User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

You're always one step ahead!

I was just about to report him! You beat me to it by blocking him!--5 albert square (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review review

• I made the nomination so my vote was to unprotect and recreate
• Spartaz, the closing admin, endorsed his own deletion and protection
• DGG wanted to unprotect and permit recreation
• Umbralcorax endorsed the original decision but wanted to unprotect and permit recreation
• Jclemens wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• Oakshade wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• The Hand That Feeds You endorsed the protection
• Hobit endorsed the close and opposed the protection
• Starblind wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• Fetchcomms endorsed the close and protection
• Uzma Gamal wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• Pnm endorsed the close but decided it was at least notable enough to merit a section on iPad
• SnottyWong endorsed the close and redirection
• Blueboy96 was neutral
• The ip wanted to unprotect

There is consensus here to recreate. In addition, there is consensus to reword CHRYSTAL. Marcus Qwertyus 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You should do your homework. A consensus (which you dond;t have to start with) in one small venue at one item cannot override WP:NOT, which is a policy and cannot be changed without a much wider consensus. When there's something to write about the iPad 2 that doesn't violate policy (or you've managed to gain a consensus to change the policy), then we can talk, but a DRV just days after a close that most people agreed was decent is never going to go well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT contradicts WP:OR. As you said, small scale policy cannot override wider consensus. Marcus Qwertyus 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to change WP:NOT (and I don't necessarily oppose that), then you need to start with WT:NOT. Even if everybody at the DRV agreed with you (and half didn't) about CRYSTAL, it doesn't change anything because policies are implemented and amended by much wider consensus than a single DRV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

CHRYSTAL was added in March 2005 by Dpbsmith with the edit summary "Be bold, Dan, be bold" (i.e. no consensus). If I were to ask Dan his opinion on the iPad 2 (which I will), I'm sure he would tell me that his intention was not to create a policy that barred all articles from reporting speculation originating from outside original sources. WP:NOT is just a mirror of policy dumbed down enough for beginners to understand. This should not be a go-to source for policy in deletion discussions. Rather, editors should look at the original policy and exercise common sense. There is consensus on WT:NOT to reword the policy. A wording has not yet been agreed upon. Marcus Qwertyus 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if I had a penny for every AfD I've seen hinge on WP:NOTNEWS, I'd be a rich man. The fact remains that there is nothing to write about the iPad 2 that isn't speculation, regardless of whether it's Wikipedia doing the speculating or journalists who think they know more than the rest of us. Hence, there isn't a consensus to overturn the original AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So are arguments for the Aurora. There are people who claim to know the release date of the iPad 2 and people who claim to have worked on the the Aurora. These assertions are presented as claims and not as fact. These arguments will be presented in the same way on the iPad 2 article. Marcus Qwertyus 04:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, even if that weren't a WP:OTHERCRAP argument, this isn't the place to re-re-argue the AfD. The AfD was closed as redirect and there wasn't a consensus at DRV to overturn that, so now would be the time to admit defeat. It would be a better use of both our time if you spent the next few months making the iPad 2 content in iPad the best it can be so it can be easily spun out into its own article when the time comes. I'm not sure why you need a separate article for a slightly-updated version of the same thing, but that's a matter for another AfD (and not one I have the time or inclination to start). Out of interest, is the iPad any good? Not that I can afford one, but it looks interesting! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got one but my friend does. Don't believe all the marketing that suggests it is an immediately useful tool. My friend just thinks of it as mostly "a hobby".

I do believe that all though there may not have been enough consensus to recreate, there was definitely enough consensus to overturn the protection (which was imposed on us without consensus by an overprotective _{(excuse the pun)} admin). Sem-protection should be sufficient. Marcus Qwertyus 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If I do that, I take you at your word that you wouldn't re-create it, but I'd bet a tenner that somebody would before the day is out and then there'd be an edit war and somebody'd probably end up blocked and the protection would end up back where it started. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Google for 10 reasons ipad (no quotes) and you'll get lists of things both good and bad about the iPad (but mostly bad, as people are less eager to write up a blog post telling you how good something is). —Soap— 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, You made the comment in the close that it has to have a ref from Apple, but surely you have enough clue to know they never announce until the day it goes on sale. That criterion makes it impossible to have an article even when the NYT , notably conservative on unreleased products, has one, e.g. : this, which is a staff column, not a user blog. Similarly, any rumor reported in the mainstream eweek and eweek again, and pcworld and the extraordinarily staid computerworld is surely enough ? DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're asking the wrong person. I can't arbitrarily unprotect it or allow its re-creation. As I'm sure you know, that requires either the agreement of the admin who closed the original AfD (who stuck to his guns in the DRV) or a consensus at DRV, which wasn't established. There wasn't no consensus at the DRV either way and, in a "no consensus" situation, the status quo prevails. I honestly couldn't care less if the iPad 2 has its own article or not on a personal level, but I'm pretty sure someone would complain if I cited WP:DGAF as my close rationale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you guys seriously why you STILL haven't bought this up for discussion on Talk:iPad. That is the appropriate venue for this discussion, not anywhere else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a simple matter of we already have consensus to recreate. Marcus Qwertyus 20:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course, that explains why the AfD was closed as redirect and how there was no consensus at the DRV. Now I see where I've been going wrong! For crying out loud, there is no consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Everyone, drop the stick, please; this discussion seems to be going nowhere. HeyMid (contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would I just let HJ off easy? The consensus here is clearly to recreate. Marcus Qwertyus 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be the consensus that three uninvolved administrators have failed to see? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. 5 people endorsed the protection and 9 asked that it be unprotected. Then there is all the people at WT:NOT who are willing to reword CHRYSTAL. I know it's not a vote but you should not have disrupted the consensus building process by closing the debate with your Supervote. Marcus Qwertyus 21:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Supervote my arse. If you have nothing else constructive to say, then I'll take that as the end of this conversation, which is deteriorating rapidly into an argument. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, I have great respect for your closures, but this time it either was a supervote or a plain error.

As for the protection, it was protected by User:HereToHelp, but he protected it back on Dec 27, & you were the last admin to take action regarding it. Of course any admin who decides the material is sufficient can remove the protection. Courtesy is to ask first, but I think he'd might say it would be you who should get the request. My own view is that the deletion makes us look like fools collectively, which obviously harms Wikipedia. and anyone who can take corrective action should do so. But as a matter of prudence and tactics, and to avoid the absurdity of harming Wikipedia further by a possibly denied request or another fight about it, it will be a much stronger case when it is further expanded. As for rewording CRYSTAL, it would be better to wait till this one is over--it's not a good idea to rewrite fundamental policy to meet one actively disputed problem, given that the basic way of meeting individual problems is by making exceptions under IAR. The reason for rewording (soon but not immediately) is there have been too many of these absurd objections to articles on obviously forthcoming things, so it's a general problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• If someone is not happy about HJ Mitchell's conduct as an administrator, they can take this issue to WP:AN. HeyMid (contribs) 10:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Nobody has suggested it; it would be highly inappropriate for just a particular AfD that may or may not be wrong, but is not seriously abusive. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoqueue

Hello, Is it possible to look at the deleted pages Pseudoqueue and Pseudo queue to see if it is similar to this article found on the simple English Wikipedia. After a note presented on its talk page , It's looking more like a hoax, and if those articles above are similar, it could make it much easier to prove. wiooiw (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you that the first (without the space) is the same subject, but a longer, better structured article. The second (with a space) is identical to the article on Simple, with the sole exception that the enwiki version had an external link at the end. I can also tell you that all three articles (the two here and the one on Simple) were created by different accounts, but, if I had to put money on it, I'd say they're the same person. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well looking at the AFD nom and the fact there are the same subject, I'll go ahead and tag it. Thankyou very much for the help! wiooiw (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

AAWolk

Hi Harry, your assistance in protecting this BLP is greatly appreciated, best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Question at RFPP

Hey HJ. Thanks for considering my request at WP:RFPP. I posted a follow-up question there and would greatly appreciate your response on that page. Thanks so much!--Gnowor^T_C 17:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your use of revdel is being discussed

Your name hasn't exactly come up yet, but a revdel done by you is presented as evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3. At a glance I'm afraid I have to agree this looks like an overzealous use of revdel, I'm hoping you can provide some insight as to why you thought it was needed for such run-of-the-mill vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That's coordinated vandalism. In context, they don't look like much, but for the last couple of weeks, we've had open proxies vandalising the TFA and related articles. Their idea is to use multiple edit summaries that make some obscene message or other when one reads down the history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe

I don't know who the master is. There are probably 10 of these SPA/socks who were active on the article and AfD. My guess is that it's someone who knows the subject of the article. I'll let you know if there are any more problems. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They're baaaaaaaack. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Help Please HJ.....

Hi, HJ, I bring this issue to your attention because I trust you. Here we go: I have the WP:HELPDESK watchlisted, and try to help people out by answering their questions. I also monitor others answers to ensure they are not rude, but I came across one that certainly was. I "warned/messaged" the user on their talk page seen here, they then removed my message calling it vandalism, as seen here. I then replaced my message (as it was not vandalism) with another note, as seen here. I see two faults here; A. Being rude to an editor on the helpdesk who had a question and B. Not using rollback privileges in the correct manner (even though it was Twinkle, he used a "rollback" function, reverting edits that certainly were not vandalism; just a message about his rude behavior on the help desk. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not much I can do, really. We're given pretty wide latitude within our own userspace and if I get involved, it may just fan the flames. The post wasn't that rude. You were right to drop them a line, but how would you feel if somebody came to your talk page telling you "[not] to be so rude" and that something was "unacceptable"? You're level-headed enough not to hit rollback (which was unnecessary, but within the bounds of WP:OWNTALK), but I don't think you'd be impressed. Maybe if you'd been a little more collegiate, they might have responded better or maybe not. Best to just leave it, if you ask me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but it frustrates me when experienced editors are rude to new editors....it gets no where. If he removes it again, It's not worth edit warring over to get it back. There was no reason what-so-ever for his response to that new editor...we will see how this goes. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reminded him to watch it with the Twinkle, but really I don't think he was being rude to start with, and he is entitled to remove your messages from his talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

@Elen, I see you've joined my merry band of talk page stalkers! It wasn't exactly rude, but it was more condescending than it needed to be for a good faith suggestion. @Tofutwitch, you should review OWNTALK—you shouldn't really have reverted the revert. We can remove what we like from our own talk pages (with the sole exception of declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect)—it's simply taken as evidence that the message has been read and understood. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::I didn't mean to come across rude with my message, I understand that he can remove my messages, and if he had not marked them as vandalism, I probably would have moved on. As I mentioned, you cannot even be slightly rude on the helpdesk -- we have to help new users, no matter what their questions. We don't want to drive them away. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not as if he said "go away you silly twat, that's a ridiculous idea". I know you weren't trying to be rude (it's kind of ironic that you hit a nerve with them warning them about rudeness!), but politely asking them to mind their tone might have been more effective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted, thanks HJ and Ellen :) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Kendrick7

I removed your addition of autopatrolled to Kendrick because he has a history of WP:BLP problems (see his block log). NW (Talk) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't see cause for concern in the articles I checked, but reasonable minds may differ on their suitability and I'm only going through a database report. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuff like [1] is what would give me pause. NW (Talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. I wouldn't have been as lenient as a month, personally. I didn't see any of that kind of crap in the articles they've created (obviously), but certainly diffs like that suggest someone who should be kept an eye on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

terima kasih

fyi:

• wmf-is big...

I've been focused off-toxic-wp (and real life). Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Closure of RFC

Per this edit, you offered to close the discussion, indicating you would be done many hours ago. If you have decided not to, please indicate that you are passing at the AN so someone else can close it. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Slipped my mind, sorry. I'll make it my first priority tomorrow—nobody likes being left "in limbo" at the end of an RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sswonk (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi HJMitchell. A similar series of revdels are needed here also. Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nice guys, aren't they! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Nice guy" doesn't begin to do them justice. :) Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure they'll pay me a visit later. Ah well, every edit exposes another open proxy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Looie496/Recall

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at User talk:Looie496/Recall.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol lists

Hi HJ Mitchell, I wanted to let you know that I finished Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 5, with the exception of a couple candidates I left for a second opinion. I also wanted to say thank you for reviewing my other requests for a second opinion, and for granting autopatrol to a couple of users when I was concerned about granting them the userright. Thanks also for all the other reviewing of candidates on those pages! Best. Acalamari 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Every time I get to one of these lists you've already beaten me to it! That's quite alright; I'm always happy to provide a second opinion or sanity check. I did grant one that you declined, but I left a rationale there. It was a pleasure to work with you. Hopefully we'll have a more up-to-date list soon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My user rights

I would just like to say thank you very much for granting me those user rights. Both of them came as a bit of a surprise to me when I logged on this morning. Again, thanks! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Your name was on a list of potential candidates for autopatrolled (I was scrolling down looking for names I recognised as looking trustworthy) and I figure you could handle the reviewer as well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you. That means a lot to me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Lovine?

Hello. Question, why did you move this page to Jimmy Lovine? His last name is actually Iovine (eye-o-vine). His IMDb states this, as well as a PBS article, the Interscope Records page, and other sources. Plus you protected the page, but the title is not correct! Please explain your doing. Thanks! Tinton5 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A link would help. I've moved and/or protected thousands of pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The diffs are [2] and [3]. Tinton5 is correct: the man's name is Iovine, not Lovine.[4][5] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've unprotected it, so you should be able to move it back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A well-deserved Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		In grateful appreciation to your dedication to Wikipedia, for reviewing hundreds and hundreds of candidates for Autopatrolled rights, and for reducing the workload at New page patrol, I hereby award the The Admin's Barnstar to HJ Mitchell. Thank you so very much for all the many hours you have put in. Your efforts are truly awe-inspiring and I'm very thankful for all your hard work. - Hydroxonium (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a well-deserved barnstar. Thank you very much. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you. Glad to see you gave one to Acalamari as well. And thank you for compiling the lists. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Thanks for the recognition mate. I'm glad to know that the articles I have created were embraced by the Wikipedia community. Tibullus ^{call me} 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It makes someone's life easier! Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

editor issues

I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
there doesnt seem to be a guideline for this, but as long suspected 2 editors have a tag-team partnership in supporting articles and i just got the strongest possible evidence thereof, but dont know how to take it to high-ups as theyre seemingly not sockpuppets. as suggested before over edits on the RIRA/CIRA pages the 2 editors [6] strongly seem to be linked, possibly off-wiki, to defend their pov. cabn you advice some course of action if possible?(Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)). I think it's unlikely that anything sinister is going on. Both are respected editors and I'm pretty sure they're on different continents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC) There was an Arbcom complaint (User_talk:Lihaas#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.23O_Fenian) by another editor some time ago. (which was turned down citing need to discuss issues and other resolving methods, but out olive branches are continually spurned). it seems despite attempts to talk to the editor he abjectly and continually refuses to discuss citing his whims. he cant keep resorting to threats/blackmail to get his way as is his only tactic on Talk:List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011, which wont be conducive to wikipedia enhancement as all other editors on that page disagreed with him in some or another. One can note please my efforts at offering an olive branch and discussion of his sometimes WP:Bold queries are never met by answers on content.Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#lone_wolf_tag + [7] + as expected: to his latest query same response [8] where apparently he has not made it clear, expecting to own the article that ALL other editors at least discuss --> [9] + tag team evidence: [10] appreciate your input.(Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)). I don't know what you want me to do. As far as I can tell, you've accused one respected editor of being a meatpuppet of another respected editor and now they're not very happy with you. The rest is a content dispute and not something I can get involved with in an admin capacity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC) He cant scare of editors with such threats. I think an admin needs to warn him. and its not just me. See the talk page. EVERY single response of his is only a threat without ANY discussion of content whatsoever. then he WP:NPA's me instead. [11] where on earth is his [12] "clear" response that was not ONCE mentioned on talk.Lihaas (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC). please see this admin [13] "While I have had no involvement in this issue I will say that the observations made by the involved parties above about O Fenians behaviour stem way beyond this issue. I myself have had conflict with him in the past and his wording of his views to me felt less than civil. For example this incident Where I attempted to invoke WP:IAR and he responded with a closed statement about IAR itself and not even willing to acknowledge my statement. He also makes statements that are rude or could be seen as offensive about former flags of a country here. Just thought I'd bring it up."(Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)). moved to my page.(Lihaas (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)). Am I needed? Anything you need clarifying, please ask. I am currently busy preparing the request for comment on Lihaas for disruptive editing, now I know that it will meet the two person cerification requirements. Obviously asking if someone previously involved in the dispute was willing to certify it makes us meatpuppets.. O Fenian (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises

I one time requested the redirection page The Dark Knight Rises to be protected. I now request the redirection page to be unprotected (or just semi protected) for a discussion of making it as a article. See here and here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you want me to do. The redirect The Dark Knight Rises is fully protected so it can only be edited by admins, but none of its associate pages are protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I just did a typo, did you understand me now? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You want me to unprotect the redirect so an article can be created at that title? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Sorry if I am not that clear. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion on physics topics

Hello HJ. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Status. It seems that Antichristos is evading your 72-hour block at Action at a distance (physics). This editor seems to be on a roll, and he is ignoring all feedback (since he is sure he is right). I propose that his block should extended to one month, and that a half dozen articles be considered for semiprotection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy, block evading sockpuppets, as if I'm not busy enough already! I've extended the original block to two weeks. The rangeblock calculator also tells me that all those IPs are on a blockable range, so I've put in a two-week rangeblock. Hopefully that will have the desired effect and the semi-prot won't be necessary, but I'll add the articles to my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Busy indeed. I have put a {{sharedip}} and a welcome on the most recent talk page. (Love your SeriuzAdminCatz - Cheers!) - DVdm (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

main page article

which is the other? apparently the iraq one was removed (fair enough (although i still ithinks its sub-par)). which is the other?

although you could probably take off the current tag on tunisia now, edit works seems to hae slowedLihaas (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Lihaas's talk page.
Message added 20 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No vio result in 1RR case

Hi HJ Mitchell. You recent decided this 1RR case was not a violation. How are the first two diffs not a 1RR violation? The editor didn't self-revert those edits (reinsertion of the too long template); they were reverted by someone else (either myself or GHcool if I recall). Do 1RR violations not count if someone reverts you before you get a chance to self-revert? ← George ^talk 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see 2 reverts (excluding self-reverts) within 24 hours. You yourself conceded that there was no technical violation of the 1RR with the self-revert and that's all ANEW deals with. That doesn't preclude you from taking the broader issue to AE, but that's no violation of anything that can be enforced at ANEW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this and this are within 24 hours of each other. The editor then made a third revert, on different material. That third revert was indeed self-reverted (and not a technical violation of 1RR), but the change from the first two diffs were not self reverted; those were reverted by another editor prior to the third revert. Maybe it was confusing because I rolled two separate 1RR violations on the same article into a single case. I actually don't care in this specific case, and was just hoping the editor would get a warning to establish consensus prior to edit warring, but just curious if reverting twice within 24 hours, then getting reverted by another editor still constituted a violation of 1RR (if another editor reverts you, you cannot self-revert, which is what happened here). ← George ^talk 22:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The second diff is certainly a revert and they made another revert later on which they self-reverted (this is beginning to hurt my head!), but the first doesn't look like a revert from where I'm standing, hence my ruling of no vio. This is where we get into the technicalities of what is a revert. Any removal or modification of anything you didn't write yourself is, by the technical definition, is a revert, but if that was the definition we used to enforce the 3RR, anybody who made more than 3 edits to a page they didn't start in one day would be blocked. If the first diff is a revert, then you'll have to dig up the diff in which that text was originally added, but even that wouldn't prove that they were reverting and were aware that they were reverting (rather than just boldly making a modification), though if you can find the diff of that content being added, I'll consider it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a brief timeline:

• 03:05, January 10, 2011 - Lihaas adds the too long template for the very first time.
• 23:03, January 11, 2011 - I ask why the template was added on the talk page, and recommend removal. Lihaas never replies to the question, or argues for keeping it.
• 20:06, January 16, 2011 - GHcool removes the template.
• 03:11, January 18, 2011 - Lihaas adds it, again. (This is the first diff I linked in the ANEW case.)
• 03:55, January 18, 2011 - GHcool removes it, again.
• 00:06, January 19, 2011 - Lihaas adds it, again. (This is the second diff I linked in the ANEW case.)
• 02:51, January 19, 2011 - I removed it.

In general they seem to either not discuss their changes when reverting, or make a comment and revert immediately after, without bothering to actually building a consensus for the change prior to reverting. I'm not really looking to get the editor blocked, just hoped someone could explain to them the issues with this sort of behavior and how consensus building works. Anyways, if you decide to do nothing that's fine too... they'll probably learn how to work more constructively with others eventually, or just get blocked a lot. ← George ^talk 23:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I may have an idea or two, but I need to check it's not ultra vires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've just checked WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions and it seems that I can do what I'm thinking. What I propose is to either 1) ban Lihaas from the article for a period of time or 2) compel them to leave a justification on the talk page for any reverts they make or 3) a 0RR restriction. I'm inclined towards option 2 myself, but only if you think it would help to resolve the situation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would favor 2 as well. I'm not a big fan of bans (they're too often ineffective at solving problematic behavior), and a 0RR restriction may just discourage them from editing altogether (when I would rather just encourage them to edit more constructively with others when there are disagreements). Thanks. ← George ^talk 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Great. And thanks again for taking the time to review the (headache-inducing) diff history. Really hoping there won't be anything to report as well. Cheers. ← George ^talk 00:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe again

The socks were blocked, so I don't think protection is necessary anymore. Thanks for the reviewer rights. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The page is a BLP anyway so having the article be under pending changes isn't a bad thing --Guerillero | My Talk 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you know?

I have a question about this topic. Would I be able to add "Country Strong" to this list? I created the page on January 17, so is that still eligible to be nominated? Oh, and if you wouldn't mind, could you reply to me on my talk page? Thanks. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks, again. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

IPBE

I'm pinging you about this:

(del/undel) 03:40, 21 January 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Dusti from Account creators, Reviewers and Rollbackers to Account creators, Reviewers, Rollbackers and IP block exemptions ‎ (editor in good standing caught in a hard block)

Our IPBE policy states that a user should have a "genuine and exceptional need" in order to get IPBE from a hardblocked proxy address. The fact that Dusti wants to access Netflix while editing does not constitute "genuine and exceptional need", and he's probably violating the TOS by overriding one of their security features while watching outside of continental US. I have explained to Dusti in #wikipedia-en-unblock that he should not have been granted IPBE for the reason he stated, and have suggested that if he needs to simultaneously access Wikipedia *and* a site that he requires a US proxy address for, he should run two separate browsers, one unproxied for Wikipedia and the other proxied as he sees fit.

Please reconsider this IBPE; this is not what IPBE is for when there are other perfectly workable solutions available. Risker (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

With the very greatest respect, that does seem a little like process for the sake of process. We prohibit editing from proxies because of the potential for abuse by evading blocks and checkuser, as evidenced by the nutters on the TFA, but Dusti is an editor in good standing making positive contributions. It's none of our business what Wikipedians do on the internet other than Wikipedia and any possible violations of TOSs are between Dusti and his ISP. I grant you that watching films from outside the continental US is is not what was in mind when IPBE was created, but the risk of abuse is as negligible as if they were editing from a "regular" IP.

I'm not trying to be awkward (I have better things to do), but I don't see the point in removing it, though I will if Dusti informs me that it's no longer needed or if ArbCom wants to make a thing of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, if you think the policy is wrong, go get consensus to change it. Otherwise, I think it is reasonable to expect you, as an administrator, to follow it. Risker (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already left a note for Dusti. If your suggestion of separate browsers works, then I'll gladly remove it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Gorzelanny

Hi, thanks for protecting that page. The transaction is complete, he is now a member of the Washington Nationals.[14] The page should be safe for unprotection. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises page protection

Hello, more than a month ago I requested The Dark Knight Rises to be protected, the page should only be created when filming has begun, which is somewhere in May. I'm not sure why Jhenderson777 said he was the one who requested the protection, maybe he did as well, at least not at WP:RFPP. Please protect the page again, the edits made were edits for the sandbox or incubator and have been reverted and the article is yet again a redirect. It should not be recreated until May, which was the point of the protection in the first place. If you rather have me do an official request at WP:RFPP, I can do that as well. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. I don't want to protect it if it doesn't need to be protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA / rollback

Many thanks for your kind words, I will definitely re-run in a few months time once I've polished a few of my rough edges. Also thanks for the rollback rights, a bit out of the blue but certainly not unwelcome! Thanks again, GiantSnowman 20:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My first review

Ami doin it rite? Egg Centric (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like it to me! demize (t · c) 20:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unsourced, but so is all the other crap there and it's not a BLP, so it looks fine to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hi again HJ Mitchell, I just have a question. There are a few IP addresses that I have used in the past for a couple edits when I forgot to log in, before my block. If I log in now on those computers, will CheckUser show a problem? I use several different computers in several locations so I just want to make sure it's not mistaken for socking. I can provide the IPs of computers I regularly use if you need it. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. I don't have CU so I couldn't tell you for certain because I don't know all the workings, but if I understand it correctly, a CU can tell what IPs you edit from and who else edits from those IPs, but if they were looking for socking, they'd check the other accounts on the IP as well. It's pretty obvious if two accounts are the same person between behaviour and CU, so if two accounts were using the same IP but they were completely different people, that would probably be easy to tell so no, it shouldn't be a problem and no, you can't hide a sockfarm so don't even think about it! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, CU don't connect users to IPs generally, just users sharing the same IP. And by the way, HJ, you forgot to sign your comment above :p demize (t · c) 22:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for clearing that up. (P.S. No sockfarm planned!) NYyankees51 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghost Adventures

Hi, I noticed that you have declined my request for the page protection, since you're one of the admins, can you at least revert edits done until January 13? Since user Angsc09 has been adding future material and even place "Do not erase it, is very possible that they will announce after the season 4 ended". From there I'll be patrolling the article, because for a user like me, it will be to tedious to revert all those edits since I don't have any rollback right and no permanent internet connection. So from time to time I'll be overseeing this article from my laptop or from anywhere with internet connection. Thank you in advance! ^_^ SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 04:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the verdict? Can you help me undo the vandalism so I can patrol it? I hate to sound pushy, but it has been two days I'm waiting for your reply. I'm really sorry for causing such inconvenience!! T_T SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your message. This talk page is very busy! You should be able to do it yourself—you don't need to be an admin to revert edits. Go back in the history to 13 January or wherever the last "clean" version is and click on the date and time, which will take you to the version of the page that existed at that time. Then just click edit and save the page (being sure to leave an edit summary explaining your action, of course), which will restore the page to that version, reverting every edit made since then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind then, I have no idea how to do it your way, so I simply copy everything in the January 13, and replaced the current version with it, I know, it sounds so amateur. Ha3!! I noticed that your user page is one of the busiest I've seen so far. Anyway, thanks for the reply! :) SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 03:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC: United States cities

That was brave! I do have one comment on your closing comment. It implies that cities better known by the single name could be placed on a list of cities where disambiguation can be removed. The problem with this, as demonstrated in the past, is that this gives editors the impression that they can make these moves even if the city is not the primary use. You might want to consider adding and it is the primary use to your comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It was only a suggestion as a topic for discussion rather than a suggestion to actually compile a list (though, as an Englishman, I'd be happy to review any list and tell you which ones aren't that well known) so I don't think anybody would take it as a call to arms. Out of interest, is it a common occurrence that there's something obviously more notable than the city? The only example I can think of is Buffalo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so, about your question. Buffalo might even argue it is more notable than buffalo. The main thrust of my argument and the argument of many at the RFC who supported the AP list status quo is that there is little you as an Englishman or any non-American, Indian, Irish or South African persons for example, could offer that would seriously sit alongside the AP list as a reliable source. It along with the NY Times[15] list and perhaps similar style guide lists which likely exist at other publishers are really the only avenues worth pursuing. Other avenues always lead to original research in my view. Primary topics are very often in the eye of the beholder. To give you an example you may dispute, M1 motorway is the primary topic because of a preponderance of British editors, not because it is known outside of Britain to a vastly wider degree than any other M1. But, see HJ, that is my view. And so wouldn't discussions about many cities that the opposing crowd wants to remove the state name from cause a variety of opinions to surface. It is not practical, the AP list as a neutral reliable source is very much so. It maintains stability and reduces reliance on conjecture. I would like to thank you very much for closing the RFC. Not that I don't understand your willingness above to offer naming well known cities, it certainly is an interesting topic to consider, kind of like naming authors or musicians that are well known. But the two sources alone are enough to convince many that the vast majority of places in the United States, independent of how well known they are worldwide, require the state name be included when the city is first referred to in writing, such as within a news story dateline. I think perhaps some who are not convinced the state name inclusion is necessary might be focused on the listings involved with business travel, where airport Arrivals and Departures have often been listed just by city unless there are two cities with the same name in two different states. That often has to do with economy of characters in the limited tabular space of a data terminal,[16] and has little in common with the idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia and its pillars. But the AP, NYT and Wikipedia aren't dealing with a limited subset of places with airline-serviced commercial airports: we need to consider the entire country. What people who aren't in the daily business of writing about thousands of locations and serving millions of readers may see as quaint is standard practice for the reliable sources we employ when building the encyclopedia. Thank you again. Sswonk (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and two questions

I would like to thank you as well for this effort. As the originator of the RFC, thank you very much for taking the time to read it all, give it the careful consideration you obviously did, and draw some very helpful conclusions out of this highly contentious situation. I do have a couple of questions.

1. You wrote: The formal result of the RfC is that the consensus is in favour of maintaining the status quo. By the last raw vote count, only 57% (39 out of 68) favoured the status quo over the proposed change. Doesn't that indicate a no consensus result, rather than a "consensus is in favour" result?

   I certainly agree that no alternative is favoured over the status quo, but that doesn't mean that consensus favours the status quo (that would be assuming the false dichotomy of lack of consensus support for an alternative implies consensus support for the status quo).

   Contention over US city naming history goes back almost 10 years, to at least July of 2002 (see here for summary of history), and one of the main obstacles to reaching consensus is that the small majority that favours preemptive disambiguation has little reason to work with the sizable minority that favors only as precise as necessary as long as the guideline wording is to to the liking of the majority, especially if it is formally declared to be favoured by consensus.

   So, ironically, formally declaring that consensus favors the current wording makes it more challenging (if not impossible) to actually develop real consensus. As an example of what I mean, your formal declarative statement about consensus favoring the status quo has already been used as an excuse to curtail discussion [17]. If that was not your intent, I urge you to reconsider the wording of this sentence.

2. In your comment you imply that certain US cities may be "well-enough known internationally for the City, State convention to be dropped ". The only cities for which dropping ", State" can be considered are those that have unique names or are already determined by community consensus to be the primary topic ([City] redirects to [City, State]). For those cities, what relevance does their international notoriety have to the question of whether their names require additional WP:PRECISION or more disambiguation in their articles titles? Is international notoriety relevant to this question for any other articles in Wikipedia which have clear, natural and unambiguous (i.e., not Buffalo) concise names like these cities? If so, which ones? If not, why is this relevant to this question for US cities? I am not aware of this factor being taken under consideration for any other article titles, nor is it addressed at WP:TITLE or WP:D. Many people seem to take it for granted for U.S. cities, and I'm curious as to why.

Again, thank you very much. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On 1, I think consensus was in favour of the status quo because none of the other options presented attracted anything like the level of support the status quo had and, of course, in the result of no consensus, we default to the status quo, especially so with policies and guidelines, which are presumed to already have a broad consensus. That's part of what I was trying to say about the format not lending itself to consensus-making. I don't mean it as a criticism of you, but I think the RfC was largely doomed from the moment it opened because it was so broad and combines discussions about multiple different issues. That's why I suggested revisiting it with smaller RfCs or less formal discussions.

On 2, I was referring to the same principle as the AP list—some cities (Buffalo, nobody hit me, but Las Vegas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Tulsa and quite a few more, some of which may not be on the AP list) are clearly the primary topic for that title and are very well known outside the States that the name would be recognised by almost anybody and so the [, State] disambiguator is unnecessary, Similarly, I'm sure I could go through the AP list and find a few cities whose names would be ambiguous or little-known outside the US, but that was (and this is) more food for thought for future discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

1 - I agree with you in general about presuming status quo consensus for guidelines, but this so-called comma convention for U.S. cities is a special case because of how it came about. Instead of being a natural outgrowth of how articles were named by editors one at a time, a bot was created to update all existing U.S. city articles with census data, and it automatically named all U.S. city articles using the [city, state] format because it was easier to program it that way[18]:

FWIW, a discussion on the topic of city disambiguation has occured at WikiProject Cities. There are a *lot* of cities. It was easiest to make every city into the format "City, State" for U.S. cities. This makes for standard naming for all cities (in the U.S.). There was the additional problem of more than one "City, State" name. These are disambiguated by "City, County, State", e.g. Salisbury Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. -- Ram-Man

At first no one noticed and cared, but as soon as people starting talking about it it was clear it did not have consensus support, and it never did, not until the AP list exception clause was added. What this survey shows is that the consensus support for that is no longer there, and that it was established 3 1/2 years ago only temporarily.

2 - Yes, there is a notoriety concept underlying the AP list exception, but that's of course part of this guideline. I was asking if you knew of any other guideline or policy that reflected this notion. Several other people asked this question (in so many words)... why should notoriety matter for U.S. cities but not for any other topics in WP as a factor in deciding whether to disambiguate the name of a topic which is unique?

Anyway, thank you for your answers, I understand your position, and find it to be reasonable. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)