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.

A question

What can i do to celebrate april fools on wikipedia? Sebbers10 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sebbers10 One of the best and funniest things you can do (in my opinion) is to write an article on a notable subject that has a name or a subject that lends itself to a clever play on words. That way, you've improved the encyclopaedia and hopefully made someone laugh. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Which template?

I noticed you have a nice bar at the top of your user page with a lot of quick links, and I'd like to grab that for my user page. Which template did you use for that? 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 14:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@BalaM314 they're from various {{userlinks}} templates but they're manually substituted. Copy and paste from the source if you want. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:PERM/PCR

HJ Mitchell, Hello, Can you review my request at WP:PERM/PCR because any admin cannot attention on my request on there, so, if you feel comfortable then please grant me this right. Thanks. रोहित^Talk_with_me 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @रोहित साव27: Hello, I think you ping any other admin on the request page because Harry are busy in her life, so, they do not gave attention on you're request.😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

Can you revdel this. I find it is a personal attack that warrants a revdel. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nagol0929 Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

Do you wish there was an tool that scanned for typos? Do you mind if i do an april fools joke on your userpage? Sebbers10 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Many of the more obvious typos re already fixed (or at least detected) with the help of computers. Some require human judgement to determine whether they're typos or not or what was originally meant. And as long as it's not offensive or disruptive, and I get m userpage back on the 2nd, I don't mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Cyble

You blocked user Shawn Tet on March 5, 2024. User had created Draft:Cyble. User is a SOCK but was wondering if a master was identified. Newer user Garrywales Smith just created it in the mainspace and I moved it to Draft:Cyble 2. Want to file SPI but hoping you can lead me to the right case. CNMall41 (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 I don't think there was a case. I think I found that account when I cu'd another spammer. I often check spammers who look like they might be the SEO for hire types (as opposed to someone misguided trying to promote their own business). I'll have a look at your new friend when I get chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 this is going to take more digging than I can do on a phone. I might get chance to look properly tomorrow morning but it might end up being Saturday or next week. At a glance I think this might be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrtttq. There's definitely something fishy going on. I can see this turning into one of those cases that takes an entire day to investigate and either results in blocking 100 accounts or nothing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey HJ!

Howdy HJ, hope you are well! I have decided that after 6 years (and more on my old account) I would like to apply for adminship, having throughly read through WP:GRFA and WP:RFAADVICE, I thought it best to have an experienced admin look over my account (edit history, talkpage usage, ect) to see if it is worth applying at this time and if not what would be the areas to work on before applying (or nominated). I saw the best way forward was to request for nomination and you name came up on the list of users who can be ask for a nomination and having worked previously in the past with yourself, I felt more comfortable asking you to review and, if you feel happy to, nominate. I would appreciate any feedback that I can use to improve my chances if you feel now is not the right time to apply!

Many thanks, Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 12:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tommi1986 If you can give me a couple of days, I'd be happy to have a look (on my way to work shortly and in the middle of something else!). WP:ORCP can be good for getting feedback and suggestions as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Amazing thanks so much, take your time! Thank you for the link to ORCP, I will take a look there also! Have a great day and look forward to hearing from you soon!

Many thanks, Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 12:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)