Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 remove = 8;  Keep = 27; Result: No consensus for removal. --.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb (de-adminship 3)

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

Scheduled to end: 23:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Bringing discussion from Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Russavia_-_deletion_of_old_uploads in accordance with the Commons:Administrators/De-adminship policy.

At User_talk:Odder#Problems_with_Jcb serious concerns have been raised about the use of admin tools by Jcb. These concerns include:

In 2011, Jcb was de-adminned as a result of Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2), and was re-adminned in 2013 as a result of Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin). The above demonstrates that nothing has really changed.

His continued access to OTRS also needs to be questioned, given that he escalated accusations in the face of numerous OTRS agents stating that there was nothing wrong with that permission.

It is evident that Jcb thinks that he is a law unto himself, has demonstrated that his behavior from 2011 has returned, and has brought this project and it's stability into disrepute.

I see no point in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal as the damage is done.

He has lost my trust in holding the admin tools any longer and he should have the tools and OTRS access removed. The Photographer (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution: Dura-Ace, edited by The Photographer License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL version 1.3

Votes

  •  Neutral Waiting to see some apologies. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove sysop and OTRS access - expecting canvassing and a bunch of 'keep' coming from enwiki trolls...so meh...there are a few editors and former admins on this wiki with a personal vendetta against Russavia...my saying has always been, 'target the user, not the edits' ...Jcb went a step too far..he should have filed a DR and let the community decide what to keep or delete, not make the decision for himself...anyone can send 'otrs request' claiming they own the rights to images, a good agent would have investigated it further, not jumped the gun thus why he should lose his otrs access as well..commons does lack otrs agents for commons-permissions but i'd rather we have less good agents than more poor ones..--Stemoc 01:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove sysop and OTRS access: Apologizes could be expected from users who recognized his/her mistakes and already retracted, but three de-sysops and the unilateral deleting of files (and not undeleted yet) are enough to lost our (or at least my) trust, therefore, your tools. As I mentioned in other de-adminships, Admins are just trusted users with administrative tools and are here to serve the Community... but several ones forgotten this spirit. Admins should be impartial and neutral, avoiding personal vendetta against some users (Russavia and his files uploaded)... and just happened what I feared: deleting pre-ban files in bad faith, that is the most shameful hurt to the Community. If these users prefer to follow the interest of the WMF (or some employees) instead of the Community ones, then request a Job for the WMF! (and help or hurt the Community at your own own risk, but not as part of the Community). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep tired of seeing these pissing wars and this Kardashian-level drama on Commons. Sad to see it spill over into a request for deadminship. This request appears to be a continuance of this war, on which I take no side (no, really!). It is childish. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you claiming that the unilateral deletion of pre-ban files was an "adult" action? --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitie 10g: No, I absolutely do not. I didn't phrase it optimally. But for the betterment of the project, I think it would be best if both sides climbed down from the Reichstag. Calling for more deadminship over this is counterproductive when we already have a shortage of admins. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
actually, we do not have a 'shortage of admins', but we do have a shortage of these admins actually working on commons, most just have it as a feather in their cap, like the last person the community tried to de-sysop..wouldn't it be better to have less admins working in harmony than a large base where they are divided into multiple factions, each with their own goals and agenda? --Stemoc 00:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: we have huge admin backlogs. Copyvios and trash uploads go unnoticed more often than not. How do we not have a shortage of admins? Look, I'm not condoning what Jcb did. But do you not see what a flash in the pan this whole fight is? In order to stop fighting the solution is not to cut off all of your opponent's heads; it's to just lay down arms. So have some grace and realize we all put on our pants one leg at a time. Also, I would absolutely say the same thing if it were happening to a Russavia proponent. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There may be legitimate concerns but deadminship is not the first step in dealing with a situation like this, as other discussions are continuing. Also, removal of OTRS access is not handled by this process. --Rschen7754 02:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove sysop and OTRS access The closure of his first de-adminship request was a second chance. His re-adminship was a third chance. The closure of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 57#Jcb and his recent actions was a fourth chance. He was given already a sufficient number of chances to change his attitude and actions, however, he still doesn't changed. He violated the deletion policy not only once, but twice. His "lone-wolf nuking" is a serious concern, and I expect that the admins will help and discuss together, especially when there is a lot of files to be deleted. But no, he chose to delete a lot of files alone, without even opening a DR. Also, he deleted a lot of files with legitimate OTRS tickets, so his OTRS access should be removed either. Also, he used the word "fraud" wrongly, and even used it against a news agency. This behavior is unacceptable. I know he is a great admin, but his damaging actions are unacceptable. Come on Jcb, I know you know better than this, you just simply choose not to. --★ Poké95 03:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This de-admin request and some of the virulent comments above seek to present Jcb in the most unpleasant light possible. Although expressed as a whole series of bullet points, this is essentially a complaint about a single act of deletion, and I have to question whether the intemperate response would have been the same had the deletions not been Russavia-related. Probably few people would have even noticed, and even fewer would have cared. Some (not all) of the editors voting above appear to be doing so not because of the actual act complained of but in continuance of a highly-aggressive Russavia flame war, fanned very effectively by Russavia himself posting on Odder's talk page. Regardless of whether the community agrees with the actual deletion that Jcb carried out, it's inappropriate to use that as a convenient opportunity to remove a long-standing and active admin who happens not to be a Russavia supporter. It's disappointing to see some of the same users repeatedly making violently-worded attacks whenever an admin or editor so much as touches a Russavia-uploaded file. Being a non-supporter of a globally banned ex-user is not and should never be a reason for losing the sysop bit on this project. Use by Jcb of the word "fraud" was unfortunate and probably wrong, but as Natuur12 has pointed out, the word as used by a native Dutch speaker does not necessarily imply intent, and in the Netherlands even a honest mistake can be called fraud. If there are legitimate concerns here, by all means let's discuss them (as is already happening at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal), but let's not sacrifice yet another admin to childish Russavia-related drama. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it remains to be determined whether the deleted files were indeed "validly licensed" as has been baldly asserted in the very first bullet point presented by the proposer, above. Jcb as an OTRS agent thinks otherwise. That's a legal issue that needs to be looked into, but can't be assumed beforehand as the basis to de-admin someone, especially as the person asserting that the images were "correctly licensed" was Russavia himself, an assertion he has now partially retracted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having now carried out the review I suggested in the preceding paragraph, I am happy to confirm that the vast majority of the deleted files were indeed properly licensed. See here.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As per Michael. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. I think that the proposal of Natuur12 is good enough and agree with MichaelMaggs. -- Geagea (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Rschen7754 and MichaelMaggs. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Yet another out-of-process de-admin. Would a 'crat please close this. Per Commons:Administrators/De-adminship this process is only permissible after "prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal". The above linked page contains criticism of Jcb but absolutely no consensus for de-admin. The discussion and reasonable proposals are still being proposed/discussed on the admin noticeboard. This is very premature. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per MichaelMaggs and Magog. Storkk (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral While I fully agree that the deletions were a violation of rules and well possibly a bad faith action based on revenge campaign against Russavia, this was a single issue so far and Jcb is not one of that few sysops who permanently abuse their flag and attack other users and where I have been waiting for a desysop request for years now. Actually, the discussion on VP was not finished yet and there even was a proposal to solve the issue in a more mellow way. So, I wonder what this request is for? Seeing that it was started by a highly problematic user, who also is well known for abusing his rights (in this case the right to use mass upload tools), I have the impression that the only reason for opening this request is to add some more fuel to fire regarding a discussion on a user he apparently has problems with, in short: trolling. With that said, I am surely not willing to support it this way for now. --A.Savin 07:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per MichaelMaggs.    FDMS  4    11:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove sysop and OTRS access. My decision is based on two factors. The files deleted were uploaded before Russavia's ban and should have at least gone through due process before being deleted in large groups. Also, per other comments including inference by Michael above, there hasn't been any proof provided that these files are problems. Not to support and not to oppose, so they should not have been deleted the way they were. Secondly this is the 3rd de-adminship for Jcb. I read the other 2 and Jcb is clearly doing some activity that is problematic for an admin on this project. Reguyla (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per MichaelMaggs. BethNaught (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove sysop and OTRS access. Apologies could be perfect if it wasn't the case for somebody that is facing his/her third de-adminship. Violating the rules to delete CC licensed files (that still aren't undeleted), just because those were files uploaded by an user that the sysop has some disagreements... Being a sysop is not a privilege given to a particular user by the Wikimedia Commons community, but the commitment of that user with this community.--Dura-Ace (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per Magog the Ogre, MichaelMaggs, etc etc. Trijnsteltalk 15:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Entfernen Sie. Jcb engaged, among other things, in excessive blocks of ISP NAT public IP address (potentially used by thousands of users) which show a trigger-happy attitude way beyond a specific incident. Sysops, to avoid damaging the project, should not shoot on sight at the first shadow of their personal ghost but think twice before using their buttons (e.g. do a simple whois). Nemo 16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the WMF's global blocks are soft blocks (except for open proxies), so I don't understand why Jcb is making it a hard block (also, revoking talk page access and email access is useless for IPs). ★ Poké95 00:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep -He agreed with the proposal (besides a small detail but it wasn't about the details and he came up with a fair alternative). Also, a bit ironic that this de-RFA seems to be a breach of the cc-by-sa-license. And I agree with Rillke regarding the ticket. I would have never accepted it since it doesn't answer the 10 billion dollar question regarding the non-derivative clause. Natuur12 (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain As long as it is impossible to have a calm discussion about anything even remotely related to russavia I refuse to spend my time digging through piles and piles of accusations, spitballs and atomic waste to come to a conclusion. No thanks, ain't nobody got time for that. But slap Jcb with a trout for deleting those files without discussion, I guess. --El Grafo (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This escalated way too far, way too quickly. Other, actually helpful, solutions were on the table before this was created, and we should go back to thinking about those, which Jcb had already indicated a willingness to accept. Courcelles 18:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending. I don't know what's happened with Commons, but first there was HJ Mitchell, then Denniss, then this one. Somehow we have to stuff this de-adminship war back in the bottle, or else a few obscure and mild-mannered admins who keep their noses clean, say nothing provocative, and collect paychecks from reputation management companies will probably be the ones left behind to sweep up the mess. The originating discussion had several people requiring only that Jcb just indicate that he "gets it" that admins aren't supposed to run around doing damnatio memoriae or otherwise deleting whatever they want without discussion. Provided something like that happens, I can see voting to Keep. If he doesn't "get it", well, then maybe we can end the madness on the next person put up for deadminship. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain If I had my will, we would de-admin all friends and foes of Russavia and end this idiotic pissing contest once and for all. --Sebari (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove sysop and OTRS access, mostly per other such votes above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose de-adminship againt policy While I see some misuse of admin rights here, I do not thing that this vote is the right way to solve the problem. Ankry (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Another attempt by a banned user fan club to attack Jcb. Yann (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt by WMF fan club to support Jcb. --The Photographer (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
w:en:WP:BEDFELLOWS applies here just as much as there. The world is not divided into Russavia fans and WMF fans. I am certainly not a WMF fan. BethNaught (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, Yann, are you concluding that all of the remove votes here are "friends of Russavia"? You don't know what is really the situation here. ★ Poké95 01:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot get back to sorting photos and be polite to each other because the problem is, that the "foes" of Russavia (I am not saying that all keep votes are "foes" of Russavia) cannot just shut up and do something constructive. Just look at Yann's vote for example, it doesn't make sense. ★ Poké95 01:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Riley's new two step program: 1. Ignore the drama/"foes"/haters/etc 2. Continue editing! This new and improved program beats any other, and is stress-free. If you call in the next five minutes, I'll teach you about my hidden third step! Riley Huntley (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, thanks. :) (And what is the "hidden" third step?) ★ Poké95 02:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WT? Wow. These three votes, above, of Slaunger, Hedwig in Washington, Ellin Beltz, as is, should get no weight, as there certainly have been signs of consensus; see my longer comment that's part of this edit, below, for evidence.--Elvey (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elvey. The policy is in my opinion quite vague and it is up for interpretation of what "is some consensus for removal". When Russavia posted on odders talk page he concurrently pinged a lot of users, who have previously been sympathetic or shown some kind of support for his points of view. The long list of users very carefully did not include any users of the opposite opinion. I noticed that a majority of the users quickly asking for desysop were users from the list Russavia pinged. I am not trying to say that these users should not be allowed to have this opinion, but it seemed clear to be that there was a risk that this initial stream of comments was highly biased towards one view of the case. IMO there was no particular rush. It was not so that Jcb was in some kind of frenzy and kept on deleting files which should not be deleted. There was no urgency. Personally I find it very important that if you have a disagreement with another user you first try to - in a mellow and open-minded way - to sort it out personally on the users talk page. If you have tried hard to do that and have failed to come to a common understanding, ask for other opinions at COM:AN/U. Let the discussion take its time, and if then there is a consensus to open a de-whatever, and there are no other way out go that path. I tried to follow that process once when I had a fundamental agreement with Russavia. First I tried to resolve the issue I had personally by discussing the disagreement with him. That took a month, and since I regrettably could not get to a response to some - for me very important questions in the end, I asked for the opinion of a wider spectrum of users at COM:AN/U. That took another ten days after which a 'crat deemed there was consensus to open a de-crat discussion, which again took another 10 days or so. Whereas you may agree or disagree with my interpretation of policy, the process was a respectful one wrt to the user I had an issue with. In my opinion that is complying with the intend in the policy and as such I strongly disagree with you that my vote should get no weight. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Slaunger. I stand by the evidence below, which User:Peteforsyth comments on, below; did you review it? Many of those !voters are admins. I don't dispute that you could be ignorant of there being "any sign of consensus for removal" but I think it's only reasonable to now drop the claim that there was not "any sign of consensus for removal", and ignore the votes based on that claim that you made. Are you now saying that your vote should count because it's now intended to counter the risk of bias you raise (which is concerning though I haven't looked into it)? I don't object to that. Also, please note I have NOT voted, and was not pinged by Russavia either; I'm not pre-judging anyone. Oh, and bureaucrat odder agrees that the RfDA is not out of odder. -Elvey (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)--Elvey (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than argue in two places, I'll respond below to the claim that "odder agrees". -- Colin (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the connection between Russavia's actions and this de-adminship request? ★ Poké95 00:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now. Jcb, clearly important issues have been raised here. If you can describe how they have affected your thinking and how you might incorporate what this discussion has revealed into your future actions as an admin, that would probably help me to justify a "keep" vote. I appreciate your engagement in the discussion about the word "fraud." -Pete F (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It's good to see that Jcb has worked with the community to resolve this issue, and has personally restored many, if not all, the images in question, as was appropriate from review of the OTRS ticket. His willingness to take responsibility for his actions and work with the community tell me that a de-sysop is unnecessary. INeverCry 21:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is very encouraging to hear, INeverCry. Thank you for pointing it out. Do you know anywhere that Jcb has discussed this effort, or a diff that clearly shows what their response has been? The whole issue seems very opaque, unless I had hours to pore over specific diffs, and admin privileges to view many of them. -Pete F (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: per INeverCry. Wieralee (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep – Jcb certainly could have conducted himself better recently, but I don't think a strong case for removing his adminship has been presented. I am also uncomfortable supporting a de-adminship request which was started without going through the proper process and appears to be as much about politics than misuse of privileges. CT Cooper · talk 12:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elvey: I stand-by my comments that this RfDA did not go through the proper process, per the comments of Colin (talk · contribs) and others. Though I would have voted keep for other reasons, regardless. CT Cooper · talk 19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • CT Cooper: Whether or not you support this call for removal, it is perfectly legitimate. The guideline could be refined a bit, but it doesn't make sense to interpret as requiring broad consensus. That's what the vote is for. My reading is that it requires that a few people have agreed that there's something serious to be considered, which was certainly the case. - as originally pointed out by Pete F, below.--Elvey (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Agreed. I don't support it either; I haven't voted either. -Elvey (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and odder agrees with us (that this request for de-adminship is not out of odder.) -Elvey (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poké-Yeah, has something disapppeared into a w:memory hole? --Elvey (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey: I dunno, maybe because it is complete and undetectable. :) ★ Poké95 02:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poké Well, anyway, that's not the discussion I am thinking of / remembering. -Elvey (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Poké, my comment clearly shows I stated "in accordance with Commons:Administrators/De-adminship if you must", (said policy states prior discussion needed), I then further pinged the user on COM:AN stating "please continue discussion here if you "reject" the proposal" and further invited them to "keep this discussion somewhat centralized". Regardless of what I said to Dura-Ace, he was not the one to open this dRfA so it is irrelevant. If those involved were wise, they would have established consensus and continued the discussion on COM:AN as I recommended. As shown above by my vote, I am neutral in these discussions. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Just to make clear, Elvey claims "Odder agrees with us (that this request for de-adminship is not out of odder.)" That's not how I read his response. He's basically saying that since I (Colin) didn't demand that policy be enforced when it came to his own de-crat proposal (which failed) then he's not minded to enforce that aspect here when I request it of him, and "mostly because I haven't really got the time to get involved". That's pretty human: you didn't help me when my back was up against the wall, so why should I help here? And Odder isn't some god anyway, so his opinion is no more relevant than anyone else here. Oh and PierreSlim wrote "Thank you, for proposing something else than public beheading. I know, I have strong and harsh word sometimes, but amends and learning is the way forward IMO" before the de-admin was started. Anyway, whether you think there was a consensus of those predisposed to dislike Jcb or a real consensus of Commons users or frankly no consensus at all, the fact remains that regardless of this vindictive de-adminship, sensible people have reviewed the images and they are being restored and the problem has already been dealt with. So this was all quite unnecessary drama and simply a platform for hate. It is about time that Commons stopped reaching for the nuclear button ever time someone makes a mistake or takes offence. The lesson here is that we have policy to prevent such premature and vindictive de-adminships and it is about time that policy was obeyed. Short-circuiting the procedure just causes a whole lot of pain and what has it achieved? It's a flop. -- Colin (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a waste of perfectly good electrons. Blah. <Quote presented in false context> Personal attack. Blah. When asked to close it for being out of order, User:odder said, "I would say that I see no reason to close this one." So that's why I said "odder agrees with us (that this request for de-adminship is not out of odder.)" What part of "I would say that I see no reason to close this one." do you find lacks clarity?
Also, I understand User:Jcb has more undeleting and reverting to do; the problem has not entirely been dealt with. Do you think you're done, Jcb? --Elvey (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about "quote presented in false context"! You quote only the final clause of Odder's long explanation of why he is refusing my request to close this as out of process -- he's refusing because he's calling me a hypocrite, and he has a point. -- Colin (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Ok. In response to your special pleading, User:odder said, "I would say that I see no reason to close this one." So that's why I said "odder agrees with us (that this request for de-adminship is not out of odder.)" No part of "I would say that I see no reason to close this one." lacks clarity. There is an additional reason given for not stepping in, namely the hypocrisy that you admit to. So two reasons were given, not just the one I focused on and you deny exists. By the way, Colin, your claim that someone proposed a public beheading is not MELLOW (and AFAIK, not true). There are ex-admins among us who are normal editors, yes? Their mops were taken away, but heads are still attached to bodies, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per the comments of most of the very active editors above -- Yann, INC, Hedwig, Ellin, Magog, Michael, Natuur12, Trijnstel, Christian, Colin, Storkk, Gagea.... We need to cut active Admins a little more slack -- we all make occasional errors and intemperate comments. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote to  Keep before this request closes. I will give Jcb one more chance. Not because that this request is out of process. Not because there is drama. Because his claim of responsibility (restoring a lot of files he deleted, reverting CommonsDelinker across several wikis) convinced me. He is still a great admin even there is a de-adminship request against him, so I will put my trust again to him, even he opposes Russavia. This chance is final, and when he deleted a lot files again out of process, I will support again a de-sysop on another de-adminship request. Welcome back, Jcb. --★ Poké95 07:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per MichaelMaggs. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain as I have supported the constructive proposal by Natuur12 on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal. In view of Jcb's cooperative behaviour over the last week, a de-admin now would be merely punitive. However, I want to remind all admins (including myself) that we need to try our utmost not to let our feelings/opinions influence the execution of our advanced rights. If in doubt, go to COM:AN and let others weigh-in. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per MichaelMaggs, but I echo comments above that the Russavia flame war needs to end, or we're likely to see casualties from both camps. WJBscribe (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

  • Seeing the users opposing the de-adminship, most of them mentions Russavia-drama or childish. Do you remember the main purpose of Commons? Making a repository of free files that everyone can reuse. The unilateral deletion of files and the serious accusations form Jcb are taken too lightly, considering that this issue affected not just files uploaded by a (now) banned user, but our files.
The Deletion Policy was decided by the Community; the adminship and de-adminship is decided by the Community. But the Russavia ban and the desysop of Denniss was decided by the WMF inside four wall that caused a Domino effect with disastrous consequences for the Community, and the proof of hurt is contundent.
The Anti-Russavia users used the excuses of trolling to justify worse actions from the WMF employees and users who prefer to follow anything than the interests of the Community, making Commons a free repository of media files that anyone can reuse.
  • Who assumed good faith and who assummed bad faith here?
  • What or who are destroying the Community?
  • Have you personal problems against this banned user, or you're just following blinky the actions form the WMF?
  • Do you even actually know why this user was banned?
  • What is greater, the WMF or the Community?
  • Why you prefer to follow the Dictatorship instead of the Democracy? Fear? Or just hate?
Please answer these questions before voting or commenting. I'm voted considering the actions and also the intentions of Jcb (I don't know his intentions, but considering the event and the hate, I don't see ngood faith on them), but the actions are clearly disruptive and harmful to the Community, and neither can justify it. Retract and apologize, or desysop, neither simpler.
Won't someone think of the children Files? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Amitie, there is no democracy in Wikimedia, in my knowledge... (I also said that too that there is democracy, and Jee corrected me that there is no democracy.) ★ Poké95 00:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I mentioned democacy, is more related to the processes, and how the Community decide the things (with Votes and Community concensus) (the closer example is this de-adminship itself), by contrast the dictatorship (like the ban of Russavia and the de-sysop of Denniss). --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
en:WP:DEMOCRACY says that "Wikimedia (note that I changed it) is not an experiment in democracy or any political system". IMO, democracy is for votes, not discussions. This de-RfA is a discussion, because we explain our supports and opposes. ★ Poké95 00:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about Democracy in general, not limited to a Wikipedia Policy (and notice that Commons is not a democracy is not an official policy like Wikipedia, altrough it could apply here, too). I'm just talking the democracy and dictatorship in general, just as an example. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you meant. ★ Poké95 00:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not pleased seeing these reverts feeding troll-socks and protecting the administrator's noticeboard, which is a place every user should be able to edit, to bring abuse to our attention. Additionally, I am not pleased about the mass deletion of material that was considered okay before while there were no circumstances that would warrant a change regarding this consideration. That a news agency accidentally uploads one or two photos that they do not hold copyright on does not warrant all these deletions. On the other hand, I wouldn't have approved them at the first place; the news agency could have changed the file description pages on Flickr what they did not do, so I would assume they do not like to see their content modified. -- Rillke(q?) 11:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russavia is not permitted to edit here, whether admin noticeboard or elsewhere. He is not a "user". He is a former user. The situation here does not require Russavia to edit and as we can see, his participation only inflames the issue. I don't see the Commons community writing an email to the photographer apologizing for wrongly hosting his images and incorrectly describing them as CC. And no, we can't just pass the buck to the news agency. Everyone here is responsible for the images they upload. It is about time there was more focus on getting third parties to upload their own images, rather than taking the easy but legally risky option of uploading on their behalf. But then, it would be harder to inflate one's ego with a massive upload count. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia is not permitted to edit here Who decided it? --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Colin we all know you do not like Russavia and do not want him editing. Russavia is not the only person commenting there that protecting the noticeboard prevents. Reguyla (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amitie you agree to that every time you accept the ToU every time you make an edit. It is absolutely standard practice on all websites with a user-base that the owner can ban anyone for any reason. Reguyla, my comments are nothing to do with whether I "like" russavia, so please stop pretending people have grudges or vendettas. He's been banned. That's all there is to it. If a few people in the community didn't actively enable him to edit, then the page wouldn't have needed protecting. -- Colin (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the ToU is an important part of what we must follow, but IMHO, not greater than the Policies that We, as the Community, decided. Our Policies does not allow censorship and abuse, the ToU do (abuse like the unilateral bans of Russavia and others, or the unilateral de-sysops of Denniss), and protecting this page to forbid some users to edit (banned users) is, IMHO, a way of censorship, that I don't tolerate (specially if the ban was not decided by the Community) (and again, I don't support his post-ban editing, but I repudiate the actions against his pre and post good faith-only contributions, specially his files uploaded, and specially pre-ban ones). The unilateral ban decided by the WMF is questionable (and questionated), but the unilateral deletion of files by an Administrator (that is supposed to be part of the Community) is harmful and shameful. I don't know why other users support (or at least justify) that shameful practice. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not pretending anything. There are clear grudges in place on this project (and others) and it's not something I am just making up. This content was pre ban, so the ban isn't even a factor at all. The only reason we are even having this conversation is because Jcb unilaterally deleted content out of process. The ban on Russavia is only relevant in that it gives us a point in time to use as a reference for this case. The problem here is in Jcb deleting content for no reason, it has very little to do with Russavia's status other than the folks that want to use an existing ban as an excuse to delete portions of Russavia's contributions out of spite. Reguyla (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that it is more subtle than that. Firstly the community is divided not into two camps, but many, across a spectrum, with, perhaps Jimmy Wales at one end and Russavia at the other.
My position, for instance, is to AGF about Russavia, because I don't like the "we are banning X and we are not telling anyone why", especially when X is in clear personal conflict with a Trustee of the Foundation. Of course, I have to accept the possibility that Russavia has done something totally unforgivable, but it seems to me the perfect mechanism to libel someone without stating their crime.
However, I would not enable Russavia to edit English WP, just as I never attempted to edit it when I was blocked there. As you know there is a big division of opinion on reverting "good edits by 'bad' editors" - and by and large, a workable solution has been that anyone may revert, but conversely anyone may re-instate on their on cognisance.
The difficulty comes where someone like Russavia is benefiting the project in other ways. Some of us see blocking these actions as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Others see it as continuation of policy by other means.
Not all of those who want to limit Russavia's actions on the various projects necessarily have a problem with Russavia, over and above his attempts to continue being involved in the project after being told he is not welcome.
Rich Farmbrough, 23:05 5 April 2016 (GMT).
Good points but these images were uploaded well before he was banned, so there is no need to delete them, let alone unilaterally out of process. It's just an excuse to justify deleting otherwise good content on the grounds of the user being banned. Should we now just go ahead and delete all of Russavia's uploaded content? Because this case seems to indicated that it would be allowable to pick any group of preban content he uploaded and delete it at will just because Jimbo got him banned. Reguyla (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Kommentar I've no comment on current issue as I can't read and understand all issue from my limited time and Internet access. But I agree with Rillke; this is a terrible misuse of OTRS. OTRS should not be used where more transparent solutions are available. When a photo-stream need to be mirrored in Commons, the best solution is to apply a free license (in proper form) there; not to add dubious terms there and send private mails to OTRS. All such files can be deleted for utmost transparency and to protect the safety of reusers. This is just POINTY drama feeding more drama. (I had already discussed well in VPC about the nonsense of many such OTRS permission templates.) Jee 16:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Kommentar I don't understand why users are saying that Jcb will change, we can accept Jcb, and so on. This is his third de-adminship request, if you didn't looked at the title. Jcb has been given a sufficient number of chances, and still, made a mistake. Mistakes aren't meant to be repeated. One word is enough for a wise man. So it means, Jcb isn't wise in using his admin tools. I would be comfortable if Jcb will be editing as a "normal user", like me, Amitie, Fæ, Colin, Jkadavoor, and others. --★ Poké95 00:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jcb is indeed a bit more strict in copyright matters compared to other admins. He usually don't accept permissions from subjects. He usually don't accept permissions from copyright holders if different from photographers. I had disagreed with him many times; including one controversial DR jointly promoted by Jcb and that banned user. Here the only difference is Jcb just "touched" that banned users uploads. This is not the first time I'm seeing that banned user's friends have different stand in case to case. So I have nothing more to add than what Sebari said above. Jee 02:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is not about friendship. I (and most of the users here) repudiate the disruptive, unilateral actions, but it does not make me a Russavia friend. If you (for everyone) want to be Russavia enemy, don't become an enemy of his contributions like Jcb and other impartial admins, and also, don't tag the users who want to protect the files as friends of Russavia. Do you forgotten that Jcb se metió por la raja the Deletion Policy and considered that as a minor problem? --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with any works here as far as permission is crystal clear. A Flickr stream never need a conspiracy permission buried under OTRS as everything can be transparently mentioned there itself. Uploading others works in a Flickr stream is a violation of Flickr ToU (except for Flickr Commons) and we need not trust such users. Jee 04:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because what Jcb did is deleting the pre-ban uploads of Russavia, you conclude that all of those that voted remove here are "friends" of Russavia. Okay, let's say I am a "friend" of Russavia. I communicate to Russavia via IRC. We actually make jokes of the actions of those that are "anti-Russavia", especially the WMF. I actually helped him translate a tweet to Tagalog. But what is the point if some of the users that voted remove are "friends" of Russavia? We voted remove because of the actions of Jcb in general, not only "against Russavia". I think the real problem here are those who are "anti-Russavia", and they forgot what is the main goals of Commons. Soooo judgmental. Well, to all that are "anti-Russavia" there, just shut up. I respect your opinion if you are against Russavia, but just shut it up. Just find something to do constructive or take a wikibreak. Just as simple as that. Thanks, ★ Poké95 06:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Commons will be far better in quality and uniqueness of contents if more people shut up their computer and take camera than sitting lazy 24/7 in front of IRC and drama boards. Jee 07:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't have a camera... Maybe countervandalism, category cleanup, and patrolling files will work, right? :) ★ Poké95 08:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't? You really should buy one. It is far more fun than maintance work and we could surely use more photographs from the Philippines. Natuur12 (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad the Philippines has no freedom of panorama... But I can photograph the nature... ★ Poké95 08:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Nope. They (patrolling, etc.) only help to eat up your existing energy and creativity. A good camera is your eyes. Walk around and learn to ignore the distracting noise around you (including that comes from the drama boards). You will quickly learn the art of documenting the world around you. A humble start with your phone camera may the first step. You will get help from the community soon. Good luck! Jee 08:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cirt, I failed to see the points of that two questions. 1. This is not against a particular user issue. It is about the way Jcb handling permissions. If people can see this that way, I too in your side as I commented earlier. As Maggs stated in his review, we need not require formal permission from the photographer if we can believe copyright is formally transferred. But we can't allow this for all cases as many people claims (especially subjects like celebrities) copyright is transferred to them. Another case is art galleries claiming copyright is transferred to them from the artists. So this will end up as the OTRS volunteer's discretion how to close it. 2. Emails are always meant to be private. If people need something public, please consider alternatives like Village Pump, instead of encouraging people to publish emails here which noway welcome here. Jee 01:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jcb can release his side of his part of the text of his apology email, without needing to give header information or any other party's response. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Another comment: So, several users consider this de-adminship out of process, but, IMHO, considering the deletion totally right, no? If you're finding previous Community concensus, there are the previous two de-adminship of Jcb, ahould not be that enough?
I finally know what is the main purpose of admins: deleting files (just sarcasm, but appears to be true...) --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a danger of discussion/drama on two noticeboards. Either make your requests to Jcb on the admin noticeboard or here. Not both. Publishing the email and requiring an interaction ban are both ridiculous ideas. This is further evidence that this de-adminship proposal was hugely premature -- deal with the current situation on the admin noticeboard till it reaches a conclusion and then, perhaps, vote on whether he should still be an admin. Running a de-admin proposal while still trying to sort out the issues is like negotiating while holding a knife to someone's throat. So please, any requests/issues to do with the recent deletion and subsequent restoration of files should be on the other noticeboard. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that asking for a comment on a website is "is like negotiating while holding a knife to someone's throat" appears to be solely inflammatory rhetoric and not conducive to constructive dialogue. -- Cirt (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer the American idiom of "negotiating with a gun to the head"? Whatever. We all know what it means. Some people are abusing the ongoing threat of de-admin to push for more and more unreasonable demands. Fortunately, we have some level-headed folk who have actually dealt with the deletion/licence-review/restoration as Commons should have dealt with it. I do hope the lesson learned here, and the previous failed de-admin, is that premature and out-of-process requests like this just generate a lot of heat but fail to achieve anything useful. Those involved in creating this request and eagerly showing up with their torches and pitchforks should all be ashamed. -- Colin (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use of phrases such as "negotiating with a gun to the head" can contribute to the generation of heat in the discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well as long as the "heat" is coming from the red faces of those who instigated this farce, then that's fine. Cirt, the "Tone Police" game is old and no longer works, and is really really hypocritical given the amount of genuinely offensive remarks and language used by some here, or the genuinely offensive actions of trying to topple an admin and then publicly shame him with silly requests to publish his apology email in order to see if it is grovelling enough. Dreadful. -- Colin (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Since this de-adminship request will end by tomorrow, Jcb, this is your third de-adminship request, and luckily, it will not be successful. What have you learned on these three de-adminship requests? --★ Poké95 01:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: There hasn't been any consensus between me, Slaunger, and Ellin. Certain peeps should leave Commons behind and go to paranio-wiki or conspiracy-wiki. Geez. Dear Abby says: Get a life and drink more tea. I won't reply to any other nonsense. I already have a life. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Kommentar I strongly think that the comments when relevant should be in the section "comment", not written in answer to a previous vote. The section "vote" is for the votes. During a vote, the systematic answers/reviews made by users who do not agree should be considered bullying and harassment. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the whole thing is backward anyway. There should be a discussion for a period, where voting is banned. Then a vote, if necessary. Per m:Polls are evil and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. As several people have pointed out, a longer discussion prior to creating this page, would have resolved the problem without drama and without a single vote being cast. Over-eagerness to vote on things is a serious flaw on Commons and on polarising areas like the Russavia controversy, it's really damaging. I hope our 'crats/admins take note of the increasingly premature escalation of issues into votes on removing rights/bans and instead work to ensure the community seeks to find a positive consensus solution, rather than merely a majority vote for execution. -- Colin (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
collateral damage from Jcb's attack

Also, in addition to being totally out-of-process, Jcb's deletions resulted in disruptive deletions on other projects. Russavia provided partial results from delinker logs. Has this collateral damage all been reversed? When was/will it be reversed?--Elvey (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His contribs at en.wiki show a dozen or so related delinker reverts. His global contribs show related delinker reverts on multiple wikis. Jcb would have to be asked if he's done all the needed reverts/replacements or is still working on them, but he's definitely been addressing that side of the problem too over the past few days. INeverCry 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, it's confusing to me that Jcb has not commented broadly on how he is handling this. Based on your updates, INeverCry, it seems to me that all is going well. I'm having a hard time understanding why we're not hearing that directly from the person whose adminship is under discussion, though. I think either way, the whole thing will be closed "keep"; but with a couple sentences of update, it could be closed "keep" with a much stronger sense of satisfaction from the Commoners who have taken the time to read about and/or engage directly with this situation. It would be nice if we could put this whole thing decisively behind us. -Pete F (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship_3)&oldid=192935983"