User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 → Archive 65

Hey

Do the latest edits of Arthurw28 on Criminal (Britney Spears song) count as a violation of the three-revert rule? Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for which they can have 24 hours off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!, Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Thank you very much for your help :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Don't hesitate to ping me if you need me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Is really just a curiosity

Hallo HJ Mitchell,

mine is just a very little, tiny question, just because I'm always curious about little funny things. I noticed that after my posting in the Admin against vandalism page you blocked User talk:66.244.123.95 for one year 8so thank you for that!). Normally, at least for shorter blocks, there is a message in the talk page. This time the message is on the User contributions page. Is that the praxis for longer blocks? Have a nice day! --Dia^ (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There are half a dozen notices on that IP's talk page, so they didn't need another one, and the templates I put in the block log, {{anonblock}}, will show when they try to edit. As to the notice on the contributions page, it always appears (but I suppose it's easily missed if the block is a short one because it disappears when the block expires). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hello! I noticed your name on the list of people willing to consider RfA nominations. I am considering a fourth RfA (my third was in March), and I recently asked Kudpung for advice on whether it's time. Among other suggestions and comments, he said to ask someone else for input as well. I'd really appreciate it if you could also give your input on whether I'm ready for a fourth RfA. --Slon02 (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd have my support, but I don't deal with CSD, so I'd be a lot more comfortable if you got someone to do a through check of your deleted contribs. WSC is the expert, and I'll be drinking beer with him on Saturday—I can ask him to have a look over a pint if you like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
That would be excellent! Thank you.--Slon02 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mail!!

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

--5 albert square (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC close request

Hi HJ Mitchell. As an admin who closes RfCs, would you close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom?? No one has addressed my request at AN. If you don't have the time or inclination, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just gone midnight here and I'm on my way to bed. I don't mind looking at it in the morning if nobody else closes it in the meantime. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! It's been nearly two weeks since I posted that request, so I don't think anyone will be closing it by tomorrow morning. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Username policy

Hi H.J.,

Did I make a mistake?

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Where? You'll have to forgive me, but I've just cleaned out CAT:UAA and blocked or declined about 200 username violations in the last few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
User Ilyasict inserted the name "Ilya Khan" into the USAID article. A similar vandalism (insertion of an IT jobsearcher's name and profession) happened today, now by an IP; a checkuser might be considered.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not promotional (in that it doesn't represent a group, organisation, company or website), offensive, or otherwise disruptive so far as I can see. Making edits connected to one's username is not, in itself, a violation of the username policy (though it may imply a conflict of interest, which is a matter for WP:COIN). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
The serious worry is that somebody is impersonating that person, via an account maliciously using that person's name, to insert that person's name in articles in vandalism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't look very likely to me—if anything, it looks like self-promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, a warning flare may have stopped continued shenanigans ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Report for duty, soldier sailor airman

Looking over your talk page, you've clearly got nothing better to do, so you might have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lockheed Have Blue, which is past the 28-day mark. Ian took a stab at the copyediting and stopped. Aircraft articles need some love, probably some tough love. Sukhoi Su-33 is the next aircraft article up in the A-class pipeline. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, how is Phil not inundated? He's got three or four articles up at ACR/FAC at the minute! But I'll have a look in the morning if it's still open (it's rapidly approaching 1am, and I'm trying to keep sensible hours these days, which means no copy-editing at four in the morning!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Phil is the inundation; copy editors are the inundatees. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

MC100 HA

I have a feeling that MC100 HA (talk · contribs) is another one of Madden NFL 21 (talk · contribs)'s socks, so can you block the account for now as a disruptive username, and see if I get caught in the autoblock? Thanks. Cheers, —mc10 (t/c) 00:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

I have recently been patrolling the user log for offensive user names that are not blocked. At what point, if any, would it be better to not report such an account to UAA? My76Strat (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's grossly offensive or obviously disruptive, then report it to UAA. If it's borderline (ie, there could be a legitimate interpretation), it's usually best to wait for them to edit, but you can report them to UAA if you think it's necessary and they'll probably end up in the holding pen and/or leave them a {{uw-username}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
If it's libellous, defamatory, or outing, it's usually best to ping the stewards to have the account globally locked and suppressed (if you can). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
To be sure I understand correctly, a grossly insulting name, even if it is from 2005 and never edited, should still be reported? My76Strat (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Or even 2009 like user:StupidAlansohn. My76Strat (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
If it's not attacking a specific person and hasn't edited in a while, I would just leave it. If it is attacking someone in particular (and I mean a gross personal attack, not "__ is gay" or other childish nonsense), then report it to UAA. If it's attacking a particular editor, it might be best to block it. Use your best judgement—it it worth giving this username more exposure just to block it on the off chance that somebody might edit with it in the future? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I understand. My76Strat (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I should tell you that your name was in pretty good shape less this one example that my wiki spider sense says was directed at you, user:HJWitchel. :-) My76Strat (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it, it was created before my account, so unless my imitators have a time machine... ;) I do have a list of accounts created to impersonate me (and the accounts my own miniature sockfarm, as well, in the interests of full disclosure). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just my own two cents: the two most categories of usernames which are most commonly reported to UAA are the offensive/disruptive and the promotional/misleading. I group the misleading with the promotional only when they pretend to be, but are probably not, well-known personas or agencies. Then, a tad more rarely, there are the misleading which imitate IP addresses, figures of authority on Wikipedia, other contributors, etc. For the offensive/disruptive, I usually only report them when they are grossly offensive - not "I hate Madonna" (personal opinion) or "Madonna is gay" (childish), but more like "Madonna is a fucking ugly bitch" (grossly offensive). In such a case, I report them to UAA and have them {{uhblock}}'d. For that particular example, I wouldn't advise suppression, but for usernames which are downright libellous, revealing/outing or defamatory, I usually have the username hid locally (hideuser) and/or globally locked and hidden. — Kudu ~I/O~ 14:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Please advise me if ever I report a name that 1) I probably should have disregarded, particularly if it is stale, and 2) if I report a name to UAA that you believe would have been better via email to oversight. Do know that all the while I will be trying to abide by the advice given, in accordance with my understanding. Thanks for the thoughtful replies here. My76Strat (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
We'll (or at least I'll) be glad to advise you on your UAA performance via your talk page. I also want to point out that for usernames which do warrant suppression, in most cases, instead of emailing en.wikipedia oversighters, you'll want to contact the stewards (stewards@wikimedia.org or #wikimedia-stewards connect). If you have any more questions, feel free to ask on my talk page, email me, or chat with me on IRC (username: kudu).
Another parting thought, there were many inappropriate unblocked names beginning with Obama, that are mostly childish, which I didn't and perhaps won't report per WP:DENY, but an admin with extra time might want to patrol. My76Strat (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for prolific vandals at the minute (and not having to look very hard to find them!), but I might look through later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't report them if they aren't recent (stale). — Kudu ~I/O~ 14:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me asking, but recently I have observed some promotional user names creating promotional pages in their user space as a sub-page. What is the best way to handle that type of situation? My76Strat (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If the username and the edits are promotional, report to UAA and tag the promotional pages with {{db-spam}} (or revert the edits). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Well done for reprimanding respectable vandals!

TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Slovenski Volk

Hello HJ Mitchell,

User:Slovenski Volk, whom you placed under a 0RR restriction on Ancient Macedonians back in January, has broken that restriction already 4-5 times in the past few days alone, as can be seen here [1]. This [2] is a revert of this [3]. When another user reverted him in turn, he reverted again [4] (though he did self-revert immediately after, but only because he realized he was wrong). I was willing to let that slide, but he has ramped up the reverting even further, racking up 3 reverts in the last 24 hours alone: This [5] is a revert of this [6], this [7] is a partial revert of this edit by User:No. 108 [8], and then this [9] speaks for itself.

This is nothing new mind you. He has broken the restriction many times since January [10] [11], but each time I was willing to let it slide. Back in June, he edit-warred [12] over a map I added [13]. He then edit-warred over another image he created [14], removed [15] a sourced statement added by User:No. 108 [16]. He then proceeds to edit-war against another user [17] [18] [19], going so far as to sock through an IP [20], for which he got blocked for one week [21] (a slap on the wrist if you ask me). I should have gone to WP:AE then, but let it slide again.

I have interacted with this user a lot, and it is my firm impression that he has something of an obsession with the Ancient Macedonians, particularly with "proving" that they aren't ancestrally related to the ancient Greeks. That's what all the recent reverts and "indigenous central Balkan" stuff is all about. While he is reasonable most of the time, whenever something implying an ancestral link between the ancient Macedonians and Greeks is added to the article, he simply can't help himself. I hate to say this, but at this point, considering the magnitude and frequency of the disruption and disregard for his restriction, only an article ban will do. I have tried to reason with this user in the past, and while ha can sometimes be reasonable, he always starts with the reverts eventually, displaying many of the symptoms of WP:TE and WP:OWN of this article. I would have already gone to WP:AE, but there is a huge backlog there, so instead I am informing you, as the sanctioning admin. This behavior clearly needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for quite such a long post—a brief explanation of where and how he's violated the restriction would have been sufficient. But I've blocked him for a month, because this clearly isn't the first time he's run into issues at that article. In fact, I might consider a total page ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I generally do not like reporting people, but he had really gone too far this time. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm - I could have done more to nip this in the bud at WP:RSN#Sourcing_enquiry, but at least I had a very bad feeling .... --Lexein (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Slovenski Volk made some pretty hefty accusations against me when requesting that he be unblocked (accused me of being some kind of ringleader, acting in bad faith, "inflaming the situation", sockpuppetry, etc..). I felt I had to respond to these accusations (particularly the one about sockpuppetry), and did so on his talkpage. His response: [22]. Since I am obviously not going to edit-war on his talkpage, I feel I should at least let you know. Athenean (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my comment above was a "doh!" about me not seeing what Volk was doing, and so, not doing anything about it. Your actions were appropriate, necessary, and sufficient. I don't know if invoking WP:TIGERS would have helped the situation, but I like the essay, and it has helped me frequently. --Lexein (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicky Barr (and others)

Hi mate, re. this and similar, it doesn't fuss me whether quotes and parentheses are in bold or not (in music articles it used to be non-bold quotes in bolded song titles, but I thought it changed to all bold recently) however shouldn't the title in the infobox be consistent with it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I remember reading somewhere that the quotes shouldn't be bold (at least in biographies), though I only do it when I'm changing something else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University

Looks like there is an IP sock at work on Southern Adventist University, would you consider semi-protection of the article page (the talk page is already) ? Mtking (edits) 04:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Technicnologist?

Hi there. A few days ago you closed a requested move at Talk:Polysomnographic technicnologist#Requested move and said you would move the article to the proposed title, Polysomnographic technologist. However, you then moved the article to Polysomnographic technicnologist, which I assume was a mistake. Subsequently, a new and incorrectly formatted RM has been started, basically along the lines of "technicologist is not a word". I was about to go to the effort of formatting the RM correctly, but thought it would just be easier if you could move the article to the consensus title from the last RM and then the new RM could be closed. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. GTBacchus has tidied this up. Jenks24 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi HJ, I'd like to create an article for Jose Padilla, the Honduran immigrant who successfully brought Padilla v. Kentucky. This is a very famous case, has affected Immigrant prisoners convicted on plea bargains, and I think it'd be a good article. Also, it would help differentiate him from the several Jose Padilla articles already on Wikipedia. Apparently there are redirects for his name Jose Padilla (born 1950), José Padilla with the accent, Jose Padilla without it, and Jose Padilla (Honduran). I've never really deleted a redirect and I don't want to do it wrong. Can you help me with that? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm staying with User:Ironholds fr the night, and using his laptop, and drinking his whisky (in large measures), so you'll have to explain (slowly) what yu want me to do! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry - he doesn't mean in the biblical sense :P. So, non-administrators can't delete redirects; we can, since we're admins, though, so once you explain what you need, I'm happy to step in and delete what needs to be deleted :). Personally I'd go for creating the article at the simplest title, and then changing all the links to point to the new article, and then we can delete the (now useless) redirects. If you need any sources for the article, I have full access to JSTOR, a couple of legal journal repositories and a repository of newspaper articles going back to 1960, so drop me an email and I'll see what I can do. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That's hilarious. Love that. Okay, there are all these redirects for Jose Padilla that go back to the Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. There are several variations on his name that redirect there. You want me to make links? I need those deleted so I can put up the article with article wizard. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
OMG, I just realized you have full access to JSTOR. I've hit gold! Malke 2010 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You have! Okay, I'd suggest drafting out the article first in a sandbox or something, and then moving on to deleting the redirects. Drop me an email if you need sourcing and such. Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll write up a stub to get it started. Also, here are a couple of those variations I was talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Jose+Padilla+%28born+1950%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla Malke 2010 (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here's the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malke_2010/Jose_Padilla. Now what? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be titled José Padilla (Honduran). And redirect Jose Padilla (born 1950) there, too. I hope this makes sense considering your choice of beverage. Are you guys still awake? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, sorry; went off to bed. Okay, the article draft looks okay at the moment, but I'm afraid that unless you can find quite a few more sources it's not likely to survive in the mainspace. WP:BLP1E prohibits biographies of living persons who are notable due to a single event, unless lots and lots of sources can be found emphasising him. Want me to trawl through LexisNexis for you? Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be great. I've also emailed one of the reporters for the Kentucky newspaper that covered the case. I've asked him for some more background on Padilla. That should lead to more content and sources. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:AVIATION

Quod vide. Specifically, Wikipedia_talk:AVIATION#Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates.2FMcDonnell_XF-85_Goblin.2Farchive1. Thoughts? Are you noticing the same? - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Jacqueline Jossa

Hello

Have you had the chance yet to look further into the image on Jacqueline Jossa's page? I was under the impression you were going to investigate and see if there's any way that the 2 users we discussed in email were related accounts?--5 albert square (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

...Bizarre rant came in with your edit here. Someone got you hacked or something nasty from your clipboard got copied over by mistake? I know you couldn't have written the bad part.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I see what happened...no worries.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI I put the file up for deletion here that was used--Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Good. I've converted it to a speedy delete request.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian vandal

Hi there MITCHELL, VASCO from Portugal here,

i have reported this "user" in User:JamesBWatson's page, and you as a good stalker duly blocked him. As i mention in my report, the anon "user" is also User:Bruno corinthiano, and he also continues with his unexplained box/intro removals (please see this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergio_Garc%C3%ADa_de_la_Fuente&action=edit&undoafter=447054390&undo=449887867).

Can you treat him wiki-accordingly please? Getting a bit annoying...We have tried everything, messages in Portuguese, English, warnings, blocks, he says "talk to the hand"!

Attentively, happy week and thank you very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry to bother you, only wanted to stop a vandal dead in his tracks. I'll take my query elsewhere. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Hi again, Harry. In our recent correspondence, I mentioned that cascading protection can fail (and has in the past). Materialscientist just brought to my attention the fact that the underlying bug was closed as "WONTFIX" (and presumably persists to this day). —David Levy 00:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. Does this apply to pages transcluded onto pages which are affected by cascade protection, because I was under the impression that adding an image (at least a locally uploaded one) to a page that has its own cascading protection automatically triggered the cascading protection? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I sought administrator advice

I asked you repeatedly to seek a neutral administrator for your actions...I posted a report at AN/I...here--MONGO 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I invited you to. It's nice we can agree on something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've closed the thread, since MONGO wasn't asking for his rollback back. HJ, methinks you oughta' avoid taking any kind of administrative action against MONGO in the future (except to prevent immediate and egregious harm to the project). I don't say this because of WP:INVOLVED or anything, but because it's not worth anyone's time to have another AN/I thread like that when it can be easily avoided. lifebaka++ 03:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you ought to reconsider your rather naive position. There are many editors like MONGO who wikilawyer over trivia, and they need to be dealt with, not pandered to. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm now a mere vandal because I ignored all rules in order to improve the encyclopedia and HJ's gonna be at RFC/U or ArbCom tomorrow. See ANI for the first one (posted in a closed discussion) and Mongo's talk for the second. N419BH 03:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
MONGO is what he is, and HJ won't be at RFC/U or ArbCom because of removing rollback from an editor clearly misusing it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You've got to love that he started out saying it was a mistake and then came around (at AN/I) to admit that he deliberately misused rollback. But still kept on complaining... HJM, I think you did the right thing. --John (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't in any way a threat HJ...but do you concur with the closing argument made by the admin that closed the AN/I thread. Have I made my point clear?--MONGO 04:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hard to tell. Is your argument that the removal of your rollback bauble was proper, but that it ought to have been done by another administrator? Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Since I commented over there and you guys are now enjoying patting HJs back so much I will answer as I saw it: "it ought to have been done by another administrator".
And I am curious to see if HJ still does not see the comment "you need to get out more" as being rude. It wasn't as bad as saying "go to hell" but it wasn't exactly fostering a collaborative environment. I wouldn't care but HJ is an admin and HJ's follow-up comment leads me to believe that I can continue to be a jerk to people when it suits me. Maybe the difference between HJ and myself is that I know when I am being not civil and he doesn't?Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, yes, that is my point....Cptnono, I don't expect him to apologize...just to acknowledge that he should have had a third party do the action. Frankly, the initial rollback removal message on my talkpage wasn't "nice", but he didn't know it was (that one anyway) an accident, and he knows I am a long time editor that should have done a standard revert...(though a case can be made that rollback in that instance was actually understandable).--MONGO 05:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you not see the dishonesty of your position? You misused rollback, which you admitted. Why does it matter which administrator calls you for that? Malleus Fatuorum 05:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
@Cptnono: I don't consider "you need to get out more" to be especially rude—it simply means that I have better things to do than follow MONGO around and he's welcome to believe otherwise, but he's wrong.

On the general point, it's clear that MONGO reverted admins' attempts to close the thread until he got the closure he wanted. I stand by my action, and refuse to allow a manufactured dispute or a difference of opinion on a tangentially related issue to get in the way of enforcing policy. It would be very easy for somebody like MONGO to manufacture a dispute with every active admin on the project this way, and we shouldn't give into him just because he makes a lot of noise when somebody calls him on his misconduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The thread had but a few responses and as I said there, we do have 24 times zones on this planet...there was no hurry to close the thread and I felt it best to post my comments there instead of an Rfc. Your insults about my character and purpose above are not only deliberately belittling but unnecessary. You and are in disgareement as to content on the article in question, you have stated that the article cannot be a GA while I edit it or adapt...at the time I did the rollback you initially took my rights away for while yes, I did mean to do a standard revert, I did do a rollback since that editor was trying to insert the CT link using IAR and there was no consensus for him to do that then. Nevertheless, though you have stated in article talk and elsewhere both your disagreement with me as to some of the content of that article and have sided openly with others in disagreement with me, you decided that you were permitted to misuse your admin ability to unilaterally penalize me...when a neutral third party admin would have been the way to go. Yet, regardless that there is some dissent about your action, you are stonewalling, insulting and failing to admit that seeking out neutral opinion beforehand would have been the way to go. We can't have administrators around here who disregard others as you have done, misuse their abilities and fail to acnowledge such misuse.MONGO 13:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You still don't get it. Does it not occur to you that several uninvolved editors and a few admins might be opining against you because you are wrong, and not for any other reason? I was not acting unilaterally, I was acting in accordance with the applicable policies and guidelines. That you take criticism of your actions as a personal slight is unfortunate, almost as unfortunate as wasting everybody's time by continuing to flog a dead horse, but that doesn't mean your actions are immune from scrutiny. Your interpretation of INVOLVED is equally unfortunate, and I am grateful that it's an interpretation not more prevalent, because if it were, nothing would ever get done—I am not in a dispute with you personally. You are trying to manufacture one to detract from your obvious misconduct, and it's not working. If admins refrained from acting as admins against any user they had disagreed with, no admin would ever use their tools again! Now, you've made your disagreement clear and you've sought input at a noticeboard where no consensus was found that I acted remotely improperly. I think now would be the time to let it go, so unless you have anything unambiguously useful to say, please don't continue posting on this page about this matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see final warning about disruption on Mongo's talkpage. He has been advised to file an RFC - if he continues making unproven comments about this issue anywhere on Wikipedia (other than his RFC), he can be blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

trout

{{trout}} for not asking someone else to do the rollback removal --Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, you did the right thing but trouting is fun!--Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 03:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
In that case, have some {{chips}} to go along with it...that SERIOUSLY needs to be a working template. N419BH 03:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad you were at AN/I to provide us with your unbiased assessment...--MONGO 03:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:STICK N419BH 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh be careful with WP:STICK some users are hurt by it, as I recently learned (see WQA)...--Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 03:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
He's now making threats and linking to this page. N419BH 03:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Questionnaire

Hi there, I wonder if you would be interested in helping me with my research on Wikipedia. I am writing a dissertation on Wikipedia as part of my undergraduate course at the University of Cambridge. What I am asking is for you to complete a questionnaire with a number of general, subjective questions about your experiences working on Wikipedia, for example concerning Wikipedia's culture, your motivation in participating and so on. It should take 10-20 minutes. Participants will be anonymous if requested. More information is available if you are interested. Thanks! I really appreciate any time you can give! Thedarkfourth (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for September 11 attacks edition

I didn't know about RfC. You're absolutely right. Thank for your work. Natrix (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem; it's a highly contentious topic and I personally believe the link should be there (as ludicrous as some of these "theories" are), but it's best to preserve the status quo while it's the subject of an RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E question

I'd like to put up an article on Jose Padilla, the guy whose habeas petition caused the landmark Supreme Court ruling on deportation in April 2010. There are a lot of sources on this case, very reliable, etc. Not a lot about the personal bio yet, because things are so new, but enough seems to be there that it would meet this guideline: [23]. Here's what I've written so far: [24]. Since you do AfD's, do you think this would survive? Malke 2010 (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be much better off in the article about the case than in its own article. We have many articles about landmark cases, but when the parties have articles, it's usually because they're notable in their own right and not because of the case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Clarence Gideon didn't do anything beyond appealing his conviction which also resulted in a landmark decision. And additionally, there is an article about Jose Padilla, convicted on terrorist charges. I think it's important to make the distinction. I volunteered at a legal clinic over the summer and when we'd tell families their loved one should not make a plea without understanding the deportation problem, they'd Google it and come back and say it didn't apply because their loved one isn't a terrorist. It can be confusing. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
There's not much point trying to convince me—my opinion is worth no more and no less than anybody else's and any eventual AfD will be determined by consensus. But the existence of other articles doesn't do much to convince me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've seen your comments on AfD's so I respect your opinion which is why I asked. Okay, I'll wait until there's more about him. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason you can't have the content as background in the article on the case, and consider spinning it out into its won article at a later date. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
K, will do. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd

You said this, which baffles me. Did you note the very first contribs from that user? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's about a study, but I can't see that he's promoting a company or organisation. It seems to be a grey area, though (and I'm just cleaning out the category), so you might like to file a request at WP:RFC/N to see what others think. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The user's posts pertain to either the Harvard-based Nurses' Health Study or its next-generation offshoot the Growing Up Today Study. While these are both fine endeavors, the username implies an association which should be made transparent. The editor has not returned yet since I left the warning which you revised, so RFCN is not appropriate, but the concern is still not dismissed.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
But it's not a company, group, or product as specified by WP:UN. While there seems to be a conflict of interest, the policy doesn't say anything about usernames that represent studies and I don't think the username is blockable (therefore it shouldn't be in the category, which is for allowing admins to decide whether or not to block). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You don't think that the Harvard G.U.T.S. cohort study is what the username describes? I don't see a basis for that conclusion. The behavior (especially the recruiting bit) shows elements of wp:GROUPNAME, wp:SPAMNAME, and wp:COI though it is most likely just the naive error of a student in the research group who is new to WP. I don't want to BITE, just to ensure that the question is cleared up when xhe returns. A solid working collaboration with researchers in the study could be very productive for wp:WikiProject Medicine if handled well. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You've added the word "cohort", there, but I can't find that term in his contributions. He is writing about two studies, as far as I can see, and yes his username is the same as the name of the study, but I don't see anything in his contributions that makes me think he's representing a group. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I had assumed you knew what the these "studies" are about. The term is a massive understatement. They are multi-decade investigations, possibly the most important such ones in epidemiology, tracking many health-related factors in very large cohorts of volunteer subjects. They were originally all nurses in three succesive Nurses' Health Study cadres, and more recently adding a cohort of children of the earlier nurse volunteers to look for multi-generational effects. There have been numerous papers published by different researchers analysing the data collected in different ways. So the term 'group' in this context is ambiguous. It pertains to the cadres studied, but also to the Brigham/Harvard organizers of the work, who keep track of each cohort's members over time, conduct periodic followup surveys by mail, watch for any death notices, collect, and compile causes of death. In another sense, 'group' also pertains to each group of epidemiologists who mine the generated data for correlations and publish a journal article, but that's clearly not the concern. So the NHS and the GUTS are both groups, both organized out of Harvard, xhe's writing about them, and xhe may be recruiting for the next NHS cohort. The term "cohort", by the by, appears in the first post xhe makes. I'm all in favour of the studies, and of WP engaging with the researchers, but it is important that the editor clarify if the name simply simply reflects an individual interest in the work or is them acting on behalf of a group and comporting a name that represents that group. Neither is the end of the world, of course. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bailey

Hi HJ!

The username policy states "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name."

I agree that the Iloverosemaryb__y account seems not to be a problem, and that blocking would be imprudent. However, the name does violate the policy, unless I am missing something ....

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding Robbie Best article

Re-adding Robbie Best article that was deleted 8 March 2011 due to "Expired PROD, concern was: Unreferenced BLP". Basically same content but added some references. Hope that's ok. Dickdock (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. As long as it's referenced, it won;t be deleted through that process again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

RFA candidacy

Hey HJ. I was wondering if you would be willing to "tag team" with Worm in looking me over for a possible third RFA run? It won't be a self-nom this time, but one that I hope will be nommed by either him, you, or both.  :)   ArcAngel   (talk)) 20:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, then allow me to ask one question, so I know what I'm looking for: What's changed in the last 14 months? Are you still hoping to work with RfPP, AIV etc, and what experience have you gained since your second RfA that makes you you more qualified to be an admin? Personally, I think you've matured considerably as an editor, but I'd be intrigued to hear your answer (by all means email me if you prefer). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Part of my answer to that is on my talk page in response to Worm. I think my strongest mop work would be with AIV and UAA at this point, though I would dabble with RFPP and CSD now and then. I have been more careful with CSD since my last RFA and haven't been so quick to "jump the gun", so to speak. I have improved on "thinking before acting" and I think that shows that I can be responsible with the tools.   ArcAngel   (talk)) 20:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Have you been particularly active at UAA or AIV? I'm active at both, and I haven't seen much of you recently. If I said "show me evidence that you've gained more experience in admin areas", what would you show me? Sorry to give you a hard time, but I'd hate to see your third RfA go the same way as your first two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries HJ, I wouldn't want it to go badly either. I'll do some research on the past 14 months and get back with you on that. One concern that I can say I have addressed is that I am now familiar with how A7 works, so that should no longer be an issue.   ArcAngel   (talk)) 19:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey HJ, going back on the previous 14 months, I don't have a lot to offer you in the way of "editing" experience in the admin-related areas. Since my last RFA, I have had 47 edits to WP:UAA, 36 to WP:RPP, and 13 each to WP:AIV and WP:ANI. Admittedly, these are low numbers, and my sabattical from the middle of July 2010 to the end of December 2010 certainly didn't help matters. Nevertheless, don't let that dissuade you. Though my edits are low in these areas, I am familiar with each of the processes and feel confident in carrying out the duties in each as required.   ArcAngel   (talk)) 03:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Diamond Productions

You blocked Pdproductions (talk · contribs) for WP:COI. I can't decide if the article is A7 or G11. :/ --intelatitalk 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

About WP:AN/I#Massive splurge of recreation of deleted articles by user: WölffReik

Hi HJM. I notice you granted the Autopatrolled permission to WölffReik (talk · contribs). In light of the issues flagged at AN/I, I would suggest that this permission might possibly be reviewed, if only as a temporary ameliorative measure.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

((lang)) and ((cat handler))

Hello HJ Mitchell. I created the {{cat handler}} template. Today I noticed that a year ago you were involved in trying to deploy {{cat handler}} in the {{lang}} template, but that it didn't work. After some testing and staring at all versions of the code I finally found the error: {{cat handler}} was not the problem, instead you guys placed the ending brackets in the wrong place. The discussion at {{lang}} has already been archived, but for future reference I left a message in the archive explaining what went wrong. See Template talk:Lang/Archive 2#Change categorization method.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Lunarbot

Hi, I'd like to give User:Lunarbot some help. I can't see any explicit mention of the reason for the current block at Wikipedia:Username policy. Is this restriction documented somewhere else, or have I missed it? Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe he/she was blocked for having "bot" in their name. Check this out. Username Policy -Jer Hit me up 19:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the reason given [25] was your username indicates this is a bot account, which is currently not approved.
And this links to WP:U, and so did I above, and so now did you. But that page, which is a policy page, doesn't seem to me to sanction the block.
Or can you see a particular clause that does? Or is there another page that does? I thought WP:BOTACC might be relevant, but I don't see it there either (and it's a bit much to expect a new user to check this page before choosing a username in any case, surely). I do miss things, but I've tried to find it and failed, and that's why I'm asking for help.
Bearing in mind that this is a newbie we're blocking, I think we owe them some better explanation, frankly. They seem to me to have done all the right things. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It falls under misleading usernames, directly under the list of disallowed names there is a paragraph that reads "If you choose such a username, that account may be blocked – you are welcome to create a new and acceptable username. If you've inadvertently chosen an inappropriate username, you can change it – see below at Changing your username. If your username is considered borderline, you may be asked to change it voluntarily." -Jer Hit me up 20:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this might now be a sockpuppet case. Look who I blocked today.--5 albert square (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Andrew, it does state this in the username policy, "As part of the rule against misleading usernames, your username must not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it may not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator". Also, unless your account is an approved bot, your name should not be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" (which is used to identify bot accounts) or a "script" (which alludes to automated editing processes)."--5 albert square (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lunarbot for both Lunarbot and Lunarbot99--5 albert square (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Why? They're obviously the same person, but regardless the template (template:uw-botublock) actually invites them to create a new account; the only issue is the bot username. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ambox

Love your ambox An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page...... ever consider making it a template and creating a user page category and maybe even Wikiproject to go along with it?

Similar perhaps to the harmonious editing initiative a while back (which has gone a bit quiet lately), but content rather than behaviour focussed. I think it could be constructive. See also User:Andrewa/creed.

Anyway, I found it very encouraging. Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talesvara Siva temple - I

Hi there HJ. I noticed that you deleted the article Talesvara Siva temple - I. There is still an deletion discussion going on regarding it - I did not catch the copy vio before sending it to AfD. Since I've been pointed to the article on Bharati_Matha, I do agree that it should be redirected there. Should I withdraw the article and then redirect to Bharati Matha? Thanks for your help in advance. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 19:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Block of StraightShootinKindaGuy

Am I smelling another incarnation of MascotGuy, or is my nose in error? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you mention it, that's the kind of username he likes (he's prolific, but predictable!); I don't know much about his MO beyond the random account creations, though. You might want to ask an admin who deals with him more regularly (I don't go looking for nutters; I just block them when I see them). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll attach it to the (surely) ongoing SPI and see what rattles loose. Thankee. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Well they say a man can never have enough socks... ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi HJ, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 23:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi HJ, another reply -- Marek.69 talk 00:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ehsonsaeed unblock appears to be waiting for your answer

Qwyrxian and AGK both appear to support unblock, but they are deferring to your judgment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Qwyrxian has sorted it (I didn't realise they were still blocked, we discussed it a while ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Good call on this one [26], I was just about to chime in there when I saw you closing the matter. Stale edit war yes, but that situation and editor deserved a block, as he obviously hasn't learned from his previous two. Nice call.

I'm sure you're busy (I was the same for about a month), but did you ever get around to taking a look at my contribs after that last round of emails? If you're swamped right now, I completely understand. Just wanted to check. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not one I enjoyed making, and I seriously considered declining it as stale (which is why I kept the duration short), but doing nothing suggests to all the wikilawyers out there that if you can stall for 12 hours, you won't get blocked.

Things are pretty chaotic here, and I won't have a reliable Internet connection next week. would you hate me if i got back to you in a couple of weeks? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, not at all! I'm the one asking for the favor from you, it's no problem at all. Thanks in advance for the attention. Good luck with the chaos. Dayewalker (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_60&oldid=1176828008"