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

remove = 9; Keep = 28 (2 with too few edits); Neutral = 0 - 24,3% Result - unsuccessful. 99of9 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reviewed by a×p_de ^Hello! 09:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb (De-adminship)

Vote

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

Dear community,

Yesterday I started a discussion about our administrator Jcb, while he did edit he didn't take the time to respond more that saying that he doesn't take this serieus. Because he doesn't take the discussion serieus it seems to me that there is no other option than starting a vote. Currently this administrator is involved for the last 6 months in various editwars where he doesn't AGF but blocks the second party without a warning or messages. He miss-uses the Rollback function breaking policies. And he miss-uses te block function on this wiki and least but not last he censored things he don't like.

We can drop lots of links here but I took for all points a little bit, there is a lot more when you check his last 1000 edits.

A. For the editwars we have links supporting this claim:

B. For closing DR's without consensus but still under discussion we have:

C. Removing speedy deleted notices that could be discusable and should rather be send to DR:

Both where still under discussion while they where closed, its administrator task to act on community consensus he didn't wait the consensus.

D. For blocking we have:

Хинт, this user didn't agree with {{PD-text}}, Jcb put a message on his talkpage, the user responds and got block for 1 day and 2 days later for a month. Please note that Jcb never responded after the answer made my this user.
- 11:09, 16 June 2011 Jcb (talk | contribs) blocked Хинт (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit warring after warnings)
- 18:02, 14 June 2011 Jcb (talk | contribs) blocked Хинт (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (disruptive behaviour)
Silviatrofe made 2 edits on a DR, I believe he wasn't used to our DR system and I guess we will never now what he was wanting to say. But after his 2 edits there was no warning, no message but a 3 day block
Bulka UA got blocked on 14 may for editwarring, there are no edits what so ever that he editwarred, there was also no warning nor a message made by Jcb

E. When a user doesn't know its way arround on Commons Jcb doesn't help the user, he decides to use rollback instead of making a comment or helping people:

F. The following DR clossures where wrong and needed to be overturned by a other administrator. A administrator shouldn't close a DR when he is not complete sure about what he is doing. Making mistakes is human, but its also a possible problem for the foundation when it comes to legal matters.

G. His languages against other administrator could have been better also:

H. Sometimes this administrator works like a machine, just pressing the buttons and blaiming other people when something when wrong:

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:2008 All-Star Game Statues on Parade here are all the files in a category nominated for deletion, this is common uses and happes more often, Jcb closes the DR because the category is not empty, this means he didn't read the DR at all. When the users comes to Jcb about this he is being attacked instead of helped http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&diff=52012538&oldid=52007710 Reopeing the DR ended in a revert by Jcb http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:2008_All-Star_Game_Statues_on_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=52012384

I. When a other administrator closes a DR and Jcb doesn't like it he doesn't start a new DR like the policy says, he removes the closure multiple times making it look like the DR was never closed in the first place:

I don't think this behavior fits a administrator at all. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis by Jcb

I will deal with the above claims one by one. This may take some time. When it's finished I will remove the words 'in progress' below. I will number the points. Please don't respond between the points, but below the line, refering to the point number. Jcb (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A. about editwars (actually not related to administrator rights)

A1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ntv_2001.svg&diff=prev&oldid=55491135 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2%D1%852_2007.GIF&diff=prev&oldid=55491170 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_7tv_3d.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=55491268

Speedy-nominations where PD-textlogo clearly applied. After the second revert I placed a comment at his talk page. I could have done this after the first time. He responded to the comment, but instead of waiting for my reply, he reverted me on the complete series immediately. I did what various admin for sure would do as well, I blocked him for one day. This block had no effect at all, after the block he reverted the series again, placing again the obviously not applicable {copyvio}-tag. Of course I reblocked him. Maybe a month is a bit long, it could have been a week.

A2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ajax1.nl.jpg&action=history

The file was nominated for speedy deletion by MoiraMoira, but it was a simple logo, so I converted her DR to a regular DR for being out of scope (logo of a non notable childish fan site). MoiraMoira was one of his main opponents when he got removed from NL.wiki. Taking into account that he speedy keep closed the DR using an obvious lie (of course the logo of a non notable childish fan site is not usefull to illustrate the article about one of the highest ranked Dutch football club, Abigor was well aware of that, he was well aware) and given the fact that this was an obvious case of 'out of scope' (speedy deleted by another admin) apparently the only goal for the Abigor action at that DR was to bother his former NL.wiki opponent MoiraMoira, thus abusing Commons for NL.wiki issues. (Note that this Abigor action started the discussion resulting in his de-adminship) Jcb (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A3. The last three diffs form part of the single case dealt with under A1.

B. For closing DR's without consensus but still under discussion

How ironic if you compare this to the DR mentioned under A2, especially to this Abigor edit. Also this doesn't say anything. The DRs as mentioned by Abigor were closed according to the policies. Abigor could have started an UDR. Of the more than 10.000 nominations I processed last six month, not more than 1% got disputed, of which only a part got a different decission the second time. Given the fact I never avoided difficult DRs and given the fact that at least in the first months I had to learn a lot about licenses, I'm actually quite satisfied about this score, although I try to bring it to 0,1%, lower is impossible IMHO. Jcb (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. Removing speedy deleted notices that could be discusable and should rather be send to DR

I really see nothing irregular in the linked diffs ?!? (1, 2 and 3) Jcb (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D. Blocking

D1. Хинт

Another mention of the case dealt with under A1.

D2. Silviatrofe

Admins can see here there was more. Although I could have left a message at his talk page.

D3. Bulka UA

Given the edit summary he knew he was reverting somebody. Though in this case I should have started with a message on his talk page. The reason why I blocked for a week (instead of e.g. one day) was his edit interval. A block of one day is useless if the user comes back after three days, he will just not notice. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After a closer look to the case I found the editwar. Now I understand why I blocked him. Jcb (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E. When a user doesn't know its way arround on Commons Jcb doesn't help the user, he decides to use rollback instead of making a comment or helping people

A closed DR clearly states: "This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive." - please note the archive robot doesn't work if we don't revert those edits. Jcb (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F. The following DR clossures (sic) where (sic) wrong

The four mentioned closures all date from 22 February ?!? For DR closures see also B. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G. His languages against other administrator

G1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shizhao&diff=prev&oldid=56253417

I still agree completely with every word I wrote there. Fortunately that was the moment Shizhao started to communicate.

G2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&diff=prev&oldid=56272250

I could have been friendlier there, although Herby could have used better alternatives for his actions as well. It was overdone to demand unblock, with a threat, where he could have started with a request to unblock (example). Also he didn't have the patience to see what could be reached by communication with me and unblocked Abigor himself. There it didn't stop, he also took it to the user problems noticeboard. The combination of actions, also within a very short time span, was quite overdone. Although my reaction should have been friendlier, he shouldn't have been surprised about the reaction, given his combination of actions. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H. Sometimes this administrator works like a machine - Reopeing the DR ended in a revert by Jcb

Of course if you try to "reopen" this way. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I. When a other administrator closes a DR and Jcb doesn't like it

Another mention of the case dealt with under A1. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Please express your opinion as either Keep or Remove. Support/oppose is ambiguous.

Remove Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per my comments here and other evidence presented. Jcb's conduct certainly falls short of what I would expect from an admin. Jafeluv (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
remove - Many issues with many user's, No improvement and its repeating..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because otherwise the backlogs will grow fast. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A rebuttal to this would be to elect new administrators rather than keeping "bad" ones (if it is decided that this is the case of Jcb). – Adrignola talk 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 255 administrators on Commons. Most of them hardly use their admin buttons. Jcb has been very active, and got criticized. I have criticized him too. But Commons really needs him. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the above report is not abuse. Jcb does a lot of work and is bound to make some mistakes. I am concerned by the blocks without warning, including one where Jcb was involved in the edit war. (By the way, User:Bulka UA did a 2 revert "war", removing a deletion template on his file, but it is deleted, so the log is no longer visible. Nevertheless, he should have received warning.) I hope Jcb will learn to prioritize dialogue over the block button. I will defer my vote until I have seen Jcb's response. --99of9 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bulka UA removed {{No permission}} template, and then he removed {{Delete}}, but at the same time he tried to explain why he thought that the file in question was ok -- at first in the edit comment, and then on my talk page. I didn't know that he was blocked before this request, IMO Bulka UA didn't do anything wrong. Trycatch (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - After a closer look to the case I found the editwar. Jcb (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
remove I have thought about this since I spotted it and reflected. All in all I agree with Jafeluv in the end. Hard work is great and needed - it does not give a free license on behaviour though. If this does fail then I do hope Jcb will be rather more thoughtful in the future. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Olivier Bommel (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
65 Edit's for user Olivier Bommel--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's not a machine, he's human, humans make mistakes. Hard worker and trusted user. Multichill (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This affair is nothing but a personal revenge wrapped in (mostly) stale diffs. NVO (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A.S. 16:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Request clearly opened in bad faith by an untrusted user against a trusted one for personal revenge. The request was later hijacked in good faith by some users to express reasonable concerns. I trust Jcb to understand those criticisms and do his best to not repeat the procedures that led to them in the future.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Brimz (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC) per Darwin[reply]
Keep --Prosfilaes (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep him, one of the best admins. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When is this all going to stop? Jcb is a good admin, only had good experiences with him, I see him do his work good, so why take the admin rights from him? TBloemink (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ezarateesteban 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's not a machine, he's human, humans make mistakes. Hard worker and trusted user. (plagiarising Multichill). MoiraMoira (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per 99of9 and Multichil. Off course there are some diffs that Jcb should have handled better, but those diffs are hardly reason enough to start a de-adminship. This whole de-adminship looks like a personal vendetta by Abigor to get even. I think it's much better for Abigor to put his energy into solving his own errors, instead of trying to take the attention away from the real problems. Silver Spoon (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
remove. With the volume of backlog-clearing admin actions Jcb takes, it's bound to happen that errors occur from time to time. That in itself is not reason to de-sysop someone. The problem is in how Jcb reacts when these errors are pointed out. As demonstrated by the diffs above, and in previous discussions, Jcb does not take criticism well but dishes it out liberally. His admin decisions no longer have my confidence. Powers (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Agree with a lot of people above. JurriaanH (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6 Edit's

Comment - This is his 4e edit on Commons. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 22:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. JurriaanH (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
remove Has shown lack of understanding on copyright issues (didn't know basics from COM:L when asked). Jcb tried to argue this away in discussion by saying that he/she had already closed a 1000+ DRs at that point - that's not an argument to give when you're caught not knowing basics and doesn't give me any confidence in the closes that took place or the willingness to learn. Hekerui (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please provide a link to help others evaluate this. --99of9 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had closed 1000 DRs at that point, that must have been about 6 months ago. It's true I still had to learn a lot in January. But I don't understand why this would be relevant 6 months later. Jcb (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - [1][2] In that case he tagged a file with a questionable license to close a DR. Note the attitude of "the official policy doesn't make sense, I will do what I want", after a 1000 (!) closes. Hekerui (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, both from January. Actually I'm happy most diffs people provided (also by now infinite blocked nominator Abigor) are quite old. That shows I improved my actions in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is premature request. Relevant discussion is started only 3 days ago. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for info - for me this is about the general attitude and behaviour over quite some time. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but strongly suggest to take a breath before responding to people or reaching for the block button. The overturned DRs that Abigor listed (and that I've found otherwise) are often borderline cases or were from many months ago. They also represent a small percentage of the overall work done by Jcb. With a calmer approach, he could be one of the best admins here. Wknight94 ^talk 11:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lymantria (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given your committments to use discussion above edit wars, and to reform your use of the block button, I now vote keep. Keep in mind that every overzealously blocked newbie is at risk of leaving the project. Editor inclusion is far more important than efficiency. --99of9 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He made mistakes, yes, but he's human as Multichill said before and mistakes can be made if your very productive. I trust him enough and would like to see him continue as administrator here. I'm sure he has learned from this all and he'll act different in the same situations in the future. Trijnstel (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the answers below and general impression from jcb I think it is safe to let him keep the tools. As long as admins try to keep number of mistakes as low as possible and try to learn from the past I can accept errors. --MGA73 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trusted --Kiran Gopi (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems a bit too premature. -- Cirt (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see evidence that this action is justified at this time. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those rebuttals to the problems are really thoughtful and I think that this user has spent time reflecting on the criticism. People make mistakes but with responses like JBC is giving, I think this user is demonstrating a willingness to see other points of view and change behavior to suit the community need when appropriate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels like this request was a massive exercise in jumping the gun. Courcelles (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
remove At Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb, jcb requested adminship to process OTRS tickets. Since then, it looks like he processed hardly any tickets. This makes one doubt if we can rely on his word.
Further, since then, he has brought us problems and agitation from Dutch Wikipedia. All about things that aren't really related to Commons. He even uses his admin tools to block users he has problems with on Dutch Wikipedia. Similarly we get "keep" comments here from users that have hardly ever contributed to Commons, but just somehow found their way from Dutch Wikipedia here.
If he needs three threads on AN/AN:U and two Rfd-As (this and Abigor's) to realize that he shouldn't edit war with other administrators over the closure of deletion requests, but use COM:UNDEL, I doubt we can trust him. -- Docu at 08:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the OTRS tickets, I processed about 650 since I'm an administrator, everybody with OTRS access can verify that. - "He even uses his admin tools to block users he has problems with on Dutch Wikipedia." - such statements you must prove with diff links. I never had problems with Abigor at NL.wiki, the only thing you will find is a successfull unblock request for him. About the DR, you probably didn't have a good look at the case, otherwise you won't have said that I had to go to COM:UNDEL to contest an out of policy speedy keep closure (how can we undelete something if it's not deleted?) - Jcb (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The block is at
    → 13:53, 2011 July 5 Jcb (talk | contribs) blocked Abigor (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (Repeated intentional misleading of the community: [3])
    This when Abigor had the same userbox as User:Lar. You re-count your problems with Abigor at Dutch Wikipedia at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Abigor.
    Oddly none of the tickets you processed seem to result in adding tags to files at Commons .. are they all for Dutch Wikipedia?
    As for the DR, at least I hope you understand that you shouldn't edit war over the closure, but open a new one. Given the number of deletion request you closed, it seems odd that you wouldn't know that. I already noticed that you simply revert users without explanation when they disagree with you. With such a habit, it seems odd that you could be an administrator on Wikimedia site. -- Docu at 10:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC), 10:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
    - "You re-count your problems with Abigor at Dutch Wikipedia at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Abigor" - I definitely didn't write that I had problems with Abigor at NL.wiki. I just explained the backgrounds of the Abigor behaviour here at Commons towards people he had a problem with at NL.wiki. About tickets, I think about 600 were related to Commons from which about 550 resulted in one or more tags at Commons. Just one example: File:Altenhuntorf Orgel 53960601.jpg. In this case I had to undelete the file before I could tag it. About the DR: I sufficiently addressed this under A2. Jcb (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please activate "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". -- Docu at 11:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —stay (sic)! 01:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actions seen lately are not enough IMHO to fully lose the trust in Jcb. He'll be thoroughly watched though, being on a kind of probation - no need for a "kill" right now, this shot across the bows should suffice. Grand-Duc (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my general impression Jcb is a good admin. Based on the answers below, in my opinion, we can trust him keeping admin tools. Geagea (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove PPP (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Isderion (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 23:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jcb is one of {{The Tireless Contributor Barnstar}}. A valuable Wikipedian and a long time trusted admin. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment - "De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible." (COM:DESYSOP) Could a link to the prerequisite discussion please be provided? The nominator notes that "Yesterday I started a discussion about our administrator Jcb". Certainly one day would not be sufficient to meet the aforementioned condition, especially if it is believed that 16 days is insufficient time for consensus. I assume, then, there was another discussion, lest this be an inappropriately hasty or of-questionable-faith nomination? Эlcobbola _talk

Many links provided in the bottom, Hope it cleared the doubt..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never had trouble with Jcb but others had. It seems to me he makes his decisions often too fast (or lead by his own opinion) in order to reduce the backlog. Jcb, if you are de-adminshipped, I hope you'll continue to help here on commons, if you aren't, please try to engage in discussions before taking action, if required. Best regards -- RE rillke questions? 16:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me it seems that many admins make their descisions often too slowly. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that may be the case. But when it comes to blocking users we should be carefull. I bet that most users will get upset if they get blocked wrongly. Also I think it is advised to think twice if someone questions your work. So it may be totally ok to do something "quick" but if someone reverts you then you should slow down and think "Was this correct?". --MGA73 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples from archives...

--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just gave the reasons a number (matching the ones jcb used in the answer). Hope it is ok. --MGA73 (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem I have with this decision is that I strongly disagree with Jcb on the application of FOP in many places and I think he wrongly applies de minimis or other reasons to keep files, for example at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unité d'Habitation Marseille 2.jpg a landmark building designed by Le Corbusier. So, I'd be happy to get rid of him.

But that's not a valid reason. A number of others routinely agree with him, so I think I have to live with it.

Many of the complaints above are also not valid. I routinely close a DR with no comment except the DelReqHandler default Kept or Deleted when the DR is not controversial or one of the comments covers my opinion. I can hardly vote against Jcb for doing what I do. I think the community should remember that Commons Admins take about 1,000 Administrative actions a day and that half of those are done by eight people. Jcb is in the middle of the eight, doing about 50 a day. Working fast is essential, particularly since mistakes are easily corrected.

Most of the other complaints above are similar.

I have trouble, though, with

"Why are you always crying like a kid if the admin decision is not what you hoped? Jcb (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)"

which was addressed to Tryphon, an experienced, productive colleague.

"And thanks for showing your true face, starting a wheelwar if intimidation doesn't work. Jcb (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)"

addressed to Herbythyme, my mentor.

But (again, "but"), I've read through his talk page for the last three months and those are the only comments I can really object to, even though he was strongly provoked in several cases. Are these grounds for de-Admin?

I could also add that he might be more helpful to some newbies -- for example, one user suggested that he should have moved an image to WP:EN and constructed a fair use rationale before deleting it. His response, "That's not my job." -- That's entirely true, but might have been spun out a little to explain the various roles on Commons.

So, I have to think about this some more. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to jcb

Before I deside I have a few questions:

You have blocked users for edit warring. Do you not think it is edit warring when you revert the same users 4 times? Would it perhaps be usefull to start a discussion with the user and if that does not help ask another admin to deside?
You answer "A closed DR clearly states: "This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive." - please note the archive robot doesn't work if we don't revert those edits. Jcb (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)" If editing a closed DR is reason to block users how do you explain that you opend some DR's that was closed (without telling on the DR discussion) and thereby edit a closed DR? And do you think we can expect (new) users to know/understand when it is ok to edit a closed DR and when not?
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")?

Note: I only ask about "bad" things here because questions like "You do a lot of work around here - do you think that is good?" and "You delete a lot of copyvios - do you think we need to delete copyvios?" does not make sense :-) Just a note to make you know that we also notice the good work. --MGA73 (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point I'm aware I have to improve.
I didn't block that user as far as I can see.
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)[reply]

As for #1 and #3 it's good to hear.

As for #2 I agree that you did not block that user but you used that as an answer to "E.". Now that we agree that you did not block the user perhaps you want to comment my (badly written) question further?

And an extra question: I'm not native English so I'm wondering if the (sic) in "F. The following DR clossures (sic) where (sic) wrong" and the "fat s" in "closures" some sort of scorn or insult because of a language errors made by another user? --MGA73 (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't edit closed DRs, although exceptions are possible, e.g. to note when a file has been undeleted after an UDR. I cannot remember any case in which I blocked somebody for editing a closed DR and for the E. edits I wouldn't do. If somebody tries to reopen a DR with new arguments (not by just repeating his previous comment) I will normally leave a message at the user talk page that he/she should use the 'nominate for deletion' link from the left menu to make a new nomination. Please not that reopening a closed DR by just editing the DR after archiving will lead to an incomplete DR (not present at an open DR log page), while the 'nominate for deletion' link makes a correct and functional DR.

The (sic) is a Latin term, meaning 'in the source is was spelled this way' (the word itself means: 'this way'. It's a regular way in (scientific) literature to say that you didn't make a spell error, but just quoted the source. Jcb (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that will do for me! --MGA73 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contents

Jcb (De-adminship)

Analysis by Jcb

Votes

Comments

Questions to jcb

Navigation menu

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

Jcb (De-adminship)

Analysis by Jcb

Votes

Comments

Questions to jcb

Navigation menu

Search