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.

Userpage misuse

Hi there HJ, it's nice to have a reason to contact you again, even if it is like this.

ZD1997 has been using their userpage as a webhost for a couple of days now; I had left it alone just in case it turned out that they were going to use the content for an article. They have racked up over 300 edits on their account, purely on this page. After a cautious {{Uw-userpage}} and a discussion on their talk page (I was considering tagging the page for U5 now but was holding off until the user replied on their talk), it looks uncertain whether they going to be using it in the encyclopedia.

I wanted to get your opinion as this is my first time coming across something like this and I trust your experience. If you could check out the situation then I would be appreciative. Thanks again, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: Apologies for the delay. I agree it's odd. Often something like that is a sign of someone trying to game extended-confirmed protection but this doesn't look like that. I guess just leave it and maybe monitor in case it becomes a problem. We can delete and block if necessary but I don't want to bite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like they want to help but might be misguided slightly. I've got their userpage in watch just in case. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled for stub creator?

I saw you are one of the admins at Autopatrolled and I came across Pvmoutside who is a prolific stub creator, since over 10 years. At the beginning of his wikipedia career he also created some start class articles. Pvmoutside doesn't answer at the talk page, keeps creating basic stubs and was given the autopatrolled rights over 10 years ago by an editor who no longer is editing. I have seen other autopatrolled editors created mainly start class or better assessed articles before being granted autopatrolled. I wouldn't grant Pvmoutside autopatrolled and I wonder what your conclusion is.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, from the people who've commented in the linked discussion, you appear to be the only one who believes there is an issue here. And, correct me if I'm wrong, this issue isn't specifically with the stub creations of this editor, but with stub creations in principle. – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes stub creation in principle is the issue. I believe those editors should not be granted autopatrol rights as they in specific and wikipedia in general could benefit from the tags the reviewers would add to the articles. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for protecting me.... The reason I have autopatrol right is because I also maintain bird pages, and every 6 months or so there needsto be a move or swap, and the admin who gave me autopatrol rights allowed me to do that.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside Could you link to a diff where you were "in need" for autopatrolled for a move or a swap?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

When I adked to move and swap articles, I originally asked to be an admin thinking that was the only way to accomplish what I wanted. I was denied.The admin gave me autopatrol rights instead. It's been working so far.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Pvmoutside, you're confusing autopatrolled with pagemover. Paradise Chronicle, given that the only editors to whose work this user right makes any difference at all are (other) reviewers, maybe you can decide it among yourselves whether you all would be interested in starting to have Pvmoutside's articles in the NPP queue? And everyone, we're all squatting on the talk page of HJ Mitchell: he seems to have tolerated the barrage of notifications about our posts to his talk page, but he doesn't appear to have anything to do with this case, and chances are he's not interested in changing that. If there really is anything that needs discussing, can we move that elsewhere, please? – Uanfala (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have also noticed that HJ Michell is not answering, maybe the wrong venue. A note by HJ Mitchell indicating a better one (since I indicated I came here because or their involvement in Autopatrolled from start) would have helped shortening the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: First of all, I've been busy for a few days. I'm not here 24/7/365. But more importantly, I have no idea what you're asking. If you want to establish a rule that autopatrolled is not for stub creators, go and get a consensus at somewhere like VPP. Otherwise, without any evidence that Pvmoutside's creations are problematic, I have no grounds to remove their autopatrolled flag. There is a very strong, very well-established consensus that it's perfectly acceptable to create very short articles and while I have my own opinions, the role of admins is to enforce policy as-written. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, it is good to have admins who apply policy as written. And while you are correct that consensus is that very short articles can be written, I do not believe that it is beneficial to wikipedia that they are created on autopatrolled, as many of those are likely deficient and seldomly edited again. A review where tags, projects and wls can be added, helps to welcome and integrate the article into the Wikipedia process. And to enable more of such reviews, autopatrolled should be removed. Then also Pvmoutside doesn't seem to have known for what autopatrolled is, as they thought it concerns moves, as also pointed out by Uanfala above and its removal won't hinder Pvmoutside in moving articles which seems to be their prime concern. That said, I have moved on with the discussion to Barkeep49 talk page but thought you merit an answer. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC and early closure

In an abundance of caution, I'm now posting here to ask you about this situation. I'm aware that you topic-banned me from abortion topics. I did notice that an editor involved in the discussion, User:Firefangledfeathers, closed the RfC long before the customary 30-day RfC period had played out. In addition, that editor actually cast one of the votes. They claimed that there was " solid consensus to replace "strident anti-abortionist" with "prominent opponent of abortion". " This after 2 days and 6 editors weighing in, 2 of which disagreed. I asked them to reverse the closure. They removed that request from their talk page, and posted on my talk, basically with a veiled threat that I shouldn't be involving myself at all, even to point out an early RfC close by an involved editor. I don't believe I violated your topic ban, as my note was purely about procedure, but as I said, I'm being cautious and asking you to evaluate the situation yourself. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Wes, I'm sorry to hear you took my talk page comments as a veiled threat. I removed your comment at my user talk page and left as nondescript a message as I could at yours. I generally view broadly construed TBANs as a minefield, and I prefer not to see editors sanctioned for first-time slip ups. I hoped, and still hope, to get you to understand the scope of the ban so that you don't violate it any further. If I'm wrong about what is covered by the scope, then I'm sorry, and I'll work to make it up to you. By the way, I have disagreements about how you characterized the RfC and my closure, but they're not really the main focus here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Deleted Defeedme sock. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Wes sideman: Yes, that was a violation. "The subject of abortion, broadly construed" very clearly includes an RfC about how to describe an opponent of abortion. The whole point of the restriction was to give you some perspective. There are 6.5 million articles in this encyclopaedia and I doubt more than a few hundred are closely related to abortion. I wanted you to step away from that controversial topic area and remember that there is more to Wikipedia than arguing over how we describe one person's position on that issue. Frankly, that you're continuing to argue about the difference between "strident anti-abortionist" and "prominent opponent of abortion", after a topic ban, makes me wonder if I was too lenient. And Defeedme or whoever you are, every time you pop up in one of these discussions you generate sympathy for Wes and detract from the discussion at hand. You're actually making it les likely he'll be sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not take part in the RfC. I asked the closer, who was closely involved in the RfC and closed it after two days if he didn't think that was a bad decision. Probably should've brought it to you first, or appealed the topic ban, but okay, I didn't even know this was a power admins could wield until you sentenced me. I'm not arguing about "strident anti-abortionist" and "prominent opponent of abortion" after the topic ban - perhaps you could point out where I'm arguing about that after the topic ban? I don't see it. I've left it alone. The note on Firefangledfeathers' talk page was purely about procedure and I didn't even mention the content once. Wes sideman (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi there, with this and this in mind, this looks like account creation with block evasion. I already reverted the edit, but you might consider further action. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@DVdm: Thanks, indef'd. Let me know if you see any more like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes

The Wordsmith

• Fuhghettaboutit
• Spinningspark (deceased)

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Single purpose block-evasion sock?

Hi, recently you indefinitely blocked SapientiaLinguistica for their behavior (which was related to their activity on the article Chakavian). Yesterday was registered a new account Brack3tRedacted whose first edit was on the same article making same disruptive changes to the content. Maybe it is too soon to report them for sock investigation without further evidence (besides CheckUser). As they are not making any edits elsewhere it is enough to semi-protect the article. A long semi-protection would be good anyway. Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Sorry for the delay. They've only made one edit so I don't there's anything to do right now. If it becomes a pattern, let me know. Even if we can't be sure about block evasion, if their edits are disruptive that's ample grounds for a block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Strange block duration

Why did you block Special:Contributions/162.127.209.253 for 8 years, 81 days, 1 hour, 26 minutes and 24 seconds. Why not something simple like 9 years? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is egregious abuse of admin tools; I don't think you can justify a block any longer than 7 years, 240 days, 3 hours, 21 minutes and 11 seconds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(11 seconds is where I draw the line!!! — DVRTed (Talk) 18:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC))

I believe I observed a block that lasted for 10 years. :) Though there's a limit? Hmm... Tails Wx 18:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to block for 1001 days if they've come back from a one-year block but this one needed longer so I tripled it. It used to show in the logs as 1001 days (or in this case 3003 days) but some years ago someone changed the way MediaWiki parses durations longer than a year and now it gets mangled. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, I was wondering if rollback was only able to be used for the most recent edit. Because there was a page with two edits that were vandalism and someone else made an edit (not vandalism) on top of those two and I couldn't rollback the vandalism. I still had to revert both edits individually. DDMS123 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@DDMS123: You might be able to use good old-fashioned "undo" if the later edits don't conflict with the ones you want to revert. If the whole lot needs to go, you can edit the old version and save it (see Help:Reverting; Twinkle and Popups are helpful for this). Otherwise, you have to edit it back to the old version. But in a nutshell, yes, rollback only works on the most recent edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! - Advice Requested:)

Hello!

I really want to thank you so much for all the work that you do on Wikipedia, and for taking the time to reply to my permission request with some very helpful information and advice:)

I really want to chat about Wikipedia if that's okay? I have been very interested in being very heavily involved in Wikipedia, I would love to help a lot of people here.

I love editing on Wikipedia, it gives me something very positive to do and I really love it! I was wondering if I could ask for some advice? I really want to be extremely helpful and to see positive change done by myself. I would love to help articles become so much better and to see positive changes just like I can see on your Userpage!

Would you be able to help me? I'd love to one day have things like "50 articles heavily improved by my work" and things like that. Something to look at on my profile page and think look at this positive change I've done!

Also, what I have done so far...would you say there's some good in that?

Thanks so much I appreciate everything! MrBauer24 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Peter, first of all I love your username. I'm a big fan of 24. I'm glad to hear you're interested in building some quality articles. I find it one of the most rewarding things you can do on Wikipedia. The best advice I can give you is to find a subject you're passionate about. Most of my articles are on esoteric things like war memorials and bridges (much as it drives my wife to despair that I have shelves full of books on "really boring" subjects!) but you'll find that most people have a niche like that. The trick is to find yours. I would pick something easy to start with (my first was Mike Jackson (British Army officer); biographies, especially of people with long careers, are good because they're easy to structure and they have an obvious start and end point); something that has enough written about it that you can get at least couple of thousand words on it but not so much that you're drowning in source material. User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article is one of the best guides I've seen on subject selection (the whole guide is excellent but much of it is out of date now).

Once you've got a subject, you need to get hold of just about everything written about it. Books are the gold standard for most subjects; journal pieces aren't far behind; news and web sources are less good but can b helpful for filling in details. Other encyclopaedias and resources like biographical dictionaries can be helpful to see what they think the main points are. I usually pick the most detailed source and start by summarising that, then use the rest to flesh out the article. Then it's just a case of smoothing the prose into a coherent narrative, tidying and structuring the article, adding illustrations, etc. Then you ask somebody with more experience to read it through and give you feedback. I've become a much better writer over the years thanks to the feedback of reviewers. The person I asked to review my first FA was Eric Corbett but he's no longer editing for other reasons; Dank is someone I remember from my early FA-writing days who helped make me a better writer. I'd always recommend having a look at FAC and Peer Review to see what a quality article looks like and what sort of things reviewers pick up on and maybe offering some feedback yourself. Most people are happy to hear any feedback just to know that someone has read what they've written! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Kind of you to mention me, Harry. I typically hang out at FLC, and I haven't been feeling well lately, but I'll be happy to look at anything and see if something useful comes to mind! - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I always appreciated your input at ACR and FAC, even if it was a few years ago. You gave good advice on tightening writing style. I don't really get over to FLC these days. To be honest, I hate fiddling with tables; I'd actually rather write and research a few thousand words of prose than put the information in a table. Though Visual Editor makes it easier these days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I agree ... tables can be off-putting and the rules are too fiddly. And I see people disagreeing over sourcing issues a fair amount (I'm not sure what to do about that; I generally try to leave sourcing issues to the source review people). But I like it when it works. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) And I'm hopeful that LLMs will make the fiddly stuff easier some day. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Still top shelf in my book

	"Ass In High Gear Award"
	Your work as an admin is not being graded, But it certainly is much appreciated, To know that you see with vision that's clear, And don't mind keeping your ass in high gear. Atsme 💬 📧 23:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Always nice to hear from you! I appreciate all you do for our new patrollers. It gives me confidence in one of our most important processes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

TPA revoke

Could you modify the block for 2a01:c23::/32 to include talk page access as well? see Special:Diff/1142619311 AP 499D25 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I thought I recognised them. This person has been around for a while on various IPv6 ranges. The software won't let us block anything bigger than a /32 for IPv6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

School IP vandalism continuing

In January, you blocked this IP because of the constant vandalism. Since the block expired, there have been 6 edits made from that IP, all vandalism. Wes sideman (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: Thanks. They can have a longer block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Pointer

I presume that you did read this thread where multiple users noted GCB's baiting behaviour — including with inappropriate sexual innuendos — for a long span of time across multiple t/p(s) including threads w/o me? Also, Doug is a long time talk-page stalker with whom I have colloborated on S. Asian articles and I can assure you that he was not "warning" me. That said, you can always verify from the horse's mouth. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place. It's annoying enough that it's move d from ANI to AE but while it's there please let's not make people follow even more breadcrumbs. I intend to leave the discussion for a while to see if any more uninvolved admins care to weigh in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a 500 word limit and I was not the one who moved it from ANI to AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrangaBellam

Hi, I have already exceeded my limit in this discussion. However, can I give a one-two sentences answer to other participants of the discussion? Marcelus (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You can have another 100 words to respond to comments by involved editors that directly concern you, and another 100 to respond to any uninvolved admin. But please consider keeping your comments as brief as possible; less is often more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)