Open main menu
Commons Administrator.svg
Administrators as of September 2019 [+/−]
Listing by language
Listing by date
Listing by activity

Number of Admins: 218

  1. -revi, ko, en-3 (steward)
  2. ~riley, en, fr-1, es-1
  3. 1989, en
  4. 1Veertje, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1
  5. 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1
  6. 4nn1l2, fa, en-3, ar-1
  7. 99of9, en (bureaucrat)
  8. A.Savin, ru, de-4, en-2
  9. Achim55, de, en-3, nds-3, la-2
  10. AFBorchert, de, en-3
  11. Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1 (global renamer)
  12. Aka, de, en-3
  13. Alan, es, eu-3, en-2
  14. Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1
  15. Amada44, de, en-3, fr-1
  16. Ankry, pl, en-2, ru-1
  17. AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1
  18. Anthere, fr, en-3
  19. Arthur Crbz, fr, en-4, es-3
  20. Aude, en, ar-2, de-2, es-3
  21. AzaToth, sv, en-4
  22. Benoît Prieur,fr, en-3, pt-2, es-1, it-1, hy-1
  23. Benoit Rochon, fr, en-4
  24. Billinghurst, en
  25. Blackcat, it, en-3, fr
  26. BrightRaven, fr, en-3, nl-2, es-2, zh-1
  27. Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1
  28. Cambalachero, es, en-3
  29. Captain-tucker, en
  30. ChrisiPK, de, en-3, fr-1
  31. Christian Ferrer, fr, en-2, es-2
  32. Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1
  33. Common Good, en
  34. Cookie, es, en-2
  35. Czar, en
  36. DaB., de, en-1
  37. Dantadd, it, pt, en-3, es-3, fr-3, gl-3, ca-2, ro-1, el-1
  38. DarwIn, pt, en-3, es-2, fr-2, gl-2, ca-1, it-1, oc-1
  39. Davepape, en
  40. David Levy, en
  41. De728631, de, en-5
  42. Dereckson, fr, en-3, de-1, nl-1
  43. DerHexer, de, en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-1 (steward)
  44. Dharmadhyaksha, mr, en-3, hi-3
  45. DMacks, en
  46. Didym, de, en-2, fr-2
  47. Dyolf77, ar, fr-5, en-2, it-1, es-1
  48. D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1
  49. Ebrahim, fa
  50. Edgar181, en, de-1, fr-1, es-1
  51. Elcobbola en, de (checkuser)
  52. Ellin Beltz, en (bureaucrat)
  53. Emha, de, bar, en-3, fr-1
  54. Érico, pt, en-2, es-1 (global renamer)
  55. EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat)
  56. Explicit, en, es, ko-2
  57. Ezarate, es-3, en-1
  58. Flominator, de, als, en-3
  59. FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1
  60. Gbawden, en-3, af-1
  61. Geagea, he, ka-3, en-3, ru-1
  62. Geni, en
  63. George Chernilevsky, ru, uk-3, de-2, en-2, bg-1, la-1, be-1, fr-1
  64. Gestumblindi, als, de, en-3
  65. Gnangarra, en, nys-1
  66. Golbez, en, ja-2
  67. Green Giant, en, de-1, fr-1 (steward)
  68. grin, hu, en-3, de-1
  69. Guanaco, en, es-1
  70. Hedwig in Washington, de, en-4, nds-1
  71. Hekerui, de, en-4
  72. Herbythyme, en, fr-2, es-1, it-1
  73. Hesperian, en
  74. Howcheng, en, ja-2
  75. Huntster, en
  76. Indeedous, de, en-3, fr-2
  77. Infrogmation, en, es-1
  78. Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (bureaucrat, checkuser)
  79. Jaqen, it, en-2
  80. Jarekt, pl, en
  81. JarrahTree, en, id-1
  82. Jcb, nl, en-3, es-3
  83. Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1
  84. Jdforrester, en
  85. Jdx, pl
  86. Jean-Frédéric, fr, en-4, es-1
  87. JGHowes, en, fr-2, de-1
  88. Jianhui67, en, zh-4, ja-2, ms-1 (global renamer)
  89. Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1
  90. Joergens.mi, de, en-3
  91. JoKalliauer, de, en-3
  92. Jon Kolbert, en, fr-4, de-2
  93. Josve05a, sv, en-3
  94. Juliancolton, en
  95. Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  96. JuTa, de, en-2, fr-1 (bureaucrat)
  97. Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-2, ko-1
  98. Kaldari, en
  99. Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1
  100. King of Hearts, en, zh-3, es-2, ja-1
  101. Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1
  102. Krd, de, en-3 (bureaucrat, checkuser)
  103. Krinkle, nl, en-3, de-2
  104. Kwj2772, ko, en-3
  105. Leit, de, en-3, fr-1
  106. Léna, fr, en-3, es-1
  107. Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1
  108. Lofty abyss, en, mt, it-2
  109. Lymantria, nl, en-3, de-2, fy-2, fr-1, zea-1
  110. Magog the Ogre, en, es-2 (checkuser)
  111. Mahagaja, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1
  112. Maire, pl, en-4, es-2, fr-2, de-2, ru-1 (global renamer)
  113. Majora, en, fr-2, it-1
  114. Marcus Cyron, de, en-2
  115. Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1 (steward)
  116. Martin H., de, en-2
  117. Masur, pl, en-3, de-1
  118. Matanya, en, he (steward)
  119. Materialscientist, en-4, ru-4, nl-3, fr-1, es-1
  120. Mates, cs, en-3, sk-4, de-1
  121. Mattbuck, en, fr-1, la-1
  122. Maxim, ru, en-3, fr-2
  123. MB-one, de, en-3, fr-1, pt-1
  124. MBisanz, en (steward)
  125. Mhhossein, fa, en-3, ar-1
  126. Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1
  127. Mike Peel, en, pt-2, fr-1
  128. Missvain, en
  129. Mitchazenia, en, es-2
  130. Miya, ja, en-2
  131. Moheen, bn, as-1, bpy-1, en-3, hi-1, hif-1
  132. Morgankevinj, en
  133. MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1
  134. Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1
  135. Mys 721tx, zh, en-3 (global renamer)
  136. Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1
  137. NahidSultan, bn, en-3, bpy-1 (steward)
  138. Natuur12, nl, en-3, de-1
  139. Neozoon, de, en-4, nl-4, fr-2
  140. Nick, en, sco-2, fr-1
  141. notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2
  142. Nyttend, en, ang-1
  143. odder, pl, en-4, de-2 (bureaucrat, oversighter)
  144. Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1
  145. P199, en, nl, fr-2, tl-2, de-1
  146. Perhelion, de, en-3
  147. Pi.1415926535, en, es-2
  148. PierreSelim, fr, en-3, es-1 (oversighter)
  149. Pitke, fi, en-4, sv-2
  150. Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1
  151. Pleclown, fr, en-3
  152. Poco a poco, es, de-4, en-3, fr-2, it-2, pl-2, pt-1
  153. Podzemnik, cs, en-2
  154. Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1
  155. Putnik, ru, en-2
  156. Pyb, fr, en-2
  157. Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1
  158. Racconish, fr, en-4
  159. Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1
  160. Ra'ike, de, en-2
  161. Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversighter)
  162. Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1
  163. Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversighter)
  164. Rehman, en, si-1
  165. Reinhard Kraasch, de, en-3
  166. Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1
  167. Rodhullandemu, en, fr-1, de-1, sv-1
  168. Romaine, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fr-1
  169. Ronhjones, en, fr-1
  170. Rosenzweig, de, en-3, fr-1, la-1
  171. Royalbroil, en, es-1
  172. RP88, en, de-1
  173. Rudolphous, nl, en-3, de-2
  174. Ruthven, it, fr, en-4, es-4, nap-4, ca-2, de-1
  175. Sanandros, als, de, en-3, fr-1
  176. Sealle, ru, en-4, pl-2, sk-2, uk-2
  177. Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1
  178. Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1
  179. Sreejithk2000, ml, en-3, hi-3, ta-1, kn-1
  180. Srittau, de, en-3
  181. Steinsplitter, bar, de-4, it-3, en-1 (global renamer)
  182. Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1
  183. Storkk, en, fr-3, de-2, eo-2
  184. Strakhov, es, en-2
  185. Tabercil, en
  186. TadejM, sl, en-3, de-2, fr-2
  187. Taivo, et, en-3, ru-3, de-1
  188. Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1
  189. Techman224, en
  190. Teles, pt, en-3, es-2 (steward)
  191. Themightyquill, en, fr-2, de-1, hu-1
  192. Thibaut120094, fr, en-2, ja-2
  193. Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2
  194. Trijnstel, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 (checkuser, steward)
  195. Tulsi Bhagat, ne, mai, en-3, hi-2, bh-2, hif-2
  196. Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1
  197. VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1
  198. Wdwd, de, en-2
  199. Well-Informed Optimist, ru, uk-4, en-3
  200. Whym, ja, en-2
  201. Wikitanvir, bn, en-3, as-2, bpy-1
  202. Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1
  203. Wuzur, de, en-3
  204. wvk, de, en-4, fa-3, fr-2
  205. Yann, fr, en-4, hi-2, gu-1
  206. Yarl, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1
  207. Yasu, ja, en-2, de-1
  208. Y.haruo, ja, en-1
  209. Ymblanter, ru, en-3, de-2, fr-2, nl-2, it-1, es-1
  210. Yuval Y, he, en-3
  211. Zhuyifei1999‎, zh, en-4
  212. Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1
  213. علاء, ar, en-4, he-1, es-1 (steward)
  214. Abuse filter, (automated account)
  215. CommonsDelinker, (bot) see request
  216. CommonsMaintenanceBot, (bot) see request
  217. KrinkleBot, (bot) see request

The system currently recognizes 218 administrators. If that is not the last number in the list above, there is an error in the list.

Op Commons:Moderators staat alle noodzakelijke informatie over moderatoren van Wikimedia Commons en de pagina bevat ook de stemming over aanmeldingen voor moderatorrechten. Ook aanvragen voor bots worden hier behandeld.

Wat zijn moderatoren?Edit

Moderatorrechten zijn voor gekende en vertrouwde gebruikers van de gemeenschap die bekend zijn met het beleid van Commons. Het hebben van deze rechten heeft geen enkele invloed op de inhoud van het project. Een moderator is een vertrouwde gebruiker die:

  • Pagina's beveiligt en de beveiliging op kan heffen.
  • Pagina's verwijdert en weer terughaalt.
  • Afbeeldingen en andere bestanden verwijdert.
  • Gebruikers (de)blokkeert.
  • Systeemteksten en andere beschermde pagina's wijzigt.

Gebruikers met check user-rechten kunnen daarnaast ook controleren of een gebruiker meer dan één account gebruikt (sokpoppen). Bureaucraten hebben ook de mogelijkheid om:

  • andere gebruikers moderator te maken.
  • gebruikersnamen te wijzigen (zie gebruikersnaam wijzigen).
  • botbitjes toe te kennen en af te nemen.

Verwachtingen van een moderatorEdit

Het is mogelijk moderatorrechten op Commons aan te vragen als je aan de volgende criteria voldoet:

  • Je bent bekend met wikimediaprojecten. Je moet de laatste twee maanden bijgedragen hebben en de doelen van dit project begrijpen en ondersteunen.
  • Je hebt een gebruikerspagina op Commons, draagt bij aan Commons en hebt minimaal 200 wijzigingen gemaakt (uploads of tekstueel).
  • Je gaat akkoord met het volgen van het relevante beleid en respecteert de consensus van de gebruikers van Commons.

Net als bij het beheerdersbeleid op Meta, kan een inactieve beheerder deze rechten weer worden ontnomen. Volgens dit beleid wordt iedere inactieve beheerder op Commons zijn beheerdersrechten afgenomen. "Inactief" betekent geen wijzigingen in de afgelopen zes maanden en minder dan 50 wijzigingen in het afgelopen jaar. Inactieve beheerders kunnen zich volgens de reguliere procedure opnieuw aanmelden.

Aanvraag moderatorrechtenEdit

  • Aanvragen staan gedurende zeven (7) dagen voor stemmen en opmerkingen. Moderatorrechten worden toegekend bij een meerderheid van ten minste 75% en minimaal vier (4) positieve stemmen. In dit geval wordt het verzoek doorgestuurd aan een bureaucraat voor uitvoering.
  • Op deze pagina staan ook andere aanvragen. Zo kan je hier bijvoorbeeld een aanvraag voor een botbitje plaatsen voordat je een robot gaat gebruiken.
  • Eerdere aanvragen zijn te vinden in het archief.

Hoe je moderatorrechten aanvraagtEdit

Maak een subpagina Commons:Administrators/Requests/Gebruikersnaam met de volgende tekst en neem de pagina bovenaan op in Administrators/Requests:

===[[User:Gebruikersnaam|Gebruikersnaam]]===
{{custom edit|Commons:Administrators/Requests/Gebruikersnaam|text='''Vote'''}}

Reden waarom je beheerder wilt worden. ~~~~

====Votes====

KandidatenEdit

Requests for adminshipEdit

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Yann (de-adminship)Edit

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 06:00, (UTC)

Following a 48-hour consensus proposal requesting for discussion due to misconduct, this admin is under review for the community to decide whether or not they should continue serving Wikimedia Commons as an administrator. If you are !voting remove or keep, it is recommended you explain in detail why and include links as evidence for removal !votes. As established policy states (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship), if the majority is over 50%, this admin will be desysopped and will have to run another RfA with successful community consensus for restoration. Please be and remain civil throughout this discussion.

VotesEdit

  •   Remove When blocking them, I described them misusing the toolset while in a dispute (performing involved actions) and removing statements (vandalism) when they claimed to “try to remove the insult (sic)” when in reality they reverted with the rollback tool their whole statement multiple times, when later I actually removed the insult they were referring to. While the majority viewed my decision as poor (my apologies for performing such), they did not disagree with me in regards to my reasons except for unclarity of the term, vandalism. Administrators are to be accountable when in regards to their actions, and imo they have failed to do so. Instead of acknowledging their misuse, they’d rather deserve an apology and for their “opponent” to be blocked. Unacceptable. This isn’t the first time they performed involved actions, as that is what got them desysopped at French Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee. I will also refer to a previous discussion that took place last year in regards to them performing a range of questionable actions in which almost sparked a desysop discussion. When asked to clarify one of their actions, they insulted them by calling them a troll and told them to “[fuck] off”. When questioned about their actions, they are to be respectful, civilized and contain composure, bad conflict history with the user or not. With all of this being said, Yann, I advise you to take a break from Commons and attempt to reflect on yourself and your actions. While you’ve done good work all of these years, your behavior and how you’ve handled the toolset has been inappropriate lately, and I hope one day you will understand that. 1989 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove As noted by 1989 above, Yann has subjected good faith users to out-of-process blocks, accused them of being trolls and/or vandals, and attempted to intimidate them into silence when they lodged legitimate complaints. This is completely unacceptable behavior for any user, let alone an administrator. As previously stated: complete removal of all sysop privileges followed by an indefinite ban from this project. We will all benefit from his absence. AshFriday (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove -- but only if Jcb's bit is removed too. --A.Savin 07:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep, while Yann is by no means a perfect admin and I've criticised them in the past, I can't say that any of their actions I've ever witnessed were deliberately taken in bad faith or that he's incompetent. In fact from what I can tell Yann is one of the best admins on Wikimedia Commons and him losing access to these tools would be a net negative for the project. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I haven't been following the disputes but I agree with Donald Trung. Yann is by no means perfect and some of his responses show that he doesn't suffer fools gladly, I have found him to a good admin overall and his removal would be a loss to Commons. However the lack of civility needs to be addressed Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Obviously Keep - I do agree with Donald Trung and Gbawden. To me, Yann is the most proficient admin of the Commons, and their long time services for the project is unforgettably excellence. IMO, The project indeed need such admin(s). It will be quite beneficial. There might be concerns, but removing sysop a bit is definitely not a good choice. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Intimidation, threat and falsehood of any kind is injurious to our project and contributors. This is the treatment I have received from this admin in the past few years. In March, this year Yann filled a COM:UDR for images nominated for deletion by another user. In that UDR statement, Yann falsely attributed the nomination to me. I immediately pointed out to Yann that the nomination was not by me and requested that this false claim be retracted. Ankry in fact pinged the actual nominator of those images for deletion. Rather than Yann at least retracting this falsehood, they responded with a block threat. They never correct this falsehood. As someone who has contributed immensely to promoting this project and other Wikimedia projects offline in my country, I do not think I deserve this sort of treatment from any user talk less of an admin. I no longer trust this user to hold the admin toolset. This project will be ruined in no time if we continue to keep this sort of user as administrator on this project. Enough is enough. O to ge!!! T CellsTalk 07:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove I second the "Intimidation, threat and falsehood" accusation by T Cells from my own experience. And agree with 1989 about recent misuse of tools. I think Yann is often a good admin but does seem to run into problems when angered. My own experience of this is when Yann uploaded a green-tinted version of a famous sepia (brown) photograph and I took it to DR (see below for details). We don't need admins who bully and intimidate and make personal attacks when angry, or admins who get this kind of angry if one of their uploads is taken to DR.
Wrt recent events, both Jcb and Yann have different views on deletion process and decisions but are no longer communicating respectfully or seeking consensus. Instead they just fight, call names, and take each other to AN/U. My feeling is that both could be admins again but really need some timeout, and to reflect on how they should behave as an admin. They need to learn to work together with other admins, to seek consensus rather than conflict, and to respect the community. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove I cannot recall interacting with Yann in any significant way prior to my noticing of this discussion, and thus reviewing this with a neutral view, the evidence shows significant problems with regard to conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Someone who has so many situations in which they used admin tools for the benefit of their opinion should not be an administrator on any project. I’m disheartened to support the removal of an administrator, as we do need as much help as we can get, however the incidents explained in above votes and relevant other pages leave me no choice. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Yann is the singular worst admin on the Commons and routinely demonstrates ignorance of and disregard for policy. Readily available/recent examples:
    • Wheel-warring: File:Chile mine oct13 2010 dg.jpg was deleted by Túrelio as a copyvio. Its undeletion was requested and closed as not done by Ankry. Yann then unilaterally restored it with the rational "2010102910006171" (an issue in its own right, as that ticket is not valid for licensing, which any admin/OTRS member would be expected to know). I redeleted it as per the UDR, Yann restored it, and Túrelio ultimately redeleted it. Indeed, as also with the Jcb kerfuffle and references above, Yann does not appropriately respect his colleagues or due process and acts abusively.
    • AGF: This utter piffle, when Alexis Jazz was readily able to discern the selection pattern (albeit not the meaning of random, #4). (Good faith concerns are not infrequently labeled "vandalism," a behaviour spanning years.)
    • Blocking CentralTime301 on terrible evidence.
    • Yann also routinely demonstrates profound ignorance of copyright and an unwillness or inability to consider appropriate information contrary to his gut feeling. Ironically, it was years of astonishingly bad closures by Jcb and Yann that prompted me to write the models and stuffed toys essays. Эlcobbola talk 11:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   remove This was trickier for me than Jcb's de-RfA, but I do think, ultimately, it would be best for the project if Yann spent some time away from being an administrator here. Nick (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove After what happened, it will be better for them to take a break to clear their thoughts instead of pointing fingers at &/or insulting each other. Admins are supposedly a role model for fellow editors, they need not be perfect but they should at least be civil. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral --VKras (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 15:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep This is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep i trust him. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong keep You're de-sysoping UID 0?! --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Remove Removing someone's insult is hardly "tool abuse" and it's utterly absurd to claim that. I'm tempted to vote keep on that basis alone. However, I'm unimpressed by the other things I've read here so far, but willing to reconsider. Gamaliel (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Edit-warring and inappropriate use of rollback at Commons:Undeletion requests, [1][2][3]. He also edit-warred to repost a sarcastic comment on my talk page repeatedly, despite knowing that I found it offensive.[4][5] He then posted another clearly sarcastic comment asking me to remain civil,[6] when it was his harassment of me that was uncivil (see Commons:Harassment#User space harassment). He expects extremely high standards from others while not meeting them himself, such as (1) complaining about use of the term "pissing about" while being happy to accuse others of "bullshit" or (2) accusing others of harassment while being happy to harass me on my talk page. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep All these users, who brought their virtual bruises here, didn’t explain how this mutual desysop can heal toxic relationships between two very active admins, and who’s gonna manage all the stuff they do here. Sealle (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep perhaps I'm a bit naive and gullible but I believe that the raised concerns can be resolved through dialogue. Some of the concerns are serious but de-admin isn't the preferred solution. (In my opinion). Natuur12 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I see (and have seen) more than a few mistakes, but I have not seen enough to convince me that Yann is anything but a net positive as an admin. It's particularly hard to justify removal when put up against the other de-adminship discussion, in which there is far more evidence presented of a long-term problem (including 3 [!] other de-adminship discussions). I still haven't made up my mind regarding Jcb, but I don't think a sufficient case has been made about Yann.
One thing I will say: some of the issues raised above seem like they could've been resolved so easily with a quick fix/redaction/apology. Nobody expects admins to be perfect, but addressing and acknowledging a mistake goes a long way. I look at the interaction that T Cells linked to above, where the DR nominator forgot to sign, so you thought T Cells was the nominator. After he clarified that he was not, a quick redaction and "sorry, the nominator forgot to sign so I thought it was you" seems like it would've resolved it immediately. Perhaps there's more to that story, but that sort of simple mistake left unacknowledged can compound over time. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Rhododendrites. It is somewhat difficult for me to believe it was a mistake, as mistakes are generally expected to be corrected if pointed out especially by more than one person. It was a deliberate attempt to damage my reputation on this project. If it was a mistake, why didn't Yann correct their statement? Till this moment, they neither retract it nor apologize for the reputational damage. Yann continuous show of power without empathy is concerning and disturbing. They should be striped of their admin privilege. T CellsTalk 20:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I am with Natuur12 that de-adminship is not the preferred solution. Personally, I feel that any situation is made better by discussion between the affected parties without necessarily documenting every word back to the beginning of time. People change. Internet behavior changes - what is acceptable to one group may or may not be to another group (speaking in general all over the internet for the last 20 years). Specifically, Yann is an able and experienced administrator and I have seen little to nothing convince me that his actions are not done in essential Good Faith and his best abilities to enrich the project. Every few years, a big storm brews up. Words are tossed. Feelings are hurt. Sometimes we lose administrators. It is always sad, and I don't think it's necessary this time. There are aspects of how this situation got here that seem like pack hunting behavior - that is sad. We are all volunteers on the same project, folks. Let's pull together and work through issues. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep For his contributions in the project seen from a long-time perspective Poco2 19:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep as per Natuur12. MZaplotnik(talk) 19:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove He has no respect for those, who create the content for this project. --Stepro (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   remove per Stepro and others --DCB (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove - I think, it would be a good idea for both, for Commons and Yann, for one or two years not to be bound on each other in this way. It feels like Yann is so much and so deep into Commons, that he lost a bit the ground. I relly belive, he's already wanting the best, but has become a bit operating blind. Mostly it's excusable and fixable, but when people feel not respected, peole that working hard here and try to do their best, then the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would not see it as de-adminship, I would see it as a break to become a bit more grounded again. Then Yann could be again a good Commons adminstrator. When people become very depply involved in a project, it's sometimes o good idea, to let them be a pedestrian for some time again, at least to see again, how the other perspective look like. This grounded. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Donald Trung, Gbawden and Steinsplitter. Strakhov (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   remove. I'd rather not sound this whiny, but in reality much of the reason that I have chosen to prioritize other things in my life rather than Commons was due to Yann, with no discussion, reversing admin decisions I had put time and thought into and utterly failing to acknowledge that this might be a problem, and failing to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion afterwards (see addendum below). No other admin has treated my contributions with as much contempt, and if it drove me largely away, I'm sure it has driven others away too. Yann has always had a kind of impunity due to being User 0, but I very much doubt it has been worth the cost. Storkk (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC) An illustrative link: rules and norms just don't apply to Yann... I think this is wheel warring (regardless of whether the restoration was ultimately correct, which it probably was.) Storkk (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Struck out a sentence above - it's too late in the evening to go searching through logs and edit histories, and my memory may be faulty on this. The struck sentence should instead read: "treating the contributions of those less experienced than himself (i.e. everybody) with contempt." Storkk (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove regretfully. Yann does excellent work on Commons both as an editor and administrator; he's got a critical eye and he's 100% correct about any nonsense he calls out. However, that does not excuse incivility and hostility towards others. While I do understand he was being baited by Jcb, administrators are expected to be model members of the community, and collegial conduct is especially important in contentious situations. Regardless of whether this passes or fails, I hope Yann decides to take time to reflect on recent events and how they will improve their conduct for the future. -FASTILY 23:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep Yann has always helped for the betterment of the project. In this time when the project is in need of active admins I don't think his deadminship will be a solution. He has helped me alot and I trust him. Thank you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 01:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove unfortunately, while he has done good work in the past he seems to think that he is above the rest of the community, and is not accountable to them. --Rschen7754 02:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep They deeply care about the project. It is not easy to review 115 instances of poorly-deleted (and unfortunately poorly-reviewed) files and restore the good ones: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-07#Jcb's_deletion_between_20:16_and_20:18,_4_January_2019_(115_files). They have true integrity which is far more valuable than carefulness and precision. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep My interactions with Yann have always went well. I believe that he is a great contributor for Commons, but I am not saying that he does not have his faults. Sure his feud with Jcb is problematic, but I will still vote keep if he ends this feud with Jcb. --Boothsift 05:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep. I have seen much and good contribution from YANN in the past years. I don't think that mutual de-sysop is a solution. -- Geagea (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep Never had any problems with Yann. The Banner (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove. Civility problems. Yann speaks with other users in such a way, which is not acceptable for an administrator. Colin found a lot of examples in comments section. Taivo (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I deliberated long about this, especially since I have not been very active in the last year. Yann always left the impression of a good, dedicated admin to me, although sometimes a bit abrasive. But some of the examples of other users in this discussion made me a bit wary. But in the end I will go with my own impression. I hope that if Yann keeps his adminship, he will take this discussion as a "warning shot", though and will take the misgivings to heart. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral, This is not gonna end well... CptViraj (📧) 09:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep Freedom for Yann to decide whether or not to continue to handle these administrative responsibilities -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I see no abuse of admin tools by Yann. Ankry (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • In the light of this request existing, Yann is there anything about your past pattern of actions and behaviour on this project that you would commit to changing? Thanks -- (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll also wait for this before voting. Also wondering about what Yann will say about T Cells' case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • An example of bad behaviour when angry. Yann uploaded a green-tinted version of a famous old sepia photo of Ellen Terry and nominated it for FPC. The photo is brown, yet Yann insisted repeatedly it had a "pink stain" and that his green-tinted version was "desaturated". A green version of a famous sepia photo has no educational value so I sent it to DR. The deletion failed because the photo was in-use on Wikipedia -- Yann had put it there. Yann's response to the DR was hostile and intimidating and I was threatened on my talk page several times to stop (here, here, here, here, here) and then taken to AN/U. Yann's approach at AN/U was to make a series of personal attacks on my character. Bizarrely an edited version of my block log was brought up repeatedly even though on multiple occasions it was Yann who unblocked me for a "bad block" and once Jcb unblocked me "per Yann". Remember this is all just about a DR of a file, which is simply a request for the community to review. Examples of abuse I got:
"Nonsense! Colin, I advise you to stay away, and stop insults to me", "Are you trying to suppress evidence?", "you are distorting things to make your opinion looking right", "Do not try to teach anything when YOU made me angry. I don't have to prove anything to you, you are not my boss", "Could someone please close this nonsense by Colin", "you really need to stop all this nonsense, or it will finish very badly", "having written pure nonsense", "if you really want this "bad dream" to go away, please withdraw this deletion request", "I request a block for insult and harassment"
The AN/U was closed: "Discussion was opened as a way of intimidation (trying to force a user to revoke a DR) rather than to bring up a real user problem". In the end, Yann renamed his file to no longer wrongly claim it was a Getty/GoogleArtProject original, but rather a "desaturated" version, and then he overwrote it with a new version, without the green tint, merely black-and-white. So, the green-tinted photo got "deleted" after all and even French Wikipedia removed it. I think we will all find some similarity in the language used by Yann against me that he also used against Jcb when angry with him. If Yann wants to respond to my comments, I remind him this page is about him, not me, and I'm not the one being held to the standards expected of admins. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Bold from you, Colin, to come here to give lessons about being civilized and respectful to other members of the community Poco2 19:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Poco_a_poco, could you please keep your comments here about Yann. I've given a detailed account of horrendously bad admin behaviour, and rather than refute or reject or disagree with any points, you have instead simply made a personal attack against me. The irony of making a clear personal attack while at the same time claiming to be concerned about civility, is here for all our amusement. You have rather shamed yourself with this comment. -- Colin (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Jcb (de-adminship)Edit

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 06:00, (UTC)

Following a 48-hour consensus proposal requesting for discussion due to misconduct, this admin is under review for the community to decide whether or not they should continue serving Wikimedia Commons as an administrator. If you are !voting remove or keep, it is recommended you explain in detail why and include links as evidence for removal !votes. As established policy states (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship), if the majority is over 50%, this admin will be desysopped and will have to run another RfA with successful community consensus for restoration. Please be and remain civil throughout this discussion.

Response by JcbEdit

I find it difficult to respond to this RFdA, because not a single example was given of any supposed missuse of the admin tools, the only reason that was given was the conflict with Yann, that indeed has been lasting for way too much time already. At this point I don't know a solution either, but losing two of the most active admins over this seems to me the worst possible outcome. In this round I am not going to vote for the removal of Yann either, not in something that looks like a cage fight. Jcb (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

VotesEdit

  •   Remove --A.Savin 07:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep. In my experience, Jcb has always acted according to established policy, assumed good faith as far as humanly possible, and dedicated himself to the overall benefit of the project. As far as I'm concerned, his integrity is above question and we cannot afford to lose him. AshFriday (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove, while I've never had any personal bad experiences with this user, I often see many of their rather reckless deletions pop up in undeletion requests and I know of plenty of users who have brought up his deletion sprees. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep. In my opinion Jcb has started to behave better during last years. He makes mistakes mostly because he works in difficult area (images without source/permission), not like me (speedy deletions). Taivo (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Very, very, very long overdue. Jcb has an extremely long history (years) of low-quality administrative actions (e.g. sloppy/inappropriate mass-deletions, bad/involved blocks, wheel-warring), combative/arrogant behavior (frequently picking fights with others - e.g. @Yann), accompanied with a refusal (inability?) to communicate clearly (if at all). Jcb's understanding of policy is terrible (or maybe he's just ignorant?), as evidenced by frequent tag-bombing of perfectly licensed files and deliberate misinterpretation of policy to justify inappropriate administrative actions. In fact, complaints about Jcb and their administrative actions are a frequently discussed topic at AN/ANU, as demonstrated by a simple search of AN archives; this has literally been going on for YEARS, and generally speaking, the complaints are completely valid. To make matters worse, Jcb's atrocious behavior has directly caused many valuable contributors to leave Commons over the years. If that's not a net-negative to the project, then I don't know what is! It's abundantly clear that the community's time and patience has been exhausted cleaning up after this childish user, time and time again. Any normal user would have been banned *years* ago for acting similarly. Once this discussion is over, we should also be having a discussion to permanently ban Jcb from Commons. -FASTILY 09:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Jcb has not demonstrated to me that he respects community concerns about his deletion process. While I agree that the volume of work and difficult areas will alter the perception of many wrong decisions, there remains concerns that he is not taking care to retain images, or persisting in wrongheaded approaches to reasons to delete. Wrt recent events, both Jcb and Yann have different views on deletion process and decisions but are no longer communicating respectfully or seeking consensus. Instead they just fight, call names, and take each other to AN/U. My feeling is that both could be admins again but really need some timeout, and to reflect on how they should behave as an admin. They need to learn to work together with other admins, to seek consensus rather than conflict, and to respect the community. I don't think being a very-high-volume contributor on Commons is a plus, but rather reflects some need to alter life priorities and re-calibrate one's sense of importance to the project. It really doesn't help when folk make comments like "we cannot afford to lose him". This exactly feeds into the problem behaviour of a high-volume contributor. See also Wikipedia:Don't be high-maintenance. -- Colin (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove — per all previous de-admin discussion, both formally held and only attempted. Glancing page-up (and, likely soon, page-down) it’s sadly impressive to see the breath of consensus concerning Jcb’s behaviour as an admin. -- Tuválkin 09:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove I'm unsure as to whether Jcb's behaviour warrants a permanent ban from Commons, but they should have their administrative permission removed and that removal should be for a lengthy period. Nick (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove After what happened, it will be better for them to take a break to clear their thoughts instead of pointing fingers at &/or insulting each other. Admins are supposedly a role model for fellow editors, they need not be perfect but they should at least be civil. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Jeff G. said it all on ANU: "the many reasons at Jcb (de-adminship), Jcb (de-adminship 2), Jcb (de-adminship 3), ANU/Archive 71#User:Jcb, ANU/Archive 68#Harassment by Jcb, and deleted versions of Jcb (de-adminship 4); and poor decision making in the cases of Walt Whitman - George Collins Cox.jpg, Moliere2.jpg, Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco, "No, you are facilitating a witch hunt that should not take place in the first pace and you are not good at it.", Deletion requests/File:Blue winged leafbird.jpg, Deletion requests/File:Communication Theory.pdf, Bob Vila.jpg, Home eropkinsky 16.jpg, PTR-91.jpg, [7], UDR/Archive/2018-10#File:Muzeobranie 2008 - Chabówka (3986864264).jpg, UDR/Archive/2018-10#File:Hofstra Lacrosse Reception Room Plaque.jpg, Dekemahuis te Franeker voor gedeeltelijke afbraak.png, [8], [9], [10], Fire engine hose fittings, Redcliffe - Moreton Bay (40068746175).jpg, ENECOMP 2013 - Hackeando a Wikipédia - 1º dia.jpg, 2º dia, Prisoners' Corpses Beside Cart and Barracks, Mauthausen Concentration Camp, May 8, 1945.jpg, [11], delete-close, while‎, heavily involved‎." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove --VKras (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Long overdue Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 15:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove as per nom and my previous comments quoted by Alexis above.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove I opposed Jcb's readmin in 2013 on the basis of "ignorance of copyright and/or failure to make closures based on argument merit, rather than vote counting." While we don't expect admins to know everything about copyright, we do expect them to make genuine efforts to research germane issues when closing DRs, and to provide basis/evidence for their positions. Jcb does not do this (indeed, years of astonishingly bad closures by Jcb--and, ironically, Yann--prompted me to write the models and stuffed toys essays.) Closures like this and positions like this are entirely disqualifying. While those specific examples are dated (2016), there are many more (and current), they serve to supplement the comments above which indicate the perception that Jcb acts without informing himself is not unique to me and indeed to identify how very long such uniformed actions have been occurring. Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Long, documented history of problematic deletions and behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong keep I thought I'd vd. Ok I lied. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Edit-warring and inappropriate use of rollback at Commons:Undeletion requests to re-post a comment that he knew another editor found offensive: [12][13][14]. Didn't understand COM:OVERWRITE at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall official.svg and then argued about it and refused to back down when his mistake was pointed out. Disapproved of the correction of inappropriate copyright tags to correct ones at [15], indicating his understanding of copyright is insufficient for an administrator. DrKay (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep All these users, who brought their virtual bruises here, didn’t explain how this mutual desysop can heal toxic relationships between two very active admins, and who’s gonna manage all the stuff they do here. Sealle (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Deriding participants here as having 'virtual bruises', is unlikely to change opinions. Neither is this solely about a two party dispute, even if that dispute spans several years and may at times feel like enough drama to fuel several scenes of Der Ring des Nibelungen. -- (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • "we find that avoiding a toxic worker (or converting him to an average worker) enhances performance to a much greater extent than replacing an average worker with a superstar worker" Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • First, my vote did suggest a solution: a period of timeout and reflection. They also may want to consider mediation. Right now, neither seems capable of serious introspection, or even considered a few days ago that their time as admins was about to end because of their behaviour. Secondly, we don't keep admins just because "who's gonna manage all the stuff they do". That's exactly the sort of entitled-needed messed up thinking that makes folk behave like they are immune from criticism, and led to us retaining INC far too long. -- Colin (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I support this admin for his dedication to the project. It's logic to me that the more one works, the more mistakes can be expected. I see no bad faith actions. Poco2 19:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: You would have a point (though Jcb even when taking activity into account is involved in a disproportional number of conflicts), but I dare you to find three sincere apologies from Jcb for mistakes he made. You will likely have severe trouble finding even one. While on its own probably not sufficient, a proper acknowledgement of errors would have gone a long way. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Multichill (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I think de-adminship is not the preferred solution. Personally, I feel that any situation is made better by discussion between the affected parties without necessarily documenting every word back to the beginning of time. People change. Internet behavior changes - what is acceptable to one group may or may not be to another group (speaking in general all over the internet for the last 20 years). While I have sometimes wondered about all the old pictures ending up in "no source," I see the point - they are more likely to get people working on them if they are at risk than if they are not. I have saved as many as I could, others - unfortunately are beyond hope and it is COM:EVID up to the uploader to be sure there is source/author/date. As another admin who works in the scary zone of "no source/no permission and copyright violations," I have had a lot of experience with Jcb over the years. Like experiences with others here, some have been great - others not so wonderful. We all have our days. However, he is an experienced administrator and I have seen little to nothing convince me that his actions are not done in essential Good Faith and his best abilities to enrich the project. Every few years, a big storm brews up. Words are tossed. Feelings are hurt. Sometimes we lose administrators. It is always sad, and I don't think it's necessary this time. There are aspects of how this situation got here that seem like pack hunting behavior - that is sad. We are all volunteers on the same project, folks. Let's pull together and work through issues. I do not see any "Abuse of Administrator Tools" leading to this DeAdmin request. I thought that was a requirement for the remove-yer-mop process? In the current mood, I am pretty certain my attempt to go with the flow will cause someone to type a lot. If that's you, I will be happy to read your words, but I won't be drawn into a catfight, dogfight, horse-shoe fight or any other nomblemongering for supporting both administrators subject to these twin actions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC) \
    • @Ellin Beltz: "I do not see any "Abuse of Administrator Tools" leading to this DeAdmin request. I thought that was a requirement for the remove-yer-mop process?"
Nope: "In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing their status, it may seek de-adminship in the same way as adminship is sought." Nothing about tools. And Jcb has been asked to reconsider his ways many times. The problem is not the community not communicating, the problem is Jcb didn't listen. Working through issues is a two-way street. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Alexis Jazz: I overlooked that because there is no "routinely abusing their status" with examples so I assumed that wasn't at issue. This is a one-on-one personal problem. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ellin Beltz: it really isn't a one-on-one personal problem. It is a behavioural problem that most clearly and recently manifests itself with one other admin, but which extends beyond that. You mention that people change. IMO the best way for Jcb to change is to take a substantial (>3month) break from adminship. To merely be allowed to continue as before is not acceptable. As for your "Let's pull together and work through issues" talk, that's the sort of mindset my Prime Minister thinks will solve Brexit: if we try really hard and think positive thoughts, unicorns will appear and we'll have cake and eat it. I haven't ever seen any effort from Jcb to engage with the community to establish consensus on his deletion process. -- Colin (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove as per Fastily above. MZaplotnik(talk) 19:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove as per Fastily, too. --Stepro (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove As Fastily explained above. --Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove - it's like with Yann's de-adminship. It's not funny to say to a highly engaged long time admin, that it actually did not work. But per Fastily I have to vote for Remove. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove per Fastily, in part, and previous interactions with Jcb. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove Unfortunately, with deep regret, I will vote for Jcb's removal. This is partly because I have had little to no interaction with him and unlike Yann, I have nothing to support keeping him. --Boothsift 05:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep Administrators tend to be humans too, with all their faults and failings. “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” The Banner (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Remove I haven't been active for a while. Had you asked me two years ago, I would have voted remove without thinking much about it. But I had hoped that Jcb mellowed a bit in the meantime. Unfortunately, the experiences of other users and his responses and this page make me doubt that. Additionally, he still can't accept when people have differing opinions and has no respect for the decisions of this fellow admins as can be seen by edits like this. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral: per above, This is not gonna end well... CptViraj (📧) 09:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep Any admin makes mistakes, and the more admin actions are performed the more mistakes are noticed. I think Jcb makes a lot of good work in the fields where we have not a lot of admin volunteers. Ankry (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • In the light of this request existing, Jcb is there anything about your past pattern of actions and behaviour on this project that you would commit to changing? Thanks -- (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • As a first priority, whatever the outcome of these RFdAs may be, we must find a resolution for the problems between Yann and me. This has been going on for 3 years and it is highly disruptive for the project. At this point I have no clue how to that this resolved. Help from colleagues will be needed I think. One colleague already offered their help. Jcb (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • So your answer appears to be no, and to criticise Yann. Are you sure you are happy with that answer? -- (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Anecdote time, the only time I came across Jcb was when they mass-deleted files from an OTRS maintenance category and a lot of images were removed from both the English and Vietnamese Wikipedia's, I had alerted him to this and he quickly reversed his deletions and even went to the English and Vietnamese Wikipedia's to restore the images, so from my experience they were willing to listen and admitted when they were wrong, but reading casually through many discussions where he has been involved I find this somewhat positive experience to be the exception and not the rule. So this vote is not personal. But deletion requests or just deletions in general are something that require a great deal of care and sysops are trusted to follow community rules and guidelines and apply them in ways that other editors can't, if a user is unable to fulfil this duty then they should not have access to administrative tools. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Although I am a critic of Jcb, in this incident about {{The Stand News}} that led to his and Yann's RFDA, he might have done nothing out of order.--Roy17 (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Considering the several accusations of misconduct on this page, which go far beyond the conflict with Yann, I think Jcb should make a more elaborate response before I could give my opinion. Érico (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I would like to second this comment. Natuur12 (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The RFdA was started based on only the conflict with Yann. This page is flooded with all kind of old discussions. It's not fair to expect new comments on all those discussions. A small number of recent cases should be possible if they are presented. Jcb (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No discussion is ever over because you say it is. Pretty much none of the things brought up here have been resolved in a satisfying way. You never said sorry, always kept beating around the bush when it came to comitting to changing your behaviour and often would simply wait for ArchiverBot instead of actually resolving the issues. You are right about one thing though: we don't really expect new comments on all those old cases. But not because they are not relevant anymore. No. Too little, too late. You had your chance. Many times over. But you never took it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have severely mixed feelings about Jcb's top-posted attempt to influence voters. I went over all de-adminship requests and found only three instances of this happening: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship), Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2) and Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rd232 (de-adminship). All started in 2011. We might argue for delaying every de-adminship request to allow the admin in question to write a defense that could be top-posted along with the de-adminship request, but this right now doesn't feel fair towards other admins that are unaware this is even an accepted practice. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Meh, it's not specifically in the guidelines, nor does it really need to be. If you insist, you could try moving it to the comments section, which is clearly intended for replies from (in this specific case) Jcb; alternatively you could be the one staying mellow rather than be accused of poking the bear. -- (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with a brief top-post. Seems quite appropriate to hear the defence before we hear all the prosecution comments. In this case, his defence still seems to rest of "misuse of tools" rather than a multitude of other behavioural and competency issues raised. -- Colin (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I considered moving it, but since at least Rd232 also did it in the past and there probably is no specific rule against it, I figured that would just end up in more drama. But if we allow this, we should give every admin who goes up for de-adminship the opportunity. Not just those who are bold enough to dole out flyers at the voting booth. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sealle: "All these users, who brought their virtual bruises here, didn’t explain how this mutual desisop can heal toxic relationships between two very active admins, and who’s gonna manage all the stuff they do here."
    That last bit is an appeal to fear. Jcb has many enemies/victims. I know, because they contact me by e-mail to talk about it. Without Jcb, the environment will be less hostile, giving more room to others. And Jcb is not very active outside of his admin role. He rarely uploads anything, rarely categorizes, etc. Without his bit, he is unlikely to have many run-ins with Yann anymore. And as you could have noticed from the votes, this isn't just between Jcb and Yann. This is between Jcb and everyone he attacked, all the careless deletions he did, never apologizing for anything and often refusing to repair the damage he caused. Not telling the truth. The lies. The abuse of rollback when called out on his lies. His accusations of stalking, for which he never apologized. This is Walt Whitman's revenge. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: I recall the only case of unpleasant interaction with them, and after my warning and a request to a fellow admin for mediation, they no longer allowed themselves such misconduct and were that nice, so I see some fellow commoners have reasons to be offended, but I still don’t find this problem to be unmanageable. Sealle (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Jcb's response is completely and utterly tone deaf. The very fact that they're still dismissive of the many concerns which have been raised is additional proof that they are unfit for the role of administrator. Also, reality check: More deletions doesn't equal better or more productive administrator. Having been there and done it myself, I would know. -FASTILY 23:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    His response resembles a plead for mercy, which is not what I wanted from both admins. It seems like as you pointed out, he is still dismissive of his actions and uses his activity levels as his last resort to avoid deadminship. --Boothsift 05:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)