Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ Mitchell (de-adminship)

HJ Mitchell (de-adminship)

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 23:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Info HJ Mitchell's original RfA: Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ Mitchell

In line with the consensus established at the administrators' noticeboard, I hereby request that administrator privileges be removed from the account of @User:HJ Mitchell.

On 27 February, HJ Mitchell accused a fellow contributor, @The Photographer, of being the source of a leak revealing a closed conversation that took place on the OTRS wiki in February 2015 (details). Upon seeing this accusation a day later, 28 February, I confronted HJ Mitchell about his post, pointing out that he has got no evidence to support his claim that it was The Photographer who leaked that particular conversation. This position has been supported by three unvinvoled administrators: @Revent (diff), @AFBorchert (diff) and @natuur12 (diff) who have called for a public apology and a retraction of the accusation, which, incidentally, The Photographer also forcefully denied.

Since these messages were posted on HJ Mitchell's talk page on Commons (the last one on 3 March, that is 9 days ago today), he has edited the English Wikipedia multiple times on a couple of different occasions, including fighting vandalism, responding to talk page messages, and even acknowledging that there are posts on his Commons talk page awaiting his reply in response to a reminder left to him by @Denniss on 7 March (5 days ago).

All of this shows that HJ Mitchell is aware of this discussion taking place, and that he has made a conscious decision to ignore it in a manner that is most disrespectful to his fellow administrators and the rest of the community, including the victim of his baseless and unfounded accusations. HJ Mitchell has had 5 days to participate in the discussion that took place at the administrators' noticeboard yet made no effort to either apologize to The Photographer and withdraw his allegations or either provide any evidence as was asked of him; this further demonstrates a total disregard of this community, and combined with the horrendous nature of the aspersions cast by HJ Mitchell, is a behaviour that is absolutely unbecoming and unacceptable in a Commons administrator.

Overall, I believe that HJ Mitchell's (in)action(s) and attitude shown over the past two weeks have seriously damaged the trust held in him as an administrator, and based on the apparent consensus established over the past 24 hours are sufficient to start this de-adminship procedure. As is customary, this request is scheduled to run for one week, and a consensus of over 50% votes in favour of removal is required for the request to pass. Thank you! odder (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Votes

•  remove (as initiator). The allegations cast by HJ Mitchell are apalling and unacceptable, but his apparent disregard of this community's calls for an apology or an explanation is even worse. HJ Mitchell has been deliberately avoiding having to respond to this discussion over the past two weeks, in an attitude of not being answerable to anyone but himself; it has broken my trust in him as an administrator beyond any repair. odder (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Remove per my  Support at the initial de-admin poll at COM:AN/U. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Remove - I have dug through the OTRS-wiki and found no evidence for the HJ Mitchell claim. It's not fair to influence an RfA with accusations that can't be verified by other users. If HJ Mitchell comes with evidence (you may post it at the OTRS-wiki if it's confidential) or apologies before this RfDA closes, I may reconsider my vote. Jcb (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep - I'm no fan of Harry, and I find his approach both here and on other wikis overbearing, self-congratulating and boorish. I'm also not impressed by the conduct in the matter under discussion here. However, Commons has often used the mantra "no abuse of admin tools" to excuse far worse, so, live by the petard, hoist by the petard. No special rules. Begoon - talk 01:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep Admins should respond to the community when concerns have been raised, and while there are legitimate concerns here, this deadminship request coming from Odder (who does not deny that he was the recipient of the leaked information in question) gives me the feeling that this is a partisan action. I will also note that HJ Mitchell was also involved in the discussion I have linked to. --Rschen7754 01:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Rschen7754: Have you even had a look at the diffs provided above? Three different administrators have brought this up on HJ Mitchell's talk page, so making it look like it's me having a vendetta against HJ Mitchell is simply untrue. odder (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @odder: While HJ didn't give a proof of his allegations, they show very well your problem with OTRS and this leak. And that's why you are so mad about it. Your behavior here is really not up to your admin right, let alone that of a bureaucrat. You should resign if you would have any moral sense left. Yann (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • @Odder: If that's the case, then why is it you starting both the AN/U discussion and this discussion, and not them? --Rschen7754 17:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
        • @Rschen7754: You'd have to ask either @AFBorchert, and @Revent why they didn't follow up with their requests towards HJ Mitchell, but I believe @natuur12 already said he would've started this de-RfA request if I hadn't done it. odder (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
          • I was pretty busy and my activity will likely drop in the near future because of an IRL change but I don't know when. I was not sure if I would be able to sing this one out. I know this may sound a bit paradoxal given my statement below but it is not. Eventuelly I would have gone through with it. Natuur12 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
            • @Rschen7754 and Yann: Oh come on, don't judge the book by its cover ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep. per Rschen7754. -- Geagea (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep. I agree with Rschen7754 and see no reason for removing the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep - Unless I'm missing something he hasn't abused his tools in any way, shape or form so there's no justification for "deadminning" him, Sure HJ Mitchell should apologize or atleast explain his accusations but if he doesn't want to then his comments should be deemed as complete and utter bollocks and we all move on, "Deadminning" someone over a baseless accusation is as pointless as it gets. –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Remove will motivate my vote better later but ignoring such an issue is unbecomming of an admin. Three simpel words could have prevented this, he chosed to ingore the issue so it is time to face the music. Besides the current issue I am not convinced that HJ is familiar with copyright and our practices anyhow. Natuur12 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• :I think you mean "Remove" his tools not "Delete" .... Anyway If HJ wasn't familiar with all that then he wouldn't have become admin in the first place .... although saying that most admins here are fucking clueless so if we're gonna boot one over his "clueness" then lets boot 'em all. –Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I used the wrong template. Corrected it. Thanks for pointing it out. I won't oppose desysopping every clueless admin. This isn't the first time that he attacks the person who criticizes him. See here. This comment also makes it quite clear that he isn't familiar with Commons policy and his anti-commons attitude is bad. HJ hardly uses the tools anyhow.

• I am not voting remove just because of the comment. Everyone can make a comment in good faith that crossed the line. Normally people apologise in situations like that, especially admins. Ignoring the issue is what makes me support removal. We are a point where HJ is openly disrespecting the community, his fellow admins and the victim of his baseless accusation. I believe nobody would have asked for the removal of his tools if he just apologised to The Photographer or even would have left a note that he is busy and will respond in x days. He did neither and therefor he is knowingly escalating the situation. There is no one to blame besides him.

• I hate to say the some of the comments regarding Odder disappoint me. It is about the arguments and the raised concerns, not who made the argument and raised the concerns. If Odder wouldn’t have started the de-admin procedure I would have. For the very simple reason I stated at HJ’s talk page: “you cannot reasonably expect people to work in an environment where admins make such attacks as you did and decide to ignore the issue.” Natuur12 (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Remove not only for the action of making unjustified claims against another contributor but for refusing to discuss the matter with the community when asked. This all could have been avoided if he was willing to explain, but he was unwilling to do so. Reguyla (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  remove He has given no hint of regret this situation and I have nothing against this person and I had doubts if my vote could be seen as something personal, however, this is simply unacceptable. If we allow this, this could sow a precedent, when respect is lost in this way, no one in commons can say that I have lied once in my life. The truth is important to me and something that I assumed although sometimes have consequences. I have made mistakes as insulting some users here in the wiki and this is a constant learning, however, I am not a liar, there is nothing that I hate more than a small or big lie and some users who know me personally know that, including my wife and friends. --The Photographer (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral for now; I am still waiting for HJ Mitchell's response. Never is too late. Ankry (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Weak keep per Rschen7754, though I believe HJ Mitchell's response is needed. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 09:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep In the real world, when a group of people go beyond what the law permits in order to attack someone, it is called a lynch mob. It brings out the worst in human nature: prejudice and hatred rather than justice and compassion. There is a reason why major employers have written disciplinary procedures rather than just winging it. Because without clear guidance, minorities get dismissed for misdemeanours while a blind eye is turned for those in the appropriate clique. The warning signs are all here. HJ is a mostly-Wikipedian, not one of the well-known Commoners. He has done wrong on only a single occasion, and the berating HJ received has served its purpose to the point where one could regard the matter as dealt-with and closed. The neutrality of the proposer is called into question by one voice above (I make no comment on whether that remark has any substance, but it is precisely the sort of problem that tarnishes an out-of-process forum like this). And we have a clear example where a blind eye was turned when "one of us" behaved outrageously. There is nothing in our de-adminship policy that permits him to be de-adminned for saying a bad thing on a single occasion. Per the precedent set here where five admins and one crat deemed the de-RFA out-of-process (no abuse of tools, no persistent breach of policy) I urge our 'crats to swiftly close this as inadmissible and remind the community there are good reasons why we should conform to existing policy. I would strongly support a change in policy such that the general behaviour of admins is pertinent, but it needs to be formally done so it applies fairly to all admins here, not just one. -- Colin (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep Desysopping someone for a single comment is heavy-handed, particularly when that comment relates to something that either happened off commons or did not happen at all. DrKay (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep I do not support people who deliberately ignore an important discussion. Nor the fact of making allegation generally. However I don't see in what he abused of power with the admin tools nor in what he will damage Commons with those tools. So what? Is it a punishment? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep As shown by Rschen7754 above, Odder is clearly involved, so he shouldn't even start this procedure. And there is nothing in our current policies which allow de-adminship at this point. However, I would like an anwser from HJ. We probably need a midway action between doing nothing and removing admin right. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It is also worth noting that you attacked me on IRC after I vote here against your proposal. Yann (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I believe this is addressed to me, so I'll just comment briefly that I absolutely and unequivocally reject any accusation of having attacked @Yann in relation to this issue, as people who witnessed that short discussion and the log can attest to. I don't know why Yann would claim this, but I think it's worth me clarifying that wasn't the case at all. odder (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • From someone who was actually in that channel at that time, Odder neither attacked nor insinuated anything..either Yann misread his comments or is intentionally trying to create an unpleasant situation..--Stemoc 17:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Stemoc: When it is not Odder, it is you who attack me on IRC, so your word here isn't worth a penny. Yann (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
          • so are you now passing the blame over to me? lol..please, learn to stick to your words or no one will ever take you seriously anymore...my words are not worth anything, but atleast I didn't lie..--Stemoc 17:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
            • Then if it's not odder, who the hell attacked you? Stemoc? Wow, your just passing the sin to just somebody if you are mistaken. Just wow. You must provide evidence like providing IRC logs, as no one will believe you if you just accuse someone. (Maybe this is HJ Mitchell French version... lol) ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
•  remove I don't like the fact that HJ Mitchell is ignoring the AN/U case. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  remove 1. This old tactic is just … wow 2. How much value does his being admin add to Commons, besides making an unproven allegation look more "creditable"? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  remove can't believe that i'm saying this..but per Reguyla..if there is anyone that knows a few things about being a victim of false allegations, its him...--Stemoc 11:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  remove I didn't want to participate, but the way he's ignoring it, makes me assume he resigned on Commons and doesn't want the sysop flag anyway. --A.Savin 18:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Remove: Some admins forgot their main purpose, to serve the Community, not the otherwise. Admins that ignore the community should have the admin tools removed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Remove While my early intentions were not to comment here due to the high drama rate and controversy surrounding it, I'm awestruck by some of the comments here trying to railroad this issue, by trying to boomerang the OP instead of actually evaluating if the admin in question should or should not be de-admin'ed. It is my firm belief that this behaviour is clearly unbecoming of an administrator, and although the current policy about the reasons an admin should be de-admin'ed doesn't really cover this case, that really does not affect my vote. The policy is for the closing bureaucrat's support and guide when closing and deciding the outcome, not what I should base my vote on. I should base my vote on my own opinion if I feel the admin s still suited to be an admin, which I do not. And if enough users feels the same, then we have created a new consensus-policy, with support of IAR, to modify that existing policy to allow the de-admin to go through. Josve05a (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Remove This behaviour is not acceptable for an admin. There was sufficient time for a reaction/answer of HJ Mitchell but nothing. --Denniss (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. Per HJ, as I find him to bring significantly more heat than light to noticeboard threads and other contentious discussion]. Nemo 13:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep Per Rschen7754. HJ's behavior has not been perfect, but we all make mistakes. He made an honest mistake (as did I, for which I apologized, even though there was no rule stating that I had to do so). He has not abused his tools, and the attempt to attack someone who voiced their (wrong) opinion and strip them of tools that had nothing to do with the incident is concerning. This shows that anyone who could say the wrong thing might find themselves on the receiving end of an attempt to remove any tools that they have, which also reads like an attempt to knock someone off of their pedestal for personal slights. It was an honest mistake, so let it go and let's continue improving the site while focusing our energy on more pressing issues. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep While expressing severe disapproval for the conduct here (especially the non-responsiveness, I do not think this request is "in order" per our policies, " In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing his or her status..." (emphasis mine). This really should be changed and strengthened, but as written, the word "routinely" makes this request not fall within said policy. Courcelles 19:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

•  Comment To the closing bureaucrat, it is a fact this is not the first time that HJ Mitchell and Odder have a discussion about topics regarding OTRS access. Although my English is very imperfect and I do not understand fully the meaning, I advice the closing bureaucrat to be careful not to serve the interest a prior disagreement. I specify that I do not ask that the HJ Mitchell behavior is forgotten, nor I am not suggesting that Odder motivation is to punish HJ Mitchell for prior disagreement. I only suggest to be very careful by closing this de-adminship. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Another thing : "A bureaucrat closing a discussion or vote will do so on the basis of policy and if appropriate on the basis of consensus...". As the de-adminship policy include only "De-adminship process as a result of abuse of power" and as there is no abuse of power here, I believe the result will be only on the basis of consensus. In my understanding we talk here about consensus against HJ Mitchell behavior. I hope that the closing bureaucrat will not forgot to look at the block log of several voters. Because some of them seems to have a very personal understanding of what must be good behavior. I don't say that some votes have less value but.... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: It's just my idea or this voting seems like a canvassing? how you can see votes are not alone --The Photographer (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Odder and his friends benefited from the OTRS leak. So Odder's attitude here looks like the receiver of the stolen goods reporting the thief to the police. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess the argument no longer valid for that reason? all here we are directly or indirectly involved. what does it mean "his friends benefited from the OTRS leak"?, It's about me? --The Photographer (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not about you. You may be the passer-by hit by bad luck. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A hit that you are supporting, surely bad luck? --The Photographer (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't support the leak. I accuse Odder of bad faith, there is a difference. As I said above, I would support some action against HJ if 1. it wasn't a personal vendetta. 2. we could agree on a middle ground between all and nothing. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the role of Odder in this case either. But IMHO ignoring this whole issue is not an option for HJ Mitchell that can be combined with continued adminship. Please keep in mind that his statement that the Wilfredor "OTRS account was removed as a result (of the leak, red.)" would be leaking confidential information as well if it would have been true. Jcb (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yann. In the unlikely event that this conjecture may be true, his argument is not delegitimized and of course it is very easy to solve the problem, however, to do so should violate privacy rules. --The Photographer (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I think everyone here accepts the allegation is unsupported and damaging. Arguments over what constitutes libel are best left to real lawyers. If The Photographer wishes the statement to be oversighted then he should make the request as appropriate. Globally banned users are not permitted to take part in any activity on this site. Let's stick to whether, or not, HJ Mitchell should remain an admin. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• User:Denniss -- do not restore the edits of a globally banned user. Unless you wish to join him. -- Colin (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Please don't infect this discussions with hostility; only WMF is allowed to make such threats. Josve05a (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Maybe Colin should stop reverting admins? he undeniably removed "proof" from this page, a proof (from the horse's mouth..as they say) which clearly showed HJMitchell was being Libelous when he made those comments and since Colin clearly supports HJMitchell keeping his rights above, we can assume, he removed the proof to ensure no one votes against HJMitchell which i'm pretty sure is against our rules and either the proof is restored or Colin's be blocked for removing a comment he did not like from this de-adminship...--Stemoc 11:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I was just going to say the same thing. Especially since Colin is not an admin, threatening to block an admin is rather pointless. Reguyla (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)