Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/HJ Mitchell

HJ Mitchell

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Use third-level headers for new sections. Example: === Heading title ===. Unsure about the election process? Please review the election rules. Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions? Please notify an election volunteer.	Be civil No personal attacks Refrain from canvassing and harassment Discuss the election, or ask questions here

No one better

Jumping in early to comment on Harry's candidacy. As much as I would miss his prompt hand on the sysop switch if he succeeds, I wish him well in this new endeavour. I cannot think of a better-qualified candidate for ArbCom. He brings a wealth of background and experience that will serve the community, and the committee, very well indeed. For what it is worth, he has my unqualified support. All the best, Harry. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I second this, and I am beyond thrilled to see HJ run for ArbCom. TBH, HJ's always been one of my "role models" as an editor as his content work is top notch (39 FAs!) and he is great at dealing with vandalism, spam, disruptive editors etc. Furthermore, his extensive work at AE has always been valuable and I haven't had any previous qualms about his judgement. The previous experience as an Oversighter might also bring more helpful skills as an arbitrator as well, as HJ has likely dealt with the kind of sensitive information that Arbs often have to encounter. #prodraxis ^connect 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell isn't someone whose decisions I have always agreed with, and a committee comprised exclusively of HJ clones would not be good for Wikipedia. But as one voice among many, I believe his input would be invaluable. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Fully supporting this candidate. This might come as a surprise; obviously, I've always hated him since he nearly tanked my FAC, but in all other respects, what an editor! So much hard work in the featured theatre. Not just in their own work, but in their compassion and patience with new editors, willingness to teach, and also to lead. Willing to give, and to take advice! And what an admin too—willing to make the hard but correct choices (E. g. [1])—fully endorsed by the community—and yet be sufficiently dispassionate about the affair to unblock. Why elect new blood with less experience when we can have new blood plus years of experience. ——Serial 20:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Please no

Considering my question 5 and his reply, no, I don't consider HJ Mitchell to be a good candidate for the post. The inability to see or admit that actual evidence was presented by multiple people that Acalamari had made a mistake (claiming that a vote was invalid because it incorrectly said that a question was unanswered, even though at the time the vote was cast the question was indeed unanswered), and the attitude in the reply of "if it doesn't affect the readers, it's not important", as if things that affect editors (in this case both the single editor whose vote was struck, but also the general unease it creates discouraging people from opposing and voicing their opinion, and the "burocrats are infallible" impression) can't be worthy of serious attention. The attitude displayed in that discussion and the reply to the question here doesn't give me confidence that HJ Mitchell will objectively look at the evidence instead of sticking to whatever opinion they form right at the start of a case request (or ban appeal or other Arb business). Fram (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Fram. I doubt I was going to get your vote anyway but that's fine because editors can disagree in good faith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Echoing Fram's concerns here, not necessarily for the rightness or wrongness of Acalamari's decision but specifically for HJ Mitchell's statement on writing bytes in mainspace. Arbcom, and also what we are doing here anyways, is the most expedient way to expend truly unfathomable amounts of bytes for no significant benefit for anyone involved. I mean, imagine if someone questions a given Arbcom decision and HJ Mitchell tells them to get back to contributing instead of offering an explanation. I realise that he was not in the position of a decision maker in the relevant AN thread, so this may be a bit of an inapt analogy, but I still think the general principle applies. "Get back to contributing" is something I would expect everyone who voluntarily participates in an AN thread not to say. Since he otherwise looks like a very promising candidate, I think it would be a shame to oppose over a single issue, and I'm open to (and invite) input by other editors on the concerns above. Fermiboson (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes please

I wasn't going to comment on any of the candidates (except I'll say I think we have a very good slate this year, with nobody I'd strongly oppose). But I've changed my mind, because I was very happy to see Harry in the running and I want to voice my support. I've known Harry a good few years now, and I think he's one of the best we have at seeing all sides of things, and arriving at a fair solution with minimum emotion. And he's definitely got better at it as the years have made their mark on him. I don't always agree with him, of course - but then, I wouldn't trust anyone who always agreed with me ;-) Thanks for standing, Harry, and good luck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

One of the best two

While there are plenty of good candidates this year, my two favorites are Maxim and Harry here; in both cases, I was delighted to see that they had applied. I have known Harry for over a decade but where he stands out from all the other candidates is that, through Wikipedia meetups and Wikimania, I've had the chance to actually meet him in person. Very down-to-earth in real life, just as he is online, and in both arenas displays a huge amount of knowledge about the site and its many aspects' in addition to that, he's a very sane and sensible guy, regardless of whether or not one agrees with him. He is a fair judge of any situation and does look at all sides before opining. I don't expect to agree with every Arb ruling he'll make but it's not about having full agreement with him: It's knowing he's made the best, most informed and most fair decision possible, and that's what Harry will do. So, with fairness, good sense and positive temperament, Harry is one of the best candidates for ArbCom this year! Acalamari 17:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

I, unfortunately, do not have the time to write a full voter guide as I have in the past (see 2015 and 2017). However, I will express my support of HJ Mitchell here. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)