Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 2

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

HJ Mitchell

Final (112/19/7). Closed as successful at 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC) by ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe

Nomination

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) – My fellow Wikipedians, allow me to present to you, HJ Mitchell, for the role of sysop. As a user with over than 12,600 edits beginning in March of last year, a clean block log, plenty of cluefulness, and a long history of experience, dedication, and civility, HJ Mitchell has truly been a valuable asset to the project this past year. As can clearly be seen from HJ Mitchell's contributions, he is an outstanding content contributor. He has contributed to a number of superb GAs, Lindsay Lohan, Tim Cross, Lily Cole, The Bill, and Tessa Noël, a top-notch FA Brad Pitt, and twenty first-rate DYKs and ITNs. Apart from diligently writing articles, HJ Mitchell is a seasoned all-rounder when it comes to the management of this project. He frequently performs or partakes in an immense array of processes or discussions which notably include, but are not limited to, actively reviewing Good Article Nominations, adding indispensably to XFD discussions, and helping to resolve heated conflicts at ANI.

I think HJ Mitchell has proven himself as a knowledgeable editor worthy of a few extra buttons. The addition of this user to Wikipedia's administrative team would be an absolute net-benefit to the project. I hope you will agree with me that HJ Mitchell would do well with the mop and bucket. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Since his first RFA last December, HJ has proven himself to be an excellent content editor; the amount of recognized content he has contributed to is considerable in nine months of activity. I've been seeing HJ around everywhere lately, and I want to point out a few things I've observed, and then get out of your way. First, is his ability to take on some very boring tasks. Earlier this month, the bots that clerk AIV went down for the better part of three days, and the board had to be clerked manually. It was one of the most boring tasks I've ever done behind a computer, and HJ came from nowhere to keep the wheels turning. At ITN, after an item is posted on the Main Page, the article's talk page, and the contributor and nominator's talk pages are supposed to be tagged. When, for whatever reason, this doesn't happen, HJ ties up the loose ends.

Secondly, ITN is an area that due to the design of the system, needs admins to make it work. I've seen more than one nomination that had a clear majority of support with an article that was sufficiently updated drop with the days passing and never get posted. More admins to handle the ITN turnover means less stagnation of one of Wikipedia's most visible outputs (above the fold on the Main Page.) HJ fits the need perfectly- even without the tools he's picked up the process well enough to produce Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions; the manual for admins unfamiliar with ITN. I've also been impressed with his temperament- both in knowing where his talents are not the strongest, such as CSD, and for being willing to take on major tasks no one else really wanted to do, such as his ongoing mentorship of Diego Grez. As a whole, I think HJ Mitchell's body of work shows there is no risk in giving him the sysop toolset, and a significant gain to the project. I hope you will agree. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fairly late Co-nomination by White Shadows

Please forgive me for adding in this co-nom fairly late. I hope that you all will excuse this, this one time. since I !voted "Neutral" in HJ's last RFA back in December, his editing has improved ten-fold IMHO. In that short period of time, he has proven to be a very productive content creator as well as very knowledgeable with Wikipedia's core policies. My interaction with HJ in the past few months has shown me that he is a very kind, helping and thoughtfull editor and anyone else who has encountered him would likely say the same. Furthermore, he has shown detication to helping out User:Diego Grez-an indefblocked troublesome editor-by selflessly accepting a status as his mentor. Thorugh HJ's guidence, Diego has greatly improved. No matter where you encounter him, HJ is a person that you can always count on to get the job done and get it right the first time and all while being friendly and having a good attitude. As an admin, HJ would be a major asset to this project and I hope you all agree with me.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 15:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Fastily and Brad. I'm quite humbled by your nominations. I'd just like to share a few thoughts on RfA #1. In some senses, I'm rather glad that the request was unsuccessful, in that I learned a lot from it about my own strengths and weaknesses and I feel the feedback I received made me a better editor. I'd like to thank all the editors who participated in RfA #1 for their constructive criticism and messages of support and hopefully the community feels that I'm ready to press a few extra buttons. Additional questions are quite welcome, though the more original, the better. Thank you to all for taking the time to read this and do feel free to poke around my user and talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: First and foremost, my admin work would be around the Main Page. I'm a regular at WP:ITN/C, Talk:Main Page and WP:ERRORS, all of which are on my watchlist. It's painfully obvious to anyone who watches those pages that admins are in short supply there, especially at certain time of the night when I seem to be most active and you would be surprised how long some typos can sit on our "welcome mat" before an admin is able to fix them. It would be an honour to help the dedicated admins who currently work there. In addition to fixing typos and updating ITN, many of the images on the MP have been temporarily uploaded from Commons (for reasons concerning cascade protection which doesn't apply to images transcluded directly from Commons) and these need to be deleted once they have outlived their use (though I'm not sure if X!'s new bot handles that now). When not working around the Main Page, I would be an editor first and an admin second. I'd continue doing what I currently do- working on content, participating at ITN/C, making (hopefully!) useful suggestions and comments at AN and ANI and patrolling my incredibly broad watchlist. When the need arose, I would be willing to make admin actions arising from threads at AN/ANI when consensus deemed it necessary. The one admin area I would rule out would be routine speedy deletion. This caused a lot of opposition at my last RfA because (obviously being unable to see deleted edits) I had been unable to see my shortcomings in the area. Since being made aware of my weakness in the area, I've placed very few CSD tags (those I have were almost entirely G3 and G10) because I haven't had the confidence. I would always be willing to accept criticism of and seek outside opinions on my admin actions, as I have with, for example, my GA reviewing. Two of my reviewed articles (one pass, one fail) have been taken to reassessment where I've been willing to listen to feedback on my reviewing, and, although both decisions were upheld in the end, I feel I learned a lot from both.

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

A:Hmm, my "best" contributions? Well, before I hit the save button, I ask myself "will this improve the encyclopaedia or the project as a whole?" If the answer is yes, then that's a good contribution. Some that I'm particularly proud of, though? I'm very proud of my content work. I've contributed significantly to a featured article, 5 GAs (one of which, Tim Cross, I wrote from scratch), 6 DYKs (4 of which I wrote from scratch) and I have 13 ITN credits, several of which involved writing articles from scratch on current events (not the easiest things to write about). All these are represented by the pretty icons at the top of my userpage. I also have a lot of pride in my GA reviewing- I've lost count of how many I've reviewed (around 50), but I aim not to give a simple "pass/fail" assessment, but to give the authors some useful feedback to get the best possible article out of the process, which is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, to the nominator and to me in that I find it a rewarding task. I'm proud of the images I've uploaded (to Commons), which brighten up my userpage. I also have extensive contributions in the project space- as mentioned above, I contribute regularly to ITN/C discussions and to AN/ANI threads, but my proudest contribution to the project space would be the administrator instructions for ITN, which I wrote from scratch. In addition, I'm extremely honoured by the nice shiny things (at the bottom of my userpage) that other editors have given me. Above all though, looking back, I'd say my best contributions are those where I've been able to work with or help out other editors- both newbies and tenured wikipedians.

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:Over the course of my editing I've come into many disagreements, most of them relatively amicable. As mentioned in my first RfA, I was reported to WP:ANEW a few months ago over a misunderstanding with an IP editor on Eleventh night, though we managed to resolve the misunderstanding between ourselves. More recently, I failed a GAN, Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo, which, unfortunately, the nominator took quite personally and took the article to GAR, questioning my integrity (his words). In hindsight, I didn't handle that as well as I could and got quite frustrated when I should have walked away and deferred to the GAR discussion to resolve the issue. If the community were to grant me the honour of adminship, I would of course be just a regular editor in any disagreement in which I'm involved, and if administrative action was necessary, I'd defer to other admins because, no matter how clearly you think you're seeing something, you can be sure that somebody else will have an equal and opposite "clear" view.

Additional optional question from SoWhy

4. In your last RFA there were a number of opposes and neutrals about your handling of speedy deletion related matters. Have you, in your own opinion, taken steps to remedy those problems and if so, can you explain how you changed your approach to such articles?

A:Thank you for your question. Yes, as anybody looking at my previous RfA will see, there was a significant amount of opposition (quite rightly) based on some CSD tags that I'd placed. Knowing what I know now, I'm the first to concede that those taggings were nothing less than totally shite and I feel bad for the authors of those articles who returned to their article only to find it tagged for speedy deletion. If I'm honest, no, I do not feel I've addressed those concerns. Since being shown those diffs, I have tagged very few articles for speedy deletion because I have simply lost confidence in my ability to do so correctly. Thus, as I mentioned above, I would not be participating in that area should this RfA pass and, frankly, I expect to make very little use of the delete button because if I don't trust myself to place the right template on the right article, I certainly don't trust myself to speedy delete somebody else's work! I hope that answers your question, though you are more than welcome to ask another if it doesn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Zzuuzz

5. How do you reconcile your advocacy of compulsory registration with the ability to edit without registration mentioned in the Founding principles? Do you think unregistered editors should be disadvantaged or treated any differently from registered editors? Would you have any problems implementing the current protection policy?

A:An interesting question, thank you. I have nothing against unregistered editors, I find many of them to be very productive and helpful editors and I've had extremely positive interactions with many. It is, however, undeniable, that Wikipedia has a real problem with vandalism and that much of it comes from unregistered editors. However, because IP addresses are often reassigned at random intervals and are relatively easy to "change" (please forgive my lack of tech-speak), admins must be extremely cautious when implementing blocks on IP addresses. This makes it difficult to prevent one person from hopping from one IP to the next, when an account could be simply blocked. That said, I do not and will not treat unregistered editors any differently from registered editors- an editor is an editor, a vandal is a vandal. I recognise that, although I personally believe account registration should be compulsory, my view does not have the support of the community and isn't compatible with the founding principles and I think the sign of a good editor and good administrator is the ability to put one's own opinion to one side. As for the protection policy, it specifically forbids using protection to lock unregistered out of the editing process and I would only implement protection as is applicable with the policy as it's written or as it's revised in the future and certainly not in any circumstances where I'm in a conflict or to suit my own personal preferences. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Blanchardb

6. Under what circumstances would you block an editor who has never received a user warning?

A:There are very few circumstances in which somebody should be blocked without warning. However, there are some. Examples that come to mind would be sockpuppets blocked under WP:DUCK, usually those of perma-banned vandals, as well as serious and deliberate violations of BLP and possibly legal threats. In all circumstances, it is preferable to assume good faith and give vandals et al enough chance to rectify their behaviour before considering blocking, though not blocking in certain, limited circumstances, may result in serious disruption. I've found on some occasions that issuing a warning can have positive effects- by saying to somebody "yes. I saw that. Don't do it again." you can almost "scare" them into ceasing and desisting. It's unfortunate that not everybody wants to cooperate and edit constructively, but as in any community, there will be those whose intention is only to cause disruption. While we should give these people as many chances as possible to rectify their behaviour, not all will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Hegvald

7. Can you comment on how you concluded that Joseph Gantner was a "seemingly non notable individual" and decided to propose the article for deletion? --Hegvald (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A:I fully admit, with the benefit of hindsight, that the PROD tag was more than a little hasty. I don't recall how I came across that particular article, though I recall that I tried and failed to find sources for it at the time (January this year) prior to placing the tag and it wasn't an arbitrary "drive-by" tagging. I kept an eye on the article for a while and I'm glad to see that you de-PRODded the article and made a fine effort to improve it since then. I hope that helps to resolve any lingering concerns you may have. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

References are to MisterWiki unblock discussion and User:Diego Grez.--Chaser (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

8. In the MrWiki reinstatement discussion 2 weeks ago you said "I will take personal responsibility for both the rewards and the piss-offs of any unblock". Please quantify what taking personal responsibility means in practice as far as your role as an Admin. is concerned should you be successful. Leaky Caldron 23:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A:That's a slightly difficult question in that I don't foresee my role as an admin, should this request pass, overlapping with my role as mentor for Diego Grez, which I took on in my capacity as an editor. I will continue to work with Diego in order to, hopefully, turn him into a more productive and more clueful editor, though I don't foresee anything being different in 7 days' time whether I'm an admin or just a regular editor. However, on a more general point, I feel that I have earned a reputation with the community over my 13 months here and I have put that reputation on the line in order to help Diego, which was the intent behind the (*ahem*) colourful quote. I hope that clears up any ambiguity, but I invite you to ask another question if it doesn't and I'll do my best to clarify. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is made up of words. I want to understand the meaning behind it - otherwise the words are just puffery and self-aggrandisement. What exactly is the responsibility you would take, what risk do you suffer what penalty do you incur when he fouls up again? Leaky Caldron 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, Leaky, statements generally tend to be made up of words. Here, the words reflect that Mitchell feels that he would suffer the risk of an impaired reputation, if he were to mentor Diego and Diego were to foul up again. To me, that looks like: "Question asked; question answered".--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)w/Epeefleche. My apologies :). Although I recognise it's something of a dubious concept, as I say above, I've staked my reputation on DG, though there is no real way to enforce that. If he violated the terms of his restrictions and this request were successful, I would not object to being the one to re-block him and if I or a number of other editors in good standing felt it necessary, I would put myself up for reconfirmation as an admin and would surrender the tools if the outcome went against me. I don't suppose there is really anything more I could do that would be enforceable, though I'm open to suggestions. However, I'm hopeful that Diego will continue as he has been- keeping his head down, working on subjects he knows well and staying out of trouble and I will do everything I possibly can to help him in that. Was that any better? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I take responsibility for any "complaints" with Diego- there is a big red box at the top of his talk page which asks people to contact me with any issues in the first instance. I feel that puts some of the responsibility onto me and allows Diego to concentrate on his editing and work out any problems that may arise via myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Doc Quintana

9. Do you think there's a time when it's appropriate to use IAR regarding administrative powers?

A: I'm a big fan of IAR, but "ignoring all rules" does not mean "do whatever the hell I feel like". There are very few circumstances in which IAR should be used. As an editor, to the best of my knowledge, I've invoked it or suggested invoking it 2, maybe 3 times in my ~13 months here. The one occasion I can specifically recall was at Talk:The Climb (song), where I had suggested splitting the article into two- one for the original and one for the cover which was gaining a lot of attention due to a "reality TV" series. I was informed that this would probably contravene a style guideline, and suggested ignoring it, citing IAR, if the consensus was in favour (in the end, it wasn't, but I didn't want to see the option ruled out on the grounds of contravening a guideline). Essentially, there are times when IAR should be invoked as justification for an admin action, but only when it improves the encyclopaedia or the wider project and with consensus where reasonably possible. If the only justification you can come up with for an action is "well IAR says I can", then that's probably not a good use, especially for an admin action which, unlike normal editing, cannot be easily reversed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

10 In the discussion at oppose #18, do you agree with your supporter NDS that it is bogus to oppose you in this RFA because of your actions regarding MW? Leaky Caldron 21:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A: I think that was a poor choice of words and an error of judgement on NSD's part, and I've discussed it with him off-wiki earlier this evening (that's British Summer Time [UTC+1] for those in other time zones). You're entitled to hold the view you do and to oppose based on it and I respect you for doing so (though, obviously, I disagree with you) and don't deserve to be badgered for it, though others are entitled to come to their own conclusions and respectfully disagree with you. To call it "bogus" is an assumption of bad faith and I believe that you were acting in what you believed to be the best interests of the project, though I'm equally certain that NSD was acting in the very best of faith. I'm only too aware that many people are less than happy to see the return of Diego and that is perfectly understandable given the disruption he caused prior to his block and the amount of time consumed at ANI discussing that disruption. I believe that the discussion which led to his unblock was perhaps a little premature- I had intended to start another such thread myself, but not for a few months in light of the opposition in the first thread back in February. However, having communicated with him via email since roughly the week after he was blocked, it is my firm belief that he is capable of being a constructive editor with guidance and kept on a "short leash" so to speak, which is the reason for the list of restrictions (even I would have opposed unblocking him without any restrictions). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your answer is a classic case of you wanting to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. In the same sentence that you say that to call it "bogus" is an assumption of bad faith you go on to say that you are equally certain that NSD was acting in the "very best" of faith. No he wasn’t. He was attacking a contributor on baseless grounds and I think you are trying not to offend your friend. That worries me more that the MrWiki saga. Leaky Caldron 23:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've come to respect NSD over the last few weeks and months and I think that was probably a momentary loss of temper. It doesn't defend or excuse the remark itself, but it's out of character for NSD and I took the matter up with him, but I did so in private. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell
• Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 2
• Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 3

• 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.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to the talk page. JamieS93^❤ 17:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat-the-nom-support - Excellent, calm and thoughtful replies. I feel very comfortable granting the mop. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Can I add my support now then as well? I was here a few hours ago but it told me not to submit. --candle•wicke 21:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. As nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Support; as co-nom. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
5. support- Will make sure the main page is mopped (is that a word?) when it needs it- an important job. SS✞^(Kay) 08:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. Very qualified, without him I would be lost. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)\
7. Support Sure, qualified and trusted. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Good candidate. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   Re-affirming my support having reviewed the opposes below. God forbid we should have an admin who recognises his own weaknesses. The opposes raise arguable points about the MisterWiki business, but balanced against all the good things it's not enough for me to conclude that the candidate won't be a net positive. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

9. I've been waiting for this! HJ Mitchell has long been a constructive contributor to discussions, content, and wikipedia in general. I am proud to support him. ceranthor 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
10. Support, definitely. I've had many good experiences with HJ Mitchell - clearly a sensible and constructive editor who we can trust to use the tools well. ~ mazca ^talk 11:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Support, this one is easy, I can trust this editor with the tools--Mike Cline (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
12. Time for a cliché: I thought you must have already been an admin. Definitely a support from me, a great constructive editor. BigDom 11:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
13. Support has not triggered the edit filter for around a year, and delete noms look reasonable.. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Looks good to me; no reason not to support. --CapitalR (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
15. Support. Looks good to me too. Have seen him around doing sensible things. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. I trust this user to use the tools with respect. I appreciate the answer to question 4 - I would be surprised if there were many admins who do not take such an approach in one area or another. Rje (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
18. Support: responses and review show sufficient responsibility and clue. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
19. Strong support Excellent user. Aiken ♫ 12:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
20. Support As BigDom said earlier, I thought you were an admin already when I bumped into you... Tabercil (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
21. Support, an excellent candidate. I recognise the concerns of the opposition, but am confident the candidate will take them on board to improve. I believe they will be a benefit to the project in the role, thus am still happy to support. --Taelus (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC) --Amended at 11:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)--
22. Support. Good involvement in WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:UAA & WP:ERRORS. Vipin Hari || talk 14:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
23. Support because this editor already is the kind of admin I would like to be - able to recognize his own shortcomings, willing to defer to consensus when it doesn't match one's personal opinion, and very knowledgeable about the non-sexy tasks that lie before him should the bit be granted. --~TPW 14:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
24. Support--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
25. Support. HJ has really took on Wikipedia with both hands. He passed the 'ready and reliable' mark for adminship a long time ago. I have absolute faith in him that he will use these tools responsibly. I can feel his frustration at not being able to use them. An ITN updater is needed. He is a Wiki-rolemodel, being so helpful and trustworthy. If I am not mistaken, he recently worked on the project for around 12 hours straight. Dedication! —  Cargoking  talk  14:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Has a clue. Good work in both editing and maintenance areas. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Net positive. Dlohcierekim 15:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
28. Support No reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
29. Fully trustworthy, and ITN needs more admins. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
30. Support. Excellent user who's answered all questions excellently. I've yet to see him to anything wrong. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
31. Very Strong Support per nom, my own interaction with him, as well as my own co-nom. good luck :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 15:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
32. Support - good head on his shoulders. –xeno^talk 16:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Appears to have that rare and misnamed quality of 'Common sense'. I can't see any problems (from checking some contribs), and I'm impressed by the answers to questions. Previous RfA concerns have been directly addressed, and there are good reasons for this person to have admin status.  Chzz  ►  16:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
34. Looks good. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
35. Friendly, good work with Main page-related stuff, and willing to work with the Main page as an admin. Shubinator (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
36. Well, obviously I'm returning to this column because I liked him the first go-round. :) But I will add that HJ has gained some good experience, and between the last RfA and this one, he's remained a pretty smart guy who offers interesting perspectives in discussion and who, from what I've seen, wouldn't do something rash or non-beneficial to the encyclopedia. So he's got my support again. JamieS93^❤ 17:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

    FWIW, I disagreed with HJ's stance on the Diego situation. And I knew that when I supported. But I've actually admired how he's been willing to put himself out there; your perfect "yes ma'am" admin candidate would never be willing to do that. I def. disagreed, but that doesn't stop me from supporting. HJ is really a decent guy, and was willing to be criticized for something that many were cringing at. But I think he did it for the right reasons, and I'm glad the mentorship has worked so far. He has my respect. JamieS93^❤ 20:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, I too. If anything I think HJ is too soft on vandals/trolls etc, but that's a difference in opinion only. I think he'll be a net positive. Aiken ♫ 20:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

37. Strong support Agree that he is trustworthy, and am not concerned about misuse of of admin tools. It does look like he has been away for several months in summer of 09, which is not optimal, however, there are quite a few content additions (33 articles created), so I support. Immunize (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
38. Strong support Recommend closing as a WP:RIGHTNOW. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
39. Support Content contribs nice, hope break in summer won't affect him (I'm going to hjave it too), wish good luck. Buggie111 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
40. I was on the fence in December and didn't vote in that RFA, but there's been substantial improvement in the areas mentioned above. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
41. Tim Song (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
42. Support Long since gained my support; I have no reason to oppose. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
43. Not much (or anything at all, really) to add to the above reasons, but may as well pile on the supports. Meets my standards, which exist, pending a chance to write them down, solely in my mind, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
44. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
45. Support - With over twelve thousand edits, and active editing for a few months, I vote for support. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Thoughtful, intelligent, calm, reasoned, precise. We will be fortunate to have him in the admin ranks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Employs a common-sense approach to matters with no tendency to obfuscate the central issues with wikinonsense. Greg L (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
48. Support everything I have seen gives me a good impression. I see no reason to oppose. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
49. Support I have worked with HJ promoting some articles to GA status, The Bill and Neighbours spring to mind immediately. The Bill has undergone some vandalism in recent weeks as it's been axed by ITV, HJ has adopted a common sense attitude with regards to warning people on this article. I have always found HJ to be a very fair editor --5 albert square (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
50. Seem him around, nothing I've seen to suggest the candidate will misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
51. Strong support - Supported then, support now. It's too bad we lost 5 months of productive administering. Good we're fixing that now. Shadowjams (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

    Support per content work and humility in recognizing his own limitations. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

    Withdrawing support per numerous meaningful opposes by editors I respect. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

52. Support Am confident that he is ready to wield the mop. Mjroots (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
53. Oppose Mistakes like this can not be tolerated. :) Hi878 (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

    Hey! I was a newbie! Don't (retrospectively) bite me ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

    I'll settle for this then: Support and a good whacking. Hi878 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

54. Support User can be trusted. Only positive recollections of HJ Mitchell. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
55. Support He's a friendly, reasonable and understanding editor. Crystal Clear x3 04:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
56. Full-fledged Support-Since I met HJ on my failed RFA he has always been friendly, courteous and an overall great editor with a level head and solid work which will be further advanced as an Admin.--SKATER ^Speak. 04:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
57. Super-strong support - clueful, friendly, and an overall solid editor. I was neutral at the last RfA, but I believe the CSD issues have long since been cleared out. My only tiny suggestion is that you watch your comma splices :). I've seen them twice today (in your response to Oppose #1 - "I faced some criticism in the ANI thread, however, I hope..." and in Talk:Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo/GA2 - "I'd decided to fail it based on the breadth of coverage, however, these are..."). It's always after the word "however". Interactions have been overwhelmingly positive. He also offered much constructive criticism in his oppose at my (failed) RfA. I can fully trust him with the admin tools. Airplaneman ✈ 04:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
58. I see HJ Mithcell around doing good things.--Chaser (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
59. Yes, yes, a thousand times over, yes. I've been expecting this RfA for months now — 100% right attitude for the role, and by most accounts, he's basically already an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

    About four months, yeah? ;)  f o x  09:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    Wow... this year has been going by pretty slowly. I just wanted to say that I still support the guy. His responses to the opposing arguments are a bit political (in my view), but I doubt he'll do anything to harm the project if he became an admin. He's a quick learner (at least, it seems that way to me). Master&Expert (Talk) 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

60. Support been seeing HJ's edits around alot , mostly good things.would be a benefit. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
61. Support. Sole Soul (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
62. Support. We need more good admins for Main Page and related stuff, and I'm confident that we have a good one here who has made a lot of great contributions to Wikipedia. Issues from previous AfD don't worry me, as the candidate has clearly understood and rectified them. And as for mentoring this Diego chap, we now have a previously problematic editor who has been turned into a constructive contributor - and that's a good thing, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

    Having read some more of this, I do now think the candidate's actions regarding Mr.Wiki/Diego Grez were too hasty and should have awaited consensus, but I don't think this one misjudgment (which seems to have been made with the best of faith) is enough to change my !vote -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

63. SupportHave seen much of HJ Mitchell's contributions around the encyclopedia and have only seen good things come from his contributions. Looking at his recent CSDs, it appears he has benefited from the feedback of the last RfA and has worked to addressed and correct the issues raised. One rollback error that was quickly addressed and discussed with the editor involved does not lead me to question if everything I've seen him produce need be discounted. I have witnessed countless correct rollbacks and reports generated from them to trust that he correctly knows when to utilize it. I have no reason to not trust him with the extra bit. Calmer Waters 15:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
64. Support - has a clear understanding of the rules of article creation especially BLP. and most other aspects and it looks as if the mop will be used with discretion if not all that regularly. Anyone can make the occasional genuine mistake. He has leanred through his previous RfA and will be on his mettle in the future, so I see nothing to object to his promotion.--Kudpung (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Nothing in the opposes strikes me as very convincing. He's been excellent whereever we've crossed paths, at least. • ɔ ʃ → 19:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
66. Support. Fully qualified candidate, good answers to questions, no issues. The candidate wishes to work in an important area that could always use more administrator attention, and should be welcomed to doing so. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' concerns but find them unpersuasive. Finally, the fact that the nominator is a paid-up member of the Brad Cabal is not a factor in my !vote, but is nonetheless impressive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
67. Support —Soap— 20:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
68. Support no problems here. Looks good to me.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
69. Support More competition for putting things up on ITN, but I can handle it. -- tariqabjotu 00:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
70. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
71. Strong support - Great mentorship and content work. No worries here. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 02:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
72. Support. The issues raised are not enough to convince me to oppose. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
73. Risker (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
74. Ar son Four months ago, less a few hours, i opposed the previous request for administrator rights of HJ Mitchell.[1] As has been mentioned in a few places none of us are perfect. People learn and grow and mature. I think Risker said it all. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
75. Support, though I share Leaky_Caldron opinion that "taking personal responsibility" is just "puffery of words". Many politicians often take "personal responsibility" when they screw up. Why? cause it doesn't mean a god-damn thing. At worst it is a "y'all know it's not really my fault, but for simplicity's sake, i take 'responsibility'". Don't "take responsibility" unless there are real consequences. </rant> Rami R 10:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
76. Support What I have seen has been good. I can trust this editor. Polargeo (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
77. Support. Very hard worker, he's a definite benefit to the project. No concern at all for misuse of tools. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
78. Support - I supported last time and I'll support again. HJ Mitchell is often helping out in admin areas and I think he'd be a good addition to the admin corps. I'm not MisterWiki's biggest fan, by far, but since the unblock there hasn't been any problems so I don't see it as a bad thing. If he'd gone on to be disruptive after the unblock, and HJ Mitchell tried to cover for him, that I wouldn't excuse. -- Atama頭 18:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
79. Support I supported last time, and am happy to do so again. The "I wouldn't trust myself with the delete button" above gave me pause for thought, but I see no reason to believe that the candidate will abuse the tools. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
80. quick review of contribs showed no major problems. -Atmoz (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
81. Weak Support Net Positive. The opposers, generally, make some good points - however I'm sure you'll take them on board. Just take it steady and you'll be fine. Pedro :  Chat  19:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
82. Support due to nominee's experience, cluefullness, civility, and willingness to improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
83. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
84. Support. I've seen HJ around Wikipedia a number of times and feel that, based on all of his beneficial contributions here, cannot be anything but a plus to encyclopedia if made an admin. Laurinavicius (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
85. A couple of things stopped me supporting earlier. Firstly it looked like you didn't need it, but now the support % is slipping a bit there is more point. Second, some of the reasons listed in the oppose section caused me to pause for a while. However, on balance I think HJ is sensible enough to use the mop to clean things up rather than make a mess. Peter 23:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
86. HJ isn't an admin? Must have missed the memo. WP:WTHN seems appropriate. I see nothing wrong. Hamtechperson 00:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
87. Support. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
88. Support. We can always use more admins around the main page and HJ has been particularly active and useful in the non-admin parts (particularly relating to ITN and WP:Errors) - Dumelow (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
89. Support - A great user who is unlikely to abuse the tools given to him. Adminship is no big deal. -Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
90. Strong support Great work so far, very cooperative and helpful in various fields of WP. Admin tools should make everything easier. --Tone 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
91. Weak Support - The concerns about MisterWiki/Diego Grez are legitimate, but I respect HJ Mitchell's interpretation of AGF. His answer about CSD's is troubling, but having had trouble with that criteria myself, his position is understandable. Given his strong contributions and interaction with the community, I believe he will make a good admin. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
92. Support. A positive contributor who would be helpful with admin tools in his areas of interest. If he is aware of his limitations, then all the better. As for the MisterWiki business: Obviously unblocking a previously disruptive user entails some risk and not everyone will agree whether the risk is justified. But I think volunteering to help mitigate the risk with mentoring is a positive thing for a prospective admin, not a reason to oppose. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
93. Support. What I saw from the candidate around the Main Page was good and useful, and IMO we need more admins in that area, especially ITN section. Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
94. Support. Solid editing and contributions. The answers indicate a willingness to abstain from tools when he is uncertain. Avoiding speedy deleting really bad articles is in my view overly cautious, but it is not in any way harmful (some other admin will eventually handle it anyway as long as you don't remove speedy tags willy-nilly). Regarding the unblock discussion on ANI, I have no strong opinion about whether HJ was right or wrong, but I cannot see that he was being unreasonable, so I won't hold his conduct there against him. A net positive overall. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
95. Weak Support I opposed last time due to poor CSD tagging. As the candidate has stayed away from that area, and recognises that their past work there was not up to admin standards, I'm OK with the reassurances they have given in this RFA and am happy to support based on the above. ϢereSpielChequers 13:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
96. Support I opposed last time, but as user has agreed to stay away from deletion, I see no reason not to say yes. Ray^Talk 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
97. Support Net positive in spite of the opposing comments. --John (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
98. Support - Every user is going to have something negative attributed to them, but having worked with the nominee in the past I can assure the community that he is worthy of wielding a mop. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
99. Strong Support. HJ Mitchell user has very good contributions. HJ Mitchell has worked hard on Wikipedia and reverting edits that break Wikipedia's policies. In fact, HJ Mitchell's edits are so good that I thought HJ Mitchell was already an administrator. HJ Mitchell can be trusted to be an administrator. --Hadger 04:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
100. Strong Support WP:100 :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
101. Support: Net positive - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
102. Support Will be a net positive, regardless of the MisterWiki incident. (I know MW on IRC, and as much as the opposers dislike the situation, I too believe that MW would eventually be a good contributor, not that I would get involved in the situation myself.) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
103. Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, HJ Mitchell. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
104. Support My day to day interaction with this user has confirmed me that he is indeed worthy of being trusted with the broomstick. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

     lol, Harry Potter is that way; I think you meant mop. :) best. Leaky Caldron 08:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

     More like Lego(las) Harry Potter! —  Cargoking  talk  09:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

105. Support. Emily Jensen (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
106. HJ Mitchell appears in my watchlist often, and from what I've seen, he's a decent user. Acalamari 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
107. Support Take it slow...Modernist (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
108. Support Looks like a great editor, and therefore I am happy to support. Tavix |  Talk  23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
109. Support Just got back from a long but much needed wiki-break, and given my memory capacity (comparable to small rodents) I can't specifically name any encounters between the two of us. I can, however, say that I recall holding some degree of respect for him in some way. Given that and his overall satisfactory answers, I fully support. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
110. Support - Weak support, the honesty given in the reply to Q4 is refreshing. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
111. Support will be a great admin. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
112. Last-minute-5-hours-past-the-deadline-support I trust him. Aditya Ex Machina 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The handling of the Mr. Wiki aka User:Diego Grez unblock discussion on AN/I showed a lack of clue IMHO. You ignored a consensus not to unblock in the AN/I discussion and started a new section that managed to get him unblocked with a lawyer's list of restrictions which you intimated would be released "in a day or two". That you worked so hard to get this user who caused so many problems back, and then intimated to him that his restrictions were written in clay, shows a disrespect to the many who totally disagreed with this unblock. Auntie E. (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   Relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#MisterWiki unblock discussion. I'm of the opinion that we need administrators who are willing to volunteer their time to rehabilitate former problematic users who have shown a willingness to improve and contribute constructively. This user eventually went on to make many positive contributions - had I not been willing to give them a chance, they might still be vandalizing today. To err is human, to forgive divine: The jury is still out on whether my conditionally unblocking MisterWiki will be a net positive, but I offer up his proposed improvements to Pichilemu as evidence that it has already borne fruit. –xeno^talk 18:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   I believe that as well. My point is, I believe consensus was ignored. It wouldn't have hurt him to wait like the community asked. The idea that one can get around a permablock by bugging everyone you know in IRC until someone gives in has been given weight it shouldn't have. And since his restrictions haven't been lifted yet, I think it's too early to call it a good move. Auntie E. (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   I disagree that consensus was ignored, but this isn't the venue (see my talk if you want to discuss further); but for the record, I haven't been on IRC in a dog's age (and only ever go on when Wikipedia goes down). –xeno^talk 18:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   I can understand where you're coming from there and I faced some criticism in the ANI thread, however, I hope you'll allow me to offer a few thoughts in my defence. I don't feel I ignored the consensus, I felt that setting out the list of conditions for an unblock might help sway some of the marginal editors who had opined in the thread in that they would realise the MisterWiki/Diego Grez would not be given carte blanche and would not be allowed to resume his previous disruption. I also admit that I hadn't expected the conditions of the unblock to be as restrictive as they were, which I think explains the impression that may have been given in my conversations with Diego prior to his being unblocked. However, as Xeno points out, Diego has worked productively and happily on drafts of several articles in his userspace and I intend to continue working with him in order to improve the quality of the content that he produces, thus I think it would be reasonable to conclude that so far, his presence on the project has not been a net negative and may even be a net positive. I don't mean for any of this to invalidate your oppose, but I hope it helps you to see things from my perspective. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   I do not feel that he ignored consensus, rather, he proposed a new solution that soon became consensus. It is not against consensus to put forward new proposals; it is against consensus to force them upon people. From what I can see, this is not what happened. What more, this new consensus came to what appears to be a beneficial end so far, as evidenced by his work on Pichilemu. (X! · talk)  · @018  ·  23:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   HJM didn't start the ANI thread. It was started because Mister Wiki, as a blocked user, was requesting a rename to Diego Grez so as to match the other projects he is involved in. Bureaucrats felt that this should be put to a larger forum as blocked users are not generally renamed here. HJM offered to help as a mentor and that proposal received sufficient support to conditionally unblock Diego. As far as i know that is going well at this time. If anyone is to blame maybe it is myself. From Diego asking on IRC for one edit to correct something there came a conversation in which i apparently gave him the idea for a rather large (for a blocked user) undertaking. A couple of days later i find a request filed on his behalf at WP:CHU. On the flip side, if HJM is an admin and Diego gets out of line it would be all the more easy to reïnstate the block. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I had to warn HJ Mitchell just 10 days ago for misusing rollback. I can't trust him with the full admin tools so soon after this incident. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   With the very greatest of respect, that was an honest mistake, as I though was shown by the thread on my talk page. I respect your oppose, but must respectfully disagree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   If you'll allow me to expand on the above, I would use the famous quote "to err is human, to forgive is divine". We all make mistakes at one point or another, but, in my humble opinion, what defines us as human beings and as editors how we deal with them. I was made aware that there had been an edit war prior to my revert and that there was more to the matter than the altering of a closed discussion, whereupon I contributed to the discussion at WT:RFA that Dlohcierekim made me aware of and, upon realising my mistake, I apologised profusely to the editor whose edit I rolled back and he was far more gracious about it than i might have been had the circumstances been reversed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   Ryan, this was an honest mistake, rather than deliberate misuse. It was a single revert, also. Just how many good reverts has the candidate made? Thousands? It seems unfair to oppose over one tiny mistake that had no lasting effects whatsoever. The candidate even apologized to the user he reverted, who accepted it as not being an issue anymore. Aiken ♫ 12:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   Let's not forget that the whole confusion that lead to this rollback misuse was borne of a fairly silly move of "joke-oppose support" to the oppose section, three days after the close of an RFA, by a bureaucrat who hadn't closed an RFA in nearly 5 years. I would suggest folks review Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 198#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Polargeo 2 and [2] before opposing for this particular rollback. –xeno^talk 18:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose. It's about time somebody trotted out the 'too many admins' argument. but I jest ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   WHACK! Hi878 (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   Is that still counted as an oppose? The number three is still there. --candle•wicke 03:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   Looks like it. Will fix strike accordingly. Airplaneman ✈ 04:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose I oppose this candidate for 2 reasons. He was clueless in a big way in his first RfA to the extent where his proposer had to withdraw support. OK, so he now knows more about policy relating to community banned socks [3], but his nonchalant approach to policy knowledge is a red light for me. Statements like “…there is no policy against the use of multiple accounts, as long as they are not used abusively if my somewhat hazy recollection of policy is correct...” and “I cannot be expected to have flawless knowledge of every policy” are honest but disconcerting. In what other areas of policy is he hazy or lacking knowledge?
   In the case of MrWiki, HJ has given an answer to my questions at Q8. Personally I just don’t go with all this “if you don't trust MisterWiki, trust me” stuff. At best it is naïve and at worst, posturing. Shoehorning a serial culprit back in because he does a bit of good work elsewhere and applying a cumbersome set of rules in order to achieve that objective is something I cannot support. I’m just not that desparate to have known disruptive editors back quickly, and there are significantly more able editors than MrW. will ever be who remain banned for longer, unless they see this approach as a route back.
   My oppose is therefore based on inadequate and to some extent casual approach to policy awareness together with a lack of objectivity which could influence his Admin. decisions. Leaky Caldron 10:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel that way. I'll grant you that RfA #1 was premature in terms of my experience and policy knowledge, but that could be said of many candidates who, on later attempts, go on to pass RfA and be very good administrators. As I said right at the top, I'm actually glad it failed, but I'm glad I stood because I gained a lot of useful feedback which, I feel, I've used to improve myself as an editor- and not to give myself a better chance of passing a second RfA, but to make myself a more productive member of the community. As for Diego, he isn't and wasn't a vandal or a troll, he was just misguided and immature. The point of having such tight restrictions as he's under is to allow him minimum leeway to return to his old ways and, in the meantime, to allow me to assist him wherever possible in order to make him a better editor and, eventually, a better member of the community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   He was a highly disruptive, puerile, multiple sockpuppet who flagrantly abused the community’s trust. Far worse than a vandal. When you characterise him simply as being “just misguided” you risk opening the flood gates to any number of blocked editors who could claim the same leniency as you are showing to MW. That wouldn’t just affect you and your protégée. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   Comment - His honestly in not being able to memorize every policy is actually quite refreshing. No one knows every policy inside out. The question is does he know enough to be useful and is he responsible enough to be trusted to look things up before acting?Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose Less than four full months since last withdrawn RFA, still appears to have issues as per Ryan (in regards to rollback) and LeackCaldron, as in, comments from candidate appear honest but disconcerting Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)... moving:-during RFA candidate has responded well under pressure, and he has gained my trust that he will take his time and will be fine with the mop.Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

   I don't wish to badger you, I respect your oppose, but it will be 4 months to the day tomorrow. thanks for taking the time to comment, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose Due to stance taken with Mr.Wiki/Diego Grez. I feel that it generally is a good idea to attempt to rehabilitate troublesome users, but in this case, it seems that consensus was ignored. Furthermore, Mr.Wiki/Diego Grez had received a 10 year (later extended to indef) block. I feel that the unblocking of Mr.Wiki/Diego Grez erodes the credibility of our sanctions. Put bluntly: if we give multiple "last chances" eventually no one will take policy seriously. HJ Mitchell seems to be a good editor, but I cannot support his bid for adminship when he advocates giving a troublesome editor a third "last chance". RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   I repeat my statement above: I do not feel that he ignored consensus, rather, he proposed a new solution that soon became consensus. It is not against consensus to put forward new proposals; it is against consensus to force them upon people. From what I can see, this is not what happened. What more, this new consensus came to what appears to be a beneficial end so far, as evidenced by his work on Pichilemu. (X! · talk)  · @040  ·  23:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   I would point out that the consensus that you speak of came from considerably fewer people than the original consensus to block.RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose Although he has an impressive edit record, I don't think he's been here long enough and it's only been 4 months since the last RfA. I expect at least two years for any admin candidate. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   I fail to see how the age of an account accurately reflects ability to be an admin and/or level of experience and clue. A user who created their account in, say, 2006, could have much less experience than HJ, who has been here for over a year. Airplaneman ✈ 23:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   I hate that term "clue", doesn't make any sense. Obviously I'm not a robot and I look at total activity; I state the most obvious reasons and if someone was interested enough, they could look at my admin criteria. Someone creating an account four years ago but only using it seriously for the last year would have one year experience, not four. On the other hand, I don't think someone making 12k edits in a year has as much experience as someone with 12k edits spread out over 2-3 years. It's just the way the mind works, I don't think experience can be concentrated. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

   I agree with your edit-time criteria in some regards (I've defended this criteria on another RfA) but two years is frankly untenable and unprecedented. One year is more realistic, and while I agree with your counting method, I wouldn't be as strict about it. That's why I think HJ is a good example of a low-time-frame-editor that has made some excellent contributions. So if it's not already clear, I wholly defend this reasoning, but I disagree with some of the factual circumstances of this case. Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose. The MisterWiki thing was, frankly, completely ridiculous. Wikipedia is not therapy, is not a game, and it's not a place to draw up hugely bureaucratic rules for a single editor. I feel your judgment was so incredibly bad on this issue that I can't trust you with the mop. Tan | 39 00:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose. Several small issues, detailed above. Although champions for guys like Mr. Wiki tend to get a stronger oppose from me, I'll assume it was an honest mistake. Pcap ping 01:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose: Similar to Auntie E & Tan, I think the Misterwiki denouement is a problem. I'm surprised HJ didn't withdraw his/her candidacy after his/her answer to question 4, in which HJ seems to declare his/her own unsuitability: "...I don't trust myself to place the right template on the right article, I certainly don't trust myself to speedy delete somebody else's work! " Toddst1 (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

   With respect, I feel that that's an honest statement of my weaknesses. I acknowledge that CSD is not my strongest area and so it is not an area I'd work in should this request pass. I think it would be unfair to prevent me from fixing the Main Page and updating ITN because I don't have confidence in my abilities in an unrelated area and I believe there are several admins who take similar approaches to other admin areas. I'd appreciate if you'd judge me on the areas I wish to work in and have worked in- for example, my 175 edits to WP:ERRORS or 450 to WP:ITN/C. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

   I think Toddst1 would agree that it was honest, hence the oppose. I don't know, however, what "fairness" has to do with this, or why you would feel entitled to the permission. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

   Agreed. Honesty is not in question. Competence with admin privs is the issue. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

   Great. I propose we trade him for a competent but dishonest admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

   Right, because they're mutually exclusive traits. /facepalm Tan | 39 13:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

   Not all sysops are qualified to do all things their powers allow them to do. This is most painfully evident in the enforcement by some of them of guidelines rooted in U.S. intellectual property law and First Amendment law. Some recognize their limitation, and stay away from exercising their powers in those areas. Others are more ... adventurous. I do not think that sysops become infallible in their judgment in all areas upon being knighted. And have respect for those who recognize their limitations. This is also recognized by WP:ADMIN, which says: "it can take some time for a new administrator to learn when it's best to use the tools, and it can take months to gain a good sense of how long a period to set when using tools such as blocking and page protection in difficult disputes. New administrators are strongly encouraged to start slowly and build up experience." I think HJ should be congratulated for doing just that. Surely, arrogant overconfidence is a greater problem than humble recognition of the normal limits that new admins bring to the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

9. I think your contributions are fantastic and I have found your AIV reports to be generally very good, and while I wildly disagree with your opinion on the whole DG thing, I think what you did and are doing is a very good thing; as Xeno said, it's something we could always use more of; in that regard I disagree with a lot of the other opposers. Ryan's diff above definitely gave me pause here, but especially alongside your responses to the questions; I, like Fox, find them very artificial. We all do/did it, but the juxtaposition and amount here leaves an aftertaste. I also note Toddst1's !vote above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
10. Between the Diego thing, the suspect tone of the answers ("hazy" policy knowledge?) and the general artificial feel of this RfA, both in the forced politeness and the generally verbose responses, I have to oppose this RfA (not that it means anything).  f o x  08:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose Oppose My latest interaction involved the same incident as Ryan. I'm sure it was an honest mistake. However it demonstrated an inability to actually look at a situation before you started punching buttons. I'm very concerned you'd carry on this same method of button first, figure out what's going on after people tell you about it.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    I made my first oppose based on interaction. Doing further reading I came to question 4. There is no method to limit admins to areas they say they'll work on in their RFA's. If this candidate can't trust himself with the delete button, we should not give it to him.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

12. Oppose Several reasons, the Misterwiki situation being one. I commented at the time that I thought that was being done for reasons not entirely confined to a lavish faith in the power of altruism and now here's another RFA go. What a surprise. The rollback per Ryan @ 2 is concerning. Being embedded in a clique of teenage aggravations is another problem IMO. Still making rollback errors, maturity issues and a desire bordering upon desperation to get to be a admin. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    Other than the single mistaken rollback (which was forgotten and forgiven and put to rest before being brought up), do you have any other so-called rollback errors to cite? Otherwise, it's not fair to say "[s]till making rollback errors". I'm also concerned about your comment regarding "maturity issues". Can you let me know what these are, because it seems like you and I are looking at two different candidates :-) Aiken ♫ 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    Badgering opposers, however courteously, who do not see any worth in responding to your opinion does not put it 'to rest.' My oppose states clearly wherein I think the maturity concern lies. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    I think you're confusing "badgering" with "asking a simple question". You've not addressed any of the points I made. You're trying to make a case that the candidate should not be promoted, but what you've written is misleading and unfair. I'm still curious to know what makes you believe the candidate is immature, because you haven't clearly stated so at all. I wouldn't have asked if it was. Aiken ♫ 17:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    Clearly not forgotten since I remember BOTH users who misused rollback in that incident.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    The point is, it clearly had no lasting effects and the user in question wasn't even bothered by it. A single rollback error (erroneously, and unfairly described as "rollback errors" implying it happens more than the one minor occasion, where the candidate wasn't even the only one confused by the edit) should not be used as a reason to oppose somebody. Aiken ♫ 17:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    This isn't an isolated rollback incident. That was my reason to oppose the first RFA. I didn't even mention it this time.Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    I think it's easy to downplay what that sort of action tells us about an editor if perhaps we blundered in the same way.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you, Aiken, for your assistance, but I think it's best if we allow editors to make up their own minds on my request. Plutonium, the only thing I can say is that there was no ulterior motive behind my offer of mentorship for Diego, but I will take your feedback on board, regardless of the outcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

13. Oppose The Diego Grez situation, not trusting yourself to delete, answers to questions not overly strong, and recent misuse of rollback make this a no for me. AniMate 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose My only experience in looking at the candidate's edits in detail was the recent MisterWiki/DiegoGrez unblock.. situation, and within that I saw character traits which admins should not possess. MW was blocked in mid-January, the candidate waited only till late February to initiate an unblock discussion. When that didn't happen, the early April re-run caused by MW/DG's rename request became a platform for the candidate to start banging the same drum, posting repeatedly and drawing up a heavy set of restrictions as conditions of MW's unblock. The restrictions were only necessary because it was far too soon to unblock such a time-wasting individual. One of these restrictions was agreed to be watered down at MW/DG's request just under an hour after they were posted to MW/DG's talkpage. In the same ANI thread the candidate highlights in bold that anyone commenting should be trusting him, not the user whose unblock was in question (guilt trips, they really impress me), and at least once bandies around the WP:AGF bomb without qualification, something as helpful in conversations as throwing around WP:DICK. During all this, it didn't occur that perhaps he was about as far South of being a neutral party as possible, in terms of being a mentor, and that someone else might be more even-handed. As well as seemingly being unable to recognize the limits of his own neutrality the candidate appears to treat 'friends' differently to 'enemies', there's something very plastic about the responses left for those who disagreed with the unblock. Doesn't bode well for someone who will be expected to wade into all sorts of awkward slap-fights. There are suggestions that DG's progress justifies his unblock, but not kicking water out of the paddling pool he's been confined to for a few weeks is not proof of anything. Considering that the candidate supposedly stuck their neck out in the above situation the fact that this RFA is happening before any real conclusions can be drawn is extremely dubious. Someoneanother 10:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose There are too many concerns here for a support right now. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC Moving to neutral. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

15. Oppose For the reasons explained well above, but specifically the MisterWiki situation. Having looked at that in detail, I see a somewhat puzzling insistence on unblocking this disruptive user, and insufficient agreement from others that it was a good idea. Even some of the few admins who expressed a wish that the mentorship would be a success tended to temper that opinion with statements like they would not, themselves, have been willing to unblock on this occasion. The candidate stated that his reputation was on the line with this trip "out on a limb" - yet the jury is surely still out. I also have concerns about a potential Admin who states he is "hazy" on policy and cannot trust himself with some of the tools. (disclaimer: yes, I know I have very few edits, and have never voted at RFA before - I fully expect my opinion might be given less weight than some - but I am a user with an account, and the guideline says anyone with an account may vote - so, given that I hold the opinion, there it is) Begoon (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose essentially per Leaky Caldron. Reviewing RFA1, HJ's interactions here, and the MisterWiki discussion overall gives me the impression of a very enthusiastic candidate whose maturity is still somewhat less developed than his enthusiasm. I think we have more to gain by waiting another 4-12 months. Martinp (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose the MisterWiki thing is just too much. We need the collective balls to deal with people like MisterWiki decisively. Gigs (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

    I think HJ was being bold and assuming good faith with this whole MisterWiki thing. There isn't anything wrong with having the guts to mentor a user how to behave who's behavior has already improved with MW's Wikinews contrributions. I think it's bogus to oppose because of MW. Actually, I think this is a good reason to support since HJ is brave enough to mentor MW. Admins need to be brave and bold. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 16:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    Well sorry - here's this newbie commenting again - (earlier disclaimer still applies :)): you just basically tried to devalue my oppose due to "oppose because of MW" to the status of "bogus" - it's not -it's an opinion I hold and I have every right to express it, as do the other users sharing this concern. To define a major concern expressed in this RFA by a large number of the contributors as "bogus" is bold - I'll give you that. Also - I personally believe that "Admins need to be brave and bold." needs some qualification: "Admins need to be brave, bold, and especially unwilling to act on behalf of someone who could be perceived as connected with their circle of "friends"". HJMitchell didn't overstep this mark because he isn't an admin yet - and I'd like to AGF that he will act differently once he is, or that I'm misconstruing the whole thing - but my concern remains - and has not been reduced by your comment or my reviews of the incident and relevant contributions. Begoon (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    There is nothing bogus about opposing a user who insists on pushing into the centre of an unblock request only to go back on his own set of restrictions at the blocked party's request. One minute Diego Grez is willing to accept any condition, the next he's trying to backslide so he can edit his favourite article without any supervision, causing HJ Mitchell to throw himself on the floor in front of the first hurdle. What is DG supposed to have learned exactly, that his mentor is open to manipulation and that the rest of us are numb? Offering to mentor Diego Grez and standing back would be one thing, the problem was trying to take control of the converation instead of letting it go on for a reasonable amount of time and the way he allowed his lack of neutrality to undermine his role of mentor from the get-go. I don't doubt that HJ Mitchell has earned the goodwill shown in this RFA, but he screwed up after falling over himself to take responsibility and is happy to accept the bit on the back of it. Waving WP:AGF around doesn't change that. Someoneanother 17:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)@NS: I think it is an outrage to defend HJ’s action relating to MrWiki as an act of good faith while condemning anyone's disagrement as bogus. If I was HJ I would disassociate myself from your objectionable accusation. Leaky Caldron 17:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    "outrage" - yeah, that was what I was groping for, and how I felt to have my "oppose" described as "bogus" - but you've been here long enough to say that - I'm still shy (but becoming less so, thank you) Begoon (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

18. Oppose Does not trust himself with the tools. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose Does not use {{Citation Need}} and instead moves directly to deleting factual information without giving people time to reference the source, or allow others to particapate in the addition of information and reference. Deletes information with unfounded claims like "that's not in the source and Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide". Does not use Talk pages and is inconsiderate and forceful toward other users. See Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion Aalox (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    But HJ Mitchell was correct. Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, and the source you had used didn't back up your information anyway. I don't see any substance to this oppose. I'm pretty sure that this is what you're referring to. -- Atama頭 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    That is what I'm refering to. I admit 'part of it remained unsourced, but that was no reason to delete the entire paragraph. I was attempting to rescue vaulable information that a new contributor added, insteed of having his efforts slapped down. If you wish to continue discussing this incident, do so at Talk:Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion. Aalox (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed, WP:NOTHOWTO. HJ did noting wrong in this instance. I don't think this one edit is a good reason to oppose. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 16:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    This one edit is part of a trend I see on this RfA for deletion of new editor's work without trying to help the new editors.Aalox (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    For anyone who's curious, I've explained myself at Talk:Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion#relief efforts HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    My concern remains for anyone that partakes in drive by deletions. He reverted a revert and did not discuss it on the talk page nor did he even watch the talk page (the only reason he eventually looked at it was because I expressed concerns here). This behaviour, combined with other concerns above about being trigger happy with the Speedy deletion of articles makes Wikipedia a place that is not inviting to new editors who makes additions in WP:Good Faith only to see their hard work deleted without warning (such as a ), discussion or even having the abiliy to try to discuss it and having the other person looking at the talk page. Wikipedia needs admins that are willing to work with people and welcome new people and changes instead of reverting and deleting Good faith work. Aalox (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    I stand by the removal which is compliant with WP:CITE (a guideline) and WP:V (one of our most important policies). The latter says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (italics mine, bold original) and, further down "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (italics mine, bold original) which in this case, is you. Also, my watchlist is long enough as it is, mainly with with problematic BLPs, so I don't watch every page I edit, but a note on my talk page would have sufficed to draw my attention to the matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    You are continuing to show why you should not be an admin. I admitted I made an error, but you continue to harp on it and miss your own mistakes (Removing verified information alongside non-verifed, Reverting a revert without discussion), and the point for my objection. I could care less about who is right or who is wrong. What I care about is attitude and showing respect in interacting with other people on wikipedia, and showing a genuine interest in trying to help out other less experienced users. I was really hoping you could show this, perhaps this is just a bad day for you and isn't typical, perhaps not and this is something can work on. You have done a wonderful work contributing to wikipedia, all those Good Articles and that Feature Article is something to be proud of. Being a good admin, however isn't based on your contributions, it is based on how you effect other's contributions. An admin needs to be able to admit mistakes, show respect for others, gracefully correct their errors and encorage them to continue to improve wikipedia. This is something that we BOTH do not live up to, but I'm not trying to be an admin. Aalox (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    Well thank you for your compliments. I'll concede that some of the information was verified and have already done so on the talk page. Now, I'd quite like to get the article updated so it can be featured on ITN- hopefully you'll be willing to help with that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

    I'm going to use good faith and assume that the what happened was just bad judgement on both of us and remove my oppose. I won't go so far as to make it a support, I simply just don't know him well enough to make that call. I hope that my first encounter is very a-typical, and that most people he encounters are motivated to continue improving wikipedia and feel like a valued part of this project. Happy Editing! Aalox (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

    Also, I did just take a gander at HJ's contributions out of curiosity of his other revert actions in the last 150 edits or so, and I did notice a number of reverts, but they we all for Bios of Living Persons, which needs someone like HJ to keep them as sourced as possible and clean as possibe. When your out of Bio for Living Person land, remember that the rest of wikipedia doesn't need to be as revent happy as BLP does. Aalox (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

19. Weak oppose. Sorry about having to land here again. I do not mind specialization, but I think Q4 is going too far. I don't think the whole "restricting oneself from working in a particular area" is good practice — it's something that shouldn't have to be spelled out. Furthermore, I'm concerned about Q7, as the article already had several sources at the time. Besides, the first ghit is a comprehensive biography in an RS. I have no particular opinion about the MW incident. decltype (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Something about the tone of this RfA (the answers, the endless quoting...) seems artificial, and I don't think I can support at the present time.  f o x  13:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Switch to oppose.  f o x  08:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutral The candidate has shown improvement and fortitude since the last RfA, and does work very hard; however, I do have concerns and they are articulated very well in Oppose #3 by Leaky Caldron.--Hokeman (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Pending Currently debating what I want to !vote. User has overall good conversations, but has become almost suspiciously involved in saving an editor, based on contributions on other projects, with huge editing restrictions. Per fox, the RfA seems set up, but I would still support if that was the only concern. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Support changed to Neutral This MisterWiki situation (He supported unblock and I didn't and gave a good reason) reminds me of former admin User:Archtransit unblocking the banned user User:CltFn. Archtransit got desysopped for the unblock along with other abusive blocks. CltFn was blocked multiple times and exhausted commuity patience, and Archtransit clearly didn't understand the situation with CltFn. I hope this doesn't apply to HJ when he does get the tools, but I still think HJ has good communication skills, and that is important in an administrator. Minimac (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

   Just for the record, even if I'd had the bit during that ANI discussion, I would have deferred to somebody else to make the final decision because I could hardly be considered uninvolved. If this RfA were to pass, I certainly wouldn't make controversial unblocks without community consensus regardless of my personal opinion on the matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral I appreciate anyone who is willing and able to know their own mistakes and learn from it and I can see that HJ is willing and eager to help out and who might just be a net positive. But the candidate has indicated (and demonstrated) that they should not be trusted with the delete-button. Since we have no working mechanism to ensure that HJ really does not use the button anywhere where they have no clue, this would mean that this request should be opposed. But I will assume good faith that they will indeed keep their promise, not to do so, if this passes and so I will not oppose over it. The MisterWiki situation has been another source for concern and opposition but since I cannot find any other similar examples in HJ's track record, I think it can be considered a good faith attempt to help. TLDR: The candidate shows promise but is, at this point, imho not ready for the mop. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral Too many concerns at the present time. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral Leaning towards support. Edits definitaly cause me to go for support. But, the User issue above, and the self-trust issue, they both made me stop and think for a while. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Some concerns as seen above prevent me from supporting, but don't push to oppose. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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.