Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ Mitchell

 Support = 33;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 0 - 100% Result. Successful. Adminship granted by Dschwen (talk · contribs) on 00:21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC); RfA closed by Herbythyme (talk · contribs), description provided by myself. odder (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell

Vote

HJ Mitchell (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 16:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A few people have suggested this, so I guess it's time to bite the bullet. Hi, I'm Harry. I've had an account here since 2009, I've been editing more-or-less continuously (if not very prolifically at first) for about three years, and I've been what I would call "active" for a little over a year. My main focus is on issues related to OTRS (I have access to a broad range of queues, including all the permissions queues and "Sister projects", which includes the Commons sub-queue), and I can often be found at the OTRS noticeboard, where the ability to delete, undelete, or view deleted files would often be helpful. I've participated in a fair few DRs (often, but not always, where an OTRS ticket is of interest), and I sometimes offer opinions at the village pump, VPC, and AN. Outside the project space, my main focus is categorisation (mostly Geograph and the West Midlands); I'm not a very good photographer, though I have uploaded a few dozen of my own photos and a handful of images from third parties. I've been an administrator on enwiki for nearly three years, so I know how the tools work and I believe I have the level of judgement the community expects. The last bit of experience I'll mention is that I co-organised Wikipedia Takes Coventry, which resulted in over 2,000 new free images for Commons.

If this request is successful, I will primarily deal with OTRS-related issues (particularly viewing and restoring deleted files where permission is given and deleting files where the copyright holder has complained to OTRS) and copyright violations, though I would also help out in areas like files missing permission and undeletion requests. I guess all that's left to say is thank you for your consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support Definitely. odder (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted and experienced editor. INeverCry 17:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted, active on OTRS, the tools will be useful for you and Commons. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per INeverCry--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. No problem based on what I've seen on enwiki and here. Jafeluv (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Seems to be a trustworthy editor that is already an administrator at the English Wikipedia. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 17:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted user --Sreejith K (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support For sure. This user is doing a great job as sysop on english wikipedia and that's it we need here. Good luck. Érico Wouters ^msg 19:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support without a doubt. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support without question. Harry has been a pleasure to work with everywhere I've encountered him, and can certainly be trusted to wield the mop with care. -Pete F (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Techman224^Talk 21:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Won't do anything stupid, will productively contribute as he does on every wiki he's involved with. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Without reading your introduction text, but I was about to ask if you're interested too. ;) Good luck in advance. Trijnstel_talk 21:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Rschen7754 21:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Finally, good luck--Morning ☼ (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, sounds good, -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trustworthy, and will be a benefit to the Commons. -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted --cyrfaw (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- KTC (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, should be fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, I trust him to use the tools well. James F. (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Answers to my questions show sound judgement and awareness of copyright issues. I didn't find any issues with Harry's {{Own}} uploads, so examined those under his supervision. (BTW, I'd appreciate better descriptions on some of the WTC files.) What I've seen of his attitude and interactions in other contexts has all been good. --99of9 (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Rzuwig^► 09:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Absolutely. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Yes. --Cekli829 13:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support No problem. Another useful OTRS agent.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I suppose so. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support looks good SatuSuro (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not greatly active on Commons, but I've worked with HJ on enwiki and OTRS for several years and I can vouch that he's just the kind of sensible and competent person who can be trusted with adminship. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support everything looks good --Guerillero 22:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. January (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

•  Question I guess I'd like a user page that didn't point me elsewhere for an admin on this project however having been there I see you are prepared to place rangeblocks. Personally I worry about rangeblocks anyway and prefer to avoid them if at all possible. I also think that it is preferable to only use them after CU has confirmed that there looks to be no collateral damage - I'd be interested in your views? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think my userpage here contains everything relevant to Commons, and all the information someone would want about me here. The link to enwiki is just in case somebody thinks I'm interesting and wants to know a little more about me (which would, I hope, prove that I'm not very interesting!). As to rangeblocks, I put myself in the category because I'm willing to consider requests. I don't make very many on enwiki, and when I do, they're usually short, soft (ie logged-in users can still edit) and aimed at narrow ranges to deal with a temporary problem. A rangeblock can be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, so to speak, and they should be used sparingly and with a lot of consideration to collateral damage. There's a tool on Toolserver that can show you all the anonymous edits from a range, and if I were ever considering a hard rangeblock (on any project), I would seek a CheckUser's advice on collateral damage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Question How would you respond if File:WTC John Pickering Man's Struggle 2.JPG was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative"? --99of9 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have an excellent contact at the Herbert Art Gallery, so I would (and indeed will) ask her to enquire about the possibility of the notice being re-licensed so we can use it. I won't hold my breath, because it can be difficult to establish what belongs the Herbert and what belongs to Coventry City Council, but it's worth a try. The nominator would of course be correct in their assertion that it's a derivative work, and if we can't get it re-licensed, it will have to be deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • What do you think the copyright status of the poem is? --99of9 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Ping. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Apologies for the delay—I'd missed this. I hadn't realised it was a poem, but I don't think poetry is treated any differently from prose for copyright purposes. Normally the copyright would belong to the author, and the work would enter the public domain 70 years after their death. In this case, it's almost certainly a work for hire, and so the copyright holder would be the commissioner of the work—probably Coventry City Council or Coventry Heritage and Arts Trust (the Herbert's parent organisation). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Question same for File:WTC Marianne notice board.jpeg. --99of9 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's clearly a derivative of a copyrighted work and should obviously be deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• and File:WTC Mattley 044.JPG and File:WTC Mattley 045.JPG --99of9 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • With these two, I would try to argue that because the logo they depict is only an outline, it may not exceed the threshold of originality. However, the threshold is pretty low in the UK, so I wouldn't really expect the argument to succeed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• and File:WTC Ramblers BelgradePlaza1.JPG and File:WTC Ramblers BelgradePlaza2.JPG --99of9 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• and File:WTC Victuallers Allesley Wiki takes Coventry 3508731.jpg etc --99of9 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • With the possible exception of File:WTC Ramblers BelgradePlaza2.JPG, the rest are unambiguous copyright violations and should be deleted, probably speedily. The possible exception I mention is that one could argue that the square is the subject of the photograph and the notice is de minimis, but I wouldn't really be comfortable making that argument and I wouldn't lose sleep if it was deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)