User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85

West Midlands Police Museum editathon

Just a reminder that the West Midlands Police Museum editathon is this Saturday; I look forward to seeing you there. Please take a moment to re-read the event page, so you know what to bring with you, and what to expect on the day. Do let me know if you have any questions, or can't attend. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Acceptance of restrictions

Hi, HJ Mitchell.

As you wrote here after this AE thread is closed, I can come back to your talk page and tell you whether I'm willing to accept the restrictions you proposed in lieu of the topic ban. The AE thread is closed now. As I wrote there it was a misunderstanding, because I thought that the topic ban was lifted. But OK. I agree with you that the topic ban was a liitle bit over the top. I accept these restrictions in lieu of the topic ban. I promise that I'll not describe any edit as "vandalism" unless it meets the definition at WP:VAND and for any reverts I make in mainspace that are not of clear and obvious vandalism I will go to the article's talk page and give my reasons for my revert. There still some open discussions (e. g. about Khojaly Massacre Memorials) that need my participation.

Regards, --Interfase (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Total Drama All-Stars page

The reception isn't correct and the company gave out the real reception. You need to delete the false info. 205.153.156.221 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Socking at AE

Hi. I'm not sure about the rules so I won't say much right now. I am sure one person in AE is backing up himself with another account. How should I go forward with this? --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you have evidence, I suppose you can post it here to save the bureaucracy. If any of the evidence isn't public (ie it's not available on Wikipedia itself), email it to me. As long as you're acting in good faith and not just trying to discredit another editor, you have nothing to worry about—as you've probably seen, my patience for frivolous claims in an attempt to discredit other editors at AE is wearing thin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I am only interested in facts and honestness so that's why I bring it up. I think that Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Bukrafil (talk · contribs) are the same person. As soon I went to AE, Gilabrand stopped editing, which is very unusual of her and it has gone one week now. Bukrafil has edited before but looks to be a sleeper account. She edited Al-Haditha, Ramle on 4 February and then Hadid. Both are typical of her, which is it's about a depopulated Palestinian village and the other one about one Jewish/Israeli village built on it. She demands "proof" that Hadid was built on it. Then she edits it again and then it becames that Hadid was only built two km from Al-Haditha.

They both rewrites much and makes several edits on one page directly after each other. Both often format the refs bad by having space before ref tags and no space after. Gilabrand has done it so many times (like here). Here, here and her edits on Canada Park (like this and this) are examples by Bukrafil.

They spell Romania as "Rumania".

In the article Caviar, Bukrafil added in November 2012 info about caviar from the kibbutz Dan. This got removed by a user in January 2013. Gilabrand reinserted and reworded it last month. In the article about the kibbutz, Gilabrand had in May 2012 added info about the caviar. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into this over the weekend. If you have any more evidence, keep it coming; not because I've reached a conclusion, but because the more material there is to analyse, the better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to add that Gilabrand had in May 2012 added info about the caviar from the kibbutz in Caviar. So what Bukrafil did was reinserting it. When this got removed again, Gilabrand reinserted it this time.

They have edited same other articles too but I will look closer if there is more evidence to show that they are the same person. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Given the number of edits and standing Gilabrand has in the community and that Bukrafil has made more than 200 edits. I'd suggest it'd be worth starting an SPI so that the evidence is together and easily referred to. But mainly so that we can have a CU take a look and a record of that check. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI sounds like a good idea. I have some more to add but I can wait and do it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI is indeed a good idea—I was going to take this there myself once I'd looked through the evidence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for both of you two's replies. I will start a case soon. I will add and compile the evidence. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just consolidated your evidence into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilabrand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I will write there soon. I was nearly done but had some break and now will also adjust it.

I think it would be better to not wait on the SPI result until the AE case is closed as this can takes weeks if I am seeing right. If something comes out from this SPI, it can be brought up separately. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I had to sleep but I have written there now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, you forgot to add your sign here and also a parentheses after "See". --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock Wars

Looking at the AE and Sock investigation there is a growing behavioral evidence that accounts User:IRISZOOM and User:Nableezy are operated by same person.

• Both accounts push the same POV and edit the same articles. Their combative style is identical.
• It was mentioned that User:Nableezy and Gilabrand had a interaction ban and the AE case indicates that this conflict is still active.
• User:Nableezy is known for his sock sniffing capabilities and the investigation above demonstrates that User:IRISZOOM could also could be a star of Sherlok Holmes movie.
• I have not invested too much time but on surface, there is User:IRISZOOM and User:Nableezy interaction for pushing his POV while attacking Gilabrand: Gilabrand is removing websites and confusing villages.

Please let me know what do you think. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into it of course. That's not a huge amount of evidence, but it's a start. If you have anything more (diffs especially), please psot it here and/or open an(other) SPI. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no connection to Nableezy.

While you can raise suspicion, please refrain from personal attacks like the one in the third point. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Stylistically they are world's apart, though IRISZOOM's intuition from ref style analogies was almost as brilliant as anything Nableezy figured out (but then he missed at times obvious stuff, whereas IRISZOOM doesn't seem to). I actually advised Nableezy several times not to burn out his youth in the I/P area (so much for suspicions that this place has a gang-solidarity), despite the excellence of much of his work here and the last I heard from him, several months ago, he had a very good personal reason (long-term) for dropping out. Why he would want to come back under a different monicker, as AG suggests, would be the real Sherlock Holmes whodunnit, becaue were this as yet extremely vague hypothesis true, it would strike me as incomprehensible. Still, I commend a thorough investigation. No one should live under suspicion, and no editor should feel anything but contempt for sockpuppetry.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:, I'd appreciate your involvement in this investigation. The scrutiny should be applied equally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it most certainly will be. Of that I can assure you. My patience with the dirty tricks of editors in this topic area is very much exhausted. What you'll notice, though, is that IRISZOOM came to me with quite a lot of behavioural evidence and diffs which I could analyse. You have the foundations of a case, but the evidence isn't irrefutable—I expect there are quite a number of people who would like to see Gilabrand banned. I will do more digging, but it will take me a few days (as it did with Gilabrand); or if you want to compile evidence here (with diffs of similar edits, similar interests, etc; as IRISZOOM did above), I will happily open an SPI once there's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the two accounts are likely to be the same person. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, HJ. Take your time, no hurry. I'd appreciate if you could lead this investigation, I'd have no time for this kind of digging. I'll be pretty busy in IRL next week. Though the bad sock smell is quite strong, so let me know if I could assist you in your administrator capabilities here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Aga, I perhaps mistakenly believe I am a stickler for the proprieties. To raise an allegation against another editor is a serious matter. Both Yambaram and Tritomex got extremely excited about the possibility I might be the reincarnation of several socks last October, when the former asked for me and Zero0000 to be permabanned as riotously deleterious for wikipedia. No evidence but suspicion was provided. In your thank you note, you are discourteous, I'm sure unwittingly. Because it reads with the earlier ones:'I have a suspicion, or vague hunch' (Good. I'll look closely at it, but evidence please HUM):'Sorry, I'm too busy, I have no time to dig. You do it.' Whatever the merits, one must in all cases assume the workload of one's own hunches to provide admins with a usable basis for making judgements. To stir shit, and then say 'look into the smell will you, old chap', is indelicate. It is particularly so because, not to do the groundwork that you should do (as IRISZOOM did hers) puts this admin in an image predicament: if he takes on the white man's burden, he is subbing for your otiosity. If he doesn't, given the still present Gilabrand case, he is made to appear partial or even partisan. That would be unfair. So, go ahead and do your groundwork. Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile olfactory agnosia is a red link. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Mike Jackson

This is a note to let the main editors of Mike Jackson know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 20, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 20, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Mike Jackson (born 1944) is a retired British Army officer and one of its most high-profile generals since the Second World War. Originally commissioned into the Intelligence Corps in 1963, he transferred to the Parachute Regiment. On the first of his tours of duty in Northern Ireland with the regiment, he was present as an adjutant at the events of Bloody Sunday (1972), when soldiers opened fire on protesters, killing 13 people. He was assigned to a staff post at the Ministry of Defence in 1982 before assuming command of the 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, in 1984. Jackson served his first tour in the Balkans in 1994, commanding a multi-national division of the Implementation Force, and was appointed commander of NATO's Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in 1997. In this role, he controversially refused to obey an order from American General Wesley Clark (his immediate superior in the NATO chain of command during the Kosovo War) to block the runways of Pristina Airport. Upon his return to the UK, Jackson was promoted to full general and later served as Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army, from 2003 to 2006. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

House of Lancaster

Thanks for the ACR feedback on this. All very helpful and I have attempted to address the points.

Regarding the breadth of the literature on the topic many of the sixteen books cross reference a vast number of references. The "House of" articles in the area (particularly the main House of Plantagenet) prompy constant debate on what is the history of the family and what is just history. The suggestion is that a "England under the Plantagenets" article is needed leaving the Angevin, Platagenet, Lancaster and York articles to cover the family histories. Perhaps the former is where those extra citations should sit. What do you think?

As for style of writing, I didn't realise it was quite so unusual for Wikipedia. If it jars with the reader perhaps it is a problem. In the UK historians are increasingly using the historic present tense to bring to life dry text and to that I think I have also used the historic future - not sure if that is a problem. Part of this is that I still have traces of an English dialect that has no past tense so this probably doesn't seem so odd to me.

Have a look and see waht you think. Cheers RichardNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Richard, we should probably have this discussion on the ACR itself, since it affects the review and other reviewers might want to comment. I'll answer here, though, and add a link to this thread to the ACR.

My suggestion with the sourcing was not so much that the article's scope should be broadened or even that you hadn't got all the facts in, but that it's important to show that Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, is not relying on just a handful of sources, but that the author has consulted the breadth of the material on the subject before deciding what to include and what not to include. Indeed, it's criterion 1c of the FA criteria, which is why I looked at the breadth in the first place, because I know you're keen to get the article to FA. The blessing and the curse of writing about a bit of history that every man and his dog knows about is that there's a lot of material to consult, and I think you need to show that you've consulted more than is currently cited in the article (even if they don't contain anything new, they can be used to back up what you've already written). Out of curiosity, I just put "House of Lancaster" into Google Books; I haven't looked to see whether they're likely to be useful, but I found one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine books that aren't in the bibliography. If I can find that much material in ~10 minutes without doing anything more than Googling the article's title, I'd wager there's plenty more, and I'd just like to see the bibliography show that you've consulted a broad cross-section of the literature available.

The writing style is not a problem, provided it's yours. We all have our own quirks (I over-use emdashes and semi-colons, for example). As long as you haven't copied the text from somewhere else, it's fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Coat of arms of Gibraltar1.svg

Hi Harry. Sorry for the late reply, I thought I'd already done so. The coat of arms of Gibraltar is based on the original 1502 grant of arms by Isabella I of Castile. As you can see from the article it's pretty much the same as the original with the added motto. I hope that helps. Excuse my ignorance but what's ACR? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 21:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers Tyson; I've fixed that and File:Flag of Gibraltar.svg. ACR is MilHist's internal A-class review]. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Harry. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 23:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"My patience with the dirty tricks of editors in this topic area is very much exhausted"

Lack of integrity in ARBPIA is certainly a problem. With that in mind, do you have any suggestions about how to deal with the following situation at Mobile, Alabama where an IP and 2 probable socks are trying to get the article to say that Ariel (city), an Israeli settlement beyond the green line in the West Bank (or the Palestinian territories or Palestine), is in Israel. See All Rows4's edit here and Firkin Flying Fox's edit here. They use a source that is just plain and very obviously wrong. Even the State of Israel doesn't regard Ariel as being in Israel. This is not a content dispute. It's bordering on vandalism and a violation of Wikimedia's Terms of Use with respect to "Engaging in False Statements...With the intent to deceive". These kind of highly tendacious edits are the worst kind in my view. They introduce factual errors into the encyclopedia in order to push a fringe nationalist POV by exploiting a low quality source that anyone with the level of competence required to edit must know is simply incorrect. It is never clear to me what should be done in cases like this. They are common in ARBPIA (e.g. here's an equally tendacious edit where the State of Israel becomes "occupied Palestine"). The All Rows4 and Firkin Flying Fox accounts are likely to be socks, perhaps NoCal100 socks judging from the editors they are focusing on, but there will probably not be sufficient evidence to conduct an SPI, given the throwaway nature of accounts like these and the technical resources available to the sockmaster. The sheer disruptive and deliberate mendacity of edits like these are, for me, sufficient grounds to simply block the accounts, but things are unfortunately not that simple. Perhaps they should be, but in the meantime, any advice in dealing with this kind of disruption in ARBPIA would be appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree you've got a problem there; it does look very like likely that the accounts involved are socks, and you might be right that it's NoCal (not my area of expertise, but I had a look at the behaviour of a relatively recent NoCal sock for comparison, and they seem to share an interest in bringing the Arab-Israeli conflict to articles about American towns as well as a familiarity with noticeboards that you wouldn't expect from someone with only a few dozen edits). You could file an SPI and see what happens; I'd be happy to repeat my casual observations there. I considered protecting the article, but the edits look too infrequent for the benefits of the protection to outweigh the drawbacks. I've dropped a uw-sanctions to the two recent accounts. I'm not sure there's much more I can do on my own initiative, but the bar for sanctions is lower now they've had the notifications. Do let me know if the problems continue, and if you decide to file an SPI, drop me a link. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that although experience says they will carry on regardless and blocking the accounts is ineffective. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens. You could ask a CU to see if a rangeblock is feasible; it's a ling shot, but it's worth a try. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I might have a word with Timotheus Canens when I get a chance. He's familiar with NoCal100's history I think and a checkuser. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Gilabrand A/E

I left a brief comment in the now-closed thread, but ... The narrow behavior band I was interested in requires assuming the person is operating in good faith. AGF vanishes with six socks and at least one operating in good hand / bad hand mode, from what I can see. I support the socking block and the ARBPIA topic ban now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I could see where you were coming from, but I think it's possible to push AGF too far; it's not, after all, a suicide pact, and it is possible to cause disruption while still acting in good faith. Nevertheless, the socking (the scale of which rather took me aback)eliminates any assumption of good faith, and obviously sanctions are unavoidable. It's a shame really, because Gilabrand could have edited problem-free on articles not related to Palestine had it not been for the socking, but it was their decision to engage in deceit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that there is a risk of drawing conclusions that potentially overestimate the strength of evidence regarding socking in this case. Gila has a family. The SPI results can't distinguish between accounts created by Gila to sock and accounts created by family members from the same location to support a wife or mother. As I said at AE, perhaps WP:FAMILY and the extent to which it has been followed is relevant. Gila may or may not have socked (while topic banned for example given that topic bans can provide motive) but I think drawing conclusions about the scale of socking goes beyond the capacity of the evidence to support the conclusions. It's unfortunate that Gila has not provided any information that might clarify matters and ensure that the record is as accurate as possible given that they will return to the topic area at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The thought did occur, and Gila is welcome to raise that in any appeal, but the behavioural evidence is quite compelling; even if we were to assume that there was no socking going on, there was clearly meat-puppetry. Additionally, I understand that CheckUsers look at a lot more than just the IP address, so it would be very surprising for two accounts that are "technically indistinguishable" to be two distinct individuals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You're going to have to rely solely on behavioural evidence here, and I'm not denying there is that. Checkuser looks at IP address and useragent and possibly more information sent by the browser, but nothing not sent by the browser. Two people using the same browser installed on the same physical computer will be technically indistinguishable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

But they can on occasion distinguish themselves if they chose to do so. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's possible, but the behavioural evidence and the technical evidence combined are quite damning. Let's assume that each of the half-dozen accounts belongs to a distinct individual (and if they do, I'll eat my hat, but we'll assume that for argument's sake), there's sill clearly an attempt to avoid scrutiny, there's tag-team edit-warring, and several of them make the same sorts of edits to the same sorts of articles. WP:MEAT (quoting an ArbCom ruling) says that "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets" and WP:FAMILY that "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." (emphasis mine) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the evidence for Bukrafil = Gilabrand is quite strong (although "Rumania" may be a red herring or rather a indicator of age and background). Ubie the Guru seems to have a different voice, more strident, more analytical, younger perhaps, without the barbed witty cynicism I associate with Gila. Silmiyyah, Haikiflayim and Economust's edit summaries don't look like Gila to me. Anyway, setting the record straight, if it needs to be set straight, is in Gila's hands. It's her record. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Ubie the Guru is a sock of Gilabrand and he hasn't been banned for that. I do think the others are. The behaviour and activity history seems to be clear. Bukrafil is certainly Gilabrand. I added more evidence on this at the SPI investigation, by the way. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Unintentional

Oops. My rv of your edit was totally unintentional, sorry. I tried to tap diff on the entry below yours on the Watchlist, but obviously hit rollback above it. Bloody ipad. Type is too small. Cheers Moriori (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries; it happens! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedians celebrate International Women's Day, Women's History Month

• Traffic report: War and awards

• Featured content: Ukraine burns

• WikiProject report: Russian WikiProject Entomology

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cheers Harry. Appreciated the help! --Matchstickgeezer (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome, Matchstickgeezer (see what I did there? That should get you a notification when you next log in!). I'll be in touch. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sunday in York

Hi Harry, not sure whether you're going to make it to York on Sunday? If so is there any chance for you to pass by the WMUK offices in advance and bring some of the kit? I'm not sure if anyone official is now able to make it. Cheers! PatHadley (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pat, I'm hoping to make it to York, but if I do, it won't be til after midday (Sunday trains!). I'm probably closer to York than I am to London (though not by much), and the train to London costs >£40, so it's not really practical, although if you let me know what you need, I can make some phone calls and see if I can arrange something. If you just want merchandise (badges etc), I have a modest supply that I can bring up with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Whoops! I hadn't realised that. I'm ok for merchandise. The key thing is the spare laptops but it's not desperate. Looking forward to catching up with you! PatHadley (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pat, I'm really sorry but I'm not going to be able to make it to York tomorrow. I really wanted to come (if you do any more, I promise I'll get to them if at all possible!) but WMUK are messing me around so I'm broke. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Boo! No worries. I hope to catch you soon and that they sort your cash! PatHadley (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Extra thought - if you're free tomorrow would you be able to participate remotely? It'd be particularly handy if you could help keep an eye on the new accounts and confirm them to prevent glitches? I can send you a list once we've started? What do you think? Cheers PatHadley (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Thank you for your time and contributions in Birmingham today. As always, it was good to see you.

As discussed, see {{Infobox television}}; you might also find Wikipedia:List of infoboxes useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Andy. I'll see if that fits my article. You're welcome wrt Birmingham; I really enjoyed the event, and it was great that we had so many enthusiastic people there. I'd love to see more events with WM Police Museum if there's scope. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid FAC

Thanks for your review here. I was working through your points when I started getting déjà vu; it seems you posted part of the list twice. I hope you do not mind, but I edited down the repeated entries, something I would very seldom do. I also answered some of your points. Thanks again for your perceptive review, and for the edits you did there. --John (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I drafted it online and posted it in a hurry, so I must have buggered up the copy & paste. I'll check back on the FAC later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought must've happened. No worries, take your time. There is one more fix I need to make anyway, when I think about it. --John (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Protecting Thuppakki

Mitchell, you know that Thuppakki has been frequently semi-protected due to extreme vandalism. But every time the protection expires, vandals start multiplying. Since u say that u will monitor the article, will an indef protection do later for the article if u notice the vandals increasing? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't address me by my surname. I'll keep an eye on the article, and if the problems continue, I'll protect if necessary, but it won't be indefinite. Indefinite far too often becomes infinite because nobody remembers to remove the protection, even long after it's served its purpose. Now, some articles (like biographies of politicians, for example) are not going to be safe to unprotect for a very long time. An article on a 2012 film, on the other hand, will eventually die down, so we use definite periods of protection to contain the disruption until then. I'll happily protect it for a year or even several years if the disruption shows no sign of dying down in the near future, but the chances are that protection won't be needed in 2019 (and I'd wage that we have plenty of articles that have been protected since 2009 that could probably be unprotected). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I'm replying to this edit here as it has already been archived in just over a day by User:AGK (nicely helping to reinforce one of my points which I'll get to shortly).

No, I am not trying to remove Discretionary sanctions. Yes I don't like the way they've been created but to remove them wholesale now is a silly idea. Now I certainly not against their removal full stop if after a proper review, which this isn't, they were replaced by something more fit for purpose.

My concern with how the previous discussions and indeed this one have been run is they're all much too ArbCom driven. In my mind Discretionary sanctions are a policy in all but name so should be decided upon by the community not by ArbCom. ArbCom have been controlling this discussion so much - by shutting down conversation and/or archiving (as happened here) that it seems like they're not interested in any comments that don't support them. Additionally they are undeniably involved when it comes to DS yet they still feel able to control the discussion and determine consensus something which would never be allowed else where. In any other part of the encyclopedia the people that come up with a proposal and have been directly involved in implementing in the past and future would never be allowed this freedom. In my opinion as a result it's all coming across as a fait acompli and I think this is putting off from commenting many editors who may disagree.

So, yes I don't like how these discussions are run but that doesn't mean I think we should just remove DS and ignore what has previously been developed. However I see no reason to repeat the mistakes, which have so alienated several members of the community, when reviewing DS and moving forward. Dpmuk (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to prevent the bot archiving this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AE request

Hello HJ Mitchell. Reference to your comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Khabboos, since it was the first case I filed at AE, I do like to know where or how I messed up in explaining the user's conduct so I can improve, only if you have time. Thanks -- SMS ^Talk 01:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. "Buried the lead" is an idiom. In this case you put things in chronological order (Which is usually the best way to do it), but the most concerning diff ended up in the middle. It would have been better to have started with that one and used the others to show that it was part of a pattern, but it's not the end of the world. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A Thank You...

Thanks very much for your help. I'm sorry for acting the way I did, and I will definitely familiarize myself with Wiki policy before making my case for parapsychology again. In any case, you will not see any more soapboxing from me. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope I won't see you at AE again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I don't know whether Mike Jackson is your first FA on the front page, but well done on all the work you did to get this and other articles to FA and GA status. Hope to see many more to come! KTC (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Katie. My first TFA was British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War a few months ago, though Jackson was actually my first FA. It's nice that they get their day in the sun, but the vandalism is a pain in the arse! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No pain, no gain my friend! :) -- KTC (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry that it appears that I overruled you in protecting Livadiya, Ukraine, but it was due to an edit conflict.

Bearian (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries; these things happen. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

And these are hypoallergenic, too 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Thank you. That does look tasty... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tastier than a kitten for sure! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please Unprotect The List OF CID episodes.

Hello Sir,

I Have seen that You have Protected The PAge "List Of CID Episodes". Can you Please Unprotect it. Me & many Fan of The Show use it for reference. U can see the Num of visitors On that page is also high (Around 19000 each Month). Another User Redirected the Page to the The Article Describing the show. I Nw Wanted to Edit it but u have Protected it. If You Could please Unprotect it i would be very glad. Or at-least Undo the redirect of the page by user Chanderforyou & then p[rotect it, please sir

Hoping for a positive Response

Sachin1495 (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

• Forum: Wikimedia Commons mission: free media for the world or only Wikimedia projects?

• WikiProject report: We have history

• Interview: Nate Ott: the writer behind 71 articles in the largest-ever good topic

• Featured content: Spot the bulldozer

• News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny

• Traffic report: Into thin air

• Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Jews and Communism

This probably could use a 1RR restriction before it ends in tears, but I can't see a way that can be imposed at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. You could just impose it and block anyone who violates it. Whether or not that would survive an ANI thread is another matter! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have plenty of friends who are Jews, or communists, or both. Why would anyone be arguing over this? I don't get it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If four years as an admin have taught me anything, it's that some people will always find something to argue about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I shall just stand back and watch the drama. The arguments over this sort of thing are usually among people who dislike either group. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No they won't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants

Hi, Harry. You fully protected Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. There was a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 6#RFC closed for the protection to be removed. It looked to me as though there was consensus in support of that, so I did it. Possibly it would have been better to refer the matter to you, in case you know of good reasons why the protection should not be removed, which I did not see in the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation. The latter suffers from a bad case of WP:TLDR, and although I skimmed the page and looked out for anything that seemed relevant, I can't be certain I didn't miss something. Anyway, if you think I was mistaken in removing the protection, please re-impose it. I promise not to drag you screaming to the mob at ANI for wheel-warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it was an RfPP request, so not something really attached to. I had a feeling it wouldn't last, this being a wiki and all! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WMP Museum

Hi Harry,

Are you planning to write up PC Harold Etherigton-Wood, GM, or should I hassle ask someone else? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find much on him (I remember doing a little digging on the day but I got distracted by something else). Alas, the GM (as opposed to the GC) does not confer inherent notability. If there are sources, he should definitely have an article, but I've got quite a bit on my plate atm, so if someone else is keen, I'll pass the baton (or, er, truncheon!) to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thank you for your most polite demeanor and professional conduct at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Flavius/archive1. I've since voiced my support for FA promotion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Flavius/archive1. I really appreciate the way you composed your replies to me, it was most kind and thoughtful. I apologize if I seemed a bit brusque, I've been under a bit of stress lately. Thanks again very much for your professionalism and kindness. — Cirt (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to read the article more than anything—that's why we write these things, I suppose! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! Thanks again for your awesome attitude, — Cirt (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

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) 12:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

More Barney articles

See Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages. Article A Day in the Park with Barney might be doing well for almost a month. How many more Barney articles must you lower to PC? --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgetting something? George Ho (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've dug up this thread from the archives, but I can't find a full list of the protected articles. I'll happily consider putting some more on pending changes, but not the three in that thread—two of those have had problems even with the semi-protection and the third was constantly having problems before, so it seems reasonable to assume that the problems would resume as soon as they were unprotected. Find me some quiet articles, though, and I'll happily drop the protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Barney's 1-2-3-4 Seasons and Barney's Adventure Bus? George Ho (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give them a go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Barney's Musical Castle, Barney's Magical Musical Adventure, Barney's Good Day Good Night, Barney's Colorful World, and Barney's Big Surprise. George Ho (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Last three, sure, we'll give them a go. First two seem to have been favourites, and one of them has had problems even since the protection, so I'd rather give them a few months to see how the others get on with pending changes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for Santa? George Ho (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Total Siyapaa Edit Protection

Hi there, I notcied that the talk page of Total Siyapaa was edit protected without a link to WP:RFED. I'm also confused as to the reason the page was protected in the first place. There was not a great deal of vandalism which usually warrants such protection. Greedo8 17:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The IPs are clearly being used to evade sanctions; the range is too big to block, so that leaves us with either whack-a-mole or short-term semi. I went for the latter for a few days. The socks will probably be back, and whack-a-mole will continue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks! Greedo8 18:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

I just saw this block and was wondering if there is any specific reason for the time or if it was just random? Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's 1001 days, but since the WMF, in their infinite wisdom, changed how the software deals with dates longer than a year, it shows up like that. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I always kind of chuckle on the inside when I see a block that is that specific (and that long). Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Angie Goff

Hey HJ, thanks for the page protection on the article. Much appreciated. Hope all is well with you. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Homer. Long time no see... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been awhile. I'm still around, still working on radio articles. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

• Comment: A foolish request

• Traffic report: Down to a simmer

• Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

• News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

• Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

• Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

• Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

• WikiProject report: From the peak

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Garland Grenade

You might be interested in the Garland Grenade red link on Herbert Garland. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Filter question

Hi - long time no chat. I'm trying to find out someone who can tell me a bit more about filters as I'm trying to find out if I can use one to detect copyvio and other problems of a specific type (ie certain phrases and words). Would that be you or can you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The honest answer is "don't look at me"! I understand the basics of filters, but I'm not actively involved with them (I keep the right because it used to be necessary to view private filters, and because I've used a handful of times). The best place to ask would be WT:EF or even AN; you should get comments there from people a lot more competent than I! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. AN is a very good idea. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we have an FA on a documentary?

So, did you do an article on a documentary? Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Do we have an FA on a documentary? made me curious.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find one on a television documentary (which is what I was looking for). I was looking for something to model "Death on the Rock" on, but made do without in the end. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Development of Jurassic World

Hi, HJ. Pretty much the second that protection was lifted at Development of Jurassic World, an anon IP was back making unsourced, possibly spurious claims. I'm wondering if a longer page protection can be put in place. This is a familiar pattern with big pop-culture franchises and overly enthusiastic fans, and they won't stop. Thank you for any help. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. That's unfortunate. We'll try a month, and if that doesn't work, we'll just have to make it longer and keep re-protecting it every time the problems return, but hopefully some of the information will be confirmed before we have to look at very long period of protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, HJ! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrible Towel

Hey I understand why you declined protecting the page. I would rather not get into an edit war with people, so what would be your best suggestion for this particular situation with regards to the page? I'm moving forward at this point and focusing on editing elsewhere, just your thoughts on what should be done to the Terrible Towel page. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I left the other party a message a few hours ago (they haven't edited since, so presumably they haven't see it yet). They're brand new, so I imagine the problem is that they son't understand how Wikipedia works. If the problems continue, we can resort to more extreme measures, but I always prefer to try talking to somebody first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo

Thanks for protecting this article. JimRenge (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you please give me your advice about the discussion on the relevant talk page? JimRenge (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)