User talk:HJ Mitchell

Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to vote for others as the clerk Amogelang22 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Dear Mr Mitchell,

I don't know you and I'm pretty sure you don't know me.

I have never edited Wikipedia in my life yet I see that you have blocked me. If this is true, and I suppose it must be, can you explain your action? I am nonplussed. I'm not used to this method of communication and I can't give you an email address, so unsure how I can read your reply.

Yours sincerely,

John Clinch Johnclinch (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnclinch That you managed to post this is evidence that your account is not blocked. My guess is that you share a connection with someone else who has caused us problems. As long as you're logged in, most blocks won't affect you. Even if you do see a block message, you can still read Wikipedia as blocks only apply to editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, the CU log shows Jpgordon looked into this a little while ago. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's exactly an anon block that OP complained about. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly is a "community" position?

I don't necessarily disagree with your edit, but I think the intent was that admins and BAG memebers are selected by the community, whereas membership for non-arbs on the fucntionaries team is entirely under the control of the committee. That's my read anyway. I agree the term is at best undefined. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Step Sideways I think I see what it was getting at but it didn't define the term, as you say, and it implied that functionaries belonged to a second, unspecified group. The important distinction is that functionaries are bound by the ANPDP and their roles involve private information. I think the old version could also have been read that functionaries are somehow superior to admins/'crats/BAG (not sure why the last one is relevant?) when in fact we all take on the roles that interest us. Always good to hear from you. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy

HJ, does Dark1618 = P.diddysucks? I already noticed that Dark1618 was a strange new user, but hadn't seen anything so disruptive until their last edit to Talk:Sean Combs, which was preceded just a couple days ago by a similar edit by P.diddysucks (P.diddysucks's edits were much worse and their username is a red flag). FWIW, the two users also edit on the same mobile platform.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 magic 8-ball says no. Different continents. I suppose it's to be expected with subjects who are in the news. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HJ. I took the liberty of correcting my typos in my original post.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On AfD

Coming from the ACE discussions of your musings, although I am not running for ArbCom, I'll say that I do not think AfDs are votes. Sometimes, they can seem like one, with editors coming down hard on either the delete or keep sides, but those are rare. Often, I see several editors proposing different solutions (delete, redirect, merge, keep, and many others), or debating the finer points of sourcing and notability guidelines, and the AfD really is a discussion. Those are the best AfDs. But they're probably also a pain for closers, since there isn't always a "majority" in favor of one solution. The only reason I add a bolded "vote" before my comments at all is to help the closer skim the discussion.

RfAs, on the other hand, are votes. Toadspike [Talk] 15:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases

In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names

Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions"

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024

Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ip vandal

Hello, i assume you struck two BLP violation edits that 69.11.41.241 made. There is a third edit [1] that is basically the same as the two struck ones—blindlynx 23:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blindlynx thanks, that one's gone as well now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!—blindlynx 01:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse question about WP:PERM

Hi HJ Mitchell. I came across WP:THQ#Question on why this happened at the Teahouse and for some reason the OP restored their request even though it had been archived by a bot earlier that same day. The bot has already tagged it again. It seems a bit odd that the OP would re-add a request that had already been declined and archived almost a month and a half ago. Anyway, since you're active on that noticeboard, perhaps you could try to help the OP at the Teahouse and explain what happened (if you yourself understand what happened). It seems like the OP's re-adding of the request was just a misunderstanding on their part, but I'm not too familiar with how the PERM stuff works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly I'm not really sure what happened there to be honest. @Ahecht: made the edit. It looks like they edited an old version of the page or possibly edit-conflicted with the archiving bot. I'm certain there was no malicious intent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly I replied over at Teahouse, but I'm as confused as you are as to what I did. I must've somehow gotten on an old revision of the page and edited it, but no idea how I got there without realizing it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: No worries from me. I'm sure whatever happened didn't happen out of malice towards the OP or anyone else and was just mistake. I'm not sure why the OP felt they couldn't ask you directly about but that's probably something you could ask the OP about if you really want to know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell. Thanks for helping to sort this out. I've been editing for a long time and never had much of a need for these kinds of rights; so, I don't really understand all of the details of how they work. Since you did grant the TH OP's request, I defer to your judgment; however, the fact that they felt unable to discuss this with Ahecht (apparently not due to anything Ahecht has done) is kind of a red flag to me. Someone requesting one of these "advanced" permissions should be willing/confident enough to discuss things with others. The "notice" at the top of the OP's user talk page seems benign perhaps but it could also be a concern. This user seems to be doing lots of good things in patrolling for vandalism/non-constructive edits, and is placing lots of warnings on the user talk pages of others. It's great when someone decides to do that, but it also invariably can lead to confrontational and contentious discussions. Someone stating they "can be very sensitive to certain things posted" on their user talk page is one thing, but for the same person to also post they "don't feel very comfortable" discussing things on another user's talk page, even when they know that person to be an admin, at a place like the Teahouse could mean they might've chosen the wrong areas to try to help out in. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly Meh, pending-changes reviewer is probably the one you (one) can do the least harm with and the one least likely to get you into confrontational situations. You just review pending edits on pending-protected articles and accept them if they're not vandalism. We give it out pretty liberally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understand and thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's like three in a row

Normally I just thank when I go to block and see someone is already blocked, but there's been a few in a row now and that deserves a real message. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking care of the vandalism here. Nice job! Though I suppose User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe deserves this too... 😉 JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell's Long-Lost Cousin

Plz tell your cuz I said hi. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I wonder if that's related to the next entry in the cu log, the one with the interesting username. Did you find anything interesting? I'm on mobile and I hate CU'ing from a phone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. I'm getting this quote from Curly Howard. I won't lie, it was absolutely hilarious to see that name appear. Like really, I can't stop laughing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]