Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

HJ Mitchell[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (164/19/20); ended 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC) - Andrevan@ 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gents, I know this seems like an odd thing to do, but I hope you'll bear with me and understand that I do this with the very best of intentions.

I've been an admin for exactly a year (to the day yesterday). It's been an interesting year. I wouldn't say I've seen it all—the day nothing surprises me on Wikipedia is the day I quit!—but I've seen most things. To give you a brief overview, I've made around 10,000 deletions (most of them uncontroversial) and about 4,000 blocks (90% of which have been vandals and username violations) and 4,000 protections. I'm the second-most prolific responder to requests at WP:RfPP and I keep a close eye on AIV, as well as several other noticeboards. I've dabbled in arbitration enforcement—one of the toughest tasks we ask our admins to perform—PRODs and AfD, but the area that I feel has done best from my attention is the Main Page. The Main Page has been referred to as our "welcome mat" and it's one of the most visible parts of this website, but it needs admins to keep things moving. I've racked up 600 edits to T:ITN, over 1500 to WP:ITN/C and, taking my edits to Template:In the news/Last update as a rough measure, posted nearly 200 items. I've also racked up hundreds of edits at DYK, moving things into the queues and helping to keep things running. On top of that, there are hundreds of edits to WP:ERRORS and around TFA, OTD and TFP, usually just making minor fixes.

I've also made some mistakes—the template protections (for those of you who missed that episode, search my username and "templates" in the ANI archives) were not my finest hour and I've made a block or two that I'm not proud of. I'm sure there are several other moments that will not go down in history as my finest and I'm very keen to hear constructive criticism—public or private—on where my mistakes are and where I can be a better admin or a better editor.

I guess I should also point out that I've been making less use of my admin bit for the last couple of months. This is partly because my laptop kicked the bucket recently, and partly because I've been focusing my attention on reviewing and writing more than adminning. Since my last RfA, I've got myself an FA all of my very own (a very special feeling), an FL (With a Little Help from My Friends, to quote The Beatles) and an additional four GAs, as well as several DYKs. By all means, peruse the pretty icons at the top of my userpage. On balance, I think my record is a strong one and I think I have been a net positive and, with the community's blessing, I would like to continue being a net positive.

I've surrendered my mop (and wow, it's strange not having all the extra buttons after a year of getting used to them) and so I am entirely at your mercy. I look forward to any constructive comments, pro or con, that people have to offer in the coming week! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well, for the last year, my admin work has been heavily oriented towards the Main Page, RfPP, AIV and some of the other areas that need a quick admin response. I've also dabbled in AE, protected edit requests, ANEW and a variety of other areas. You can access all my logs from the top of my userpage.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Oh, my first FA, Mike Jackson, I can call my own is really something quite special to me, as are the collaborations on Brad Pitt (where I was involved mostly as a copy-editor) and my only FL, List of awards and nominations received by The Bill. I also have 18 (I think) DYKs fro creation and expansion and several more for nominations and a small collection of GAs, most recently the Tesco bomb campaign. I'm also proud of my reviews at GAN, a dabbling in FAC and MilHist's A-class. Then, of course, we have my admin record. I would like to believe that, on the whole, I have made it a little easier for the content editors to get on with what they do while making it harder for those who seek to disrupt or damage Wikipedia. One more thing: the pie chart is a very strange shape because my edits are spread out across the namespaces, but there is more to being an admin than keeping the pie chart the right shape!
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: Many. In a collaborative project with as many editors as we have, we're not always going to agree with each other and if we did, it would be boring. About a fortnight ago, I blocked a bot which was making inconsequential changes (changes that have no effect on what the reader sees) to hundreds of articles, to the displeasure of the bot owner and a few other editors. Less than a week ago, I was informed by a fellow admin whom I hold in high esteem that a block I'd made a few months ago was unsound. Also, inevitably, some of the editors I've blocked or sanctioned have been less than happy about it. Essentially, I try to handle these sorts of things by admitting when I've cocked up or otherwise explaining the reasons why I did what I did and trying to find some middle ground. I won't name any editors here, because it would be unfair, and instead of giving you a long list of "conflicts" I've found myself in, I invite you to peruse my talk archives, which are here.
Additional optional question from demize
4. I noticed that you added all the semi-administrative rights that users are granted to yourself (and that's what led me here). What is your reasoning behind this, and do you feel that any sysop putting themself at RFA again should be allowed to do this? demize (t · c) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think I've answered this below, under Amalthea's comments.
Additional question from Keepscases
5. Who is another admin who you believe should re-run for adminship? Why? Please be specific.
A: Well another admin I've criticised recently would be Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) over a certain block, which lead to an unblock and an eight-week (so far) ArbCom case. That said, I could see my way to supporting his hypothetical reconfirmation on the basis of the large amount of work he has done that hasn't attracted much attention. Until yesterday, I would have said SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), whom I've criticised quite heavily in a recent ANI thread, but I've supported his (very non-hypothetical) request for reconfirmation because, on blance, I think he's been a greater help than hinderence during his tenure as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • OK, yes, this is a little odd. However, I'm not in CAT:AOR and I feel admins should be accountable to the community. I've been at this for exactly a year and so I think I have enough of a record on which to be judged. I've always believed that admins should serve at the pleasure of the community and the idea of reconfirmation is something I've been fond of in principle (though obviously mandatory reconfirmation has its limitations due to the number of admins), so this is putting my money (or, rather, my mop) where my mouth is. Thanks for all your patience and understanding. Harry, aka HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A full list of links to my logs, contribs and edit counters:

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights · deleted edits · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · logs · block log · lu)

  • A note to all people considering opposing simply because this is a reconfirmation: this is a discussion about the candidate, not his choice to only be a sysop if the community supports him in it. demize (t · c) 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is quite reasonable to oppose on the grounds that you don't think any candidate who seeks reconfirmation should be reconfirmed. In my opinion it indicates poor judgement and ego-stoking that mean it would be best if the reconfirmation failed. You can disagree, but this is a legitimate position. Those opposed to reconfirmations may judge it better if all such candidates failed.--Scott Mac 22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since you ask, here is feedback. Take this as my personal opinion, my impressions; it may be skewed and/or unfair.
    In my impression, you are involved in a relatively high number of incidents and needless drama. I do not watch AN or ANI, so the fact that I can recall a number of incidents revolving around you has me quite worried. In particular:
    • (diff) Bad block off Off2riorb: You were involved here, and there was no cause. Apparently some gross misunderstanding. To your credit, you asked for a review yourself. What you didn't do was acknowledge that you were in the wrong here, which IMHO would have been imperative.
      • There's not much I can say about this that hasn't already been said in one venue or another, but you're quite right, that was a bloody awful decision and, of 20k admin actions, that will probably be the one that follows me around for a very long time. At the time, I believed I was being threatened and accused of libel over another block (where I'd blocked the user for socking or impersonating a sock, naming the account that was either being impersonated or was the sockmaster) which was the reason for my action, but clealry I wasn't looking at things dispassionately. It's worth pointing out that my action wasn't motivated by any dislike of my "victim", with whom I maiantain a good working relationship, but that certainly wasn't my finest hour.
    • (diff) Revoking Twinkle access after something truly minor, promising rollback back "if you keep your head down". That is not the kind of communication or administration I like to see here. Too punitive, too hard-handed.
      • I can see where you're coming from there, but the situation as it was at the time of that diff was that the editor in question had just been involved in an edit war with another editor and was then proceeding to "warn" that editor with Twinkle for "vandalism" over a message on his talk page. The Twinkle blacklisting was overkill, certainly and possibly punitive. I don't see the problem with "keep your head down"—to me that says the he should try to avoid getting into trouble, particularly edit wars, and then ask for reconsideration. That's essentially the advice I have given to most editors from whom I've removed rollback.
    • (diff) You mentioned it: The mass protection of templates without discussion. For one, it surprises me time and again to see experienced editors do mass action like this without discussion, half of the time it leads to drama. But what concerned me the most in this episode is that you initially dismissed concerns and tried unloading the actual work of checking which pages warranted unprotection to others, with the thorougly unhelpful reply linked to in the diff (also note edit summary).
      • Again, not my finest hour. In my defence, I believed that the protection of those templates was uncontroversial in that it seemed to be supported by WP:HRT and what I and other admins were doing was simply protecting templates from a centralised list of those already determined to be "high-risk" rather than inventing my own deifnition of "high-risk". I will also admit that I was not as involved in the clenaup of my mess as I should have been.
    • I also note you added yourself to nigh all user groups available before resigning as admin. Why? I don't see you active in account creations? IP block exemption, in particular, is supposed to be reserved for users who have a provable /need/ for it, and MuZemike went to great lengths over the last couple months to cut it down by 80% to a more manageable size.
      • Actually, I'd just been to Meta and asked for my bit to be removed when I realised that I would probably have a need of rollback and autoreviewer. I don't know why I ticked all the other boxes, but I only need those two (I already had EFM).
I won't put my name down in any of the sections below for now, since I cannot say whether the impression I have left from that is a fair one. It's safe to say that incidents like this would generally lead me to oppose an RfA, but I would welcome your thoughts first. Amalthea 10:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind my replying to your comments inline like this. I can see why you might be left with a bitter taste if those are your most vivid recolelctions of me. Obviously, I would argue that those incidents are the exception, not the rule, and don't tell the whole story of my year as an admin but I would say that. As I said in my nomination statement, I think my best work lies around the Main Page, RfPP and AIV and the only thing I would ask is that you take those into account when forming your opinion of me. We all make mistakes, and I've made some pretty tremendous cock-ups over the alst 12 months, but I still believe I have been a net postive. I do appreciate you taking the time to comment here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind, and thanks for your detailed reply. It had me swaying; for your AN/C outburst I have to give you a (at this point) symbolic oppose though.
I do recognize that you are doing a lot of admin grunt work, and I applaud you for that. A number of isolated tools-related incidents don't outweigh that, so I'm sure your work is what's called a 'net positive'. However, 'net positive' is not my standard for an admin. Amalthea 09:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose an early closure… as successful. Even though I supported the continued administratorship of Mitchell, I find this whole thing very distasteful and very needy. Let's just close it off now; his ego has been massaged enough. Unless he gets 45 more opposes, without a single support, then he's passed with at least 70%. So let's stop this little game. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Strongest Support Possible: HJ is by far the best contributing admin (besides Wehwalt) we have around here (that I know of) and is one of the most helpful. While I am confused by the reasoning behind this, I have no doubt in my mind that HJ should again rejoin the admin fold. Give this guy another mop. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beat the nom support: Oh wait.. :P HJ is a great admin, helpful, and always beating me to WP:RFPP. The Helpful One 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Total support. As good an admin as we have. GedUK  19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, blocked me for 7RR instead of trying to weasel out of it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support one of the good guys. I think the sv.wiki-style 1-year term is a bit short, myself, but I appreciate the motivation behind this RfA Jebus989✰ 19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Absolutely has earned my support. Why is it that the administrators who should do this never do, and the ones who don't need to, by any stretch of the imagination, do. (That's a rhetorical question, so please nobody try to answer it!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support (edit conflict)(edit conflict) Absolutely no question. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)While I'm sure there are a few out there, I can't think of any decisions I've seen from HJ Mitchell that I even disagree with. Great admin. Monty845 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, obviously. 28bytes (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I won't hold a grudge :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, easily. Noom talk stalk 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (edit conflict) I don't know whether this is incredibly idiotic or the most impressive showing of honor I've ever seen on Wikipedia, (that might come down to how this closes), but it's something that needs to happen a great deal more often. Damned good show son, damned good show. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think masochism is probably closer to the mark, but I never hear of some time without the tools doing naybody any harm and I do think it's wrong that admins are almost untouchable once they've got through RfA. Maybe if aevery admin did this, RfA wouldn't be so unpleasant? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do hope you're not "demanding the community's attention" (per Amatulic) to make a point. WormTT · (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To make a point implies I'm being disruptive and to 'set an example' would sound pompous of me, so I'd like to think I'm somewhere between the two. More importantly, the main point of this exercise is to gain feedback on my performance as an admin in a forum where it actually 'counts' in so far as I don't get my bit back if enough people feel I'm a crap admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, with objection. Your first RFA judged you well. Why demand the community's attention again for yet another one?This is completely unnecessary. You are already an admin, you have clearly been doing your best, and there's no reason for you to lose the bit just because you're doing more content editing. I recommend you recognize the fact that you've done a good job, that others think you've done a good job, and withdraw this nomination. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Support the ego trip (seriously, has anything made you think you shouldn't be an admin?) HJ, you are exactly what I look for in an admin and an editor. I know of a fair few editors that model themselves on you, don't get a big head or anything, but without a doubt, you have my support. WormTT · (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support No reason not to. Although, shouldn't it be "put my mop where my bucket is?" Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Yes. WayneSlam 19:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support—I not infrequently disagree with you, which suggests that you're sensible and level-headed! ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 19:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support; we don't really move in the same circles but every time I see "HJ Mitchell" it's appended to the end of yet another level-headed reply or sensible action. I don't care if this is outside the usual processes; community support for admins is essential. bobrayner (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited to add: There have almost certainly been a handful of times when I've disagreed with HJ Mitchell on specific points. That's inevitable with an active admin who responds to disputed stuff on a regular basis, and I'm a naturally disagreeable person, so it's no reason to oppose. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. grudging Support - I've been critical of HJ M and some of his admin actions in the past. But this is indeed impressive and hopefully will set a standard that others will follow (I'll be honest, I almost went neutral here).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't be good. I full support. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support While I do not support the idea of re-confirmation RFAs HJ has been a solid admin with a level head and has been responsive to concerns about his actions, a quality we see in fewer and fewer admins these days. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support When I saw this, my first thought was that I thought he was already!. I'm glad to find he really was, for my own state of mind. Peridon (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support Excellent admin as well as editor. HJ is a role model for me. =) —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I do not entirely folloow the logic behind your request for re-accreditation, but you a clerly an excellent admin and should be encouraged to continue in the work you have been doing. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. If you've given up your mop without incident, I don't see why you shouldn't get it back. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Super-Strong Support From what I've seen from this user, they're very helpful, very efficient as an editor and an admin, just the sort of person Wikipedia needs as an admin. I hope he gets the mop back, or I'll eat my own hat. And so considerate as an admin too, to make sure his status as an administrator only stays if it's supported by the community. --123Ħeðŋeħøŋ456 : Create an account!! 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support on the merits, as I've seen lots of good work from this admin (candidate?). Props also for actually pulling the trigger and putting your money on the table. That said, what's the deal with your last-minute shopping spree of user rights as per the 2 May 2011 entry here? Not worth a formal question, I'm just curious - hedging our bets, are we? Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply because I expect I might have a use for several of them (esp. rollback) for at least the next week and I didn't want to waste another admins time asking them to do it for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support (And to me, as an admin on Swedish-language Wikipedia, where we have one-year terms, this hardly seems like something that would necessarily have to be very dramatic.) /Julle (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Obviously. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Yes, you have my continued trust and respect. --joe deckertalk to me 21:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Thought he was one already I think you've done a good job as an admin and see no reason for de-adminning you. Also, the fact that you're willing to do this voluntarily definitely impresses me. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Sure, the one-year RfA review/term limit/evaluation is a little eccentric, but it certainly demonstrates intellectual integrity. I've bumped into HJ Mitchell on several occasions over the past year, and I've never found him to be anything but transparent and fair. Kind of person we need as an admin: he's good now, and he's only going to get better. As a sacrificial offering, I suggest we vote someone else off the admin island. Nominees? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. The interactions I've had with HJ show to me that he is a good admin. I feel that running again is a little excessive, but I see the motivation behind it, and I expect you to pass with flying colors. demize (t · c) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've only got good memories about HJM. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support HJ did jump in feet first and get in a bit deep to start with. That said, he's bobbed back to the surface and is a strong swimmer now. No reason to remove the tools. Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support HJ has been helpful in dealing with ongoing problems on various articles. MarnetteD | Talk 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't like this rubbish, but you need the tools to carry on working in this voluntary effort in areas you're best suited too. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Definitely! I supported last time on the basis that HJ Mitchell often appeared in my watchlist and came across as a decent user to me. I stand by that original rationale, but I'd like to add that I've seen more evidence of excellent work from him, and also that I've had the chance to work with him since that RfA (with userrights a couple of months ago). HJ Mitchell is, without a doubt, one of our best administrators. Acalamari 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Over time I think I've given HJ negative feedback personally, so none here (except to say I think this reconfirmation should be closed early as the outcome is now clear and there's not a whole lot of actual "feedback" likely to be given beyond what's already been said). I thought I would point out one really positive thing. In HJ's first RFA, he copped a lot of criticism for his advocacy of MisterWiki, a troubled user who HJ convinced the community to give a second chance. That was pretty much the main example brought up by the opposition. As far as I'm aware, MisterWiki (Diego Grez) is now a productive member of the community and all editing restrictions on him have been lifted. Just something I thought I should mention looking back over one year. HJ is prolific, policy fluent and dedicated to the project. I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be reconfirmed. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, but with a wish that you would not waste (imo) community time with this in the future. We gave you our support and I don't think we need another RFA unless that trust has been dramatically lost. (Ie by the creation of RFDAs or the like.)--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support. I've been following the contributions and admin actions of this user. I have found HJ Mitchell to be very professional, trustworthy and sensible. If he were to run for ArbCom, he would get my full support and I would regard him as one of the best candidates. This, I think, says it all. Nanobear (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Yerp. AlexiusHoratius 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support HJ, I understand there is honor and merit in submitting yourself to this, but I personally don't see a need for you to do this. I have never known you to act irrationally or purposefully mess up on something. They are called mistakes for a reason, you make them do your best to fix them and learn from what you did. Everyone is going to make a few mistakes and I believe admins have way to much pressure on them to make sure that they do the right thing every single time on the first try. I fully support you here and if any more RfAs for you come up I will support you there too. Just because you make a few bad calls here and there doesnt mean you arent a good admin as you said you arent to proud of those mistakes which means you will be more careful next time. Anyway I'm rambling but you really are a great admin and I think you deserve the support of many if not all Wikipedians here. Hope you keep the mop, Adwiii  Talk  22:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Duh. T. Canens (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    hahahaha! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support – Harry should be given the mop again. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Sensible, helpful admin. DBaK (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support—did so last time, will do so again. HJ, I really don't see the need for this, as you've been doing just fine as an admin :). Maybe you're looking for something more along the lines of an editor review on steroids? However, I disagree with those who think this is an RfA to "stroke the ego". HJ wants feedback, he asks for it. Airplaneman ✈ 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I think currently admin rights are taken too seriously and are too difficult to remove and that means admin issues become more painful than they should be to sort out - which is definitely bad for the project. Re-going through an RfA seems like a reasonable way of avoiding that problem, and if it was widespread then not too much face would be lost if anyone needed to be persuaded into doing so. With regards to this specific case HJ Mitchell has always come across as a good admin to me and has generally used his powers well so I support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support – Definitely. —mc10 (t/c) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support my only concern is the lack of judgment shown by wasting people's time like this. Pichpich (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --JN466 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - HJM has been willing to pick up the mop and try to put it to good use. He should be allowed to continue. (But I do agree with Pichpich.) --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Supporting because it's Harry and because he resigned the mop, but I'd be happier if I never saw another reconfirmation RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Was very impressed with Mike Jackson. The only people who don't make mistakes are the ones who don't do anything. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support But really don't think this is necessary. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support You're doing fine work, HJ. The Interior (Talk) 00:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - We don't have many admins of this calibre. If anything, we should be cloning him. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Absolute support, without reservation, derived from personal observations, and interactions with HJ. My76Strat (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I see absolutely no reason that HJ Mitchell shouldn't continue as an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support No issues except this seems like a waste of time to me. Royalbroil 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Very useful. Can't think of any bad experiences. This should happen more often (though it's not needed in this case). --candle•wicke 02:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Despite the ups and downs, HJ is a positive influence on Wikipedia. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - One of the best admins I have encountered. Clearly important to have HJ carry on. Jusdafax 03:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per Royalbroil: we have no reason to say that you should have relinquished adminship, so since you appear to have resigned it, we have no reason to say that you shouldn't get it back. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Everyone makes mistakes. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support -- Obviously. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong support -- Hard working, always out in front, willing to take a chance when others operate in the realm of great caution. I was, at some point, considering nominating him for 'cratship.--Hokeman (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support To be honest I thought this was a practical joke when I first saw it but I simply couldn't oppose. Also, and this a thought, have you thought about 'cratship. mauchoeagle (c) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Doc talk 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - although in your case, at this point in time, I'm not convinced this was necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes continue on as admin, I have appreciated your work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. That I think is rather funny you resigned as an admin just for another RFA. HJ Mitchell is an awesome person. He has been and will be a great admin IMHO. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 08:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: Wow, I really wasn't expecting too see this. One of the best admins we've got - very helpful and friendly, and very much a champion of collegiality. So stick that mop back where it belongs, dude, or we'll stick it there for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support When observed by me, the editor's actions have always been helpful, courteous, and correct.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Without a question. --WhiteWriter speaks 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support HJ is by far one of the most patient admins I've come across, he is also sensible, of good judgment and character and quite the humourous fellow. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:58pm • 10:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I trust HJ with my Wikilife.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per a very positive and helpful interaction with HJ in the past regarding a disruptive editor. I tried to find diffs, but it was too far back for me to find quickly. I agree that perhaps the mass protection of templates should have been better thought-through, but I still think HJ is unquestionably a net positive. Anyway, I'm willing to AGF on the ego-stroking. Even if this is ego-stroking, that's no reason to oppose. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Some of HJ Mitchell's views and resulting actions I've found a bit iffy, but his heart is in the right place and no doubt he contributes a great amount of energy to Wikipedia. I approve of the resubmitting of an RFA in concept and as such are likely to be supportive of such actions. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support – I think he does a good job as an admin. Having said that, I really don't like the way he's put himself forward like this. It does feel a bit like attention seeking. But that doesn't take away from him doing a good job as an admin. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81. No real reason for this in my opinion... so obvious support. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong Support HJ helps alot at WP:RFPP, ITN, and I often ask for help great admin and a role model for others The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support I have seen you do good work. However this is uncalled for, although maybe this should be an annual event for everyone...Modernist (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong support - HJ Mitchell, you are a brilliant, BRILLIANT editor and I have so much respect for you in so many ways. Of course I have no problem with you returning to the caretaker's cupboard. Orphan Wiki 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Even if this is a ego-boost, so what? Being an admin is generally a thankless task, so it does help to know if you've got the support of the community. I've certainly not come across any problems with HJ's actions, and I and the other admins would have to do more work if he doesn't get the mop back. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  86. You're doing a good job as an admin, and I think you should continue. I don't have any problem with this reconfirmation RfA. Some of the entrenched thought patterns here are so strange: admins are reproached for being unaccountable, and then if they seek out accountability they're reproached for seeking an ego boost. It's hard to get honest, useful feedback on one's performance as an admin, and this is probably the best way to see if one still has the confidence of the community. So yeah, please keep the mop and keep up the good work. MastCell Talk 20:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support mostly harmless.  Chzz  ►  21:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I just cannot see elsewere a user that voluntarily re-applies for an Request for Adminship. (I saw your request for dis-adminship at meta-wiki) Also, has lots of good edits and admin things. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support First of all, I think it's great that HJ has done a good deal of content work since passing RfA. Further kudos to him for his success mentoring Diego Grez. Issues have been raised about HJ's admin work below, and that's fair. I think he's had some problems in the past, but I also think that he has shaped up more recently. It's true that, among his numerous good blocks, there have been a few bad blocks. Far more dismaying, however, is that whole template-protection fiasco, which looks really, really bad. Although I'm sure he already knows this, HJ would do well to avoid repeats of such poor judgment, particularly on such a massive scale. On balance, though, HJ is a good and prolific administrator, and I believe the project would benefit from his re-sysop. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support was a great admin, and is a nice guy too. --Stephen 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support This is the last thing I wanted to come back to after a break. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - I supported the first nomination in 2009 (which failed, unfortunately) and supported again the next year (which did succeed). HJ Mitchell has lived up to my expectations so I'll support again this year. (Is this going to be an annual event?) -- Atama頭 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, as you've done nothing short of a great job as an admin. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support "Candidate" has my full confidence. ;-) Steven Walling 00:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support We've all made mistakes but you've demonstrated your commitment and overall competence as an admin. I can't imagine you being a non-admin for much longer, lest our backlogs grow even longer. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  96. I supported his first RfA in the strongest possible terms, and have never found myself regretting that decision. 100% right attitude and a true paradigm of what a Wikipedian admin should be. He has my strongest support yet again. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Weak support. I guess I'm biased by my only recollection of you being that I ran into templates I could not edit because of your protection spree. On the other hand, the opposes are completely unconvincing, so you're probably a net positive overall. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 11:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  99. One of the best admins we've got. I trust HJ's word that he will take the concerns on board. --Dylan620's public alt (I'm all ears) 12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - a solid and honorable admin, no more perfect than the rest of us human types (and one of the few I've ever met in meatspace), although I consider the process a bit silly. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strong support. AGK [•] 12:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  102. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Strong support. Great admin. --> Gggh talk/contribs 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - Has done an excellent job. Rlendog (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Strong support. Per above. IMO these reconfirmations should never be mandatory and if anything ought to be discouraged as timesinks – but if someones done as much excellent work as yourself they deserve a nice ego massage, if thats any part of your motivation :-). FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support this candidate through and through (though I don't know why he didn't just ask for an editor's review). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, we all make mistakes, and you've admitted to yours and resolved to do better. And to be honest, your record is pretty impressive and you're a massive net positive with the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  108. Support - Dropped the mop, seeks feedback, and acknowledges errors. Obviously still trusted by the community, and a benefit to the project. Pick it back up. :D Dru of Id (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - nobody's perfect and I agree totally with Dru of Id. Although I think the whole template protection issue was a bad mistake the fact that HJM has recognized it as such should be enough. More than that being an admin isn't a big deal and errors (ie unintentional, non-malicious, mistakes) that could be handled with a trout slapping should be handled that way.
    With that in mind, IMHO there is already far too much drama about "admin abuse" and I don't think these reconfirmation RFAs are productive or helpful in reducing the unnecessary drama that surrounds sysop actions--Cailil talk 22:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Come on - Out of all the administrators I know, there's few I can think of who are less in need of a reconfirmation hearing than HJ. While I respect admins who give the community a second chance to voice their opinion, this one is so unnecessary it's borderline patronizing. I wonder how HJ can possibly be that clueless as to whether the community wants him as an administrator. Of course we do! Swarm X 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - excellent work at ITN/C--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Will you please return to UAA --Guerillero | My Talk 03:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  113. unenthusiastic Support I feel that any user that has a few months experience and no indication of abuse can be an admin, so of course, this user should be an admin. However, I agree with many of the opposes that say this is a waste of time. If an admin abuses the tools, we can yank them away. If you don't want to be an admin anymore, just resign. But this is like this user is asking for a pat on the back from the community. Can you imagine what a disruption there would be if all admins did this (or even 25%)? --rogerd (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Enthusiastic support. Kittybrewster ☎ 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - HJM is a very productive admin and does a lot of great work across many different areas of the project. As some have mentioned, he is quick to act and in the vast majority of the cases he is right. The few times that he is wrong, he admits it and learns from his mistakes, which makes him an extremely valuable admin. Many people appreciate the work he has done for the project. The work he and Diego Grez did together set a precedent for the project that others should follow. It was a shining moment for both of them. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support I have no reason not to. I'm not sure why a reconfirmation was needed in the first place, but here's my support. – SMasters (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Aside from his propensity to overlink his DYKs and other Main Page teasers/hooks – which incidentally have nothing to do with his adminship – I support Harry. He clearly takes his responsibility very seriously, reviews his actions and recognises where he's gone wrong. It would be a mistake not to reconfirm him. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Should have actually stood for bureaucratship than this. Would have taken the same effort, with a better result. Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. One of the most valuable admins we have. -- Ϫ 11:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Why am I here?....slap the bit on him, tell him his vacation is over, and tell him to get back to work :P -- DQ (t) (e) 11:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Not even close. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. You've been an enormous net positive as an admin and have done a large amount of thankless work that Wikipedia is better for. I would go on record as saying, though, that I don't think this re-RfA was a great idea: my primary complaint about your admin tenure would be that you are sometimes a little too quick to get embroiled in unnecessary drama (the mass template protecting being the best example, but there have been a few ANI incidents that I don't think were really necessary). Whatever the intention behind this RfA, however good, I do think it ends up inciting more drama, and generally wasting community time and not helping anybody. I remain very happy to support due to my aforementioned general approval of your admin actions; Wikipedia is undoubtedly better off with +sysop HJM than without - but I'd encourage you to think of more low-key ways of achieving your goals sometimes. ~ mazca talk 16:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support All admins should have terms; a year may actually be too short. See you in two. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. I question the advisability of this RfA. However, I believe the admin in question is a good one, who has shown the ability to own up and learn from his mistakes. So support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Like what I see. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Net positive, very helpful admin. Connormah (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Strong Support Great admin, was a great help to me in getting The Bill to GA status--5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  128. I see no convincing reason to oppose this candidacy by a veteran administrator. If the incidents cited in the "oppose" secion represent the sum total of his mistakes, his record is uncommonly good compared to that of most active admins, including mine.  Sandstein  00:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge to sysop. I haven't been back all that long, but reading through as much as I have I've basically been pretty impressed. Note: I am not a big fan of these re-confirmation things (although WP:Request for Adminship Removal isn't blue yet), so please don't do this again next year. If you're having doubts in yourself .. do what Iri did a while back, flip the bit, just be an editor, then when you feel up to it, ask for it back. — Ched :  ?  01:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. He does a lot of good work, including his work at AE. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. Good work ethic and handling. Personally have previously seen user work at WP:RPP competently and efficiently. See no reason to deprive someone with a good history and community standing of the tools necessary for them to continue to tirelessly contribute at the bar they have set over the time. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 02:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary note: I cannot say I understand your motivation to engage in a secondary RfA after your first successful one, but your decision is your decision. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 02:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Opposed in the past, candidate now has my support -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 02:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support. HJ Mitchell has been an extremely valuable admin -- I always see him around making helpful contributions and responding quickly. Doing a fine job.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support, HJ has been a very good admin and I'd like to see him continue in that role. Dreadstar ☥ 06:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support, Sorry, we need to cut your vacation short :) - Happysailor (Talk) 08:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support, of course; has a clue. 125.162.150.88 (talk) (Jack) 09:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Undid indent per discussion on SoV RfA Jebus989✰ 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Obviously Bejinhan talks 10:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support I dont know what we would do without you. Pass a Method talk 11:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Excellent work on keeping WP:RFPP and WP:RPE clear. Every interaction I've had with HJ has been positive. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support of course. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Theleftorium (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Haven't done anything mind-blowingly stupid with the tools. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support, Good track record speaks for itself.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. God knows why you want to go through RfA a third time (even thinking about going through it once makes me feel ill). Good luck, you're a great admin. - JuneGloom Talk 23:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - Never any problems. Mlpearc powwow 02:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - Wikipedia is better off with you having the tools restored as soon as possible. Kansan (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support One of the best admins we have. A couple hiccups, mistakes, and D'oh!s but that's gonna happen with anyone. N419BH 06:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Strong support Great, capable admin who's dedicated to the project, doing an excellent job at the moment. Acather96 (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support = OK, already, you win! Bearian (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - Good luck! Monterey Bay (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Super strong support. HJ Mitchell has done some outstanding work around the wiki, and he has been very helpful to me while I was actively editing. He deserves to keep his mop. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Jarkeld (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support – aren't you already one?! --Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 11:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. I've spent some time trying to compose some sort of in-depth rationale for my support here, but I have nothing more to say than the obvious. Harry is an extremely competent and prolific administrator who is of great benefit to the project in that role.  -- Lear's Fool 12:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. I've been impressed with his positivity and willingness to assume good faith far more than most. That's refreshing these days when we often seem to assume the worst in people. He's been one of the best admins I've dealt with. Mojoworker (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support I've seen HJ Mitchell work diligently at RfPP, where he has proved he is more than competent as an admin. He's made a few questionable decisions, but has learned from them and held himself accountable. Active as he is as an admin, he still produces quality content, which is impressive. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Doesn't seem to have done anything worth taking it away; no big deal. Andrevan@ 01:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. I'm highly skeptical in general of the current procedure for recalling / reconfirming admins, and I think an admin in this situation generally ought to be kept unless there is a clear consensus for taking away their mop. I see no issues here of a magnitude that would justify desysopping this admin, so I'm going to support. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support One of the best admins on Wikipedia, so I say yes to continuing adminship. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 05:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support. – SJ + 06:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support I went Neutral last time after supporting in the first place (On his second RfA). Now I'm absolutely confident that he won't abuse the buttons. He will be an active, useful and clueful administrator. Minima© (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  163. + Nothing but positive interactions with the user involving administrative/oversight requests. I trust HJ Mitchell. Keegan (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support. Committed editor. -John KB (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose Too many asshole admins. Aidan Merritt (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)— Aidan Merritt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
/me smells sock —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
/me agrees. *hands you nose clips* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
/user blocked now Airplaneman ✈ 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indented vote. —mc10 (t/c) 22:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you got what /me is for. :-) Killiondude (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think right. Airplaneman ✈ 01:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this, the less I like it. Ego smoothing effort. Try RFB instead. If you need help with your self esteem Wikipedia is not the place. Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as an ego-smoother. I see it as an honest review of admin qualifications and history. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to WP:DICK and WP:POINT ? Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps explain why you think HJM would be a bad admin, Pedro, because that's what this is actually about. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, dear Treasury Tag. here is the reason. Look how I offered a weak support. And now he pulls an ego boast effort that wastes everyone's time (mine and yours included)! So simple the answer if you look, isn't it! Alas, ARBCOM are even now trying to ring the doorbell, so alas I must desist further - they're watching us all you know - with those super sekrit pages! Pedro : #:::: Chat  22:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indented. I can't support this - it does look like an ego massage - but I can't oppose in good faith. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose all reconfirmation RFA. If the community wants reconfirmation RFA then it can demand them, until then admins should have enough judgement to decide whether they are able to function properly, and if they don't to resign. Wasting everyone's time with another needless distraction because egos need stroked is not helpful. If you can't judge for yourself whether you are a good admin, then you lack the judgement to be an admin.--Scott Mac 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Too often it seems this admin is in the centre of a controversy caused by unnecessarily rushing without thinking things through. From mass protecting templates for no apparent reason, blocking established editors without consensus first, and misusing rollback (okay, we all make mistakes, but he didn't offer any explanation or apology as far as I can see). HJ Mitchell is a regular at rights request pages where editors ask for things like rollback tools. If a newer editor made a rollback like that, they would have been denied the right. To sum up, HJ Mitchell tends to rush things through without thinking them through carefully, and gaining consensus for actions before he carries them out. These things alone probably wouldn't make me greatly question his continued adminship, but overall there's a negative picture here. He needs to slow down and not take on so much, as its clearly affecting his judgement. I probably won't be very popular for posting this oppose vote, but it seems likely this will pass anyway so good luck regardless. AD 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose If you really feel the need to ask, then here's my answer. No, you're just a bit too eager for the laurels of distinguished service. I recognize the large amount of work you do, but I share Aiken drum's qualms. I've often felt on seeing your actions that you are a little too quick off the mark. In particular, I think this was an overhasty and ill-thought block. Pace to MF's several bad blocks in the past, but either of attempting to even the scales or act as the knee-jerk civility police was just plain the wrong way to handle things. This entire request is ill-formed, so feel free to reply here or wherever else. Or not, since it seems you will "pass" with whatever flying colours you are seeking. I'm rather saddened by this "request", but perhaps you can redeem yourself: did you officially resign your sysop bit with the stewards and make clear at WP:BN that it was done under a cloud and could only be reinstated on new consensus? Or were you looking for fluffers? There you go, you asked, you got my opinion. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FWiW, yes, I did request removal of the bit at Meta and didn't transclude this RfA until it was removed. This is not just a case of asking what you think and then ignoring the result—I can't get the bit back unless this request is successful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm impressed, but will leave my !vote here. It's good to have confirmation that you are an honourable guy though. Franamax (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is discriminatory, considering I wouldn't oppose an equally qualified non admin. Everyone makes mistakes. But the brashness to come out on a limb, say "I'm asking if you think I'm good" and then smugly sit by while you receive more recognition is my major qualm. You have had a few issues, but they are forgivable. What bugs me is that you had the nerve to come more and ask for recognition which you already receive and probably deserve. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 07:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "There are plenty who won't believe me, but this isn't a request for you to stoke my ego, but for a genuine appraisal of my last year as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented. Still don't think it's a legitimate or smart thing to do, but you are definitely a net positive as an admin. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per the diffs offered by Aiken Drum. I don't care for the somewhat high handed manner this admin adopts in his dealings with others. Franamax is also persuasive here. In the interests of transparency I should note that my first account here on WP was blocked by HJ as a username violation. Lovetinkle (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Unnecessary RFA Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The fuck is this?  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  13:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a Request For Adminship. You probably had to do one of these to get admin yourself. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, was that supposed to be sarcastic? I think fox knows perfectly well what an RfA is. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it was intended to be as stupid as his oppose. I could have responded with "The fuck was that" but, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "stupid as his oppose"—sorry, I didn't know that some people actually like RfA as a hostile environment. My mistake, I should probably stop assuming good faith now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Judgement concerns. If you could be restriicted to working in the routine areas you're good at I could support, but too many times when you need to use judgement you create issues. Some have already been mentioned, and this one comes immediately to mind[1].--Cube lurker (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To those who have brought up concerns about my performance as an admin, thank you. Without trying to sound like a sycophant, I'll just say that your comments will be taken on board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In the past I have voted neutral on these reconfirmation RFAs. However, I feel, since they seem to be proliferating, that a stronger statement is necessary. I regard them as an insult to me as an administrator; they suggest that by not submitting myself (again) to the nonsense at RFA, I am somehow less committed. Chick Bowen 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree it has anything to do with commitment, just acknowledges that maybe adminship shouldn't automatically be a job for life Jebus989✰ 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    moved to Neutral. The only thing I Oppose, would be that of this reconfirmation RFA. I do not believe this is even that necessary to see if the administrator still has trust in the WP community, which I continue to believe will, based on any of his contributions. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for wasting everyone's time with this charade. BigDom 09:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a bit of ebb and flow into adminship is a positive. People change and not everyone wants to do it forever. Additionally it means that people who might be a little borderline can be allowed to have the mop, and that when people screw up its not the be all and end all of their editing here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. concerns about judgement. -Atmoz (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Declines to revdelete. If I were the closing bereaucrat you would not get your admin tools back. Provide at least five (5) instances of revdelete. This user has been asked many times to revdelete & doesn't. When would you revdelete? The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:16 6 May 2011 (UTC) (UTC). — Eurotis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Indented, user blocked
  11. So "been making less use of my admin bit for the last couple of months" you need an attention fix? There's a ton and some more of mash notes up there and you'll enjoy every one of them. No really, you say, you just fancied some "genuine appraisal". In other words what you really want is to see who'd be in this column. Which isn't the same thing. Anyway, here we are. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and the closing-it response to the way this went down [[2]]. (This is the first time I've looked at RFA in weeks and here's HJ all over the shop. I'm off). Plutonium27 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Always a pleasure, Plutonium. I won't hold my breath for the apology you owe Diego and I for your comment at my second RfA, but I'm pretty sure we proved you wrong on all counts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose on wheels! Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. (moved from "Waste of Time" (neutral)) This idiotic re-confirmation is a waste of everyone's time. You know as well as anyone that there is no reason to take adminship away from you, yet you go through with this anyways. What was your point, exactly? Was your judgement so skewed that you thought that the result would be anything different than the obvious one? If your judgement is that skewed, then you shouldn't be an admin. Or, if not that, was this just to help enlarge your ego, seeing all of the people that supported you? If so, I most certainly don't want to be a part of that. Up until this RfA, I thought you were a fantastic admin, and I would have thought anyone crazy that tried to get you de-sysopped. However, the fact that you really thought it necessary to waste everyone's time with this idiotic RfA, so that you couldenlarge your ego seeing over a hundred people support you, has led me to decide that you should not get the bit back. WP:ADREV would have been a much better option, and nobody would have thought less of you for it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya know.. it's only a waste of time for you if you choose to participate in it.. -- Ϫ 06:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Admin who threatens to block a bot who has consensus to perform a task "if he had the block button" should not be an admin. POINT. H J Mitchell has no idea what the blocking policy is about. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My dialogue with HJ Mitchell:
    HJM:"I'm without the block button at the minute, so I'll stop it this way."
    M: "I have approval for this task"
    HJM: "I don't care" -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    *blink* Killiondude (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just proven, Magioladitis, that you should be re-running RfA yourself! I won't drag this argument here, it's at ANI, but I will say that of all the opposes in all three of my RfAs, this is the daftest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it is but I think an admin should not say "I don't care" when someone has a reason to do what it does. You already wrote you would use the block button if you had it. It sounds like a threat to me and you that you prefer blocking than discussing. I see the same pattern of what happened with the templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Reedy (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per this RFA's very existence, as well as this immature tirade from May 6. 90% may participate favorably in this ego-stroking exercise, but I will not. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - I doubt it will matter given the number of support votes but given what I have seen in the last few weeks I don't think so. --Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Largely symbolic at this point. I expect you will continue to do a decent job on many routine tasks, like those you mentioned in your reply to me above. However, your outburst at AN/C (during your RfA, of all times) still forces me to oppose. I can relate to your frustration, but language and good manners matter, and I'm sure there would have been a professional way to express your feelings. I expect that from an administrator. Amalthea 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Oppose - I'm sorry, but as Vodello's diff illustrates, you don't backhand the Arbitration committee. The fact that the entire case was contentious and that there were several intertwined threads in it leads me to believe that actions when HGJ is emotional can be against the best practices of Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You could at least spell my name right. I mean, it's not like it's in the page title or anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Amended for the dignity of the candidate in question. Probably a brain fart of mine while reading the article about Anonymous Hasteur (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If we ban venting on-Wiki, there are going to be a lot fewer editors around really, really soon.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the amendment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Tremendous waste of time if you ask me. I like you HJ but this was not really needed. RFA is not a place to boost one's self-esteem or ego. The better choice would have been to try RFB instead.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think the reconfirmation thing is a good idea and I respect that you have done so. That said, I feel you've made some bad calls as an admin in the past (mainly at DrV), but I've also seen you as a very friendly and caring person. I can't support due to the first thing, but I can't oppose for the second. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm torn. I'm not thrilled with some of the things HJ Mitchell has done; Hobit puts it well. I also agree with White Shadows that reconfirmations are fundamentally a waste of time, and your decision to put yourself up for one without any real need is a factor. I'm leaning support as most of the admin actions I've seen have at least been well meaning, and I respect the continued content contributions. I should note that it is a terrible waste of time for an admin to be writing a FA and I am shocked at that but will probably jump to support in due course. I felt motivated to post polite concerns.waiting to see how many trolls I pick up!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the very fact that several editors have opined that there is room for considerable improvement in my adminning shows that this was needed and isn't a (or at least not a complete) waste of time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor way of getting feedback, then. I think you'd get more honest feedback were your head not potentially on a platter. Those friendly to your continued adminship will not want to provide the other side with ammunition, and vice versa.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As it seems unlikely you will need my !vote to be reconfirmed, I'm just going to leave it here as an indication of my respectful concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Redirect to User talk:HJ Mitchell. —Кузьма討論 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Protest neutral, I'm not going to say that this is an ego-trip but this is not the correct forum for this discussion, and these pointless reconfirmation RFAs do demonstrate questionable judgment IMHO. - filelakeshoe 14:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. On core principle, I oppose the idea of reconfirmation RfA. I agree with those who have suggested that if the community wanted to reconfirm an administrator, that it would do so. However, in regard to HJM, I have no glaring issues with their conduct while an administrator, so I shall remain neutral in this discussion. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 18:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. HJMitchell is a fine, fine administrator, but this is a waste of time and electrons, given that there doesn't seem to be a direct reason for it. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Per Drmies. I still haven't forgiven you for your block of GTBacchus; established editors should not be blocked without a warning for a one-off breach of civility. On the other hand I am pretty sure you did more good than harm as an admin. --John (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (moved from oppose) This RFA isn't necessary, and a complete abundance of time. I do not believe this is even that necessary to see if the administrator still has trust in the WP community, which I continue to believe will, based on any of his contributions. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral I regard this as a waste of time, to be honest. If there had been an RFC/U where people had expressed an option that you should not be an admin, I'd say fair enough - but I see no reason for this RfA. I was tempted to go for 'Oppose' for that reason, but despite some mistakes (and we all make them), I have no reason to believe that you should not be an admin. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Meh. Time sink, etc., and per Wehwalt. —DoRD (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. These reconfirmation RFAs are incredibly silly. A fine administrator, but these are a waste of time. Neutralitytalk 03:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Moved from Support [3] Just not fond of big tempers. — Ched :  ?  11:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Waste of time. Ben MacDui 19:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Comment: Ongoing/periodic review of admin performance is not unreasonable, but should there not be a different structure for it rather than an RFA? The two don't seem to be the same thing. Rjwilmsi 22:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. If there were consensus in favor of reconfirmation RFAs, then we would have them for everyone. Since there is not, I decline to participate in this end-run around community consensus to confirm a generally good administrator. That being said, it's unfair to say this has been pointless. Harry's doing this has led to another reconfirmation RFA -- one in which the result, less than a day from close, is still close to the traditional discretionary range for regular RFAs. Certainly not the deluge that supporters or reconfirmation RFAs might hope for, but it tells us something about how this works in practice.--Chaser2 (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral I must admit to finding this rather self indulgent! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Waste of time[edit]
  1. I think you do a fine job, and you aren't very controversial, so no point to this RFA. Agree with Drmies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens if there are more Waste of time votes than support or oppose? :p demize (t · c) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this is the section for me. You most certainly haven't done anything even close to merit removal of admin permissions, and this is definitely a waste of time. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to oppose, after more thought. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Administrator review is Thataway. ϢereSpielChequers 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree. I've seen a lot from HJ, and I held HJ in the highest esteem, but this is not a good move.--SPhilbrickT 00:20, 7 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HJ_Mitchell_3&oldid=1147870687"