General user info
Username: HJ Mitchell
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Mar 30, 2009 14:15:35
Unique articles edited: 2,007
Average edits per page: 2.92
Total edits (including deleted): 5,853
Deleted edits: 316
Live edits: 5,537

Namespace totals
Article	        2702	48.80%
Talk	        320	5.78%
User	        194	3.50%
User talk	1601	28.91%
Wikipedia	505	9.12%
Wikipedia talk	35	0.63%
File	        35	0.63%
File talk	2	0.04%
Template	13	0.23%
Template talk	5	0.09%
Help	        3	0.05%
Help talk	1	0.02%
Category	3	0.05%
Portal	        116	2.09%
Portal talk	2	0.04%

Month counts
2009/03	33	
2009/04	1427	
2009/05	1154	
2009/06	2	
2009/07	20	
2009/08	0	
2009/09	3	
2009/10	322	
2009/11	1418	
2009/12	1158	

Logs
Pages patrolled: 601
Files uploaded: 4

Top edited articles
Article

    * 230 - The_Bill
    * 123 - Fort_Hood_shooting
    * 83 - Old_Speckled_Hen
    * 82 - Brad_Pitt
    * 56 - Lily_Cole
    * 45 - 2009_Heilongjiang_mine_explosion
    * 43 - List_of_characters_of_The_Bill_(A-D)
    * 42 - Tim_Cross
    * 40 - The_Climb_(song)
    * 36 - Coast_guard


Talk

    * 55 - Fort_Hood_shooting
    * 16 - The_Climb_(song)/GA1
    * 15 - The_Bill/GA2
    * 9 - John_Barrowman/GA1
    * 9 - The_Climb_(song)
    * 8 - Ready,_Set,_Don't_Go/GA1
    * 5 - Already_Gone_(Kelly_Clarkson_song)/GA1
    * 5 - Emergency_vehicle_lighting
    * 5 - The_Bill
    * 5 - Constabulary


User

    * 155 - HJ_Mitchell
    * 12 - HJ_Mitchell/Sandbox
    * 9 - Kelapstick/Sandbox
    * 6 - HJ_Mitchell/Sources
    * 3 - HJ_Mitchell/Sandbox2
    * 1 - HJ_Mitchell/Material_for_The_Bill
    * 1 - Themfromspace
    * 1 - Lmiles12
    * 1 - Wikidea
    * 1 - Puhleezman


User talk

    * 295 - HJ_Mitchell
    * 85 - 5_albert_square
    * 35 - 220.101.28.25
    * 23 - JuneGloom07
    * 19 - MichaelQSchmidt
    * 18 - Ipodnano05
    * 17 - Nodame2009
    * 13 - Fabrictramp
    * 12 - Mandsford
    * 11 - Rosenknospe


Wikipedia

    * 62 - In_the_news/Candidates
    * 16 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 15 - Articles_for_deletion/Nidal_Malik_Hasan
    * 15 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 14 - Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Pakistan_relatio...
    * 11 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_4
    * 10 - Good_article_nominations
    * 10 - Main_Page/Errors
    * 6 - Requests_for_page_protection
    * 5 - Articles_for_deletion/1520_New_Hampshire_Avenue


Wikipedia talk

    * 5 - WikiProject_International_relations
    * 4 - Requests_for_adminship/Polargeo
    * 3 - WikiProject_Baseball
    * 3 - WikiProject_Law_Enforcement
    * 2 - Reliable_sources
    * 2 - In_the_news
    * 2 - Twinkle/Bugs
    * 1 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/blp
    * 1 - WikiProject_Beer
    * 1 - Counter-Vandalism_Unit


File

    * 3 - Neighbourstitles.jpg
    * 3 - 612Hhgvry-L._SS500_.jpg
    * 2 - Vforvendettamov.jpg
    * 2 - TWOOD_OLD_LOGO.jpg
    * 2 - Venditti_orso.jpg
    * 2 - WalkTheLine1956.jpg
    * 2 - Champagne_Supernova_sleeve_cover.jpg
    * 2 - Alphacrucis_logo.svg
    * 2 - The_Old_Speckled_Hen_pub.jpg
    * 2 - Old_Crafty_Hen.jpg


File talk

    * 1 - Age_of_Consent.png
    * 1 - Champagne_Supernova_sleeve_cover.jpg


Template

    * 3 - WPUKGEO_Participants
    * 3 - The_Bill
    * 3 - The_Bill_character_biographies_toc
    * 2 - Neighbours_characters
    * 1 - The_Barnstar_of_Good_Humour
    * 1 - Keisha_Buchanan_navbox


Template talk

    * 2 - Advert
    * 1 - Welcome
    * 1 - Foreign_relations_of_Indonesia
    * 1 - Did_you_know


Help

    * 3 - Archiving_a_talk_page


Help talk

    * 1 - Archiving_a_talk_page


Category

    * 1 - Military_ranks_of_the_Royal_Navy
    * 1 - The_Bill
    * 1 - Neighbours


Portal

    * 16 - Current_events/2009_December_18
    * 15 - Current_events/2009_December_13
    * 12 - Current_events/2009_November_21
    * 9 - Current_events/2009_November_22
    * 7 - Current_events/2009_November_30
    * 6 - Current_events/2009_November_27
    * 5 - Current_events/2009_November_28
    * 5 - Current_events/2009_December_24
    * 5 - Current_events/2009_December_1
    * 4 - Current_events/2009_December_4


Portal talk

    * 1 - London_Transport
    * 1 - Current_events

Per request, this is some of the taggings I found most problematic and led me to oppose. The oldest is from November 2009. decltype ( talk) 14:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

{{ db-nocontext}}

♠' Bold text Nightlife is one of sick city's albums♦''' (wikilink mine)

{{ db-nocontext}}

Love Handel is a band in Phineas and Ferb. (wikilink mine)

{{ db-nocontext}}

Emfada

Emfada is an Irish Music Pop Artist

{{ db-nocontext}}

Littlest Pet Shop Mall Madness is a kids board game. The game is ages 9+ and for 2 to 4 players. First you choose out of 4 girls that have a personal pet. The object of the game is to go around the mall and buy 6 items for your pet. This does not include the 3 1.5V double A batteries which you need in order to play the game. You receive a gameboard, electronic console, 4 exclusive Littlest Pet Shop pets, 4 purple pawn stands, 30 plastic check marks, Mall Madness play money, 10 Mall Madness shoppers, 4 fake bank cards, 4 shopping lists, 1 clearence sign, 2 sale signs, 3 clear pawn stands, 8 treat tokens, 1 storage tray, and instuctions. The value of the bills are 5, 10, 20, or 50. Have fun playing! Reccomended for girls.

{{ db-person}}

Daniel Ørum (born 25 July 1990) is a Danish actor.

Daniel Ørum was born in the north area of Randers in Denmark. With no experience, he made his film debut in the movie Drømmen by the Danish director Niels Arden Oplev, which was his most famous role. Afterwards he also starred in a few short movies before he became a Danish radio host on a local radio station in back in Randers in 2008.

• På En Dag Som I Dag (2004) … as Daniel
• Drømmen (2006) … as Troels
• Paradigma (1996) … as Per Storm Pedersen
• The End Of The Sky (1998) … as Sascha
• Hva' Så Nu? (1998) … as Anders
• Afveje (1999) … as Zombie

{{ db-nonsense}}

1. Lionel Messi 2.Zlatan Ibrahimovic 3.Kaka 4. Cristiano Ronaldo 5. Robinho 6. Emmanuel Adebayor 7.Karim Benzema 8.Ronaldinho 9.Andrey arshavin 10.John Terry or Frank Lampard

This random list is by <redacted>

• Sick city nightlife deleted for "A1, no context" [1].
• love handel deleted for "A1, not enough context to identify article's subject [2]
• Emfada deleted for "A7" [3]
• Littlest Pet Shop Mall Madness deleted per "A7/A1" [4]
• Daniel Ørum deleted per "A7" three times in two days [5]
• Richest Footballers deleted per "A7/G1" [6]

The argument for poor tagging makes sense, if the articles in question weren't deleted. But the opposers are holding HJMitchell responsible for poor tagging, when all articles provided as examples were, in-fact, speedy deleted. Should we go after the admins who actually did the deletion then? ~ DC ( Talk| Edits) 15:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Totally agree. I can't see how any minor mistags, that ended up deleted anyway, should be a reason to oppose someone in an RFA. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Two wrongs do not make a right. The articles I cited on the project page should not have been speedy deleted, and it is unfortunate that they were. decltype ( talk) 01:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Then tell the admin who deleted them. They deserved to be dragged through the streets as much as HJMitchell does, if not more. ~ DC ( Talk| Edits) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Like I've said earlier, I think HJ Mitchell is a good editor that is not quite ready for adminship yet. Per request, I provided copies of the deleted articles for non-administrators to see. I'm certainly not here to drag anyone through the streets. I realize that others do not think the mistaggings are significant enough to warrant an oppose. I respect that, but I still feel that I am entitled to my own opinion. decltype ( talk) 08:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

1. You seem to be holding all the problems with the entire CSD process against Mitchell. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   No, I specifically ignored problems with the CSD process and focused on how Mitchell handles aspects of it that I disagree with. And, I won't hold him responsible for your comment here. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   No, you pretty much summed up the problems with the entire CSD process as a reason for why one editor shouldn't have the bit to help out on the main page. (you can't hold others responsible for others comments anyway [well technically you can, but that's being thickheaded]) -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   If you consider Mithcell's behavior to be the exact same as all of the problems with the CSD project, I can't argue your opinions. I have expounded loudly elsewhere on what I think the problems with the CSD process are. My reasons disagree with yours, but I can't, as I stated, disagree with what you attribute to Mitchell. That's your opinion. It probably does not belong here, particularly if you're supporting Mitchell who appears to be a fairly non-problematic editor. But that's just my opinion. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, calm down, guys. Please. IP69 has a valid point and is entitled to his opinion, however, I would hope that participants can see past my mistakes (I'm human!) and focus on my contributions to the main page and ITN where admins are in short supply. HJMitchell You rang? 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

you'll note, on further examination, that the ANEW report was closed as novio because there was no edit war. HJMitchell You rang? 14:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You did note this above. However, you didn't just remove "incivility" from your Talk page, you also removed a comment from a neutral third party on this issue, who stated "In the course of simply reverting entire edits, you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater — 86.12's changing duplicate refs to a single ref with refname, and later using only the refname, which is a constructive edit. If you have a problem with other changes, may I suggest you take that to the talkpage, rather than simply undoing everything?" Would you care to comment on your use of rollback in this instance? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

If you ask a formal question above, I'll be happy to explain. HJMitchell You rang? 14:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your detailed answer above. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Reaffirm strong opposition: Correcting your coment on the ANI discussion - there was no 3RR violation. That doesn't mean you weren't edit warring - which you were and would expect you to know the diference as an admin candidate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 ( talk • contribs)

That was no more than a regular rollback mistake, I've had many in my time as an admin. Edit warring is a hell of a lot of a bigger deal, and this was not edit warring. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Go bold yourself after you understand the rules. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

That statement doesn't show a lot of maturity, or coolheadedness on your side. It wasn't an edit war, as was found to be true in the ANEW. Edit warring is usually done by someone who wants one particular revision (usually fitting to their own POV) to stand. Simply rolling back what you accidentally mistook for vandalism, is not edit warring. Considering he didn't even pass 3RR, I fail to see what you're trying to say. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

From the closer of that AN3 report: talk at HJM; AN3 report. By the time anyone got to it, the issue had been resolved; this was at least within the grey line of WP:EW, but I decided that it would be more productive to treat it as an honest mistake. I looked at HJM's other recent contributions in the course of closing the report, and found them generally level-headed and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Coupled with the lack of 3RR bright line violation and lack of apparent long-term problems with the text in question, I judged that no action was needed. HJM reverted incorrectly in this instance, but they also directly engaged the other user in productive discussion and copped to their mistake with an apology. I can see why this could be considered worth opposing the nomination over, but these last two qualities suggest to me that they could be a valuable addition to the admin corps. - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

   You seem to be holding all the problems with the entire CSD process against Mitchell. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   No, I specifically ignored problems with the CSD process and focused on how Mitchell handles aspects of it that I disagree with. And, I won't hold him responsible for your comment here. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   No, you pretty much summed up the problems with the entire CSD process as a reason for why one editor shouldn't have the bit to help out on the main page. (you can't hold others responsible for others comments anyway [well technically you can, but that's being thickheaded]) -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   If you consider Mithcell's behavior to be the exact same as all of the problems with the CSD project, I can't argue your opinions. I have expounded loudly elsewhere on what I think the problems with the CSD process are. My reasons disagree with yours, but I can't, as I stated, disagree with what you attribute to Mitchell. That's your opinion. It probably does not belong here, particularly if you're supporting Mitchell who appears to be a fairly non-problematic editor. But that's just my opinion. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Wow, you're totally not comprehending what I'm trying to say. I didn't say that HJ Mitchell was problematic, I said that the way editors are shown to help with CSDs, and the nature of the current CSD process, is the problem. HJ has only mistagged a few articles, and those mistags are because of the current process. He wishes to help out with ITN, so I don't see why CSDs are such a huge ordeal in this RFA. When I passed RFA (2 years ago), I had much less experience, much less edits, and a much higher rate of mistakes on tagging. I don't see why Mitchell can't make it through RFA, if I did. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I oppose HJ Mitchell not because of his mistags due to the deletion process, I oppose him because he failed to use sound judgment in a few AfDS, the sort of sound judgment failure that is, in my opinion, costing wikipedia as an encyclopedia and a community. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by a community. The community matters. On the AfDs I saw, the articles were actually well-written beginning stubs with the possibility of being developed into full-fledged encyclopedia articles. New editors were trying to become a part of the encyclopedia-writing wikipedia community. In spite of their potential Mitchell nominated them on a technicality. A technicality that was not in the best interests of either the community or the encyclopedia. Certainly not in the bests interests of not biting newbies. I think with some time and consideration of this issue, HJ Mitchell will emerge as a good candidate for adminship. Right now, I think HJ Mitchell is the last thing wikipedia needs in an admin. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Sorry, but to which AfDs are you referring? A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 04:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I was wondering the same thing; considering you used the term "A7 speedy" throughout your comment, and I didn't see anything referring to the AFD or any other deletion process. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   To repost what I wrote: "Strong oppose per decltype, the few I can see as a non-admin were well-written attempts at articles. In these instances, where the user is attempting to write an encyclopedic article, the correct thing to do, in order to show your support for a community-written encyclopedia, is to help the new editor out, not to go for an A7 speedy." Starting with my first words, go to the oppose voiced by decltype and look at the A7 speedies he/she lists. In those are five, 2 open only to admins, 1 copy vio gibberish, which I also comment upon later, and the other 2 being the ones I am discussing per my concerns about poor treatment of editors trying to write articles. I refer to decltype's oppose and then immediately discuss the A7's he listed, could be found by reading my post, then by clicking on the A7's he/she listed. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 20:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I'm missing as to how that has absolutely anything to do with the AFD process. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I suggest that HJ Mitchell get an advocate who understands the RfA process next time around. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   First of all it's not called an "advocate", I'm his nominator, and I'm quite certain I know this process a lot better than someone with 1,000 edits and 3 months on this site. Second, you have failed to explain the reasoning behind half of your comments here, including how A7 applies in any way to the AFD policy, or Mitchell's actions there. This is a discussion not a vote. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Coffee, thank you for defending me, I appreciate it, and the nomination, however, IP69's experience or understanding of RfA are both irrelevant. While I would like clarification on the AfD comments, I concede I have made mistakes with A7, as I have from the start. Can I please ask all (directed at no specific individual) participants to keep discussion civil and to comment on my merits (or otherwise) rather than each other. HJMitchell You rang? 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

What sort of surprised me in all of this was the nominee asking the nominator to back off a bit. Of course, that was directed at all parties, but Coffee was included in that. That shows a level maturity on HJ Mitchell's part. Too bad the nominator has become generally disagreeable on-wiki. Killiondude ( talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Generally disagreeable? I think there's about 3-4 people (you are one) who I don't get along with that well, most of them I stay away from. Nice way to attempt to thwart this discussion to some other weird type of end. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply