirect because after a discussion on talk I want to move the article to the redirect title and I can't do it because the redirect seems to require deleting first here - If you like you can also move the article and the talkpage over...Rob - Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Gone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A cookie

Giftiger wunsch has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

...for ending this nonsense just as it became clear I wasn't going to be able to break up the schoolyard bickering. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well of all the things to bicker about on ANI! Anybody would think that board isn't long enough already with frivolous complaints and inactionable reports. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ; I was contemplating simply marking it as resolved or wrong venue from the start, but I thought I'd at least take a stab at getting them to agree to drop it first. Not entirely surprised I was unsuccessful, but at least I tried :) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• [3] Just so that you are aware of the peripheral effects of your thread closure (with which I fully agree, by the way). ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  That's the best use of rollback I've seen all day. What did I tell you the other week about poking bears? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I can quite see that politely requesting someone to agree to a mutual interaction ceasefire is poking a bear. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  related - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  ...as is my reply... ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I undid your hatting of a discussion at ANI as I found a guideline that I believed showed the original complaint not to be frivolous, and made comments to that pov. I also noted the history of the individuals talkpage included a sanction on another editor for disregarding - after a warning - such a request previously. Since I have also noted Treasury Tag of my findings you may consider it appropriate to re-hat the discussion (perhaps with an amended commentary?); I certainly have no objection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Perhaps people will take the opportunity to discuss it like adults. If not, I'll re-hat it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the rename

Hi. Thanks for renaming the 'student protests' article. One day I'll probably get around to figuring it out for myself, but this old dog only learns new tricks slowly... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I had to delete the redirect because a bot had come along and fixed it, so I thought I might as well move the article at the same time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 20:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just out of curiosity...

Hi! I see you deleted Faye waddle, an article I recently CSD-tagged. But I tagged it per A7; was I wrong, or were there edits made since then that pushed it into G10 territory? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 22:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It was an unsourced article about a (presumably) living person that seemed to be making negative claims about its subject and looked like it was created to disparage that person, so that pushed it into the realm of G10. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Awaiting oversight, but that'd be good, yeah. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi, I would be most grateful for your advice regarding a somewhat circular discussion which I have been having at Template talk:Telecommunications industry in the United Kingdom. Essentially an IP editor (with a dynamic address) has been querying both the inclusion of a 'Suppliers' section in the template, and the companies included in that section. The IP has at times accepted the Suppliers section in principle, but is insistent upon third-party sources describing the companies as 'telecommunications suppliers' or something similar.

This seems unreasonable to me, since the web sites of the companies concerned contain ample information about the nature of the companies' core activities and products/services. The IP contends that this does not satisfy Verifiability Policy, since the information is 'Unduly self-serving'. Do they have a point? My view on this is that information describing the core activities of a company and the nature - not the quality, efficacy, reliability or value - of its main products and services is not 'unduly self-serving', but is a simple description of fact. I would be most grateful for your take on this however. Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested article

Hi there, I've requested the article Deuces (song) up for semi-protection. ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:[MY] userpage

Thank you HJ, but I like it unprotected (even if it is moved-vandalized one day). Feel free temporary semi-protecting it when vandalism is excessive, random, 4chan or I end here, which I hope it take alot of years. More comments at my talkpage (which I think you are watching) Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 04:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting

Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:

• Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
• 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
• Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Block

Perhaps you could reconsider on the block of Hrafn (talk · contribs). The difference between him and "Sumbuddi" is that he stopped editing after being warned while Sumbuddi carried on. It's hard for me to see how a block is necessary to prevent disruption in this case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He was unblocked by Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I've no objection to the unblock, but, for the record, it was a clear 3RR vio. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Gonzalez

Hi there, do you know why Adrian Gonzalez is not still fully protected? I believe it should after you did so yesterday? Can you also extend the full protection until 2pm eastern today when we will know for sure which team he will be on? Thanks--TM 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)