User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 35

Thank you
Hi Mitchell. I appreciate the unblock. i want you to understand that I was a bit shocked at the outcome. I mean I've been a good faith editor, making really good contributions for like 2 years. There are vandals that I know that get warnings every week and are still going strong. So for me, who made an error for the first time, to be blocked for a whole week, just seemed unfair. I honestly would like to report it. I ask your honest opinion, do you think I should? Do you think it was excessive treating me like a mass vandal? They didn't even ask me or have me explain. Anyways, thank you, I really appreciate it.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey. If I'm honest, I think the best thing you can do is take it on the chin and move on. That would be in the best interests of the project and yourself. I think the block may have been a little harsh, but I don't think it was abusive or in bad faith (nor do I think you uploaded those images in anything but the best of faith). At the end of the day, I think my comment in my log entry when I unblocked you would be sufficient to allay most concerns and, as long as you're careful with images and copyrights, that should be the end of it. Just remember the advice I gave you: if you're not the author of the image or you're not 110% certain that it's usable on WP, ask me, ask a knowledgeable editor you trust or ask at WP:MCQ. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I see what your saying. I mean I'm not trying to make enemies, but I was so shocked by that result. I appreciate the unblock and advice, I will just let it go. From now on I'll make sure to only upload my personal photos :). Thanks again!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   20:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the mailbag
Just a quick question. :) - JuneGloom    Schmooze  20:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Alcatraz Island
Thanks for the semi-protect and the good, long duration. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You;re welcome. Seems to be one of those articles that's plagued by vandalism. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Edward K. Beale: undelete
I spent a goodly amount of time researching this person and would like to at least copy the code into a sandbox somewhere before it is gone for good. Could you please undelete or at least post the article text verbatim (meaning, with all the sub- code, reference tag information, etc)? That would save me and the other authors a whole lot of rework and send an encouraging message for future work. Thank you. Rezonate (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article was deleted via the proposed deletion process, by which the article is deleted if nobody objects within 7 days of the tag being laced on the article. It can be restored upon request, however, it appears that the subject doesn't meet our notability requirements. Career military officers are only usually considered notable when they hold two-star rank (in this case, Rear Admiral, O-8), though we do have some articles on one star officers or if they've been awarded very important decorations (for example, Medal of Honor recipients are automatically considered notable). Your guy is a Commander (O-5) and the article doesn't mention anything like the MoH or Navy Cross. This means that, if I were to restore it, someone else would most likely pursue deletion through another process and it would be deleted again but I wouldn't be able to restore it. If that's what you want to do, then I can restore it. Alternatively, I can email you the text of the article and you might be able to use it elsewhere or re-add it in a few years when he's got stars on his epaulettes. What would you like to do? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C
Thanks for the support, and sorry for the very late reply. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply (updated at 02:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC))
S ophie ( Talk ) 02:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

arbcom nom
would you object if i were to nominate you for the upcoming arbcom elections? i've seen your participation and various admin actions around WP and feel you would make an excellent addition to the panel. but i realize an arbcom position entails extra work and is somewhat of an obligation, so i wanted to ask you first. as it stands, there is an acute lack of candidates, particularly worthy candidates. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * after closer inspection, it appears you must nominate yourself (i believe). i would therefore like to strongly encourage you to do so. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I must say I'm greatly flattered that you think I'm up to the job, but I must respectfully decline. I don't think the majority of the community would agree that I'm up to it and, more importantly, I'm content with just keeping the wheels turning in the background for the minute. Arbs tend not to spend as much time (probably because it's taken up with ArbCom duties) on "routine" admin actions and we're on the brink of a serious shortage of people to deal with those essential day-to-day actions that keep things running smoothly. I very much appreciate the consideration, though. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * you're very welcome, and i appreciate that the less obvious things on WP need attention too; just concerned about the sever lack of candidates so far. seems like pretty much anyone who nominates themselves is probably going to get through seeing as they are trying to fill a dozen or so positions with six or seven candidates. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there are 11 candidates. I won't mention names, but most of them are viable candidates and highly respected editors. There's time yet, anyway. Almost the entire weekend in some time zones. If the situation is the same by the end of the weekend, I might think about putting myself forward in the interests of giving the community a choice, 'cos 11 candidates standing for 11 seats aint much of an election. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to encourage you to step up as well. I am strongly of the opinion that you would be a superb person for the job, assuming you are willing to withstand the often absurd drama that would go with it.  Best regards, Jusdafax   00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aww darn it I was coming to suggest the same thing. Though I end to agree that you are likley more needed as you are.... Level headed Janitors are few and far between. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, gents. Let's see how things look tomorrow. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Floods
"disrupts 1.2 million others" makes it sound like they were late for work. Or is it just me? Can't think of anything better though. Stephen 03:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had almost exactly the same thought when I read the blurb suggestion, but it's far too late for me to come up with a sensible suggestion for an alternative. I was hoping our friends at WP:ERRORS or the peanut gallery might have some suggestions. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

user block template
I believe it was a rule somewhere that a block template must be left on the page. User talk:M12390 insists on removing the date. I dont know if an admin needs to warn him, if there is a need then i think you know what action to takeLihaas (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Admins have an obligation to notify a user of a block, but the blockee is at liberty to remove that and anything else from their own talk page. The only thing one can't remove from one's own talk page is declined unblock requests. Everything else, including block notices, is fair game. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Chapa (Gurjara) Dynasty
Hi, Someone moved it to "Chapa Rajput Dynasty", which is absurd.Even google book search for it returns 0 result.For more information vist the discussion page-title of article.SO i request you to move it back to its old title i.e Chapa (Gurjara) dynasty.I also request you to add it in your watch-list. Thank you Mkrestin (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can move it back yourself. You don't need to be an administrator to reverse a page move. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Jehovah's Witnesses
Hi, I note you placed full protection on the Jehovah's Witnesses article. The policy explained on WP:FULL is that protection should be proposed on the talk page and applied once consensus is reached. There was no such proposal made at that article's talk page. A request for protection was made on November 5 by User:Tim2k, a supposedly new editor who had made only two previous Wikipedia contributions, but rejected. A request with almost identical wording was made on November 19 (again without discussion) by User:Logicalthinker33, evidently because he was unable to gain consensus for deletion of material he opposed. I have since requested an SPI for Logicalthinker33. I suggest the application of full protection was done too hastily without a proper notification and discussion at the talk page. Can it please be removed? The article's talk page often has a fairly vigorous discussion there, but I don't see that full protection is warranted at this time. BlackCab (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misread the protection policy. Full protection can be applied at any time by an admin and it's edits to protected pages that must be proposed on the talk page. The protection was requested at WP:RfPP and, as the administrator who happened to be working on that board at that moment, I agreed that full prot was necessary. Looking through the history, I see a lot of persistent back and forth between a variety of editors so at least a short time for everybody's tempers to cool is advisable. If there's an uncontroversial or consensual edit that needs to be made, put an editprotected request up and ping my talk page and I, one of my admin TPSs or somebody patrolling the edit requests will sort it. If there's a consensus that the protection is unnecessary (and an agreement to stick to bold, revert, discuss), then ping my talk page and/or WP:RFUP and I or whoever is at that board will reduce it back to the previous semi-protection. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Help me out!!!!!!!!!
I dont need page prtection, but kindly block this IP user. He has been troubling me for hours(as you have seen on the ITN page). --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I really do have better things to do with my Sunday afternoon, but I've blocked them for calling you an asshole. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Sockblock
Hi. Regarding, Template:Sockblock is not the right template to use when a sockpuppet of a non-blocked sockmaster has been blocked; it should only be used when a ban- or block-evading account is blocked indefinitely. Template:SockBlock can be used for temporarily blocked socks. In this case a redirect to the user page with the sockpuppet template would've been more appropriate. Also, Template:Sockpuppetry can be used for temporarily blocked sockmasters due to abuse of multiple accounts, like in this case. Hey Mid  (contributions) 15:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's the same person behind the accounts so it doesn't make that much difference. The two templates you suggest don;t work because the socks are blocked indefinitely, but the sockmaster temporarily. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I actually meant the sockmasters. I was just wondering whether simply tagging the socks as blocked is enough; I don't believe users should be surprised if their sock(s) are blocked, especially if they've used them abusively. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 16:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it gives them the chance to appeal on the 0.001% chance that they just happened to make the smae edit to the same page with the same edit summary or something! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 0.001% – that's unlikely – in this case there was no need for CU verification – WP:DUCK fits well here. And, actually, it's not a good idea to start your Wikipedia career with edit warring. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People start their WP careers all sorts of ways. As I recall, you started yours on the English WP by asking me to negotiate an unblock for you on sv.wiki! ;) A rocky start doesn't necessarily mean they won't be a good editor in future. I'd say you're living proof of that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean; I've edited here since January 2010. And I mean that it's not good to start your Wikipedia career with getting in trouble immediately (I did not). Hey  Mid  (contributions) 16:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that getting into trouble early in your editing career doesn't necessarily mean that's what things will be like in the future. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

3RRblock
Just writing to say I don't mind your revert of my Nov. 15 revert, which I only did because I thought perhaps you had abandoned the discussion, and I hope, for that reason, you didn't mind mine. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. As I said at WT:UTM, I'd hoped that the discussion might get a bit more input, but it seems it either doesn't matter to many people or not many many people watch the template or that talk page. On another note, it would be ironic if we ended up edit warring over that template, wouldn't it! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm less concerned about that. I'm more interested in talking it out with you first. If we can't get anywhere between us, I can send it to TfD, where it's likely to get attention. I've asked for some clarification on your last comment at UTM, for when you get around to it. --Bsherr (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll ask for input at AN (and I'll reply to you at UTM in a moment or two). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex Marriage
What good does one days protection due if the dispute isn't resolved? Shouldn't it be protected until a consensus is reached?  C T J F 8 3 chat 18:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well most of the back and forth seems to have taken place in the last few hours, so hopefully a day will clam things down. If not, you can ask for reprotection in 24 hours. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe
See RFPP. You commented under this header with a decline, but it looked as if you were commenting on a different article (Radcliffe wasn't on PC). Given it's a BLP and the vandalism is insane, I've protected it. Courcelles 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I put it on PC on the 14th and I can't see any log action removing it. It is a BLP, but the vandalism isn't, for the most part, libellous, just crap resulting from the new film. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooh, "(expires 19:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)))". So it was on PC until six hours ago. (How I missed that in the log is beside me, though.  I hate how the protect screen shows protection and PC actions separately.) Feel free to put it back on PC, if you think it's worth the effort.  Courcelles 00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would explain it! My incompetence is always a much more logical explanation! ;) I think a few days of semi might help calm things down, so I'm inclined to leave it for now. Perhaps by the end of the week, most people (including me) will have seen the film and the vandals will get bored. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * D'you know, I was just thinking before I visited RFPP that I was sure it was on PC at some stage. I don't think I can check though if it's still on PC other than through the history of the page and I missed that.  Nice to know I didn't imagine it though!  --5 albert square (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, just a mess all the way around, (except for 5asq, that is). So, on to more pleasant subjects.  What do we all think about eleven candidates for eleven seats on ArbCom? Courcelles 01:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if it stays like that, I'll make myself #12 if only so that we can have an election whose results aren't a foregone conclusion. Not that I particularly want to be an arb. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I came here to urge you to run for Arb, as you see above, but then read this. Yesterday I asked for semi-protection for the new Harry Potter movie at WP:RPP but was turned down by SarekOfVulcan.  Sarek and I then proceeded to disagree on the movie's talk page regarding his reasoning, which involves (to phrase it as I see it) Sarek's feeling that the rights of IP users trump all others.  As I see it, the high levels of IP vandalism will persist, making editing difficult for some time to come.  Call it 'forum shopping' if you must, but I came here, as I say, for other reasons and saw this section. I'd be curious to see what you think about the situation, and Sarek's comments which 24 hours later still have me shaking my head... Thanks for any attention you can spare on this. Jusdafax   01:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, I'm probably not the best person to ask on that. See this! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had not noticed this; the irony is complete. This confirms my feeling that something is very odd here.  I've been quite inactive of late and am not sure where my concerns should go from here.  Thanks for the update. Jusdafax   01:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I blocked Sarek because he copped to edit warring at ANI, but I found 7 separate reverts in about 21 hours, though I wouldn't have blocked him if he hadn't insisted on it because he was removing crap, just good faith crap. I think the desire to keep it open to editing is admirable as long as vandalism isn't completely insane (the same principle I was adhering to with Radcliffe). I'll add the film to my watchlist (and must go and see it!) and at least help out with keeping the crap out of it and consider semi prot if necessary. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, thanks. (I just read the whole ANI thread... and find it all very odd. I also see Off2RioRob then awarded him a barnstar.) I think the real slam on this article will come as school settles into session in a few hours.  I suspect the article will badly need at least semi-protection by then.  By the way, I thought the film itself was excellent. Thanks again, Jusdafax   01:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On further thought I find the barnstar and the spirit in which it is awarded offensive. Jusdafax  02:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where's your sense of humour? Rob has a habit of awarding ironic barnstars. They're harmless at worst. ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so. I'll spare you my darker thoughts, and just wish you a pleasant Thanksgiving, assuming you are on my side of the pond. Jusdafax   05:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. Noting your spelling, I'd think not, but my best wishes in any case. Jusdafax   05:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed not, I'm an Englishman, but the thought is very much appreciated. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

More IP edits to BLP articles
Yesterday you blocked an IP for adding unsourced religion and descent categories to BLPs; a new IP has popped up adding the same unsourced information to BLPs in contradiction to WP:BLP and WP:EGRS. Would it be possible to block them as well? It appears an old range block I requested on the 166.216.130.xx range has expired and I will need to contact the blocking admin to have it renewed, but in the meantime if this hole could be plugged it would be helpful. -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 03:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it with these guys? Do they not have something better to do than randomly change categories on WP articles? Rangeblock sounds good. Definitely worth requesting. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really quite something. I have a little cheat sheet at my other computer that lists the different IPs that do nothing but add specific unsourced ethnic, descent, and most commonly Jewish related categories to BLPs, mainly based on the individual's surname. I've had about three months of peace, but obviously one or two of the range blocks I had requested have expired. I will have to try to tease out the particular culprits from the enormous list of possibilies tommorow to request another range block or two. -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 04:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm too incompetent to make my own rangeblocks, but I'll be happy to re-block ranges that have already been tried and tested by more competent admins. It's a damn pain in the arse. How many times do you think they've been informed that what they're doing is against WP policies? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just say I now keep a self-written template handy on my template/BLP sub-page that I can whip out whenever the onslaught begins. The range blocks have been a God-send; there's a crack somewhere though and I'll need to figure out where it's coming from. Thanks for the offer to reblock once I pinpoint the offending range, I may take you up on it if I can't ping the original blocking admin. Cheers, -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now User:12.185.48.105 has popped up performing the same edits (see this history for example (perhaps this article should be semi-protected too?). I still haven't been able to get to my other computer where I've mapped out the different IP ranges, so it's a matter of reverting and blocking individually until tomorrow at least. -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Kudos for throwing your hat in the ArbCom ring. I suppose you will have your hands full with questions and such, so I understand if you're not going to have time to block this IP. -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 22:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already blocked it. ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just saw that, hadn't refreshed my watchlist in a bit so I missed it the first time. Thanks for the help! -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 22:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Block
You may please attend to this request :. Thanks in advance, -- Aarem (Talk) 06:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom
Hey there. Good move. You have at least one vote --RegentsPark (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not thrilled at the prospect, but someone's gotta do it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections!
Dear HJ Mitchell, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh  22:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, much appreciated. I'll be sure to ask you guys if I need anything. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. While I have you online though, would you mind tweaking your nomination statement slightly to include something like "I have never edited Wikipedia with an account other than those listed here", or whatever is appropriate to your situation? I will be asking all the candidates to make sure their account disclosure is full and categorical. Cheers,  Skomorokh   22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, 2 seconds. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What you said
When d'ja wanna?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work on it. :( HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC
Hi HJ, do you have any interest in closing an RfC and summing up consensus? It's this one: Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish. It's been open for three weeks and comments are drying up, so I think it's about time to close. If you're too busy though, no worries. Best, SlimVirgin  talk contribs 22:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at it later on, since it's you. I've got an RfC of my own to file ion the meantime, unfortunately, so I'll close yours after I've sorted that if nobody beats me to it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, many thanks, and there's no rush. It could actually stay open another week, if you'd rather leave it until then, and even then if you find you've got no time, feel free to change your mind and say no. :) SlimVirgin  talk contribs 22:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means, go ahead and post your questions to that talk page. I'm not a fan of this limit on questions either, but there's not much to be done about it. I'll answer them when I get chance. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And so I have. Thanks and best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem and thanks. I'll make a start on them now, but probably won't finish tonight (it's 1am, here). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbComm
I sincerely hope that you make it. This year I'll be able to vote I think (right? I will won't I?). I'll most definitely vote for you. I think Wikipedia will be a much better place with you as an Arbitration Committee member. Sincerely,  Mr. R00t    Talk  04:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You should be able to vote. You only have 929 live mainspace edits, but you have more than 71 deleted mainspace edits (I just did a quick count). I think you're eligible, though only just. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in here to say that the criteria for voting (as opposed to standing as a candidate) are that you had to have made only 150 mainspace edits before November (and not be blocked). Skomorokh  13:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's sad. So in a few days I'd be able to run? That is really lame. Maybe I'll wrack up a couple hundred today before the nominations close today (joking, joking). Later,  Mr. R00t    Talk  17:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, except that I'm 6 years to young.  Mr. R00t    Talk
 * No. If I understand Skomorokh correctly, to vote, you need 150 mainspace edits (which you easily have), the 1,000 is for candidates. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You said that I had the 1,000 necessary mainspace edits to run didn't you? Anyways, it doesn't matter as I can't run, saying as I'm way below the legal adult age of anywhere. I was unable to vote for something that I really wanted to when I first joined up in May that I no longer remember. Anyway, good luck.  Mr. R00t    Talk  02:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Question re: ArbCom
Hi! I have a question for you that is relevant to your ArbCom nomination, but I'm looking more for an informal clarification rather than a formal answer, so I thought I'd post it here rather than on your questions page. I hope you don't mind.

I'm interested as to your thinking behind this comment that you made in the aftermath of the failed Oversight and Checkuser elections earlier this year. It appears to convey a frustration with ArbCom that goes beyond that particular situation. I wanted to know what in particular prompted that frustration, and your opinion on what general principles should guide ArbCom, where it is tasked with resolving problems caused by the apparent failure of community-based processes. I appreciate you must be pretty busy at the moment, so feel free to take your time to respond. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool 05:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I forgot that I phrased it quite so strongly! I do hold ArbCom in high esteem (generally), but it frustrates me when they venture into GovCom territory, especially when they start moving goalposts as I think they did there. I think my frustration was at what felt like ArbCom putting two fingers up at the people who voted in that election. If I were on ArbCom, I would vehemently (but privately among arbs) oppose anything that could be seen as disregarding community input. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd run...
but won't vote for any candidates since I'm also running. Good luck!  N419 BH  06:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And to you, my friend. It would be an honour if we ended up serving together. I wasn't planning to, but there weren't many candidates so, in the interests of fairness, I decided to give it a go. Now I've got a load of questions to get back to answering! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your main ACE2010 page
Hi. At Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/HJ_Mitchell, in the "Individual questions" section, none of our individual questions are shown – we have to manually go to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/HJ Mitchell/Questions to see them. Have you intentionally set it up that way? Hey Mid  (contributions) 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They're showing up for me. Try purging. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I didn't even have to purge the page. The transclusion now works correctly. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 14:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin question
Is it true that most people are likely to oppose an RfA if the user has been on Wikipedia for under 1 year?  Puffin  Lets talk! 18:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no hard and fast rule, but most editors with less than a year's editing and 5,000 edits are unlikely to succeed at RfA, though there have been exceptions. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ, don't you mean "likely"? In this case I believe you meant that not many of those editors are likely to succeed an RfA. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops clarified, thanks mate! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are elected, perhaps it may be a good idea not to talk "nonsense" in ArbCom-related cases? Hey  Mid  (contributions) 19:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I should force myself to use the preview button more often! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey's RFC/U
Hi! Just a quick comment - in the RFC/U you make note that YM didn't respond on AN/I in regard to the recent concerns. While this is the case, and although he didn't seem to have responded satisfactorily when the concerns about the block were raised previously, it still worries me that he is unlikely to have been aware of the recent discussion on AN/I, as he hadn't edited since before your notification. Thus I can't see that as being a major concern - had he continued to edit while the AN/I discussion was ongoing then it would have been, but as he didn't we can't assume that he was aware of the issues being raised. Otherwise, I guess we'll see where the RFC/U takes us. - Bilby (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it, but his absence is convenient and more than one editor suggested that he would resurface once the thread had died down. Besides which, he was notified by YK when the thread was started (he has edited since then) and has had plenty of time (over a month in fact) to respond to YK's queries, so it's not really out of the blue, though I do understand your concern. I also emailed him a couple of days ago, but haven't yet had a reply. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly am not saying that there isn't an issue with not responding previously - nothing has changed there. But the editing since YK notified him was too brief, and you don't need to extend AGF too far to assume that he didn't have time to check his talk page - he was online for about five minutes, and made very minor edits related to one page. I just don't think we need to read too much into not responding at this AN/I discussion. It doesn't mean much, because the real issue doesn't rely on the last three days, but the direction of the AN/I discussion left me a tad concerned that he might simply not be answering because he was unaware of the discussion.
 * As an aside, the RFC/U was very well worded. I think it needs to be held, and like most of these it may get heated, but it is good that it at least started well. Hopefully it will finish well, too, whenever that may be. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible, but I think we might well have ended up at RfC/U anyway. I did privately consult Wehwalt before opening it and we agreed that now (well, I suggested 18:00UTC yesterday, which is pretty close to when I started it) is the time to do it, rather than let it go stale and fall into the massive ANI archives and be forgotten about, because this is an issue that needs to be addressed and needs to be seen to be addressed. I simple response from YM along the lines of my "desired outcome" would satisfy most people. Thanks for the compliment, anyway, it took me the best part of an hour to write it, but I wanted to give as neutral- and accurate-a-statement as possible and I wanted to make it clear I'm not seeking a pound of flesh, just the satisfactory resolution of the issue for the benefit of all concerned and the project as a whole. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I also agree that if it is to be raised - and I think it warrants an RFC/U - it needs to be raised now, as it is too easy for AN/I threads to be auto-archived without being addressed. I have no complaints with moving things forward in the way you have. I guess my concern isn't with the process or the result, just a minor aspect of the reasoning, which is unlikely to be the focus of the discussion. Anyway, hopefully it will end as well as an RFC/U can for all concerned. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like nothing more. That way we can all get on with the more pleasant parts of communal editing. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just my 2 cents that the wording is ok. If YM makes a statement that indicates that he did not see the talk page note (YM tends to respond to talk page comments in bulk so that may indeed be the case) then we can AGF and assume that was correct. One of the purposes of an RfC is to clarify that sort of thing so HJM's wording is fine, IMO. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I happened to chance upon the Rfc, and was absolutely disgusted to the last asserion and summary by Jayern. If this kind of behaviour has been going on for a long time, as the various history links suggests, I believe his administrative tools should be withdrawn. I mean, c'mon, this is the 21st century, racist comments are severely discouraged and shameful. (Cooling down) — Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayern466 does not appear to be an admin. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the meaning of Legolas comment is that if Jayern466's assertions are correct YM's tools should be withdrawn.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad. I guess I interpreted the way I saw it. Perspective matters! --RegentsPark (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Would like to know
I would like to know what sort of input is expected from me. Regarding the RfC. Am I required to state my position again? The statement of dispute says it all, so it seems. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you don;t have to say anything if you don't want to. If you want to make a comment, then you're most welcome, but I've tried to provide a neutral an accurate statement. We just have to watch an wait and see what comes of it. You can add it to your watchlist of you like or just ignore it. It's up to you. I only mentioned it as a courtesy because I mentioned your name. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I state that the "statement of dispute" describes the events to my satisfaction. I would like to add that un-professional administrators ought to learn to be professional, perhaps by having their views on things such as blocks to be confirmed by other competent uninterested admins and only then they should be allowed to take action. Sorry if this is graffitee. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the first part, you can just sign either the "users certifying this dispute" section or the "Other users who endorse this statement" section. For the second, you're getting beyond what we can achieve at RfC/U. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection
Hi Mitchell, I'd like to ask you a quick favor. "Only Girl" by Rihanna is under sever vandalism from Ips, can you please semi-protect it for like 3 days? Thanks!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like Courcelles beat me to it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail!
Hi 8 7 8  (Come shout at me!) 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember a guy named Badagnani?
I'm looking for the possible owner of what appears to be a sock, and I don't want to take anything to SPI until I have something more definate, but from my relitivly uninformed perspective, I think that user:Smallho might be a sock of user:Badagnani. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Talk 20:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Smallho is blocked, so it's a moot point, nevermind. Sven Manguard  Talk 20:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Víctor Martínez (baseball)
One editor edit warring doesn't form full protection in a article, and to be fair he only reverted twice. Unprotect please. Secret account 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there seemed to be an edit war over whether this bloke has signed to such-and-such a team or not. It was my opinion at the time the full protection was the best way to stop the back-and-forth. Would the disruption continue if I unprotected it? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!
Yeah, I know you are British, but you can still take part in an American tradition, Thanksgiving. All you got to do is cook a big ol' turkey, some mashed potatoes, Yams, a veggie or three, some other goodies, and of course, Pumpkin Pie with Whipped Cream on top. Then just as the Tryptophan is kicking in, you turn on the TV and watch football, the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade or listen to an ol' Classic rock favorite "Alice's Restaurant" by Arlo Guthrie. Whatever you do, make it a good day, load up on good food, spend it with good people and have a good time. :) Happy Thanksgiving! :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 01:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Barrie Police Service
Hello!

Thought I'd make you aware of a discussion I came across via Huggle on this Talk page. The user reported an IP and user TableTop to WP:AIV before and you refused any blocks saying the edits weren't vandalism. The user in question is Jedidah Leland. As you can see Jedidah is very hacked off (polite!) and seems to have decided to 'name and shame' what they think are vandals on the articles talk page and is calling for admin to block the users! I'm going to post a message on Jedidah's talk page about assuming good faith but thought I'd also mention this to you in case you want to speak to them about the message on the talk page. --5 albert square (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is that he's adding material that obviously is not written from NPOV and is accusing the two editors who are removing it of vandalism. I left them a welcome and a note about NPOV. Hopefully the message will get across. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be. This has happened since then.  I've left a message on Jedidah's talk about assuming good faith, maybe that will have calmed things, who knows!  I'm adding the talk page to my watchlist anyway so I can intervene if need be. --5 albert square (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted something on Barrie Police Service's talk page, trying to explain WP:NPOV to them and to explain why the IP won't be blocked. Hopefully that's done the trick! Hope you're well :) --5 albert square (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

68.114.128.23
He might have a point about the alleged "plagiarism", as the wording seems fairly close to the wording of the sources, and I didn't see anything in the sources that suggested they themselves were wikipedia mirrors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's difficult to AGF for someone with a history of making a nuisance of themselves. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP's case might be like the old saying, "Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of the boy who cried wolf. Are you recommending unblocking? How did you get involved in this, anyway? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not "involved", as such, but I saw it on ANI, and the user's claim of "plagiarism" caught my attention, as copyright violations are something that wikipedia takes pretty seriously. I'm not necessarily recommending unblock, but someone smarter than me should take a look and see if the IP's complaints about copyvio are valid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent block of user:Ronda2001
Hi HJ. You just blocked user:Ronda2001 for 48 hours, partly for using an IP "sock". This puzzled me. Surely the user (a new one) simply forgot to log in (or didn't realise it was important). I don't see any attempt to pass themselves off as anyone else, unless I've missed something. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so convinced. They started POV pushing and edit warring, then was notified about the I/P 1RR and then, lo and behold, an IP comes out of nowhere to revert the same edits. Even if it weren't for the IP, they were still looking at an AE block for violating the 1RR while logged in. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I see your reasoning (I was worried there had been a crossed wire). I would have been inclined to be a little more lenient, as it looked to me like a genuine case of someone not comprehending WP:V and NPOV, which for some academics, funnily enough, can be quite difficult to grasp at first. But you've probably got a better nose for a troublemaker than I have.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, quite frankly, if someone leaves you a message saying something along the lines of "if you undo this edit again, you'll be blocked" and then they do, they can't be surprised when the banhammer comes down. Editors have been blocked for considerably longer for violation of the Israel/Palestine sanctions. The rules are very rigorously enforced there because the potential for disruption if everyone just reverts in lieu of discussion is massive. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, from what I've seen at AE (which is mostly what I know of I/P issues here), I wish they were enforced more strongly in that area, particularly for frivolous filing, wikilawyering and the sheer volume of casual personal attacks. There are editors who've been on Wikipedia two or three years who get away with all kinds of nasty insinuations. I guess I have a personal bias towards being gentler to new editors, but stricter with longer term ones who don't appear to be WP:here for the right reasons. It's probably my mothering side coming out.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm no fan of the hostile editing environment, but, short of blocking every editor who's ever edited any article to do with Israel or Palestine, there's not much to be done. Incivility is often overlooked if the comment is otherwise helpful to dispute resolution or if there are bigger issues. If I had a choice between blocking a POV-pushing edit warrior and someone who made a mild personal attack, I'd block the former because if everybody starts pushing their POV or edit warring, the whole set of articles will descend into madness (more so than it already is) very quickly. If you do see a particularly unpleasant personal attack, then by all means report it. There are only so many admin and only so many who deal with AE, so we can't be everywhere all the time. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.
Love the cat pic. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to protecting System of a Down
Hi, was wondering if you could take a second look at this. I don't normally make requests without good justification. Aside from two edits by me to revert, there have been 22 edits in 3 days, all of which have gone back and forth and back and forth over "they're playing" "source it" "no thats a rumour" "no that's a blog" "come back with a reliable source". A French DJ has decided to let everyone know that they are reuniting, even though he has no proof and the band themselves deny it at this point, it is resulting it a lot of disruptive editing of the article. Hope you reconsider. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the case for semi, much less indefinite semi. There seems to be a bit of back and forth, but it's more of a content dispute than vandalism, but I don't think full protection would be necessary or useful. Looking at the history from today, I see a couple of rumours early this morning (UTC) and another one a few minutes ago. I would still say that's not enough for protection. You're welcome to request a second opinion at RfPP. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'll wait a day or two to see if it continues or increases. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)