Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 remove = 29;  Keep = 14;  Neutral = 4 - Result: 69% remove.
The numbers: Since only simple majority (50%) is needed, the voting itself has 'remove' as a result. I counted one keep-vote even though the user is not really active in this project as it does not change the end-result. Also in the neutral-votes Wsiegmund is not included.
The interpretation: next to the penis-war and its usual suspects (on both sides) and the gaffe against BlueMarble done during this request there seems to be one big topic: Jcb often deletes without rationale while leaving people without an explanation of the reasons for his decision. The consequence of not providing rationales was that many people came to the discussion page asking for the why. The first time happened about a week after Jcb became admin and quite a lot of his talk page archive is full with 'why's. After some time all these talk page requests appear as disruptive, then nagging and finally just spam. At that point it is not possible anymore to differ between the trolls and those that really need an answer. And treating the later ones like trolls is bad for the reputation of this project. And thats the point when the other people who contribute heavily to this project are not accepting and forgiving anymore. That is the point when a wiki-break is overdue and it was ignored by Jcb.
Still Jcb did a good job in the majority of the Drs. A lot of people are acknowledging that by making alternative propositions. In those a lot of removal-voters where willing to take a step towards Jcb and allow him to keep a restricted half-adminship.
Conclusion: I am deciding this request as 'remove' for now. I urgently recommended Jcb to take a break (believe me I've been there, check out the Klashorst-story and how I hit around blindly at the end) and then slowly come back. I'm sure that after a few month people will accept him as admin again. Jcb mentioned that in that case he will leave completely. But I think that he believes in the ideas and goals of this project and I trust him to come back after a break to help again. -- Cecil (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Jcb (De-adminship 2)

Vote

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


Jcb's admin behaviour in DRs is not as it should be and is time-consuming for others. He induces repeated deletion/undeletion discussions by early and wrong closures, repeatedly without reason (despite a reason is needed in those cases). By all this time of other admins (including me) is wasted.

I had clearly told him to change his behaviour here: Last warning. Please see there for more details, discussion, comments by other users and more diffs.

There also was a section about Jcb's actions at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.

Today I asked him to provide reasons at two DRs he closed today, but he again did not care at all.

I know (extrapolated since I really do not like to dig even more in Jcb's deletion log or DR closures) that Jcb does a big amount of work - mostly good work (thank you, Jcb!). I also said this to Jcb before: "Your - indeed - big amount of admin work (DR closures and whatever more) is really appreciated - but it would be nice if you could not try to get the highscore but do good decisions."
... But I would rather have a DR open for six month than have them closed with no or a not useful decision (example). The only effect is that the DR needs (hopefully it is) to be started again (or a undeletion discussion needs to be done). Late decision is better than fast decision by rolling the dice without any reason. Users who are not like me would probably just think when they stumble over (maybe because they are the uploader) a non-clear closure without reason: once more a completely arbitrary decision by our admin elite and get scared away. If Jcb had changed his admin work style it would have enabled other admins to have more time to do more DR closures (since they do not need to invest time to correct Jcb's errors) → all are happier and the same amount of work gets done. Apparently and sadly he doesn't want to.

I gave him a last warning before, no change - now it is finally time for action. Sorry to take your time but I think it is time now to end this chapter of partially bad admin work. --Saibo (Δ) 18:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jcb

Saibo has the habbit to post botlike messages to my user talkpage about every closure he disagrees with. The number of messages that I got from Saibo has become excessive. Several times I requested him not to post botlike messages like this, but he continued his SPAM. Last week I told him that I would no longer accept his abuse of my user talk page. He answered with some sort of counter warning. Today he started again with is spam, e.g. this "message". After two spam messages I told him to leave alone my user talk page for 24 hours. His edits to my user talkpage don't seem to be intended to be constructive, apparently they are just meant to make some point. Our guideline is: 'don't disrupt Wikipedia/Wikimedia to make a point', well, Saibo clearly abused my user talk page and caused a lot of annoyance to me with the apparent purpose to make some kind of point. After my message Saibo continued his abuse of my user talk page. When I reverted him, he started this de-adminship procedure. Jcb (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop-stats

Just for the record, what are we talking about when we talk about activity and about added value of a particular admininistrator. In the list you see that I'm one of the 4 most active admins at Wikimedia Commons. Saibo is not visible at this capture, because he is at line 58 with just 353 total admin actions. Of all my decisions, about 0,5% gets a renomination or an undeletion requests. From those renominations of undelete requests, about 50% gets a different decision then. So if you are searching for a 'failure rate' or something like that, this is below 0,3 %. So out of the I think about 15.000 decisions taking by me in the past 6 month, about 45 have been doubtful. I would be quite satisfied, but it seems people here think that 45 doubtful decisions would ask more from the community than 14.955 good decisions can compensate. Jcb (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saibo has been an admin for barely a month so it's hardly a fair comparison, and no one is saying you don't do a lot of good work. But still, would it kill you to comment on why you delete/keep things in contested DRs? That's really all people want here. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've always responded to questions about closures at my user talk page. I'm prepared to do that about any closure, but not about every closure. The problem with Saibo is that he started to request explanation by default, even if there was almost concensus in favor of my decision in the DR. His messages changed more and more to botlike spam. The last time he just used the word "Pardon?" to respond to a closure. The fact that I no longer accepted this abuse of my user talk page and reverted the spam, made Saibo start this de-admin request. Note that Saibo also reverts comments at his own user talk page, not only my comments. The fact that Saibo threatens with de-admin requests to enforce his continued abuse of my user talk page, feels like pure intimidation. IRL I have been fighting corruption for years in developing countries and I met comparable situations. E.g. a criminal organisation wanted to confiscate a basic school in a slum area. I'm one of the board members of that school. When I didn't bend for their intimidation, they abused the court to try to confiscate our school with legal means. Luckely we won the court case they started. I feel that what happens here is in certain ways comparable with what happened there. Jcb (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saibo's behaviour has issues no doubt, but really, all it takes is "I agree with X" - it takes all of three seconds to write. Three seconds on a few DRs saves much more time by not having people question your every move or opening RFARs. As for your real life, good on you but it's really not at all relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too have had Jcb remove good faith questions and comments. As I have noted elsewhere, Jcb closed Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan without meaningful explanation in his closure, without meaningful explanation on his talk page, and, when I initiated a request for undeletion, no meaningful explanation there. When it seemed inevitable that the material would eventually be re-instated I requested he reconsider his initial closure. He excised my comment with the edit summary "sufficient words have been spilled over this" My comment was not "trilling". As for other contributors wasting his time with their expectations that he should be able to explain himself -- his unaccountable behavior in this unexplained deletion squandered 20 hours of my time. Geo Swan (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

(Please vote with those templates: {{keep}} →  Keep oder {{vd|Remove}} →  Entfernen Sie.)

 Entfernen Sie Sorry, I have to agree with opinions below. And I think his vote to my RfA isn't a good attitude at all --Quan (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie The hard work is great however the debris also stacks up which actually distracts others from what they are doing too. It is not just about using the buttons - Commons is not seen as the most friendly project as we - rightly - deleted loads of copyvios. However that is exactly why it is so important to interact with folk who ask questions or have concerns and Jcb repeatedly fails to do this. To call his approach to other responsible users (never min irresponsible ones) as dismissive would be putting it very politely. I can only hope that this time Jcb actually takes on board the concerns of the community. Commons was ok before Jcb and will survive if/when he ceased to be active here as is the case with all of us. --Herby talk thyme 07:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie I deeply appreciate the work Jcb is doing on closing the DRs but the quantity of the work should be accompanied by the high quality.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie The argument for Jcb that they are highly active is not an excuse for choosing to be the closing admin for DRs where they have made aggressive comments about other contributors, for example here. Nobody would disagree that sexual images need especially careful and demonstrably uninvolved administration and Jcb chooses to breach that trust. In Jcb's responses here and on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests I have seen no evidence that Jcb is prepared to take on board the feedback from others or in any other way demonstrate that they prepared to consider that being a high contributor does not give the right to stop listening. The rationale that they claim to be wrong 0.3% of the time entirely misses the point. --Fæ (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie Jcb's closures of human sexuality related deletion requests have been inappropriate. There are also concerns about his interactions with other users. --Simone 11:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie with caveat. Whilst it is perfectly normal for admins, especially quite active ones, to make their fair share of mistakes, good communication and a willingness to accept feedback are not optional extras. Additionally, good communication in deletion closures is particularly important because without it decisions cannot easily be reviewed and understood, which is bad in a number of ways, including participants' learning. Jcb appears to be failing on this front; both the failings in deletion which Saibo repeatedly pointed out, and in his responses to Saibo, which culminates in telling Saibo essentially to get lost, and in this very discussion here repeatedly describing Saibo's concerns as "spam" and "bot-like". This is unacceptable behaviour, and being highly active is no excuse for it. I'm willing to change my vote to "neutral" if Jcb asserts a willingness to change, but I'm not expecting that. PS in case anyone cares, I am a former admin on English Wikipedia (resigned/retired a couple of months ago). I have no personal gripe with Jcb - haven't had any problems myself - and I'm sure he does much good work, as others have said here and at the previous deadminship discussion in July. My vote here is based on the standard of behaviour expected of admins, which Jcb has been falling short of. If he's not willing to take feedback from the community on the use of his admin tools, then he will have to continue contributing to Commons without access to admin tools. Rd232 (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have often criticized Jcb, but I have not experienced communication problems with him. It was fine for him to tell Saibo to get lost. Saibo's behaviour is disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is never fine for an admin to tell a contributor in good standing to get lost, especially when it ought to be obvious that the contributor's issues are not frivolous. If Saibo's behaviour were genuinely disruptive (I've no idea how you reach that conclusion!) then it should be addressed in the appropriate way through dispute resolution. Jcb could, for instance, have raised the issue at the Village Pump, to say eg "Saibo keeps asking for details of these closures, which I feel are unnecessary - what does the community think?" Rd232 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saibo's nagging and his insistent renominations of his own DR's are disruptive, I have often commented on that; if a decision is wrong, he can wait for someone else to make the renomination. Also, it seems Saibo is acting like this to make a wp:point, as there are similar images among his own uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • caveat removed following Jcb's vindictive oppose of user:Blue Marble's RFA here. This removes all doubt in my mind that Jcb is unsuitable for adminship. Whatever emotional reactions one may have in the unpleasant situation of a deadminship discussion, it is a monumental failure of judgement to give in to them like this. Rd232 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie I saw this request from the begining and I would not vote because I had in my mind that this was a small problem about a couple of images - and this is not a reason to remove anyone's tools. But Jcb behaviour made me change my mind. His constants attacks to Saibo - I can understand he don't like the guy for open a de-adminship but there is a line between that and the series of personal attacks he is doing in this page - and his refusal to answer questions about his DR closure actions - btw, he should not be allowed to touch any sexual DR, since he has a problem with the topic, as is clearly stated by Fae link above - only give me one choice. I'm sorry Jcb, but we can't tolerate this anymore. Béria Lima msg 12:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie I agree with Herby, Fæ and others here. For admins it is essential to provide a sound reasoning based on policy in the DR closures and to be responsive to subsequent questions and discussions. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the double standard? Jameslwoodward's decisions have the same problem with lacking motivations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One problem at a time. If you have issues with another admin, start by taking it up with him. If he doesn't respond to your satisfaction, pursue dispute resolution. Ultimately, if that doesn't succeed, there's no reason to think that the same issues with another admin would not end up with a serious deadminship debate as well. Rd232 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie - Jcb has repeatedly made problematic closures to DRs related to FoP, which has caused significant frustration as my talk page archives show. For example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Dubai.JPG was really a case of an admin defending the indefensible - the image was blatantly not de minimis, should never been restored, and failing that challenging repeat DRs should not have been shut down without discussion. More recently, Commons:Deletion requests/File:TimTight ejaculation jpg.jpg shows poor judgement with a non-constructive and inappropriate sexualised question. The thing that really sways me to vote for removal though, is Jcb's handling of criticism. Jcb removes comments from his talk page excessively, sometimes just using rollback, with some removals such as this appearing to be retaliation for criticism. The final straw in my view though, is this revenge vote in BlueMarble's RfA; adminship is not a private club in which members are obliged to defend each other from outside criticism, and this was a serious lapse of judgement. While I respect that Jcb is a very active admin who has a lot to offer to the project, the benefits of these services in my view are outweighed by the conduct issues that have been outlined here. CT Cooper · talk 22:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I think that the above concerns are valid, especially in regards to inappropriate closures. However, from what I've seen of Jcb he has and is doing an overall good job, so I'm on the fence about this. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie Per my previous comment and scary concerns above. --ZooFari 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie True, he keeps files that should go (often for the most trivial of reasons like "in use" even though A: Commons Delinker can easily take care of that, and B: a file's usage has no bearing on whether or not it is allowed on Commons for reasons of copyright and the such), and he also deletes many files that should stay, and there are countless undeletion requests where he was the deleting Admin. I don't think he should loose his adminship based on this alone, but if it's the only option to end his less-than-productive intervention in DRs, so be it. Fry1989 eh? 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such bad calls would need to be pretty frequent, and widely agreed to be bad calls, for it to be enough to justify deadminning. Closing many DRs is inevitably going to lead to a lot of disagreement in absolute numbers, even if the percentage is fairly small that's seriously contested, because the issues in DRs are often complex and/or subject to interpretation and personal opinion. At any rate, the assertion that the error rate in closures is too high really needs supporting with quite a bit of evidence. Rd232 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it has. I have had to re-nominate atleast 10 files because he kept them as "in use", which were agreed as a bad call, and every time the file was deleted after it's re-nomination. Fry1989 eh? 00:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep not the worst admin /--Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • hm. Ever heard the expression "damning with faint praise"? Strange thing to say. "Your honour, I did it, I nicked the car. But I'm not the worst car thief out there, so can I go home please?" Rd232 (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Hard working. Makes mistakes, like more human beings do, and defends his actions. I do not agree with all of it. However, the overall view is positive. Lymantria (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional explanation to my vote:
    Perhaps Jcb has done too many DR closures. Doing too much gives you less patience with discussions afterwards. I am afraid that happened. I am afraid that is also why he uses the (incorrect) argument "I am doing so much". Perhaps he overestimates the importance of reducing backlogs. For this reason I am not convinced at all of bad intentions. So for me there is no reason to remove his adminship - he should consider it though.
    I oppose very much to Jcb's revenge voting @Blue Marble. If such acts would repeat, I would consider to vote in favour of removing rights.
    The way Jcb and Saibo have communicated on DR-issues does not seem to have benefitted the project and they have not come to understand each other. I think there were possibilities to do better at both sides. I would prefer another solution than removing rights or choosing side beforehand - apart from the case content. I don't think that Jcb (or Saibo) was either correct or wrong in general.
    Lymantria (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I think you're right that part of the problem is what is sometimes called "burnout", that Jcb taking a break from DRs (or at least, DRs that aren't really straightforward) would have helped. It might still help now, but personally I do find the Blue Marble RFA incident hard to forgive from an admin, especially without a swift and sincere apology. Rd232 (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As stated by Pieter: Saibo's behaviour is disruptive.--Yikrazuul (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove administratoship -- Jcb behaves in a manner as if the rules don't apply to him. I won't bury the lead. If you look at his unexplained closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan, it follows a few days after I requested he make a meaningful attempt to offer a meaningful explanation in the undeletion discussion of some earlier contested closures that he had closed without explanation. [1], [2], [3] Typically for Jcb, he was evasive, he wouldn't explain himself there. Instead, he made an inexplicable and unjustifiable closure of a discussion with my name in it.

    Either Jcb recklessly allowed himself to act in a way that gave the appearance he was abusing his administrator authority -- or he actually did abuse his authority to to retaliate against me for posing qustions to him that he couldn't answer.

    I don't care which kind of recklessness he manifested. If Jcb never closed contested discussions without explanation, if he actually fulfilled the promise on his talk page, and did make an attempt to meaningfully answer good faith questions, no one would be wondering about whether he was showing bad faith. But, very unfortunately, he seems to be tempermentally unsuited to fulfilling important obligations of an administrator.

    Like Saibo, Jcb excised good faith questions and concerns I voiced on his talk page. The first time he did so he claimed I was wasting his time. His intransigence with his indefensible closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan cost me about 20 hours. Those redirects were part of my efforts to upload 1000 files published by wikileaks, before it goes dark. Wikileaks was then under a denial of service attack, so eacho of 1000 files took multiple attempts to download. It took about 200 hours to upload them all. And about ten percent of that time was wasted, because those redirects he improperly deleted looked like files that I hadn't uploaded yet. So, I have absolutely no sympathy with his assertions that other contributors are wasting his time by expecting him to fulfill his obligations to exercise his authority in an open, responsible, accountable manner.

    Some contributors here have suggested we cut him slack because, although there are serious weaknesses in his exercise of authority, he is very hard working, doesn't make that many mistakes. I have no confidence in his judgment. I am concerned that although he is very busy, the mistakes we have noticed may represent a small fraction of his total mistakes.

    We are all volunteers here. No one can make any of us undertake a particular new task. But I think we are all entitled to expect one another not to commentce tasks we can't or won't be able to complete properly. In my opinion, every administrator, before they close a discussion should not only be confident that they are closing it in a manner consistent with policy, but they should also be confident that they can explain their closure. Please, administrators, i you don't think you can explain a closure, then leave that discussion for some other administrator to close.

    Back in May he mocked a newbie, called him "clownish", for both initiating a discussion, and leaving a !vote in that discussion. This is also unacceptable.

    Others have noted Jcb's idiosyncratic closures of pictures of buildings in countries with no freedom of panorama. When he doesn't regard the building as distrinctive, he calls the building a "straight" building, and closes the discussion as keep.

    Don't I have an obligation to try my best to assume good faith. I've tried to come up with explanations for Jcb's lapses that don't require assuming bad faith. The trouble with all those explanations is that they imply a lack of competence sufficient that he should not hold administrator authority. I am not the only contributor who has found themselves forced to wonder if has been unwilling or unable to read all the arguments in deletion discussions because he isn't sufficiently fluent in English for some complex discussions. It has occurred to me that the reason he wasn't attempting to provide meaningful counter-arguments to my arguments was that he wasn't fluent enough to have properly read and understand my arguments. Geo Swan (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Ezarateesteban 13:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie per Geo Swan. abf «Cabale!» 21:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie We admins need to provide explanation for every contested decision, and this topic has been addressed several times Neozoon (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There is nothing which would justify permanent de-admin. In the conflict around homeporn pics, both sides haven't exactly covered themselves with glory. Neither Jcb who ignored polite requests, nor Saibo who seems to want to keep obvious rubbish at any price. A temporary removal of flag would be adequate, but seems not to exist on commons. - A.Savin 14:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you aren't concerned that Jcb, who has had multiple people leaving him good faith feedback over his very disturbing and disruptive practice of being unwilling or unable to offer meaningful explanations for his closures, first in his conclusory statements; seocnd in response to good faith questions and concerns on his talk page, after he concludes the discussion; third, when he won't come forward when a discussion is initiated over his bad closure.
    • Aren't you concerned by his reckless willingness to leave the appearance that, when he couldn't or wouldn't answer my legitimate and good faith questions, he then instead deleted 50 items I submitted so that it looked like he was abusing his administrator authority to retaliate against me for raising questions? As I wrote before -- I don't care whether he only gave the appearance of malicious bad faith, or whether he actually acted in bad faith -- either circumstance shows absolutely abysmal judgment.
    • Did you see this message and this message? Aren't you concerned that Jcb's comments there, and his routine practice of excising comments from his talk page [4], [5], [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], seems to suggest that he regards himself as too important, too valuable, to respond to good faith questions concerns over his actions? Geo Swan (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep --VR-Land (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is this user's first edit on Commons since 27 August. Rd232 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point being? Take a look at nl.wiki or en.wiki, I am regularly active there. I don't think the fact that I haven't been AS active here as other people should prevent me from voting. Best regards, VR-Land (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My point being (a) how did you find out about this vote and (b) having somehow made it here, why don't you feel the need to explain why you disagree with the range of issues being raised about Jcb's conduct? Rd232 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Jcb is a good admin. I don't understand this attack. Yann (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't understand it, how do you know it's an "attack" which is invalid, and not a valid concern? Have you read this page carefully, with the various concerns raised? For instance, have you seen Jcb's comments at Blue Marble's RFA? Rd232 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie per last time, and per the several serious concerns expressed above. Jafeluv (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep good admin Olivier Bommel (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me, but how many of the comments here did you read? (1) Is an routine unwillingness to explain himself consistent with calling him a "good admin"? (2) Is his characterization of good faith questions and expressions of concern as "trolling" or "spam" consistent with calling him a "good admin"? (3) Is the reckless disregard that he gave the appearance that he abused his administrator authority to improperly punish me for posing civil good faith questions about his unexplained closures consistent with calling him a "good admin"? Geo Swan (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Seems to be a valuable and productive admin. Issues raised seem rather minor, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, in your opinion, it is acceptable for administrators to routinely fail to provide meaningful explanations for their actions? You do not think they are under an obligation to exercise their authority in an accountable, responsible manner? Do you think it is acceptable for administrators to give the appearance they abused the authority entrusted to them to retaliate against other good faith contributors? Geo Swan (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Jcb has been really great and productive at clearing out backlog, helping newbs (including non-newbs like me!) and providing valuable feedback. Perhaps a more positive approach to handling any concerns or conflicts should be considered, and less overreaction about specific subject matter. Missvain (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jcb has proven completely unwilling to accept good faith feedback. So "more positive approaches" were considered, tried, and failed, solely due to Jcb's instrasigence. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of that feedback looks more like trolling to me.[20] Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Some of it undoubtedly is, but there are also a lot of legitimate questions he has removed or failed to answer, and he has shown no willingness to actually work on his failings. We all have failings, no admin is perfect, but all admins should strive to be better than they are by working on the failings that are pointed out to them. Jcb has not only failed to work on the issues, which have been around for months and months generating piles of work for others, he has failed to even take notice that there are issues, unless removing such comments from his talk page counts.
        I originally voted keep here, but as more people came forward with stories I gradually changed to neutral, and then to an outright remove when I saw him oppose an admin request because the requester voted against him here. That contributor has now left Commons, and in fact Wikimedia. Because of Jcb, we lost someone who wanted to be an admin. That is not on. Jcb may have done good work, and I thank him for clearing the backlogs, but, that clearance has come at the cost of a lot of bad closures - incorrect keeps, unexplained deletions that wasted everyone's time at UDEL. I honestly don't think that Jcb has the temperament to be an admin, at least not right now. I value his contributions, but if he's going to misuse them, or refuse to respond to legitimate complains, they should be removed from him. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral. Tough one. I've run into a number of blatantly incorrect closures by Jcb myself, such as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Kingdom_of_Libya.png and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Suicide-bag.png, where he described the deleted image as "disturbing and could be dangerous." It concerns me not only that any admin would let their feelings influence their use of tools like this, but that Jcb would (as he frequently does) discount and ignore direct arguments against his reason for closure. No matter how much work there is to be done, the closing argument should address every argument raised, out of respect to the discussants and as a double check on your own reasoning. On the other hand, it is human nature to get emotionally involved on occasion, and someone who does a large number of deletions is more likely to get more wrong in an absolute sense, and to attract the ire of people who disagree with closures. My personal interactions with him have generally been respectful, and in my experience he does not close renominations of images he kept, nor does he close undeletion requests for images he deleted, which gives every deletion discussion a second chance free of Jcb. For these reasons I think his level of disruption is not an urgent matter, but like others above I would admonish him to give more thorough reasons for closure. Because this will require more of his time, I will also resolve to close more DRs myself to help with the workload. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, per Dcoetzee. --  Docu  at 06:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep . What difference does it make if the DR's are close with: per nom.? Amada44  talk to me 13:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That point may be clarified by a change in DR policy. I would be interested to know why you might consider it constructive for an admin to close a DR after they have involved themselves in controversial discussions by expressing their own strong opinions and insulted a contributor to the discussion as shown here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • yea, and I am interested how much this deadminship is a connected to penis wars? Also please point out to me where I considered something being constructive? Amada44  talk to me 13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on comments made in DRs Jcb appears to have involved themselves in "penis wars". Your comment appears to imply a conspiracy, I would welcome evidence here should you believe this discussion is being manipulated. As for "constructive" it is emphasised at Commons:Administrators#Community_role and so relevant for a de-adminship discussion where non-constructive behaviour of an administrator is a key issue. --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly it would make a lot of difference, it is at least showing he read some argument in a controversial DR. The issue about that is that he takes DRs with strong opinions on both sides, arguments on both sides, and just deletes or keeps without reference to opposing arguments and why he discounted them. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie I didn't want to be voting this way, becauseall admins are entitled to make mistakes. It is pretty much normal as an admin learns a new position, you screw up, you dust yourself off, and you learn where you screwed up and don't do that again. This however, I consider conduct unbecoming an administrator. That was hurtful and vindictive, a quality I do not like seeing out of sysops. Courcelles (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie He demonstrated in a very strong way that he isn't able to make neutral judgment about sexual content, ignoring the rightful argumentations and deletes images without even seeing the need to add an closure. That's not the kind of adminship commons needs. Since this happens frequently and continued even after several discussion about this behavior, i can only say: No im not willed to support Jcb as an admin, nor do i want to see him as an admin any longer. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie Per reasons listed above, per his behavior against the requester. --WizardOfOz talk 21:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie Per above, and per Courcelles. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 04:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie. Too many mistakes. Too much despise and/or lack of respect (example). Lack of objectivity. Lack of capacity to understand interests that are not his. Lack of respect of laws (for instance French laws about copyrights on light art here and here). And bad habits of DR closures without comment or with comments that are disconnected from the debate terms. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Kommentar I've just discovered the Blue Marble vs Jcb "affair" and I'm horrified ! It's worse than I imagined ! Who does Jcb think he is ? These kinds of behaviour are more likely those of dictators ! It's a clear abuse of power and dominant status ("I do a great job and you're nothing to contest me"). We clearly cannot (I'd even say mustn't) accept such people as admins. It's a very dangerous drift. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie. Per above. Otherwise, it won't be long before this link turns blue. Wknight94 talk 13:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie Per above, and especially per TwoWings' point of view. Pymouss Let’s talk - 22:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. As EugeneZelenko says "those does not make mistakes who does not do anything" (from Russian proverb). I agree he made mistakes especially in user Blue Marble's RFA case. But I accept Jcb's words and a am willing to give him a second chance.Geagea (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie per previous concerns around DR of Loughner picture, and particularly because of BlueMarble revenge !vote. This comment on the copyrightability of light shows in France is also discouraging.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie. I agree with Herby and Fæ in particular. Conduct in relation to Blue Marble was petty and inexcusable and closing a deletion discussion in which one had expressed such strong views as [21] shows a complete lack of the sort of judgment I would expect (never mind the inherent issues with the linked comment itself). WJBscribe (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

  • Speedy close because of obscene language. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The real problem is that Saibo does not like Jcb's decisions, keeps renominating until he gets his way. Jameslwoodward rarely motivates his decisions, but those are more often deletions, and that is what Saibo likes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jcb often closes deletion requests without comment. Which is fine, if the DR is uncontested. But closing contested DRs without explaining why you are closing them is just confusing. I'm not entirely sure it's grounds for deadminship, but it's certainly not something which is a productive use of our time. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have stated above several times, Jcb does partly good and much work and I am grateful for this part. However, he doesn't change the apparent downsides of his adminship at all, not a single bit. There is not a single user (correct me if I am wrong) who supports his non-reasons and non-answers to the following questions - but he doesn't seems to care and continues his way. And: now it is too late to discuss - we had these discussions with him before, several times, which were not to be misunderstood. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • His avoidance of communication does concern me, since adminship isn't just about using buttons. Admins should also be able to answer to the community's concern regarding his or her actions no matter how frustrating it can get, and try to accommodate their future actions to avoid concerns again. Jcb doesn't seem to show much effort in doing this. He is committed to the project indeed, but "without him backlogs would grow" is no excuse. I'm not so involved so I'm not going to take a position on this. --ZooFari 23:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this high score page to be deleted. It does not give any really useful information, since it does not show how long each admin has been admin at all. (A new admin cannot have the high score, of course) There is no need for striving to hit the high score in our project. I value quality higher than quantity. --Schwäbin (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your info, the stats are not a total, but the number of actions in the past six months. Jcb (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely off topic here.. but you seem to like it. I am admin since two months. And I do not strive to be on a high score table (which, btw, doesn't count protected adit requests, doesn't count quality, doesn't count deleted revisions view to answer questions, ...) as I told you before. Yes, you do, and that is part of the problem. However, I never said that you do not do much work, to the contrary (several times) - but you seem to just skip it when reading. --Saibo (Δ) 16:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
/after edit conflict): Thank you for putting this right. Still, it does not show, how many friendly helping discussion edits someone made to help new contributors, to help users to get licenses right and so on. I'd still like to get rid of this statistic. It remembers me of the old dispute on de.WP if a user is a good user when having a lot of contribs in the article section - not valueing people working in help desks, working in file-areas, talking to others instead of just reverting article edits and so on. Do you understand what I'm trying to point out? My English is not really good enough... --Schwäbin (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. It isn't my goal to compare myself to other users, but to illustrate what Saibo is actually requesting. He requests that the community disallows me to do the 99,7% good closures, to prevent the 0,3% disputable closures. I'm human, I will never be perfect. I'm really concerned about this situation. I often see the same hard language being used towards Túrelio, Martin and Jim as well. If the four of us stop with our efforts, Wikimedia Commons will have a huge problem, because we do about 35% of the total admin actions. Jcb (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we're not expecting you to close every DR with the correct decision, we'd just like that, in contested DRs, you show you actually read the page and explain why you took your position. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least I really read every DR I close and all the arguments stated in those DRs. Always. Jcb (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, I'm glad. But just by closing as "deleted" or "kept" you're not really showing it. Really, all you need to do is say "deleted because X" or "kept because Y". That's really not much to ask. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but for Saibo it won't make any difference. Also other admin don't do either, e.g. here. If I keep or delete in contrary of the mayority of responders I already normally say something. But if a DR has only e.g. 4 keep-comments and no delete-comments, I normally see no reason to provide a reason, except when I have to say something that's not already stated in the DR. Also the purpose of a closure is to close the discussion, not to cause a continuation. Jcb (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...if a DR has only e.g. 4 keep-comments and no delete-comments, I normally see no reason to provide a reason..." - I don't believe such DRs are the issue. I've only looked at a few of Saibo's examples, but I haven't seen any like that. AFAIK nobody's asking for explanations of uncontested and obvious DRs - and if so, suggesting it is is unhelpful at best. Rd232 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that actually is the issue, see here, where Saibo posted the comment "Pardon?" at my user talk page about two DRs where the DR gave a clear concensus in favor of keep. These two very DRs and my revertion of the "Pardon?" comments by Saibo were the actual reason for Saibo to start this procedure. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not judged by voting. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pacesetters.jpg there are unanswered questions from the nominator, which as DR closer you should not simply ignore; you should probably poke the people involved to answer, or just leave the DR open. When the nominator then asks you for clarification, however briefly ("pardon?"), you should provide an explanation. I don't know why you cite Commons:Deletion requests/File:Game-Genie-NES.jpg as an example of a DR without a deletion comment, since it has one (in addition to a lengthy and complex legal discussion involving several people, the conclusion of which the closer of this discussion, if they have read the discussion carefully enough to understand and evaluate it, should obviously summarise). Rd232 (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decisions in these 2 cases are OK. I don't understand your critics. Yann (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you've proven that your remark in the voting section about not understanding is correct. The issue is not primarily the decision-making (although there are also complaints about that in some cases), it's the failure to explain decisions properly, especially when asked. Good communication is a fundamental requirement of adminship, and Jcb has had repeated feedback that his communication about some of his DR closures is not good enough. Far from responding adequately, he has attacked those who have given this feedback. This is unacceptable, however good the rest of his work may be. Rd232 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...other admin don't do either, e.g. here..." - hm. (a) other people's errors and flaws are not the issue here. (b) there is some room for personal interpretation of whether a DR decision is obvious enough to not require explanation. That example is slightly borderline, but would be better with explanation. But the real issue for me is not the failure to explain in the first place, but the failure to provide an explanation on request. There's just no excuse for that. You should also be willing to adjust your interpretation of when an explanation is required in the face of feedback on that. Rd232 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a look at my talk page and its archives? I normally respond to every question. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I take your word on that (I don't have time to look; I'm slightly skeptical given comments from others in this discussion), then you'll need to explain why you treat Saibo differently than everyone else. If you can honestly and self-critically evaluate your problematic relationship with Saibo, it's possible that a solution would be simply to avoid closing any DRs in which Saibo has been involved. If that would work for others, I'd be happy with that, if it identifies the core of the problem without losing an active admin. Rd232 (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: "and don't come back please" sounds a bit different than "respond to every question". --Saibo (Δ) 15:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jcb invites participants in this discussion to check the archive of his talk page, claiming doing so will show he does respond to question. I checked. Here is a selection of instances where Jcb excised comments from his talk page. Those excised comments will not show up in his archive. Here are the three comments I left he excised -- improperly in my opinion. [22], [23], [24] Here are some of the others: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

On his talk page Jcb claims he will consider the possibility that he will consider the possibility he may have made a mistake. I see no evidence of this. Jcb reserves the right to excise "trollish" comments. But what is his definition of "trollish"? My expressions of concern was not trolling. I invite participants here to look at comments Jcb excised, to test his definition of "trollish" comments not worthy of a reply.

I occasionally get comments I don't think it is worth answering. I don't excise them from my talk page, I surround them with <small><s> </s></small>, which leave the comments in my archive. If Jcb truly thinks a comment doesn't merit a reply I would encourage him to do likewise. Geo Swan (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) @Jcb: Somehow Commons managed to survive before your adminship started in December 2010. It will also do when you are not admin anymore. It is also not useful to cite the 35% of current admin actions - the other three admins mentioned by you are not related with this request. It is just about you. --Saibo (Δ) 17:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stranges decision in No FOP France cases of DR. However I don't know if it's the ground for deadminship. As mattbuck said, I'm not expecting you take the right decision all the time (you are human, like lots of us on commons), but I really can't follow the logic of your decision for few decisions: maybe it's due to lack of a good explanation and maybe your position is the good one, but I just don't get it. PierreSelim (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jcb: "Note that Saibo also reverts comments at his own user talk page, not only my comments". I am happy to hear what you do not like (although I do not know what you mean by this accusation). But - ehm - this is just a bit the wrong page. --Saibo (Δ) 17:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's easy, there are sufficient cases in the very recent history of your talk page: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - but if somebody else does the same at his user talkpage with your comments, you start a de-admin procedure for that - strange - Jcb (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you actually read, you'll notice he is referring to keep the discussion on the other subjects talk page, not merely the blank reverts you are custom to do; And for the last one, please tell me you are joking? PLEASE! →AzaToth 19:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (still the wrong page...) anyway, to help you: I move(!) those comments on my talk page manually to the place where the discussion started (on the other user's talk page) and reply there. If you would read my edit comment (and see my related next edit on the other user's talk page) you would notice this. --Saibo (Δ) 12:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we please keep the personal attacks to a minimum? Jcb, several other people have concerns about your closing DRs, including myself. You have closed many DRs controversially and/or too early, often without any reason. I feel uneasy to voting for your de-adminship as I should have voiced my concerns before such a drastic procedure is opened, but I do think you are not as reliable as one could hope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you link to some sample where I closed a DR too early? I have heard this complaint many times, but till now it was always a mistake by the complainer, e.g. thinking that the closure on 20 October of a 20 September DR is speedy, because they forgot to compare the names of the months as well. I very seldom close DRs in less than 7 days. Also please note that this (indeed drastic) procedure has not been started because of DR closures, but because I no longer accepted that Saibo abused my user talk page. You can verify that here. Saibo started this procedure when I reverted this and this, although he also reverted my comment at his user talk page. You ask to keep the personal attacks to a minimum. That's good, but this procedure itself has the obvious purpose to be a personal attack. Jcb (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately voting here is on Jcb alone. My "vote" is remove both, - enough with this Saibo trolling, enough with Jcb's cryptic and illogical judgements. NVO (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to request a de-sysop of me if you think I am misusing the sysop tools and think such a vote would have the chance of a success for your opinion. Of course you could also use my talk page and tell me. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 13:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no evidence of "trolling", and such accusations should not be thrown around without evidence. (Equally, if evidence is available it should be provided, since it might have a very material impact on this deadminship discussion.) Rd232 (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Kommentar I think it's worth emphasising that despite the concerns expressed here, which may lead to deadminship, there is also a strong feeling that Jcb has done much good work and that the community is appreciative of that. In the event that Jcb has the admin tool buttons removed, I'm sure others will join me in hoping that he will be similarly dedicated in working on backlogs which do not require those buttons. Rd232 (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish there were something in-between that could be applied here. We don't have an arbitration committee like at en.wiki. So we're left with a black-and-white removal or keep. I'm reminded of sanctions that are applied at en.wiki. Occasionally editors get involved in disputes in certain topic areas and are banned from participating in those topics for a time. I wonder if a probationary period (indefinite or fixed) where Jcb is required to refrain from acting on DRs might alleviate concerns and provide him with time to work on improving interactions, while not going so far as all-out de-adminship and still permitting contributions in other areas. – Adrignola talk 02:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that "something inbetween" would be good, and I would be amenable to discussing something like that. (I would have been more amenable to it before the BlueMarble RFA vote thing, but still...) Without an obvious way of doing that now, we can do little more than suggest it and see if Jcb is interested in considering something in that direction. Beyond that, we might consider how we can handle these situations slightly differently in the future, so that there's more dispute resolution before a deadminship discussion, and/or some built-in attempt to consider other outcomes than yes/no. Perhaps, rather than Arbcom on en.wp., we might consider looking to en.wp's RFC/U system for inspiration. Rd232 (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policy already says there must be some concensus before starting a de-admin procedure: "Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal; for individual grievances, please use Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible.". But this policy has not been followed in this case. I'm open for suggestions. I was planning to switch back to OTRS work after finishing with the DR backlog (which was almost ready), but for that I would also need the admin bit. Although I stopped contributing for now, I will keep an eye to this page and my user talk page. Emailing me will remain possible for at least some time as well. Jcb (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Taken literally, that badly worded and vague policy requires an informal deadmin discussion hardly less voluminous and unpleasant than the formal one, in order to establish consensus for launching the formal one. The spirit of that policy is clearly to ensure that there is discussion of issues before launching into a deadmin procedure. You can't say that hasn't happened, given the prior deadmin discussion and discussions around the place as well directly with you. If that policy means anything, it's that frivolous requests may be swiftly shut down by bureaucrats; that hasn't happened, partly because it's very clear that the concerns are widely shared. Frankly, the only thing that taking the policy literally will achieve is Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3) being opened in short order, with this discussion being evidence of "some consensus for removal". Rd232 (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just as a minor clarification, I do not understand why contributing to OTRS would be dependent on having admin tools on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's because as an OTRS volunteer you have to answer questions about deleted files and you receive permissions for already deleted files. A lot of tickets require admin actions. This was actually my initial reason to apply for admin tools, later I switched to DRs. Jcb (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd like to see Jcb devote efforts to OTRS. While DRs can sit for some time with no problem, OTRS emails are often time sensitive (especially for non-admins) because files that have been marked as lacking permission will be deleted after a week. Removal of admin bits wouldn't pose a problem on that front if this proposal were to be closed as successful. – Adrignola talk 15:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, it is convenient to be a Commons admin, but I do okay as an OTRS volunteer without. It is only a rather small minority of requests on OTRS that need direct admin help on any of the projects. --Fæ (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probably better to amend the instructions for closing deletion requests, that the closer is required to give a reason for the decision when there are opposing votes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    actually, i think it's obvious and self-evident that you should give one. why? because otherwise no one can ever reopen a deletion request. if the closing admin doesn't specifiy a reason (or gives some "pseudo" reason without actual content), nobody can know whether certain arguments have already been incorporated in his decision process. jcb's "tactic" (for the lack of a better word) works like this: close DR without reason > wait until someone reopens it > argue that this is abusive because no new arguments have been put forward. but since no reason for the deletion was provided in first place, nobody knows if these arguments are in fact "new" or not. and if you contact him on his talk page to ask for the underlying reasons you either don't get an answer at all or you're getting something like this ... —Pill (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the same with Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs). Look for example his first decision to keep in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Jonas portrait.png and woodward's response at User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive1#How could you keep Jonas?. I have discussed the issue also elsewhere, but these fast-deleting admins feel that it takes too much of their time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is that example fully 15 months old, but Jim gave an explanation when asked. Right or wrong (the decision was overturned by more discussion), it was perfectly reasonable as far as I can see. How is that remotely comparable to the issues raised about Jcb? And even if it were, how would that help? Two wrongs don't make a right, and a bad admin who's lost the trust of the community doesn't magically become a good one because there's another one who's bad. [This last sentence is hypothetical, just to be clear!] Rd232 (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some details which express the community's view (I think) on these issues. Rd232 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jcb you claimed, above, "At least I really read every DR I close and all the arguments stated in those DRs. Always." There is something very seriously wrong with your exercise of authority and your respect for the community. Every time you close a contested discussion, without telling those on the side you didn't pick, why you discounted their arguments or count-arguments, you have invited speculation as to whether you really actually read the discussion. You have had many different good faith contributors point out the difficulties with your routine lack of explanations. Your failure to take this feedback seriously deeply, deeply concerns me.

    You do not seem to understand that as an administrator, an experienced contributor who has been entrusted with extra authority, part of your obligations is to educate less experience or less informed contributors. Suppose, for the sake of argument, you actually did read all those counter-arguments you discounted; suppose, for the sake of argument, you correctly guaged the issues, and most of your fellow administrators would agree with your basic ruling; you should still consider yourself obliged to offer some kind of explanation as to why you discounted those counter-argument. No good faith contributor wants to go on and keep repeating the same mistakes. When you know the uploader, and/or participants in the discussion advanced clearly bad arguments, you have an obligation to help them learn why their arguments were so clearly wrong.

    You are really big on complaining how other people's civil requests for explanation "waste" your time. But you seem completely oblivious as to how you waste the time of, first, the good faith contributors who, innocently, offered bad arguments, innocently uploaded bad files; second, when you fail to set those good faith contributors straight, consider the vast amount of time wasted when they repeat the same mistake, and this results in further deletion discussion -- deletion discussions that wouldn't have been necessary if you made an effort to help htem learn what they were doing wrong. If you tried to fulfill your obligation to exercise your authority openly and responsibly, and you did make a proper attempt to explain your contested explanations, there is a good chance those who made mistakes in those contested discussions would learn from your explanation, and not make those mistakes. That would save their time, and it would save the time of everyone who participated in the next deletion discussion.

    Penultimately, of course, you are also human, thus you are also fallible. When you show yourself unwilling or unable to explain the reasoning behind your closure you close off your ability to have good faith challengers raise questions that bring home to you when you have been making mistakes.

    You asserted in this discussion that you make the correct decision 99.7 percent of the time, and only err 0.3 percent of the time. Woah! Please only make serious comments here!

    Your closures are overturned several orders of magnitued more frequently than 0.3 percent. You just made these figures up from whole cloth. How often do you make correct closures? How often should an intransigent administrator, who isn't open to good faith feedback, be allowed to manifest consistent patterns of bad closures, and still retain administrator authority? I don't know the precise answers to those two question. But, given your choice to flagrantly ignore good faith questions and expressions of concern won't you consider the possiblity you are on the wrong side of the permissible error rate? Note: which of the expressions of concern here should be new to you? Haven't you had an opportunity to consider every expression of concern here, on your talk page, or in the undeletion discussions your bad closures generate? Haven't you chosen to simply ignore all that previous good faith feedback? Geo Swan (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In two messages on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Blue Marble Jcb made some disturbing comments. Other participants mentioned these comments, but I found them more disturbing than I expected when I checked them myself. In this message jcb wrote: "{{Oppose}} - if this is your attitude towards active collegues, you shouldn't be an admin here", and in this comment Jcb wrote: "If you (help to) try to remove the people who do most of the work, your presence harms Wikimedia Commons."

    I am afraid the surface meaning of Jcb's comments seems to be that he thinks he is so hard working that his exercise of the authority entrusted to him should be above scrutiny, above criticism. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The collapsed section above contains a comment by MoiraMoira which includes the following remarks:

I feel saddened about the way the person involved is treated by a part of the community which he definitely does not deserve irrespective of the judgement of his abilities and behaviour as an admin. I feel saddened about the way matters are dealt with by several people here. I do hope that the closure of this page will be made by a wise and impartial person acting in a calm and composed way respecting others and especially the person involved. MoiraMoira (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here as this comment is responded to below. Rd232 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


While I’m not dutch and had my own disagreements with Jcb (just as a disclaimer for the vote analysts), MoiraMoira’s above comment quite well expresses my own impression about what is going on here. This request now has developed into a sort of hunting-him-down. From now on, everyone considering to apply for sysop on Commons should be required first to read through this request.
- Sure, Jcb has issues with communication. As Herby, I too had hoped for improvement after the last de-admin request.
- Sure, Jcb has made mistakes when performing the thankless task to handle thousands of DRs hardly anybody else cared about, a least not in a systematical manner.

  • In my country there is the saying “Wer arbeitet, macht Fehler. Wer viel arbeitet, macht mehr Fehler. Nur wer die Hände in den Schoß legt, macht gar keine Fehler.“ (Google transl.: „Anyone who works makes mistakes. Anyone who works hard, makes more mistakes. Only he who puts his hands in his lap, making no mistakes.“) credited to Friedrich Alfred Krupp.

- No doubt, Jcb’s comment at Blue Marble’s rfa was very bad. However, as I didn’t know Jcb to be very emotional, this looked to me like the in-stress-action of somebody who feels cornered. Anyway, wouldn’t it have been more helpful, especially for Blue Marble, if Jcb had been asked to apologize to Blue Marble, instead of only exploiting it (as of yet it’s cited 9 times) as a welcome additional point against Jcb?
- And finally, Jcb’s reaction towards Saibo’s “questions” about DR closures wasn’t friendly or appropriate. However, this may look a bit less surprising, when you know which “new WikiLove message”[38] he received nearly 6 weeks ago.

Anyway, I do not want discount the complaints about Jcb’s actions on Commons, but the way this is handled on Commons is not only hurting the “community”, it is simply disgusting. (To be sure, this is not an accusation directed against the nominator, who actually hasn’t edited this page since 2 days.)

I have no patent remedy. Eventually a separate mediation process might be more effective.

As for this request, instead of a de-admin we might consider asking Jcb whether he is willing to completely refrain from working on DRs for a limited time (2-3 months) and thereafter consider allowing him back provided he then feels prepared to process DRs appropriately and to clearly confirm his willingness to do so. --Túrelio (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're exaggerating the significance of errors. The bulk of the complaints are about Jcb's attitude, especially in relation to explaining his decisions. The Blue Marble incident has taken on the significance it has because it not only is inexcusable in itself, it exemplifies that attitude. Rd232 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Rd232 -- those speaking on behalf of Jcb are not taking the problems he causes seriously.
Turelio wrote above: "Sure, Jcb has issues with communication" -- well, isn't a willingness and ability to exercise their authority in an open and accountable manner a requirement for administrators?
Jcb has shown himself to be intranscigent and recalcitrant. Everyone, even Jcb's defenders, acknowledge he routinely fails to fulfill his obligation to try offer a meaningful explanation for his actions. Everyone EXCEPT JCB recognizes his behavior is a serious problem.
JCB has shown no sign he recognizes any problem with his unwillingness or inability to explain himself. Given he has shown no recogniztion his current behavoor is a problem, if he is allowed to continue to act as an administrator we would be foolhardy to expect to see a change.
Note, above JCB claimed he was correct 99.7 percent of the time. This is definitely not a recognition his behavior is problematic. I see no prospect that if Jcb were allowed to retain his administrator powers we would see any meaningful change in his behavior. I am sorry but I am afraid that if Jcb is retains his administrator authority we will see worse behavior. Consider his closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan. It is an inexplicably bad closure, that directly followed his refusal to respond to my good faith requests he return to discussions over whether to revert some of his unexplained deletions. It gives the strong appearance he chose to abuse his administrator powers to retaliate against me because my valid, good faith questions embarrassed him. So, if he is allowed to continue to hold administrator authority should we expect further acts of abuse of his authority in further improper acts of retaliation?
As to whether this is some kind of pile-on, or lynch-mob -- numerous good faith contributors have been trying to get through to Jcb how serious a problem his unwillingness to explain himself is. I beame aware of his routine failure to fulfill his obligation to explain himself back in May. He has been ignoring that kind of good faith feedback, calling it "trolling", for over a year.
I've tried my best to be professional here. I believe all my communication with Jcb has been policy compliant. Every time I have mentioned how he has given the appearance of abusing his administrator powers, I have acknowledged this appearance might be due to abysmally bad -pjudgment, not bad faith. Jcb has not spoken up, to clarify whether his unaccountably bad decision was bad faith or bad judgment. This is on of the factors that concerns me that, if he is allowed to retain administrator authority he will use that authority improperly retaliated against those of us who voiced valid concerns here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives

I suppose it's symptomatic of the quite sharp division of opinion over these issues that the possibility of alternatives to deadminning hasn't really been explored. There have been some suggestions for refraining from DRs, and the criticism of Jcb's communication gives a clear alternative for Jcb to commit to improving there. So I'm going to email Jcb and ask him if he's willing to commit to improving communication based on the feedback given, and if so that would be a basis for exploring alternatives which might allow Jcb to remain an admin. Rd232 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless suddenly all people here change their votes the outcome is clear, isn't it (and this deadminship process is AFAIK the only process of handling such a process which exists currently / before I started the request here)? What I thought about and discussed several times is the possibility that Jcb could reapply for (kinf of) half adminship with some sort of ban/restriction. However, I am not sure if I, personally, (and I know others think similarly) should like the situation that we have an admin who needs a formal restriction by a vote to not do something instead of good own judgment based on feedback. Jcb should have known that the community doesn't accept his style and change it. He didn't. --Saibo (Δ) 14:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative that I would be happy to see would be Jcb offering to take a break from using admin tools, possibly by having them removed, for an agreed period (3 months?) and then raise a second RfA where he can explain what steps he intends to take to behave differently for the areas of concern raised here. --Fæ (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Add more guidance at Commons:Deletion requests. That should fix the problem with these high-throughput DR closers (Jcb is not the only one). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to propose a possible alternative to remain active at Wikimedia Commons, with admin tools, without causing more trouble. I'm aware I'm not a genius on the field of communication, but I'm working on it.

  • For a period of three months I will not close DRs of a type that may cause discussion. Some types of DRs never caused discussion. Those types I would like to continue. Those safe DRs are:
    1. Speedy deletion of empty categories
    2. Speedy deletion of obvious copyvio
    3. Speedy deletion of pages (gallery space) with obvious nonsense content
  • During the three months I will look for an experienced collegue administrator who will be prepared to give some feedback at closures after the three months. That administrator will be allowed to revert a closure, without starting a new procedure.

About the 'Blue Marble' incident, I shouldn't have done that. I will be more careful with things like that in the future. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Seems like an intelligent approach to me and - more importantly - shows some concerns and understanding. The work is good - if the communication improves that would be great. --Herby talk thyme 16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Thanks for taking this step Jcb, this seems a genuine step to move the discussion forward in a positive way. I have found the nature of debate on this page, from contributors on both sides, unnecessarily confrontational and I hope your offer helps us reach a satisfactory conclusion. I would be happy to see your plan accepted if a neutral and well experienced administrator were to help out in the way you suggest. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Same thoughts as Herby. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Jcb, your apology for the 'Blue Marble' incident is welcome. Thank you. If this plan is adopted, please expect your work to be scrutinized more closely than other administrators for several months. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - I concur, do uncontroversial stuff for sure, and please try to improve your communication with other users. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Kommentar - I'm not exactly sure what "support" means here, so I'm not going to use that template. I really appreciate Jcb coming here to say this, and if he remains an admin this approach he's described will be helpful. However I'm not seeing enough detail here about the various communication issues raised (like not responding adequately to requests for explanation). "I'm not a genius on the field of communication, but I'm working on it" is enough for me to be hopeful, but not enough for me to change my vote. I would want more detail about how he's working on it, and what practical measures he's taking on board from this discussion, to change it. Rd232 (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Kommentar I agree with rd232, I see what seems to me to be Jcb offering an eleventh hour, starkly limited acknowledgment of a fraction of the concerns over his exercise of administrator authority, leaving the rest of the valid concerns unaddressed.
  1. Jcb has not acknowledged that he has removed good faith questions, and good faith expressions of concern from his talk page -- labelling those good faith comments "spam" and "trolling" -- when he had an obligation to try to answer them, or failing being able to answer them, consider the possibility he made a mistake.
  2. Jcb's attitude, prior to the limited acknowledgment of our concerns seems to have been it didn't really matter if he couldn't explain the reasoning behind his closures if he got them "right" most of the time. And there is nothing in his offer to indicate he is committed to never closing a discussion he can't explain after his three month probation he has offered is over.
  3. Jcb's talk page bears a promise that he will consider the possibility he made a mistake. I found it to be a hollow promise. Frankly, I don't believe Jcb ever considered the possibility he made a mistake over any of the questions I have posed to him. A couple of days ago, in this discussion, he claimed to have been correct 99.7 percent of the time. It is a claim that is hard to take seriously -- but he hasn't withdrawn it -- so I am afraid we have to consider that he still believes he has acted correctly the vast majority of the time.
  4. He has not acknowledged understanding that his comments at Blue Marble's RFA were not the only instance of apparently malicious vindictive behavior. His closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan, shortly after he declined to address my good faith expressions of concern may not have been a vindictive abuse of his administrator authority, but it gave the appearance of malice. It would not have given the appearance of bad faith if Jcb had been fulfilling his obligation to explain himself. But he never attempted to meaningful explain that closure, just as he had evaded my earlier questions about other questionable actions and statements. In my opinion this apparent lapse is more serious than his comments at the Rfa, as rather than saying something vindictive he appeared to actually misuse the administrator authority we entrusted him with in a vindictive manner.
I drafted an essay, w:User:Geo Swan/On apologies. An open acknowledgment of an understanding of what one did wrong is probably more useful than an apology, saves more energy for co-operation on the joint project, helps avoid dark feelings. But Jcb hasn't really acknowledged understanding what was wrong with his behavior, to date. I am concerned he still doesn't really understand our concerns. Therefore I don't think we can count on him avoiding repeating his serious mistakes in future. Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Three month and the usual practice will continue? Not with me. Sorry. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Kommentar Per Rd232, although I'm glad to see Jcb proposing a compromise, this does not address the core problem of communication and clear closing explanations for DRs. To that end, I have a different proposal: I want to see Jcb participating in more contentious deletion discussions as a discussant. I want to see him giving thoughtful and compelling opinions that address arguments raised by others in the discussion, and discuss his impressions of consensus in the safe setting of an opinion. To me this would be a great step in the right direction. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The three months of not closing would be a good period for that, I was absolutely not planning to totally leave alone DRs, just to not close them. Jcb (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jcb, have you considered starting to act accountably by making a greater effort, here, now, today, to show you understand the concerns some of the rest of us have. For instance:
        1. Can we expect to see you continue to excise all trace of questions you don't like from your talk page?
        2. You closed File:Sid Vicious NY Mug Shot.png as "delete" -- but without explanation. You didn't explain yourself on your talk page. And rather than offer an explanation when the uploader initiated a request for undeletion -- instead you mocked him or her. Do you stand by that mockery? Geo Swan (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Kommentar From the voting section we have the intermediate result of 21 remove (62%), 13 keep (38%) and 4 neutral (not counted) votes.

Since this is the second de-admin request for Jcb within several month time [39]

I think we have to consider that he was clearly confronted with his problematic behaviour during that de-admin (e.g.):

Question:# In this notice on AN there was discussions about your lack of closing rationale. I got the impression that you was willing to provide a better rationale when closing but shortly after you closed this with the word "Kept". Was it a single mistake or do you think the closing rationale is ok (like in "...and I will still close DR like that")?

Answer Jcb: The closures you mention were 22 January and 8 February. I improved this in the meantime, in recent comparable DRs you will normally see a better rationale. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see much progress and insight in his problematic behaviour and would like him to drop the buttons for now. He can "train" his skills by participating at Deletion Requests to convince us that he got it.

Then I think he would have no problem to get the buttons back by Requests for adminship.

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He can "train" his skills by participating at Deletion Requests to convince us that he got it. Then I think he would have no problem to get the buttons back by Requests for adminship." - to be honest, that will not be an option. If this leads to de-admin, Commons will loose me as contributor as well. Jcb (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can totally understand that you might need a wikibreak after this concludes, maybe even a longer one. But if you do lose the tools, I'd urge you not to make any quick decisions about leaving permanently. It's an emotional situation and not the time for such decisions. Give yourself time to process. Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dedicated volunteers may be able to take disappointments, but if you pass certain borders, they will go away. I'm open for resolutions to remain active at Wikimedia Commons, but not at any price. Jcb (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A de-admin request is merely a decision about the access to certain tools - which are more like those of a janitor (hence the mop) and don't equal a special status. To make your stay conditional to keeping them is to miss that users without the tools, like me and many more here, can be just as valuable to the community. Hekerui (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't like this compromise, it seems like extracting a "concession" from Jcb. We should all be aware that there is nothing wrong with reapplying for tools and I trust we can objectively evaluate at that point. Hekerui (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support While I agree that some of his behavior was over the top, I think that the de-admin was too much. A three month trial sees completely reasonable to me. I would be happy to be the Admin watching over him, alone, or with others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for volunteering. I wrote I don't think Jcb should get to choose his mentor/monitors, that those of us participating here should do the picking, and should pick trusted, uninvolved administrators.
I wrote that Jcb's undertaking of a lion's share of closures is a problem, in and of itself. Other people have written here that you too undertake a lion's share of closures. If that is true, (1) will you have the time to add to your tasks monitoring Jcb's closures? (2) Do you think others will see you as uninvolved?
Pieter Kuiper has described you, 3 times here, as another administrator who does not do a good job of explaining his closures. Personally I am not familiar enough with your closures to have an opinion on this. But if people who are familiar think your closures raise even a small portion of the same concerns as Jcb's, no offense, wouldn't you be a poor choice of monitor?
Among the difficulties in this discussion are that Jcb has not shown a willingness to acknowledge many of the concerns raised about his exercise of administrator authority. If he thought some of the concerns raised were nonsense it would be better for him to say so, and say he planned to continue those patterns of behavior. Jcb has stated he sees the mentor/monitor's role as clearcut, and the expectations on him as clearcut.
If those of us participating here did agree for you to be a monitor, what do you see your role as being?
  1. Would you review every closure, and other exercise of administrator authority?
  2. How detailed would your reviews of his closures be?
  3. Would you be monitoring his talk page, to see if he was removing questions and good faith expressions of concerns?
  4. Should anyone who thinks Jcb is avoiding responsibility contact his mentor/monitors?
  5. If Jcb doesn't show up in discussions where his previous closures are discussed to do you think your role would require pressuring him to do so? For some reason Jcb seems to think he is entitled to demand an amnesty for closures made prior to his previous review. Do you think he is entitled to blow off concerns about his exercise of administrator authority prior to this amnesty he demands?
  6. Do you think he would be entitled to demand an amnesty that dates to the close of this discussion?
  7. If Jcb does show up when his previous closures are discussed do you think it would be acceptable for him to follow his past practice of weighing in as he were an uninvolved third party, and failing to identify himself as the administrator responsible for the closure under discussion?
  8. Do you see yourself as authorized to remove Jcb's administrator authority, if he continues to defy our policies and procedures? I think just about all of us would prefer if it weren't necessary to initiate Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3) if he can't or won't amend the behaviors identified here as problematic. Geo Swan (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dangers of volunteers who want to do more than their share

I've been involved in organizations that rely on volunteers for over three decades. Decades ago, when I sat on the Board of Directors of my local food coop I attended a workshop on how to effectively manage teams of volunteers. The leadder of that workshop offered a surprising argument, just as individuals who don't do their share represent a problem, he suggested there was a certain class of volunteer who endangered their organizations because they worked hard to do more than their share. He warned that these volunteers would seek out key positions, work hard at them, and make themselves indispensable, or at least appear indispensable.

One danger is that if these volunteers perform their tasks too well, the rest of the organization forgets how to do that task. If they are no longer available, because they have to move, or they get ill, get married, take on a more demanding day job, or get hit by a bus, the organization can be left in a real jam -- particularly if they were the volunteer treasurer, or volunteer purchasing agent, or some other role where they did not work as part of a team.

Another danger is that some of these super volunteers start to feel that since they have worked extra hard compared with the rest of the volunteers it was appropriate for them to feel an extra sense of entitlement.

  1. Some of these super volunteers start to feel that the ordinary rules don't apply to them;
  2. Some of these super volunteers start to feel their extra effort entitles them to use their position to advance a personal agenda;
  3. If they have spending authority some of these super volunteers may even feel entitled to embezzle from the organization;
  4. And, commonly, some of these super volunteers start to feel a sense of bitterness. Sometimes they engage in disruptive activities, to draw attention from the rest of the organization as to how hard they are working.

In the decades since that workshop I have thought about this surprising warning. I repeatedly find myself noticing volunteers whose eagerness to do more than their share looks like it will become a problem, or have already become a problem.

I am going to suggest everyone here, including Jcb, review Jcb's role here, with the dangers posed by super volunteers in mind:

  1. Jcb claims, and other contributors have agreed, that he is doing far more than his share of administrstor chores;
  2. I suggest Jcb has indicated that the extra effort he has chosen to put into closing discussions justifies his skipping (important) steps -- like fulfilling his obligation to explain himself;
  3. It seems to me that some of Jcb's comments suggest he is feeling dangerously unappreciated;
  4. Is it possible that some of Jcb's obviously counter-policy closures can be explained by his feeling extra entitlement due to his extra efforts?

In my opinion if ten percent of our administrators are doing 90 percent of the administrator chores then we have a problem. If the overly active administrator scaling back their efforts leaves tasks undone, then nominate more administrators to pick up the slack.

It seems to me that some of those voicing the opinion that Jcb should retain administrator authority are willing to forgive his lapses, lapses a relatively inactive administrator wouldn't be forgiven for, because of the appearance he has made himself indispensable. Personally, I think this is a very serious mistake. The commons, and all the WMF projects, should be run as if no volunteers were indispensable.

For the good of the project I think it would be best if all our volunteers who are at risk of having made themselves indispensable, or are at risk of feeling indispensable, would start to relax, and scale back their efforts to match the commitment of other volunteers. If Jcb is allowed to return to a full administrator role, after a probation period, he should not return to a level of effort where he feels he is indispensable. Geo Swan (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Docu, clarification please -- I wrote that I was concerned that some participants in this discussion seemed to have taken the position that we should overlook Jcb's lapses because they thought he had made himself indispensable. Is that how we should interpret your comment? Geo Swan (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May be I can reformulate it. If Jcb feels underappreciated, which may very well be the case, he should realize when/if he returns to DRs that the way to get more appreciation in this situation is not to improve on quantity (which is terribly important but not really useful if some of the decisions are substandard) but to improve on quality (including communication).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminds me of how I was with OTRS tickets until recently. Backlog is now at 12 days rather than the less than one it was, because Ymblanter is correct that 20% do 80% and I didn't feel it was healthy to put in so much time. I've scaled back my efforts to "match the commitment of other volunteers". Good advice, Geo Swan. – Adrignola talk 03:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new proposal

To try and close this out, I'm going to issue a refined version of Jcb's proposal above, which based on his comments above I expect he will readily agree to.

  • For a period of three months Jcb will not perform deletions that may be contentious, restricting himself to:
    1. Speedy deletion of empty categories
    2. Speedy deletion of obvious copyvio
    3. Speedy deletion of pages (gallery space) with obvious nonsense content
  • During this period, he will actively participate in complex and contentious DRs as a discussant, responding to the specific arguments of others and giving his impressions of consensus. He will also seek out a mentor who will monitor his closures after the three month hiatus, reverting any that have not given a thorough and respectful closing explanation representative of discussion consensus, and giving Jcb specific feedback on why the closure was reverted. This will continue until the mentor is satisfied that he is consistently performing well.

Thoughts, comments, revisions? Dcoetzee (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me this is fine. Jcb (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - abiding by the clarification of the "instruction for administrator for closing DRs" is sufficient; other limitations are not necessary. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't happy with the first alternate proposal, and I am not satisfied with this one. Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2) has been long, time-consuming and troubling. I would prefer to avoid a long, time-consuming and troubling Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3). I suggest that if we chose to overlook Jcb's serious lapses, and allow him to retain administrator authority, we should be satisfied he has read and understood all the concerns people have about his exercise of that authority, to date. I suggest we agree to some bright-line criteria. I suggest that prior to agreeing to allow him to retain administrator authority Jcb should agree that if he fails to measure up to specific criteria he will agree to resign his administratorship -- without making it necessary to initiate a long, time-consuming and troubling Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3).

    I drafted a list of about half a dozen criteria -- behaviors that if it were pointed out he had repeated them, he would resign, without making it necessary to initiate a long, time-consuming and troubling Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3). In the interests of brevity I will hold them back, and see if the rest of us generally agree that it would be a good idea for Jcb to agree to resign his administratorship if he can't measure up to a list of critieria. Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, a good mentor should be sufficient. Jcb (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me some other participants here are assuming you understand all the concerns voiced about your exercise of administrator authority. But, I remain concerned that you haven't shown you understand our concerns. Why shouldn't a demonstration, on your part, that you understand our concerns be a pre-condition to allowing you to retain administrator authority?

        As this proposal stands, you could continue to engage in other problematic behavior, like continuing to mock newbies, and claim that you think this discussion only required you to start offering meaningful explanations for your use of administrator authority. I am afraid the result of not having you paraphrase the concerns voiced here will be a long, time-consuming Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3). Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Dcoetzee's proposal seems reasonable to me. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support same for me. Amada44  talk to me 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I accept this proposal as a reasonable alternative to deadminship. CT Cooper · talk 12:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar  Oppose I'm puzzled by the alternative proposals, I can't find in past de-admin requests that we propose a kind of half-admin status. If, as this proposal states, Jcb can't use the tools this far in his adminship, then they should only be granted again following a future request. Hekerui (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The wording "This will continue until the mentor is satisfied that he is consistently performing well" gives an opening of perpetual status quo. Jcb could just frankly start ignoring the mentor. →AzaToth 22:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A good way to turn the vendetta into a workable situation from which Commons and its community as well as Jcb might get better. Comments like "Jcb could just frankly start ignoring the mentor" are not assuming good faith, which I think we still can. Being negative is the easy way, trying to get the best out of Jcb and the project may be harder. I think we should try. Lymantria (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - also for me a reasonable alternative to deadminship. --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose His behaviour is too incompatible with the admin status to leave any tool to him (even if I admit he's done also some great job). We can't take that risk. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is very similar to the last proposal, so I'll add the same comment: While I agree that some of his behavior was over the top, I think that the de-admin was too much. A three month trial sees completely reasonable to me. I would be happy to be the Admin mentor watching over him, alone, or with others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think he can change ? I bet he can't. He'll continue his mistakes. He'll continue to have despise and unrespect towards some users. And I bet he'll prefer some revenge somehow against everyone who have voted against him here (I think about trying to ask adminship later and I'm sure he'll oppose without any other reason than thinking about revenge... but I have to admit he'll be able to do so without adminship anyway !) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment contains five hypothetical accusations (and a completely off topic statement) and in my eyes the sole purpose of this comment is to throw mud at Jcb and this in not helpful at all. Amada44  talk to me 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I might have been too far. But I just wanted to say I'm very skeptical... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. reasonable proposal. Geagea (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral. This is reasonable if Jcb remains an admin; but I still have not seen enough from Jcb on some of the issues discussed on this page to change my removal vote. Rd232 (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To close or not to close?

Also I personally not always happy with closure of my deletion request by this administrator, I don't think that he did absolutely bad job, as some claimed in this request.

From my point of view, this request looks like pack versus pack fight, which is hardly could be interpreted as community decision. I think both sides should remember then they are not saints. And as Russian proverb tells "those does not make mistakes who does not do anything" ("не ошибается тот, кто ничего не делает").

However, problematic area is identified and reasonable suggestion to limit probability of opposite sides interactions was made.

There are more then enough of maintenance job on Commons to do which is not so controversial. And what is definitely lacking - is enough of human actions in respect to uploaded files. I think Jcb could do valuable job for project there.

This is not opinion in last instance. Commons have other bureaucrats.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi eugene, quite frankly, i have some doubts about your interpretation of this as a "pack versus pack fight". while i do have the impression that this might be true for some voters, i also have the impression that the majority of those who expressed concerns here did so because they really find Jcb's handling of deletion requests problematic and they based their criticism of his actions on actual edits (plenty, actually). many also explicitely adressed your "saying", arguing that this is hardly the point here. what i want to say is that i find that your summary underestimates the substance of this deadmin request (particularly in the part where you write "I think both sides should remember then they are not saints" -- i find that a bit irritating, but nevermind). cheers, —Pill (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not helpful to polarize and marginalize the contributors here as being in one pack or the other. Hopefully whoever closes this request will take into account that we have a diverse set of opinions and consider evidence and the strength of the arguments presented rather than labelling the contributors or just counting votes. --Fæ (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

zero tolerance

Some contributors here, while acknowledging that Jcb engages in problematic behaviors in his exercise of administrator authority, have suggested that he should be shown a large measure of tolerance, for various reasons.

I suggest there are certain classes of behaviors for which we should show zero tolerance. Further, I suggest that one class of behavior that should be shown zero tolerance should be administrators who abuse their administrator authority, either to push a personal agenda -- or to settle a grudge.

I suggest that Jcb has given the appearance that he mis-used his administrator authority to settle an inappropriate grudge he held against me.

Specifically, I suggest it looks like he felt inappropriate anger when I voiced my concern on May 9th about some of his troubling behaviors, and I suggest it looks like he inappropriately mis-used his administrator powers when on May 10 he closed a discussion, Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan over deleting some redirects I was using to help me keep track of a big, important upload I was making.

That massive series of uploads took about eight weeks, and about 200 hours of my time. Every day, for several hours a day, for eight weeks, I gritted my teeth in frustration over his frankly shocking unwillingness to explain why he deleted those redirects. I am not a naturally suspicious person. Around the seven week mark I left this comment on his talk page, which he snipped with a comment implying I was wasting his time. It was at that point I decided I had to go back and find our first interaction, to see if it would provide clues to his behavior. When I saw how I had voiced valid good faith concerns the day before the bizarre closure, and he had chosen to ignore them, it occurred to me his otherwise mystifying intransigence could be explained if he had gambled that he could get away with closing that discussion as delete, even though there was no valid justification for doing so, in order to get even with me for asking him questions he couldn't answer.

If Jcb gambled that he could get away with an invalid "delete" closure to impede my efforts, to satisfy a very inappropriate grudge, then I repeat that I believe this would be an example of a kind of behavior for which we should show zero tolerance. I believe that kind of mis-use of tools should justify a permanent removal of same.

I acknowledge that there are alternate explanations for Jcb's actions. However, Jcb has not offered an alternate explanation. And I am afraid all the alternate explanations that I can come up with depend on a lack of competency on Jcb's part sufficient to justify a deadminship. For instance, maybe he is closing deletion discussions where he is insufficiently fluent to read and understand all the arguments? Maybe the reason why his closures routinely do not explain why he discounted counter-arguments is that he wasn't able to understand the counter-arguments he chose to ignore? I suggest routinely closing discussions when you know you couldn't understand the points made in the discussions should also be grounds for deadminship. Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult for me to understand Geo Swan's anger about Jcb's closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan. It is even more difficult to understand how he can think this is personal. And it happened in May! Get over it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you disputing whether an administrator who mis-uses his administrator powers to settle an inappropriate grudge has committed a very serious breach of trust? Are you disputing that any time an administrator has given the appearance they mis-used their administrator powers to settle an inappropriate grudge merits very serious scrutiny? Geo Swan (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another alternate proposal

I am not satisfied with the alternate proposals made so far. I am drafting a third alternate proposal. Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can save your time. From what I have seen in your comments around this procedure, I really don't believe an eventual proposal from your side would be working for me. Jcb (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am going to start my proposal anyhow.

I am not satisfied with the alternate proposals made so far.

I suggest we really should not count on Jcb fully understanding the various concerns voiced by contributors who have been trouble by his exercise of administrator authority.

  • On October 28th Jcb claimed he closed discussions correctly 99.7 percent of the time.
  • He made some additional comments over the next day or so.
  • He was silent for several days -- which would be consistent with his usual pattern of ignoring feedback he found unpleasant.
  • But a day or so ago he reappeared and agreed he was not the world's best communicator, and agreed to try harder to explain himself -- as soon as this discussion endorses him retaining his administratorship.

While several other contributors have congratulated him for partially acknowledging a measure of normal human fallibility, I am concerned that this last minute, partial acknowment of a human fallibility falls short of what we should really ask of Jcb.

While his record of failing to explain his use of administrator authority, and his record of offering very inadequate explanations, explanations that weren't relevant, or otherwise fell short, is one of the major concerns voiced about him behavior there are other important concerns. I am concerned, given his record, that if he is allowed to retain administrator authority he will continue to repeat the other troubling behaviors, and if challenged he will dispute that the consensus arising from this discussion required him to stop.

I would like a mechanism where, if he breaks the commitments made here, he will resign his administratorship, without requiring initiating Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3). It seems to me, as the previous proposals stand, anyone who thinks Jcb did not improve his behavior would have to initiate Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3). Rather than Jcb picking his own mentor/monitor I suggest we seek out three previously uninvolved respected individuals, who will agree to monitor him. I suggest that we only agree to allow Jcb to retain his administrator authority if he agrees to resign it, without argument, if two of those three mentor/monitors agree he has not complied with the consensus arising here.

I also think it is necessary, prior to an agreement for Jcb to retain administrator authority, that we agree which other problematic behaviors, beyond failing to make an effort to offer a meaningful effort to explain himself, are serious enough that if he continues them they should be grounds for a deadminship.

I think it is necessary for Jcb to demonstrate that he understands each class of problematic behavior the rest of us here agree he should no longer engage in.

I am going to suggest some additional patterns of problematic behavior Jcb has engaged in, and request that we discuss whether repeats of these behaviors should trigger his resignation. Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dcoetzee proposal is workable and simple. It's clear what I can expect and it's clear what the community can expect. This in contrary to your proposal. Let's get back to the Dcoetzee proposal. Jcb (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense Jcb, but crucial elements remain unclear with the other proposals.
  1. You have not demonstrated you understand the concerns the rest of us have voiced -- only a very limited subset of those concerns.
  2. I really think we have to assume that you will continue to engage in exercising your administrator authority in all the ways that some of us have voiced concerns about, when you have ignored addressing them in this discussion. I think this either means you haven't understood them, or that you don't care what others think, and you plan to continue these patterns, regardlessly.
  3. The other proposals allow you to pick the mentor/monitor for yourself, after this discussion closes.
  4. The other proposals are unclear as to what happens when those concerned now continue to see problematic exercises of administrator authority if you retain administrator authority following this discussion.
  5. I think almost all of us want to avoid a long and tiring Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3). For this reason I am very concerned over any proposal that allows you to retain some or all of your administrator authority unless you agree to resign, without requiring Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3), if a smaller group of monitors agrees you have continued to engage in a problematic exercise of administrator authority. Geo Swan (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mocking or bullying newbies

Newbies should be able to count on administrators to do their best to measure up to the standards of civility we should all aim for. I found Jcb mocking a newbie. He called the newbie "clownish". The newbie had initiated a request to review one of Jcb's closures. I urged that newbie not to follow Jcb's bad example. I urged them not to think since an administrator engaged in that kind of behavior they should consider that kind of communication OK. I then left a note on User talk:Jcb, informing him of my comments. Jcd did not go back to the initial discussion. He never apologized to the newbie. He did not acknowledge reading my heads-up.

There is a phenomenon I have seen many times. I see promising newbies, who were learning the ropes, who have made some positive contributions, get slapped down inappropriately by administrators who think they are no longer obliged to comply with our civility policies and conventions. Some of those newbies do manage to roll with it, stick around, and make positive contributions. Other promising newbies leave the project at that point, which I find very troubling. And yet a third group become a real problem. The rough treatment they got seems to embitter them. They follow the bad example of the bad administrator. They become uncooperative. They edit-war. They think they should follow an 11th commandment -- everything is OK, if you don't get caught. Eventually the once promising newbie ends up getting permanently blocked, after following the bad admins example they have spread some chaos.

Seeing administrators mock and bully newbie always disturbs me. I hope it disturbs enough of you that we agree that further mockery should trigger Jcb's resignation. Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to examples of recent 'bullying newbies'? I can't remember any bullying of newbies and I can't imagine this would be or have been something structural. If you provide something within the past three months, I will comment at it. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple search gave this link to the archive: [40] Neozoon (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the exact context, but also I don't think it's relevant to keep focussing on things from April or May, even far before the (unsuccessful) previous procedure. Please provide something that at least happened after the previous de-admin procedure. Jcb (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Neozoon. Here is my second comment in that discussion. I advised the newbie that they hadn't done anything wrong, and I urged them not to follow Jcb's bad example.

    With regard to Jcb's claim that this concern is stale -- that I wasn't advising him in a timely manner -- well I thought leaving him a heads-up on his talk page, a few minutes later, would serve as a sufficiently timely advisory.

    Jcb, are you asserting that, prior to your July admin review you didn't know how to be civil and collegial, and now you do? Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Till now you filled about 25-30 % of this page, mainly with things from far before the July procedure, repeating many times the same things, for example you already linked 7 times to one and the same May DR at this page. May I conclude that you just couldn't find anything recent that looks like 'bullying of newbies'? Oh yeah, and canvassing. Jcb (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion we remain accountable for our actions, essentially forever. In my opinion, we can expect good faith contributors to extend to us an amnesty for past mistakes -- when we have fully demonstrated we recognize those past mistakes. This crucial demonstration that you understand the concerns expressed about your behavior is largely absent here. I don't think we can assume you do understand those elements of your problematic behavior you have not addressed. Since you haven't made an effort to show you understood our concerns I think we really have no choice but to assume you will continue in all the problematic behaviors you have not acknowledged were mistakes, if you are allowed to retain full or partial administrator authority.
No one expects you, or any other contributor here, to be perfect, to never make mistakes. But, a corollary of our policies and conventions on civil and collegial communication, is that we have to tell our fellow contributors when we realize we have made a mistake. When we don't they have to assume we haven't clued in, and that we will continue to repeat the same mistakes, over and over again. Even though your talk page bears a promise that you will consider the possibility you may have made a mistake your record shows you an ongoing failure to acknowledge mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any proposal

I know, yet another section. But I think this will gather up some opinions by those who have voted 'remove' but not comment about the proposals. I  Oppose any proposal other than de-adminship (or keep, any of them two). I believe it is kind of baby-ish and non-admin that an admin has to be mentored. Either deadminship if the community believes the tools should be removed from him, or keep if they believe he deserves a second chance. If an admin does not have the qualities for performing some of the admin actions for 3 months, he should not be an admin at all; I share Hekerui's feelings about this matter. --ZooFari 18:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This. Jafeluv (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Jcb does a lot of work for Wikimedia:Commmons and other projects and thus is likely to ruffle more feathers than other more low-lying users. High trees catch lots of wind, to paraphrase a Dutch saying. SpeakFree (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: With caveat: Jcb should not deal with sex related DR's as he was interviewed in an episode of the Dutch television show Man bijt hond in which he said that didn't want to narrate erotic related articles for Spoken Wikipedia saying "Articles which I find perverse in that sense are .. well then you talk about for example more erotically tinted articles, I would not narrate them soon." SpeakFree (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Dutch television nor Spoken Wikipedia is relevant for Commons, not to mention the fact that this thematic issue has already been mentioned above. --Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is Jcb's closures convinced some of us he was not bringing an open mind to his closures of deletion discussions of images related to human sexuality. SpeakFree found that Jcb had been interviewed on TV(!) I think SpeakFree is suggesting Jcb's comments seem to show a bias that should preclude him from closing discussions of images related to sexuality. You are correct, this issue has been mentioned above. What you won't find above is any response from Jcb. Jcb has promised to make a greater effort to explain himself -- yet he won't address this very serious issue? Geo Swan (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had intentionally refrained from commenting to SpeakFree's (indirect) suggestion of a conflict of interest issue which might even be seen as an ad-hominem attack. More importantly, if we start profiling admins by their personal beliefs etc. then we should stop any deletions by admins, as thinking this further might mean that atheist/agnostic admins shouldn't touch religious images, christian admins shouldn't touch ..., leftist admins shouldn't touch ... You get the idea. --Túrelio (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Túrelio, alot of people are capable of separating their personal beliefs from their place of work. This isn't about profiling everyone for everything they think. This is about when somebody has shown a practice of involving their personal beliefs with their work. That's a conflict of interest.Fry1989 eh? 21:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Kommentar personally I do not like the system of bringing many alternatives (did not count the number) into a de-admin discussion. It is not clear if every participant under votes has to put another vote under (all) this alternatives or how they should be treated. Normally this kind of discussion should take place on the discussion page and only if strong support for one (common) alternative is visible there, it should be added to the de-admin. From my point of view the alternatives open the gate to repeat all the stuff and points laid out and increase the pain and do not help our bureaucrats to close the discussion. So I will not participate at alternatives Neozoon (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it was originally an attempt to clarify what Jcb might have to do to change people's minds about removal. The whole thing quickly got very messy though, and it's not helped by the lack of bureaucrats to close the discussion now. To answer your question, then: no, the main #Votes section is what counts. If alternatives aren't getting people to change their votes, they don't matter. Rd232 (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship_2)&oldid=63245628"