The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final tally: (43/24/12); closed by Juliancolton at 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC) as withdrawn by the candidate[reply]

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) – I've been looking around for someone worthy to nominate for adminship, and HJ Mitchell passes my standards. He's been here for 9 months (yes I know he was slightly inactive for 4 months, but that's irrelevant as I don't believe in editcountitis, and I hope that no one opposes simply because he doesn't meet some edit count threshold, as I personally think we should only be judging candidates by whether or not they'll hurt the wiki), and his edit count is more than enough to see if he is worthy of the bit. He already has 2 GAs, and is working on more now. He is a great content contributor, and his temperament is always neutral and civil, something we need to see more around this project. He plans on helping out around the Main Page mostly, and heaven knows we could have more hands around that area of this encyclopedia. Mitchell has tagged several articles for speedy deletion, and his rate of accuracy is around 98% (if not better), so it seems he has a good grasp of the deletion policy.

Therefore I'm nominating HJ Mitchell for adminship, as I think he would be a great help to this project, and I haven't found anything to make me worry that he would abuse the tools in any fashion. I hope the community agrees. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination per HJ Mitchell's comment on WP:SOCK. I'll be glad to re-nominate in 6 months. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Coffee, for your kind words. I am quite flattered that you consider me up to the task and, should the community agree, I won't let them down. HJMitchell You rang? 21:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Should the community grant me the honour of adminship, the vast majority of my administrative work would be around the Main Page, particularly to do with ITN which has only a very small number of admins who keep it ticking over, it would be an honour to help them and the encyclopaedia out. I would also continue the work I currently do with new page patrolling (I've patrolled over 600 pages to date). In order to gain more experience with the delete button, I would only delete the most blatant candidates on sight, sticking with the most incontrovertible deletions (e.g. A1, A3) and those which can do most harm (e.g. G10, 11, 12). I would also patrol Category:Candidates for speedy deletion on a regular basis as I share the frustrations of those editors who have tagged a page appropriately but have to wait several hours before their (often inevitable) deletion. In all areas, I would try, as I currently do, to provide guidance newer editors or those less experienced in a particular area. For example, if I declined a speedy, I would make a point of informing the editor who tagged it and explain why. Other than that, I would assist (where I could) with admin backlogs and contributing to AN, ANI etc though only when I had something useful to add.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Well, since this a "blow your own trumpet" question, I'd draw attention to the pretty icons at the top of my userpage and the truly humbling awards I've been given by other editors at the bottom. To elaborate, I've contributed significantly (though not started) to 2 GAs, I've successfully nominated and/or updated 34 (the last went on while the RfA was in progress) articles for ITN and written 1 article featured at DYK. However, I'm especially proud of my efforts at The Bill which, in a month and a half was completely overhauled to bring it up to standard, though the collaboration with 5 albert square and Hamiltonstone is what I'm proudest of- I came to know and respect both editors greatly over the course of the review. In addition, I have some pride in Tim Cross which I created after being shocked to discover it didn't already exist and in Old Speckled Hen which, although far from a perfect article, I thoroughly enjoyed writing (my thanks to Silk Tork for his advice there!).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes. Over the course of my editing "career", I have had a number of disagreements with other editors, usually over how best to handle a certain problem. For example, I disagreed with Ikip over the bilateral relations articles, however, I came to respect him and the discussion never deteriorated into argument (the bilaterals also account for two of my barnstars). More recently, I found myself in a misunderstanding with an IP editor which ended up with an ANEW report against me, however, I looked past the editor's incivility (which I later removed from my talk page) and we were, I think, able to put both our egos to one side and "agree to disagree" rather than allow the quality of discussion to deteriorate further which, IMHO, was the best conclusion for everyone (the report was closed as no vio by 2/0 for the record).

Additional optional questions from RUL3R

4. When do you believe a cool down block should be used?

A: In my own, personal opinion? Almost never. Blocks should be used only as the very last resort when all other attempts at resolving a problem have been exhausted and even then, if an editor (assuming they're a registered user or static IP for argument's sake) shows the ability to contribute constructively upon the expiration of the block, the block should be of the minimum time period possible. With that in mind, the only occasion on which anybody should be blocked should be to prevent harm (or further harm) to the encyclopaedia, however respected the editor since the encyclopaedia we are here to build is bigger and far more important than any one editor. Once any threat of harm has passed the block should be lifted. For example, if an editor were to email me while blocked and offer sincere assurances that whatever lead to the block would not happen again, I would be inclined (though I would not feel obliged) to unblock. If in doubt, I would seek broader input from a forum such as AN or ANI.

5. Could you explain in your own words the differences and similarities between a ban and a block?

A: A ban is something imposed by ArbCom and/or on behalf of the community which essentially requests that an editor refrain from participating in certain areas of the wiki. It can apply to a specific article, topic or a ban from editing the wiki at all. A block, the element of the software which physically prevents a user from editing and which is imposed by an administrator, may be used to enforce a ban. Either can last for a period of time specified by those imposing the measure, or it could be indefinite or even permanent and both are subject to appeal though a blocked user may have the right to edit their talk page revoked if they abuse the "unblockme" template.

Additional optional questions from A Stop at Willoughby

6. Are there restrictions on the kinds of Wikipedia-related essays that users may write in the project namespace? Are there any grounds on which you would delete such an essay? Are there any grounds on which you would userfy such an essay?

A: I think opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established (from WP:ESSAYS) gives editors a pretty wide latitude and many of the essays are very useful. The only circumstance in which I would delete such an essay would be after an MfD with consensus to delete or if it met one of the General (G1-12) Criteria for Speedy Deletion. I might userfy something that would be better placed in userspace- for example, an editor's RfA criteria or something that, while unlikely to pass an MfD (or after a DRV), showed potential to be useful. Other than that, I'd be willing to email copies to editors if it were unlikely to be acceptable because WP is not a free web hosting service.

Additional optional questions from Shawn in Montreal

7. William C. Pack was certainly a troubled article when you tagged it db-person last month. Could you explain why you believed the article met the criteria for db-person, and if you still believe it does?

A: From looking at the revision in which I tagged it, (I don't remember the specific article itself) I suppose I must have missed the "award winning authour" claim which is a claim sufficient to decline an A7. The article as it was read like somebody's persoanl reflection on the subject and "Runaway, dropout, teenage father, dockworker, truck driver, bartender, GED holder, divorcee. Food company CEO, Wall Street Executive Vice President, archaeologist, Stanford University Phi Beta Kappa grad, 20-year family man, broad-band wireless corporate advisor, charity board member" are not, in my opinion, sufficient claims t notability for A7 (Wall St. Exec might have been had a notable company been specified). Obviously, the article did not and does not meet the criterion, especially now the tone has been refactored. It is mistakes like these that lead me to specify that if I work in new page patrolling with regard to CSD tagging, I would not delete on sight (with the exception of those examples above), instead tagging for another admin or deleting previously tagged pages. However, I might take this opportunity to remind participants that, should I be granted adminship, most of my time would be spent around the Main Page, rather than Special:NewPages or CAT:SD.

Additional optional questions from smithers

8. Explain CSD criterion G1.

A. A very valid question given that G1 is one of the most misunderstood criteria. G1 deals with "patent nonsense"- text that means absolutely nothing and makes no sense. For example, an article consisting of nothing but "kksddnfukndkjnkmnjbasdfs" would be eligible under G1, however (a common mistake) an article written in a foreign language would definitely not qualify for speedy deletion under G1 (though they may qualify under A2) nor would something like "HJ Mitchell is President of the World", which, obviously, I'm not, because it's written coherently, though something like that would qualify under G3 as a blatant hoax.

9. Explain CSD criterion A9.

A. A9 is the second criterion (the other being A7) which deals with notability (or credible claims to notability). To qualify for A9, an article must be about a musical recording (an album or a single, for example) which does not make a credible claim to the notability of the song and where the artist to whom the recording belongs does not have an article on the English Wikipedia or that article is itself marked for speedy deletion. A common mistake with A9 is to apply the tag to an article that meets one criterion but not the other (such as a non notable recording where the artist has an article or a notable recording where the artist does not have an article). As those analysing my deleted edits will see, I've only dealt with 2 or three of these.

Additional optional questions from Santa Claus of the Future

10. (Question has been stolen from User:Coffee, who is unlikely to ask it as he is the nom.) What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A: I'll answer those in reverse order if you don't mind too much. Firstly, I have significant experience with BLPs. I've created one (Tim Cross, featured at DYK) and spent a significant amount of time referencing Lily Cole and copyediting Brad Pitt. While working on The Bill, I noticed Simon Rouse (one of the actors) was unreferenced and so added what I could to it. I also have several on my watchlist, including Armond White and Noel Edmonds which are there because they seem to get more than their fair share of vandalism, though rarely persistent enough to request protection. That said, I have successfully requested semi protection on both Edmonds and Bon Jovi in relation to BLP violations. I also issue the relevant warnings to editors who (often in good faith) add potentially controversial, unsourced material to these articles (as opposed to just using Twinkle's default vandalism warning). I also patrol recent changes related to "category:Living people" when time allows looking for BLP violations and plain old vandalism. As for my opinion on policy, although I have not contributed to any policy discussions, I think the policy works pretty well, all things considered. Obviously, special care needs to be taken when writing about living people because of the harm that can be done to one's personal life and reputation if damaging mistruths are there for all to see on one of the web's most popular sites. I would be interested to see if flagged revisions could be implemented to require edits by IPs and new editors to be sighted by admins or somebody with appropriate rights (I contribute to Wikinews where they flag all revisions, so I have some understanding of how it works). If, as an admin, I were to review a request for page protection on a BLP, I would be much more inclined to grant protection for BLP violations, even if it didn't meet the usual requirements for non-BLP vandalism. If the community were to grant me adminship, I would make the best use possible of the tools to prevent, deter and revert harmful edits. In addition, G10 is one of the few criteria I would use to delete pages on sight and I have a good record on correctly tagging G10s when I come across them (perhaps an admin would analyse my deleted contribs and come up with statistics?).

Additional optional questions from Shawn in Montreal

11. Six days ago, you blanked a comment from your Talk page related to a possible misuse of rollback on Eleventh night. The comment, from a party uninvolved in the edit war, reads: "In the course of simply reverting entire edits, you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater — 86.12's changing duplicate refs to a single ref with refname, and later using only the refname, which is a constructive edit. If you have a problem with other changes, may I suggest you take that to the talkpage, rather than simply undoing everything?" In retrospect, do you feel your use of rollback in this case was the best course to take, and is there anything you wish you had done differently?

A: To deal first with the comments I removed from the talk page, I removed them upon the resolution of the issue, mainly because the comments from the IP editor were quite uncivil and not something I want on my talk page, where I like to host civil discussion. I removed the comment from the third party because it would, in my opinion, have been improper to leave his comments there out of context and akin to refactoring his comment whereas guidelines suggest one should leave a comment be or remove it altogether. I didn't want to be perceived as misrepresenting the editor but wanted to put an end to the drama. As for my use of rollback, I discovered the edit while patrolling recent changes and assumed (in hindsight, wrongly) that the edit was unconstructive as it appeared to remove sourced information from the article and had been picked up by an abuse filter ("references removed"). I reverted the edit. However, I then proceeded to the talk page of the editor who made it and left a message that, by my reading of it, explained the relevant policies and guidelines and informed the editor why their edit had been reverted. The IP then proceeded to revert the article in a very aggressive manner and was reverted himself by another editor, who also explained his actions on the IP's talk page- an action which he mistakenly believed I had carried out- such aggressive reverting, combined with the history of the IP's talk page (notes for vandalism, edit warring) led me to believe that the edits were not constructive, not least since he paid no attention to my attempts to engage him in conversation. After himself making 4 reverts on the article, he reported me for edit warring at which point he engaged em in conversation, we explained ourselves to each other and went our separate ways. My edits, while mistaken, were made in nothing but the best of faith, though, in hindsight, I would have done better to have examined that and previous diffs in more detail to determine exactly what the editor was doing and paid less attention to the abuse filter. I hope that resolves any unanswered questions regarding the incident, but I'm happy to answer more if need be.

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

12. In relation to your comment here regarding admins. that abuse their tools, what recall standards do you intend to set for yourself?

A: It is my opinion that administrators should not have guaranteed tenure in the position. Personally, I would like to see some form of reconfirmation process maybe annually or biennially. However, having seen several admins attempt this and result in large amounts of drama, I would follow any process that was implemented with community support for the the process of desysopping and would list myself as an administrator open to recall upon my promotion. If significant questions were raised regarding my use f the tools, I would voluntarily hand them back for the good of the project and would otherwise be open to a process where (for argument's sake) 3 editors in good standing could convene something along the lines of an RfC/U to determine whether I had misused the tools and/or whether I was fit to continue serving as an admin. I would go along with any consensus reached there and hand back the tools immediately if that was the consensus. The details need to be worked out, but I think a good recall process could save a lot of the drama around both desysopping and RfA so that the latter can get back to the fundamental question of "is this editor trustworthy". addendum: On reflection, I could have given a more specific answer to that so I will set the standard that I would stand for reconfirmation (here or in the RfC/U style I mention above) as an administrator should 3 editors in good standing make a good faith request for me to do so within a period of one month.

Additional (optional) question from Toddst1

13 Please elaborate on why you don't think your repeated reversions on Eleventh night wasn't engaging in edit warring and how that would be appropriate behavior as an administrator.

A: As expressed above, it was a simple mistake on my part, though made in good faith rather than an attempt "to force one stance, or one version of an article, at the expense of another".

• Links for HJ Mitchell: HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for HJ Mitchell can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/HJ Mitchell before commenting.

• Edits posted to talk. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As the nom nom nom... --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Struck my support per WP:SOCK comment. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support I've seen this editor around in my journeys, I'm happy with their contributions and their answers to the questions. Good luck! I am happy to be able to be the first 'support' after the nominator! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Support I've noticed him at ITN/C lately, and despite us not agreeing on most of the nominations, I think HJ is level-headed and will do a good job. We could use more admins on ITN too. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 21:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC) switching to neutral [reply]

2. Support For constant, constructive edits and no concerns with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  21:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Fully qualified candidate, interested in helping in areas that could use additional staffing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support per DC's ITN comments. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Polite, courteous, and knows where to go when he has questions. Net positive. Good Luck! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support As a balanced editor. Has experience on critical areas and seems clueful of the rules and usage of the tools. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Candidate gives helpful advice and answers to any queries/questions asked. Very qualified, able to help out with a wide range of topics. - JuneGloom07 (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. I was wondering whether you were ready yet; I think that this nomination could have waited a bit longer - but he's an excellent candidate with a cool head, experience, and intelligence. ceranthor 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Bwrs (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support No qualms about this editor.  fetchcomms☛ 02:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Has my Support. In crossing pages with him I see nothing that worries and much that gives confidence. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. A balanced and courteous editor who, in my experience, has always open and responsive to discussions. Great candidate. Liqudluck✽talk 03:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - Really nice edit history (from my initial review) and also a very nice edit contribution distribution. It's not a massive number of edits, but nearly half are mainspace, and a nice page patrol count. The CSD concerns are not compelling. At least two of the A7 ones have since been deleted, the other three that I can see, the government agency one was a mistake but the other two are pretty borderline. The one is in pretty bad shape even now. Shadowjams (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support BejinhanTalk 05:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support Good thoughtful editor, am confident he can be trusted to be cautious at first in any areas where he lacks experience. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. With a nod to the opposition, I think this user seems trustworthy. Seem their work and I have no doubts as to their competence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong day after Christmas support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. The candidate was trusted enough to get rollback. Five editors thought enough of his edits to give barnstars/awards. He has some Good article and DYK credits. He has never been blocked. He approaches Afds with an open-mind and in a manner that recognizes the work of his colleagues as he did here. He approaches Afds as discussions rather than votes as he does here, here, and here. He also evaluates sources as he does here. Really, I think we need to give him a nice late Christmas gift of adminship!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Obviously has a clue. Good record of contributions and critical thinking. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I'll come up with a rationale later. Aditya Ex Machina 17:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL. At least you are honest about it ;0 Ikip 19:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. I had a good feeling about this candidate, and that required further review of his edits. Though I still haven't been able to figure out where I interacted with him before, I can see that he'll be a net positive to the project, and that is my rationale. Aditya Ex Machina 10:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support Yet another good editor with another good nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Of course. Deletions can always be undone if errors are made. This is not a big deal, please stop making it one, opposers. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorly (talk • contribs)
22. Support Trustworthy. RMHED (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Weak support. I agree with the opposers that hasty tagging like that isn't good to see. But let's take a step back: where will HJ be using the tools? ITN, the main page, and the bad content stuff (G10/11/12). He seems to be a trustworthy, solid person. I'd advise him to be careful with rapid A1-type tagging (I'm sure he's already received such feedback at this point ;)), but still am willing to support him given his general good, common sense-driven demeanor. JamieS93 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support I think HJ Mitchell is an excellent candidate for adminship, especially given the need for another administrator's help at WP:ITN. Sure, he hasn't been around for as long as a few other potential administrators, but I'd rather look at quality over quantity. It's always good to see a candidate for administrator with a lot of good article work; HJ Mitchell has created several well-written articles and has brought two articles up to GA level (I particularly enjoyed reading one of those GAs, The Bill). He's done a lot of good work at WP:GAN, WP:ITN, and Portal:Current events already, and my impression is that he's hardworking and trustworthy. I appreciate his thorough answer to Q6, but would add that WP:PG states that essays with a point of view that contradicts widespread consensus should be userfied. As for the speedy deletion issues, the misapplications of G1, A1, and A7 aren't encouraging, but the answers to the questions give me the impression that this candidate will be cautious with the delete button – and if he errs, there's always WP:DRV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support RFA is becoming a hell hole like no other. The standards are getting more and more extravagant (not necessarily on this RFA, but it recent RFAs in general) and for that reason alone I am willing to support most candidates coming through. It doesn't hurt that he is a great editor either.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support On the one hand, A4 is technically wrong (the answer is never), I prefer to see 3,000 edits and 6 months of activity, and the concerns in the next section are indeed a bit off-putting. On another hand, the explanation the block should be of the minimum time period possible. With that in mind, the only occasion on which anybody should be blocked should be to prevent harm indicates that HJM understands the point here, as Coffee notes editcountitis can be counterproductive, and so long as the candidate is aware of the CSD and other concerns, I trust that they will take them under advisory and act conservatively, seeking additional input when uncertain. On the gripping hand, as noted in A3 I just spent a fair bit of time with HJM's recent contributions, and found them generally capable of keeping cool, seeking compromise, and giving thoughtful measured responses to potentially frustrating situations. This, an apparent willingness to learn from their mistakes, and the desire to work in admin-short areas put me in the support column. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry - try spending some time in the more policy-rich areas of WP to get a better feel for them, and I will be happy to support in another few months / few thousand edits. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27. (edit conflict)Support Yes, you have tagged some things as nonsense that clearly are not WP:Patent Nonsense, but I believe you are both well-intentioned and intelligent enough that after having a gander over that guideline, you won't make the same mistakes again. Your work at ITN is good; your article work is good; I've read a few AfD's you participated in where your commentary was useful. In short, you have clue, so I'll support. You're not perfect, but we have seventeen hundred admins- I'd submit that none are perfect. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. We have a dedicated and sensible user here. More admins are needed and once again I feel we are being poorly-served by people opposing over very minor and picky mistakes: its undeniable that certain errors have occurred, but I think people need to take a step back and view them in the context of his generally excellent performance. I've had great experiences with HJ Mitchell's thoughtful behind-the-scenes work and I think he'd make an above-average administrator given the opportunity. ~ mazca ^talk 14:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Seems to be here for the right reasons. A little review of general rules and he'll be fit for the job. Best wishes for the future.  Cargoking  talk  15:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - He has a clue. Everybody makes an occasional mistake from time to time. smithers - talk - sign! 16:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Candidate is always very helpful with all questions and queries no matter what is asked. I came across this editor when I nominated The Bill for good article status. The editor was extremely helpful even going to the point of buying one of The Bill's books so we could reference some of the info on the Wikipedia page. I think that HJ Mitchell would make an excellent administrator --5 albert square (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per mazca. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - this user has earned my trust based on what I've seen. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Weak support. Should be okay, despite the valid concerns raised below. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support on the basis that the community sees fit to trust Coffee with the same office. Hey, how bad can he be? :) Crafty (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support; out of 300+ speedy-deleted articles, the handful of examples cited in opposes below are not particularly illustrative of anything. Newpage patrol is a thankless and never-ending task, but it is also essential to Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per above. --Microcell (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - I share concerns with others about the candidate's CSD mistakes, and I agree that the candidate hasn't been around for a long time. But I've seen his comments at ANI that show that the editor has enough clue that I'll give my support. -- Atama頭 17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Looks ok to me. Stay away from CSD for a while - somehow I think you will :) - and I don't see anything to worry about. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support—occasional mistaken CSD tagging is not the end of the world, and improves with practice/experience. Otherwise sound in every respect, as far as I can tell. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support per user:TreasuryTag. It sometimes feels as if people go on "fishing expeditions" looking for a reason to oppose AfDs  Francium12  00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean RfAs don't I. Doh!  Francium12  00:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

42. Support It seems to me that he would use the tools of an Admin wisley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Recognize this candidate from ITN. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak Oppose Sorry, but I do not feel comfortable with your level of experience and you don't have much experience (if any) in the UAA and AIV areas which I feel are vital for helping to decide if editors fit the requirements for blocking. You definately don't have enough experience in the CSD area, and it can become contentious at times but with only 318 deleted edits so far, I feel you need more experience in this area to really get a feel for it. Also A4 is not quite adequate in my book as CDB's should NEVER be used. ArcAngel (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Quite a few misapplications of {{db-nonsense}}[1][2][3][4] and (perhaps more importantly) {{db-nocontext}}[5][6][7], combined with a quick trigger finger for the narrow criterion A7 [8][9][10][11][12] leads me to oppose this otherwise fine editor. It should be noted that HJ Mitchell has been tagging a lot of pages recently, and most of the taggings are correct. Still, a bit more time is needed before I'm comfortable with him having the delete button. decltype (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree that some of those are troublesome, being a CSD specialist originally, but I think that the candidate's other traits should overrule these mistakes. A good candidate is a good candidate. The ultimate question at RfA is: Is the user trustworthy? I think that, while this RfA is a bit early, the answer is absolutely yes. Most of those articles were deleted, even if they were the incorrect tag. Best, ceranthor 05:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • Comment Incorrect CSD taggings is why my RfA failed, however, despite most of them being deleted, as is the case here. ArcAngel (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Your RFA failed per some pretty bad CSD tagging, and not having enough general knowledge of the deletion policy. He has mistagged articles far, far less than you did when you ran for RFA. Sorry but your comparison doesn't do Mitchell justice. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • Comment Decltype, you've opposed citing 12 diffs, 9 of which are invisible to non-admins. Could you- or another admin- quickly go through what was wrong with HJ Mitchell's tagging in each case? Thanks. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm extremely reluctant to but in here, but, if you'll allow me to respond to these concerns, I would point to my answers to the questions above, in which I specify that I would only speedy delete those most blatant cases (excluding A7) and those most harmful or pages which had previously been tagged by a non-admin and which meet the criteria and for exactly that reason- I know my record isn't perfect and I have made mistakes. In addition, I would always be more than happy to open a DRV on anything other than G10, 11, 12 if requested. I will now but back out and allow the process to take its course. HJMitchell You rang? 13:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Specific cases detailed on the talk page. decltype (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I was well aware of those when I nominated him. However, the mere fact that the majority of those errors still ended up deleted, says something. He might have placed the wrong tags, but the tags still should have been placed on most of those. When I became an admin, I had about the same rate of mistagged articles, and I learned to slow down afterwards, as I'm sure HJ Mitchell will too. Therefore that small percentage of mistagged articles, does not worry me. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   They ended up deleted, but should they've been? Under which criterion may "Nightlife is one of Sick City's albums" or "Love Handel is a band in Phineas and Ferb" be speedy deleted? Depending on the nature of the errors, a few mistaggings may prevent me from supporting a candidacy. I realize and respect that others see things differently. decltype (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's sadly the nature of New Page Patrol. To be honest we have hundreds of articles get deleted like that every day, it's not necessarily the fault of the taggers as much as it is the way the community treats that area. I don't see anything that HJ Mitchell has done that he can't learn not to do, or anything that he won't learn to do correctly. Adminship is not a big deal. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I commented on the talk page on the matter, but it seems unfair to hold HJ responsible for poor-tagging, if all articles were deleted. Are we going to go after the admins who the deleting too? ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 15:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Essentially per decltype ···Katerenka (討論) 10:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose: Not quite there yet. See ArcAngel - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Regretful Oppose Overall an editor who will eventually be a good admin but does not have enough Time with only 4-5 months of editing I cannot see how the editor can be up to speed on enough of the minutiae of wikipedia to be an admin. A few more months and I can support. RP459 (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. There are some aspects of admiship where you have to rely on your judgement about the candidate; but there are others such as CSD tagging where you can look at the tags and presume that if the candidate were an admin they would be deleting as they now tag. This (tagged as A3 the same minute it was created) makes me think that this candidate is not yet ready. Special:NewPages has a reminder that articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation . Overhasty speedy deletion tagging can be very bitey, especially to new users - and who can say if an admin who makes mistakes at CSD won't make mistakes elsewhere? ϢereSpielChequers 17:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If no reason other than to allow me to learn from my mistakes, would you mind specifying what that is since it's invisible to non-admins. HJMitchell You rang? 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In all fairness, there was literally no content there aside from the words "Spikey The Hedgehog". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure why that should be seen as justifying a speedy nomination; it's very consistent with a newer user tying to create a page in very small steps, and there's nothing to be gained from a snap judgment rather than waiting, say, an hour to see what further edits, if any, the article creator may make. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   There are some articles which quite rightly are speed deleted the same moment they are created. But the reason why special:NewPages says articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation is that as Hullabaloo pointed out, some editors might save a first sentence - and by the time they are ready to save their second one their article has already been tagged, they've been templated and they've given up on us. That tag wasn't just applied within moments of creation, it was tagged in the moment of its creation. I appreciate that I gave only one example of the candidate making a mistake at CSD tagging, but Decltype had already given several - and the candidate himself said " I would only delete the most blatant candidates on sight, sticking with the most incontrovertible deletions (e.g. A1, A3)", In my own experience the G3, G7, G10 and U1 tags are very rarely incorrect, whilst A1 is IMHO the most misused tag and many can be salvaged with as little as a look at "what links here". I rarely oppose and hate to do so especially as our number of active admins has now been falling for over a year, but I don't want an admin who is as overenthusiastic with the delete button as this candidate would seem to be. ϢereSpielChequers 00:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't know how much more clear HJ Mitchell could have been that he doesn't plan on deleting articles being his number one focus. His main goal is to help out around the Main Page (ITN, DYK, etc.), and then help out with other areas when he gets the hang of it. I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose per answers to questions 7 and 9. Candidate makes serious, elementary mistakes in interpreting A7 and A9, which are not, as his answers would have it, about "notability," but relate to "significance," clearly and explicitly described as "a lower standard than notablity." As other !voters have pointed out, related aspects of the candidate's speedy tagging have been problematic. And the answer to Q7 raises more problems than it resolves: while the article as then written had several other claims to significance that the candidate ignored, settling on the subject's winning a zero-visibility, buy-your-nomination "award" as a sign of actual notability, is quite wrong. The candidate also missed the fact that the article was a pretty clear copyvio [13], something that should be checked for when an article is so clearly promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per NOTNOW. This is a relatively inexperienced candidate with just a few months under his belt who still seems to be learning the ropes when it comes to CSD criteria, yet plans to "patrol CAT:SD on a regular basis." (He seems to back off that pledge a little in his answer to Q7, however.) As I believe one of the more serious threats to WP right now is too-hasty speedy deleting, in regards to both article growth and new editor retention, I would rather wait to see some consistency in CSD work. Adminship should not be a place to learn basics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   For clarification, can I point out that by CAT:SD (not CSD) I'm referring to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, to which CAT:SD redirects, where pages have already been tagged as opposed to deletion on sight. HJMitchell You rang? 21:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose - per Decltype. He has some incorrect CSD tagging. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 22:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Weak Oppose It's just too soon. The problematic A7 tagging referenced in the questions up above was only a bit more than a month ago, and there are all these other taggings the previous opposes brought up. I'm willing to hope for the best on a lot of things, but a demonstrated trigger-happiness with speedy deletion and a stated desire to work in that area are not a good combination. Check back in 2 or 3 months, and if your speedy taggings since then have been unproblematic, then I'll be happy to support. Ray^Talk 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Again I reiterate, his main area he'll be working on is the Main Page. I'd be more than happy to help him out with deletions for a few months. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Strong oppose Strongest possible oppose: not in my lifetime type per nominator per decltype, the few I can see as a non-admin were well-written attempts at articles. In these instances, where the user is attempting to write an encyclopedic article, the correct thing to do, in order to show your support for a community-written encyclopedia, is to help the new editor out, not to go for an A7 speedy. An A7 speedy is a matter of judgment, again, this is just my opinion, when an article shows an attempt at including encyclopedic material, even if a specific assertation of importance is not made, and the editor is new to wikipedia, erring on the side of assisting the editor rather than stomping the article out could gain two things: an appropriate article and a new editor. A7 kicks them both out the door. In addition, oppose per ϢereSpielChequers, Shawn, and Hullaballoo. You're just too fast and inconsiderate to newbie or struggling editors, imo. There is no reward for deleting articles quickly. And I've had an article tagged for speedy within seconds of creating it. It just says: go away newbie editor this isn't a place for anyone to edit, wikipedia is for established editors only. It also says you're not willing to give someone a minute to breathe. I really don't like biting newbies in this way. Please, stop competing for the fast/most deleted articles award, consider other means of dealing with bad articles, such as assisting the new editor when the article is well-written but lacking a criterion for inclusion, rewriting part of the article, looking for copyright violations (serious issue, that), then come back for adminship showing you consider wikipedia something anyone is welcome to edit. That's my opinion. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved further discussion to talk page. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. I gcoinne Having waited for details to emerge on the deleted diffs cited by decltype i am not comfortable with what appears to be haste in CSD tagging and the probability of this behaviour carrying over into admin tasks. Twelve was too many diffs for it to be uncharacteristic of the candidate. As pointed out by the nominator this candidate plans to work on the main page; that is the last place that should have rash judgements made.

    And in response to what caused the edit conflict, yes there are issues with the CSD process but being an example of the faults is not a good quality to have or more especially, to point out in an RfA. Tagging an article that is not offensive or divisive, and clearly in development, within the minute of it's creation is not good. Just because he can do it is not an excuse for doing it. delirious ☯ ^{~ nollaig shona duit~} 01:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Strong Oppose: Recent edit warring and apparent misuse of rollback on Eleventh night. Clearly not reverting WP:VAN, the editor should have rollback rights examined. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved further discussion to talk page. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. weak oppose per Ray and others. Basically the lack of time in service and mainly CSD problems. I suggest fixing those problem identified above and coming back in 4 months. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to say that HJ Mitchell's behavior during this RfA has been outstanding. Assuming the tagging problems are resolved, I certainly expect to support this editor for adminship next time around. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - Per time and CSD. Good luck next time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - Per misapplication of CSDs found on talk page. There seems to be a stark discrepancy between practically applying the knowledge of CSD and the candidate's apparent theoretical understanding. From what I can tell, the user seems to be able to regurgitate instructions well, but isn't meticulous or careful enough. I'd very much like to see some improvement in this area upon a followup RfA in the not too distant future. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose - Doesn't seem to have enough experience. Doesn't appear to have any glaring errors, so no prejudice against another RfA later on. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose - more experience needed. Jonathunder (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Very Weak Oppose The experience issue doesn't bother me at all, honestly. However with a few recent miscues, I'd be more open to an RfA in even a month, when it is more obvious the editor understands these rules. When it comes down to it though I'd support mitchell once his discretion is shown. NativeForeigner (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose per lack of knowledge of a policy that all administrators should be familiar with.[14] NW (Talk) 02:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, I cannot be expected to have flawless knowledge of every policy the wiki has- that's why we have the policy pages- so people can check. In that particular instance I was trying to assume good faith. HJMitchell You rang? 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you're right that the policy allows "sock" accounts if they're not being used abusively, although it is strongly encouraged that they be declared unless there is a risk to the user's privacy. But it doesn't apply to banned users because they don't have the privilege to edit anyway. And I would think that the context of the discussion in which you were commenting (a long drawn out ANI thread linking to a sockpuppet investigation) would have led you to realize that this was a banned user that they were talking about. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22. Very Strong Oppose user has failed to do basic legwork before commenting on a community banned user, and complete lack of understanding of WP:SOCK and WP:BAN. I cannot in good conscious support an admin who comments on a subject without having a clue to the background of the situation and taking the side of a banned user without bothering to do the background research. β^_command 02:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs please? You need to back up your clams. Thanks--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to be referring to the same situation as NuclearWarfare and I. Durova³⁹⁰ 02:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose per this discussion: current thread about socks of a ban evading sockpuppeteer. HJ Mitchell says he "can't have flawless knowledge of every policy", but how hard can it be to look up the list of banned editors and compare that to the banning policy? That banned editor was someone who had caused several kinds of problems including disrupting an arbitration case. I worry about any RFA candidate who doesn't feel obligated to look up the circumstances before posting an opinion: it's a red flag that the person would be lax on followup too. Durova³⁹⁰ 02:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose per the comment I just posted in reply to your reply to NuclearWarfare's oppose (oppose #21) ... though you're quoting the WP:SOCK policy correctly, it's really the wrong situation to use it. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't have an opinion yet. I did notice that the candidate's earliest edit has an edit summary noting "a new beginning". Does this indicate an earlier persona? If yes, does the history of the earlier persona have any bearing on what might be determined in this asessment? Bielle (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That was the section he edited, not his edit summary. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (after ecs)Bielle, the edit summary in that edit is a forced edit summary from him making an edit to the section of that article titled "===A new beginning as RMB Chivenor==". He didn't type that out; it was added by the software. Unless you are suggesting he deliberately found and edited that section to seen some kind of weird hidden message that he too was making a new beginning...?? Sarah 01:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I try not to suggest anything, but to say things clearly. Hidden messages would be way beyond me. I misread the tag and thought it was his comment, nothing more, nothing less. Now there is no mystery and I shall go back to assessing the candidate. Thanks for the prompt responses. Bielle (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral per stated concerns. Im kind of in the middle here.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 15:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If you do pass this RFA HJ Mitchell, I have no problem. Just try to be more carefull when tagging and deleating. Other than that, you are all around a very productive editor. Good job and good luck.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral Coffee is correct, a few mistaggings are nothing to worry about (I had them as well when I ran for admin). But as decltype points out, in this case the question can be raised whether the candidate has really understood speedy deletion criteria. Tagging a page with "hello" as G1 instead of G2 seems like a trivial mistake but to a newbie contributor there is a difference whether their edits are called "patent nonsense" or simply "test edits". The former is far more bitey. Combine this with really basic errors when applying A1 (do you really think "Emfada is an Irish Music Pop Artist" or "Nightlife is one of sick city's albums" is not enough context to identify the subject?) The argument, that they were deleted and as such tagging was correct is flawed. Two of those A1 mistakes were deleted as A1 by admins who apparently don't know what A1 is for either. The candidate's otherwise good contributions stop me from opposing over those mistakes but I would really advise them to seek mentorship from an admin experienced in that area if this request is successful (i.e. have that admin check their deletions to avoid mistakes). Regards SoWhy 16:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am now leaning towards oppose after reading the answer to question 9. As with A7, A9 has nothing to do with notability but uses a much lower standard (importance or significance) instead (it's a common mistake people make with A7 and A9). Please be more careful in those matters, no matter if this request passes or not. Regards SoWhy 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. SoWhy is correct. Quite a few of those mistaggings could be seen as a harsh attack to a new users, and would be a net negative for Wikipedia. However, I do not think that these mistaggings are serious enough to warrent an oppose. (X! · talk)  · @746  ·  16:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral per A4 and SoWhy. HJ seems overall good, but those things concern me. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral when User:WereSpielChequers, the editor who brought to light problems with speedy deletion !votes "oppose", this makes me second guess my !support vote. My personal interactions with this editor have been very pleasant, but speedy deletions are the fist interaction that many editors have with wikipedia, and these interactions are almost always negative. We need more admins who see deletion as the last resort, and that how we are treating our new editors is hurting our retention on wikipedia. Come back in 6 months showing a deeper understanding of these problems HJ, and I will be your strongest supporter. Ikip 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   How about you take more time before you !vote next time, mmmkay? That support was totally pointless to add, if you were going to strike it out less than a minute later. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   How about HJ get another advocate in the next RFA? An advocate who criticizes editors while trying to garner support for the RFA candidate does not help. For HJ, I will completely remove my former support, but I suggest HJ find another advocate next time. Statements like "That statement doesn't show a lot of maturity" (on the talk page) is only hurting HJ. Ikip 17:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Neutral A few stumbles in CSD tagging is not a show stopper for me but a month or so doing new, demonstrably improved, CSD work with the information gleaned here would wrap this up nicely. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral Currently I cannot form a final opinion. The candidate seems like a very good editor, but there is a little lacking. Everyone is going on about the CSD issues, but anyone could make an error at CSD. I am more concerned about the edit warring. I don't know the details, so sorry if I am wrong. Maybe I could change me vote later. After another few months of experience I believe the candidate would definitely make a good admin, if not now. LouriePieterse 21:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I can't provide qan exact link right now, but the ANEW archives will have the report and the surrounding discussion and 2/0, the admin who closed the report, has said he'd be happy to discuss his rationale for closure on their talk page. So if that helps you decide one way or the other... 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   More at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell#Toddst1's oppose. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Neutral — X! put it quite nicely. I think a bit more time and experience with CSD will help clear things up. Airplaneman ^talk 00:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral This appears to be a premature RfA. Warrah (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral Can't support because multiple recent deletion tags have been bad calls, don't want to oppose because I'm confident this candidate will be a great assett to the main page. Ultimately this person will make a great admin, but I think a little more time would help. WFCforLife (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. I had supported, but this comment made me change my mind. See you back here in a few months. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.