User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 104

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100 ← Archive 102 Archive 103 Archive 104 Archive 105 Archive 106 → Archive 110

YGM

*NOT* trying to bump it if you just haven't decided what to do yet (or if you dealt with it already), just making sure I didn't end up in a spam filter or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it this morning but I was sitting on it while I decided what to do. I've sent you a reply, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject Barnstar

The WikiProject Barnstar
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from September 2014 to September 2015, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Tom, and best of luck to the next tranche of coordinators. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

What "long term issues" are you referring to here? [1]

EllenCT's edit warring only began its current pause the day after I filed the initial report. She had previously vowed to continue reverting indefinitely and things have been in a holding pattern since. That's why she hasn't edited the article since then. If she doesn't receive so much as a warning then there's no reason to assume she won't resume once AE is over. I was asked to take the report to AE but never had a chance to do so because she hijacked the process while I was gone. I finally initiated the report against her yesterday that should have originally been filed and frankly I deserve some credit for actually following instructions and doing it properly unlike EllenCT. Responding admins have indicated they're confused by her report and it didn't appear as if it's going anywhere. Her false accusations against me were refuted (she never even linked to a single edit I've made) but were distracting enough that there was almost no focus by responding admins to her demonstrable edit warring. My properly formed request, by contrast, should make things a lot clearer, especially since most of the distracting BS has already been gotten out of the way in her request and won't be repeated in mine. I ask you to reconsider this premature hatting. My evidence deserves a fair hearing. VictorD7 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

AE: Gob Lofa

Hi, Harry. I'm coming on your talk page re this, because I didn't want to start a new section just to point out that Mabuska specifically asked for the case to be closed with no action taken – see the last line of Statement by User:Mabuska. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I've closed the thread now. I got the impression from an earlier conversation that Mabuska was planning to submit evidence of a longer-term pattern. But there's nothing to stop them filing a new report if they wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, you might have a look at this talk page (the edits to the "Confusing edit summary" section). He started off by trying (for the second time) to get Mabuska to engage in an argument that had petered out two weeks previously. When I took him on instead, he consistently turned his attack back on Mabuska. To my mind, that is baiting, pure and simple. He wants to drag Mabuska back into a slanging match that will end up with a block. It's surely not acceptable, but I don't know what the relevant policy is. Scolaire (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realise that had taken place at the talk page of Orange Order. This yesterday surely falls into baiting as well. But then again I had reported a litany of baiting at AN/I about a month or over ago. I'm pretty sure it won't end anytime soon. Mabuska (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I've left a note for Gob Lofa. I'd like to see if we can resolve this without resort to sanctions, as topic bans are blunt instruments, but you're welcome to continue compiling evidence if you're looking at filing another AE request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Disgusting misrepresentation here, shame on both of you. Particularly you Scolaire; your attempt to deflect blame in this matter on me is reprehensible. I have no interest in being in a "slanging match" with Mabuska or anyone else; had I so wished, I would have paid him back in the same coin on the Orange Order talk page. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I openly admit some of my past comments—bourne out of frustration at your editing and interaction style—were uncivil and we both ended up blocked for a trivial 1RR violation on 14th August (on an article that you followed me too might I add). The blocking admin Callanecc cautioned us at the time about our behaviour and comments, and they took no further action. Since then I have heeded their advice and you won't find any instances of incivility from me towards you since our respective blocks almost two months ago. On the other hand as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#Gob_Lofa and recent comments by yourself clearly show, you haven't heeded the advice and have been trying to bait since. Mabuska (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a common tactic; I point out what I believe is one editor's mistake, another of the tag team jumps in to deflect attention away from it. I was played this way on [Talk:Orange Order] and now if I move to discuss what Mabuska brings up, Scolaire gets a by for pretending I engage in trading insults for the sake of it. It's transparent and tiresome and has been allowed to continue for far too long. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Slovenski Volk

Although 20+ months have passed under full topic ban restriction I can't understand why SV claims that his restrcition is already over [[2]] without the wp:ae case being closed. From his history log it's clear that he not only edits Balkan-related articles freely during the last days, but in a vew cases he was violating his topic ban in the Balkans-field in this 20+ period (for example [[3]] patricipating in talk:Croats).Alexikoua (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, the topic ban is almost certainly going to be lifted, it's just a matter of an admin (probably me) doing the paperwork. Are his edits problematic? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

AE

Hi. Thanks for trying to move things forward at AE. I wonder whether too much was hatted, however. I see that one editor has copied some text out of the hatted section, and I wouldn't want my comments to be lost either. I can understand closing the discussion to further responses except to the Admins who comment below the line, but I suggest you consider un-hatting the earlier discussion. Among other things, it demonstrates VictorD7's abusive personal attacks on me and others and his posting of undocumented aspersions. Arbcom has repeatedly endorsed the principle that such attacks are sanctionable. I think it is all relevant and useful and should all be considered in any decisions that may come out of this. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've read it all and considered it all (thank you for the diffs, by the way, diffs are much more helpful than allegations and counter-allegations). I know everyone participating there did so in good faith, and rest assured I've read all their comments and will take them into consideration (note, by the way, that there's a subtle difference between {{cot}} and {{hat}}), but the thread was getting out of control and we need to move into the phase of what action should be taken and (concisely) why, rather than establishing who did what or attempting to prove that one party's conduct was worse. Feel free to refer to anything in the collapsed section to back up your statements in the "proposed resolution" section, but the thrust of the thread from now on should be on how we resolve the issue, because in my experience the longer a thread gets the smaller the chance of it reaching a useful conclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see Specifico quote any "abusive personal attacks" by me, and I've backed up everything I've said, contrary to his claim above. He certainly made several abusive claims about me in the AE that he didn't back up with any specifics, and I didn't even get a chance to reply to his last second "SPA" libel. He didn't even correctly use the term "SPA" (which has nothing to do with being interested in a broad topic like "politics" across multiple articles), and, contrary to his claim, I've edited extensively on history and other subjects. If you found his links helpful, does that mean that Specifico's several diffs of that stale movie article dispute, already long since looked at and passed over by Arbcom, swayed you in some way? If so, did you find my links of Gamaliel's true edit warring against consensus there helpful?
[4],[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15],[16]
Or is there a double standard here? Because if that played any role at all in your impending decision to topic ban me then several other people involved in that dispute (including Specifico himself) must be scrutinized too. So far I don't think you've replied to a single thing I've said during this process, but answering some of my reasonable questions here [17] will help me frame what at this point looks like an inevitable appeal (especially given how the above admin Gamaliel was allowed to poison the well, his baseless rant against me not even moved until after you hatted, and never deleted).
To clarify one crucial question, I need to know whether the mediation you have in mind is a one on one, mediated discussion to try and gain understanding and maybe some common ground proposals we can jointly present to the article to weigh in on, or whether it will result in a binding decision imposed on the article, ignoring all the previous RFCs and discussion that have already established consensus there. If the former, I'd be happy to participate. If the latter, I'd rather sacrifice myself than undo all that work by so many editors to build consensus just to reward EllenCT's tendentious edit warring. VictorD7 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


Also, you should know I don't think I had ever been formally alerted about these discretionary sanctions. EllenCT didn't bother filling out that part of the request. According to rules [18], "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)." Now if that means sanctioned after DS were implemented (since this is about awareness of DS), that seems to say that I can't be sanctioned under the DS because I haven't been formally notified of them, unless there's something I'm missing (which here there may be). I'll add that EllenCT actually participated in the case that led to these DS, so presumably that does count as formal notification for her. VictorD7 (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Victor, you really need to learn the art of concision. Posting walls of text like this isn't going to help your case; most admins won't bother to read it. Frankly, I'm rapidly forming the opinion that both you and Ellen are behaving tendentiously and refusing to give an inch and that the encyclopaedia would be best served by removing you both from the topic area, but I haven't decided exactly what I'm going to do and I haven't finalised my opinion yet. That's why I created the "proposed resolution" section, in the hope of having a discussion about the best way forward with input from involved and uninvolved editors and other administrators. As far as awareness, you've both participated in enforcement requests and filed them against each other, so you're aware. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
So you read the above which included accusations of libel, spurious calls for sanctions against people participating in the AE request and wikilawyering over sanction limitations then concluded that the problem was it was too long? Protonk (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say the length was the only problem, I said that Victor wasn't doing himself any favours by posting walls of text all over the place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes length is necessary to unpack a bunch of false claims (like at AE), or in this case when unanswered, reasonable questions have stacked up. Just to clarify, you're saying that me being reported in this DS enforcement request counts as notification of the DS? If anyone reported is automatically considered notified, the formal notification section would be redundant. Surely that's not how the rule works. As for the alleged tendentious editing, no I don't. And this isn't a content battle between me and EllenCT, it's a content battle between lots of people, including multiple RFCs, and EllenCT. VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You are considered aware because of the request you filed against Ellen, assuming none of the other criteria apply. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The AE report I filed that you closed? But that was days after she filed the report against me. Isn't one supposed to be formally notified before the transgressions they're accused of allegedly occurred, or at least some time before the report leading to their sanctions is filed? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just new to this process and trying to understand it. VictorD7 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Awareness is only a prerequisite to sanctions. Once aware, an editor can be sanctioned if an admin feels their conduct is disruptive. You can't really claim to be ignorant of the discretionary sanctions considering the large banner at the top of Talk:United States and that it was brought up in the ANEW report you filed, but filing the AE request against Ellen puts you squarely within the realms of being "aware". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I'm not sure what the purpose of notification is then if anyone can be formally notified right before sanctions are handed down (not before their alleged violations), but I figured it was worth asking. VictorD7 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"Spurious"? VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, thanks for your reply. My reason for asking to make the entire thread visible is that, unlike at an Arbcom case -- where there is a fixed number of judges and they are all actively looking at the case -- I think that this thread could benefit from more fresh Admin eyes to help sort things out. Therefore it seemed to me that more visible text and perhaps an invitation at AN or other suitable venue would enable everyone to have the benefit of additional wise counsel on this case. I think the community has made real strides in cleaning up the toxic editing environment on topics which some editors view as ideological battlegrounds, so I think there's broad support for a decisive resolution of cases such as this one. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course we don't action just for the sake of taking action, especially on a malformed request that mostly just caused confusion. VictorD7 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I tend to think that the longer the thread is, the less likely it is to attract uninvolved admins—to somebody arriving at a thread like that when it's already well advanced, it just looks like an unholy mess and most people wouldn't want to touch it with a bargepole. Frankly, that was my initial thought when I first looked into it. My other concern is that it encourages more interpersonal bickering and other things that produce vastly more heat than light. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, well that is the quandry, and I am sure your view is based on much observation and experience. However it also seems to validate the tactic of tendentious editing, as defined, in order to avoid sanctions. On the other hand, the record of tendentious and vacuous aggression on that AE thread might demonstrate to Admins the nature of the problem and convince them to take remedial action. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it's a well-known fact that you can derail any discussion on Wikipedia by posting at such length that nobody bothers to read the thread. AE is a less susceptible to this than fora like ANI because of the partitioning between the complaint, the discussion, and the resolution, but some of the warring parties in the Israel-Palestine topic area made it look like an art form a few years ago, to the extent that admins several times had to take similarly drastic action or complaints ended up archived without resolution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Well sounds like you're on top of it and ideally suited to ensure that no editor games the system filibustering this case. Thanks for your clarity, and godspeed. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Clarity was why I finally posted my own greatly streamlined request that got hatted. I certainly agree with Specifico that there was a lot of vacuous aggression on EllenCT's request, though we disagree on who was perpetrating it. VictorD7 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm really not interested in where people see "vacuous aggression". I'm interested in whether or not you and Ellen can behave responsibly while editing a controversial topic area, and if not what action needs to be taken to maintain order in that topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I assure you I can, and I'd both point to my contributions to issues (sources, quotes, analysis) and say that recent discussions in the topic area have largely been civil and productive. My own tone is more likely to be dry than hostile, confrontational, or disruptive. VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Adrian Peterson

Did you mean to remove the indefinite PC when you added the temporary semi? --NeilN talk to me 22:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Good question. One to which I don't really know the answer. I don't think PC is of much use there and it probably need long-term semi; whether there's any value in keeping PC on for when the semi eventually expires and isn't renewed I don't really know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
In these types of cases, I usually keep PC on so when the semi expires, the article isn't wide open to disruption. I can judge whether or not another semi is required over a period of time without the reader being exposed to vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 23:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Pledge of Allegiance

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2015



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 01:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Archive listing shows up in alphabetical order, not numeric order

Hello HJ. Currently you list your archives using this link. The resulting list now has the problem that you have 1, 10, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 11, 12 etc. In other words, an alphabetic sort of the left-adjusted archive number, viewed as a string. This could be avoided using {{archives|search=yes}} where everything magically comes out in correct numerical order. In your case it would produce:

Collapse to avoid wasting space here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
.

The only catch is that you have some early archives marked with Roman numerals that now won't display. This is a slight problem with my proposal. To overcome this you might consider folding their contents into Archive 1. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham meetup

See you there? Well... not here... this photo is from a pub in Manchester... but that's cos there haven't been enough meetups in Birmingham.
 Hi there! Did you know that there will be a meetup in Birmingham on the 15th of November?

There hasn't been many meetups in Birmingham. I will be passing through on the 15th of November, so I thought I would see who fancied meeting up, while I'm in the area. I'm leaving this message on your talk page because you have previously expressed an interest in a meetup in Birmingham or Coventry.

Yaris678 (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Message added 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sandhurst

Hello, HJ Mitchell. May I gently point out the difference between the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and the present-day Royal Military Academy Sandhurst? And each has a separate category for the officers it trained. Regards, Moonraker (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Moonraker: Ah, my mistake. Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

tag

hi can you restore the tag on that page Happy Mood (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you really want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Khowar language

Hi HJ, khowar language is curently semi-protected please remove the protection. thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.69.32 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Harry. The IP is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo, currently operating on 119.160.65.0/16 to 119.160.69.0/16. Thomas.W talk 06:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


revdel

Why did you delete a bunch of my revisions I have made to my userpage?—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eat me, I'm an azuki: Check your inbox; I've sent you an email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Is it considered acceptable practice to remove sensitive info which the user has posted themselves and revdel it without their permission?—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

New/returning Troll on Nostradamus page

Hi HJ.

You may remember that about 6 months ago, an anonymous troll posted major abuse and made slanderous allegations against myself and PL. You therefore banned them for 6 months. (Thanks again for that). However, sadly it appears that now their ban has expired they have returned! They have again slandered myself and PL along with the NostradamusRG group, which I am the owner of. This includes a threat to remove and replace the group link from the page itself. Please may you look to ban this person/troll again. Thank you. Smithsurf (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. The offending article can be found at the bottom of the page, under the title of 'Proposed Modification/Substitution for NostradamusRG.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nostradamus Smithsurf (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello HJ Mitchell:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

 The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves 
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, for: your four years as a coordinator of Milhist (2011–2015); being a great ambassador in the UK for our project through your involvement with Wikimedia events in the UK, such as Wikimania 2014; for fighting vandals; for being incredibly patient and always being willing to lend a hand; and your excellent Featured Articles and Featured Lists. Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I had to stop myself supporting (and awarding!) this out of habit (and frank admiration) so let me be the first to offer well-deserved congrats, Harry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you gents, this is a huge honour! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hearty congrats, Harry! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

spi

You mind taking a look at this? Thanks, nableezy - 05:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Summary deletion of AIV requests

I don't understand this summary deletion of multiple open AIV requests. The majority seem to have been neither blocked nor specifically declined or explained as "inactionable". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I checked all the reports before I removed them (I also actioned about a dozen reports before I removed the inactionable ones). None of them were going to be resolved at AIV, which is deliberately a summary process for obvious vandalism, so inactionable reports are routinely removed by a passing admin. Actionable ones are usually handled within a few minutes at most. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Copperhead; Review

Hey Harry! How are you? Massive favour to ask. So I have an article on FAC (Operation Copperhead) and I think it's pretty okay but it probably needs more reviews (and is getting on a bit in the list) to pass. I don't support you or a talk page stalker would mind casting your eyes over it? --Errant (chat!) 11:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Tom, long time no see! I'll see if I can have a look at Copperhead tomorrow or later in the week. Glad to see you're still working on oyur deception articles! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Harry! Appreciated. I got a some steam this last couple of weeks, expect its enough to finish the Bodyguard topic. --Errant (chat!) 09:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the past

Hey, are you still active on Wiki? JaakobouChalk Talk 08:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jaakobou: Yes, I'm still about. Not as much as I used to be (partly real life, partly a lack of patience with projectspace politics), but I'm here. Remind me, where have we crossed paths before? Your name is familiar but I can't think from where. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I used to contribute on articles in the Israeli-Arab space. I was, I believe, herded off the site, though. I'd like to have that reviewed. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, according to WP:DSLOG, you were topic-banned three and a half years ago; you were blocked shortly after for violating it, but your name hasn't appeared in that log since. Have you built up a history of problem-free editing in another topic area? If so, I could see myself advocating to lift the topic ban, at least on a trial basis. But it's not my decision alone—you'd need to get Timotheus Canens (the admin who imposed the topic ban) to vacate it or there'd have to be a formal appeal at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I see exactly one article space edit since the topic ban. That doesn't make me inclined to lift it. T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
No no. I've chosen to, on occasion, contribute anonymously to topics outside the scope of the ban. Regardless, I'm asking a review on the way I was herded off. This does not require any review of my contributions, past or present. Have you heard any news about some of the stabbing attacks in Israel? JaakobouChalk Talk 19:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for everything you've done, are doing and will continue to do in the future. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Rubbish computer; sorry I didn't see this earlier. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You're probably very busy, so fair enough. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Seen your objections on the Elevatorgate section, which is objectively false at present (and was for the last years). When you let me know which aspects were "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" I could repair the article and correct it. Alternatively, someone else could do this.

I otherwise suggest to split it off to its own article, since it continues to be an important subject (see the Atheists Ireland vs PZ Myers). Also please, check the plenty of resources I added. I cannot see how they should be discarded willy-nilly, just because -- evidently -- some folk don't like the facts.

Thanks for your time.

Lokkhen (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Block of DHeyward

Help me along with this matter please. Is 48 hours the standard block length for this and since its been oversighted and I cannot see it, what is the nature of the violation. Thanks.--MONGO 17:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

--MONGO 21:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for feedback here--MONGO 22:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AC.2FDS_block_appeal. NE Ent 12:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Re your statement [19] -- how did the comment come to your attention? NE Ent 16:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I got an email from Mark Bernstein; I believe he'd sent the same email to Gamaliel, and Gamaliel had recommended that MB send it to me for a second opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
And Mark is an arch rival of DHeyward. I recognize you're just trying to keep those two editors apart to make this a more harmonious place, but since several admins have questioned the block as well as the removals of the posts by Gamaliel, would it be possible to end the block as time served?--MONGO 18:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not as daft as I look, I'm well aware of the dynamics of the relationship. You'll notice that I've twice blocked Mark in the past. I can't remember offhand if either case concerned DH, but this isn't a case of an admin being blind to the flaws of one party and the virtues of another. I'm not sure that unblocking wouldn't just prompt more needling, but I'm not unwilling to be convinced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Never said you were being partial. I understand you are real busy in real life...whatever my worthless disgraced former admin advice is worth: I wish someone had told me to step back from administrating and just go edit. But nobody did and not only was I not having any fun...I was desysopped. Now the chances of you meeting the same fate are next to zero, but is this fun? I hated it when my actions were scrutinized...afterall, I was an admin. You're not on the RMS Titanic like I was....but consider allowing yourself some you time and just go edit.--MONGO 00:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I have read harsher, less self-effacing comments on this talk page. BusterD (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

chronic fatigue syndrome

hello, I am trying to edit the chronic fatigue syndrome page to reflect the best and most recent research. I seem to be in an edit war with user Alexbrn. I explicitly requested on my first edit that he discuss my changes on my talk page; he has ignored this. I may require an arbitrer. it would be great if we could also have a talk page for the topic at hand. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi @Dailyshampoo48: you can find the article talk page at Talk: Chronic fatigue syndrome. 5 albert square (talk)
much appreciated, can never seem to find those for some reason! I read thru the edit page and the Alexbrn had not seen fit to make a comment either there or on my own personal talk page as requested. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem. At the top of the article page, next to where it says "article" you should see "talk". If you click that it will take you to the talk page of the article. This is a content dispute and the talk page of the article is where that should be discussed as it will then be seen by other editors who may be able to assist. I have checked and the other editor would now be appearing to try and explain things to you. 5 albert square (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thanks, unfortunately I think this is the same one with whom I was having the original difficulty. I made need outside moderation yet. thanks for your help. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Editnotice

Hi,

Am looking for permission to beg/borrow/steal/throw a beer in your general direction to distract you while I send in a bunch of minions to steal on my behalf so as to escape criminal culpability, your edit notice. The format suits my style and I plan on editing it somewhat but the basics seem to suit my purpose. Amortias (T)(C) 21:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Help yourself! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts re GamerGate

I'm going to leave an identical comment for both HJ and Gamaliel on their respective talk pages.

You've both been doing yeoman's work in the GamerGate topic area, and I thank you for that. I have regularly looked in on the activities there (but not participated), and I think that you've each made many good decisions on many occasions; however on the whole, it's been the two of you most of the time dealing with much of this, at least for quite a while, and it's clear this particular case has become quite a burden for both of you. An occasional other admin will pop in here and there when something's blatant, but that's not quite the same thing, I know. So...thank you for your work in this very contentious area. On the other hand...emails? It's probably not the best way to handle arbitration enforcement, since other admins can't back you up or point out that there's something you may have overlooked. I know there aren't a lot of admins willing to work on AE - it can be corrosive - and I know this is a pretty esoteric topic area anymore. In fact, it's at risk of becoming something of a walled garden, with the same editors working on the same articles and carrying the same arguments back and forth, and unfortunately only a few admin eyes keeping watch. There have been times when I thought the solution that would be best for the project would be to kick everyone off the topic area with the hope of drawing in fresh perspectives, but my years on Arbcom have taught me that there's a very low success rate for those types of interventions. I've encouraged DHeyward to step away from the topic area, and I'd probably encourage a few other editors to do the same. To be honest, I wouldn't blame either of you if you said "okay, out of here for good this time" and remove the primary combatants (and I use the word advisedly). I don't think either of you made particularly outrageous administrator decisions in this specific episode - although if you're going to delete something to enforce AE sanctions, you do need to be explicit about that - and I hope that both of you will continue with your work on arbitration enforcement, although it may do you both good to take a break from this particular topic area. It's not like there is a dearth of disputes to work on. Once again, thanks for your work in a difficult and challenging area. Risker (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, an admin who contributed a lot to managing this area was Dreadstar and I think that this experience managing the divisiveness between editors was one cause for him leaving the project. Most admins won't go near Gamergate articles so it's left to a few to keep an eye when discretionary sanctions need to be applied. I'm glad that HJ Mitchell is willing to be one of them. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Look! Look! over there in the distance. Deploys minions

Many thanks Amortias (T)(C) 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably need to semiprotect this article, too...

Hi, I noticed that you might be the admin who made the Planned Parenthood article semiprotected. This week somebody made an automagic connection between this article and another article, Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, which isn't semiprotected. I was thinking that since the one article automagically updates from the other article, it would probably be smarter if the other article was semiprotected too. That's all. Thanks! -SocraticOath (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimandia (talk • contribs) (--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC))

Royal Arm Corps

Your article on the Women's Royal Army Corps disbandment is incorrect. When the Corps disbanded in 1992 the Women weren't transferred to the Adjutant Generals Corps (AGC), they were transferred to whichever Corps they served with; for example, if they were a Data Telegraphist attached to the Royal Signals they were transferred to the Royal Signals, Drivers were transferred to the Royal Corps of Transport (RCT) which is now part of the Royal Logistics Corps (RLC), cooks were transferred to the Army Catering Corps (ACC) so on and so forth... I think you get the picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.74.33 (talk • contribs)

This Month in GLAM: October 2015



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_104&oldid=1162941099"