Mass deletions of images that were later determined to be good.
Massive blocks of newbies with no warning.
A quick look a the talk page shows a penchant for biting newbies that makes Manchester look like the Welcome Wagon. [link]
I don’t think this justifies ignoring the 7 day deadline set in deletion policy. I now notice your warning to original uploader. Indiminating warning in place of guidance on how to provide proper source information does not seem healthy at all. Not to mention it’s hard to provide this information now that file is deleted ahead of time. Pikne 13:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yikes, no point in even talking.
And he gets the last word,
“Well, thanks a lot for wanting to waste the time of even more people over this. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
This was not the first desysop discussion, for instance there was
- Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4)
- Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship)
- Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2
- Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3)
The first request for de-adminning (which I guess is what they call it on Commons) was in July 2011. The last was September 2019, and he kept using the tools even after they voted to remove them. It took Commons 8 years to deal with this problem. And how many decent editors were driven off in the meantime? How many users had to tiptoe around him to try to get the work done?
Why here is one now, our old friend Slowking4, the perennial target of Beestra’s sockpuppet obsessions. (OMG, he is still at it, unwriting Wikipedia as fast as good editors can write it.) In this case yet another user has had their image deleted and the clueless:
Considering JCB’s long history of abusing newbies, and even blocking them out of hand without warning, that looks like pretty good advice. But what does Jeff G do? Starts some trouble for Slowking. [link] but as it transpires in the talk page discussion Jeff G has been going around to newbie talk pages and posting a long rant criticizing them for not signing, even though there is a bot that does it. And Slowking has been following Jeff G around, criticizing him for harassing the newbies and directing him to a consultation about talk pages. Jeff G is so pedantic that Colin mistakes him for an admin. “It gives the impression Jeff is a power user asserting his superior knowledge, and not really understanding the “customer facing” role required at HelpDesk”. but them someone steps in and notes that Jeff G is NOT an admin, and it is noted that Jeff G.’s “third admin request was opposed for being BITEy”.
Fast forward to Fae’s latest RfA on Commons. I guess he’s bored now that he’s topic-banned from en.wiki again on his favorite topic and decided to try to get the Commons bits again. But as an example of how he knows how to calm troubled waters he brags about his role in Slowking’s block.
I wrote about this last spring: Fae strikes again: the Cuteness Association. Do take a look at Colin’s lengthy list of diffs, that he has in a collapsed box, [permanent link] …here is the one about the plush toys (disclaimer: I don’t particularly like Colin) :
- In March this year Fae nominated for deletion photographs from Wikimania 2017 that contained plush toys. Rather than dumping a list of all such toys for review, I would expect an admin to filter out those images where de minimis permits us to retain them. Approx half the 70+ images nominated were kept. During the discussion Fae got increasingly irritated by some of the keep votes (some of which were coming over from Wikipedia). This provoked the following insult:
“in baby speak that middle aged Wikipedians seem to need at open knowledge conferences:
Please help me. My mummy works hard making toys for other children. She has seen her toys being used by Wikimedia to promote their projects and we cry together because nobody cares about giving her credit for her work and we cannot afford to pay a lawyer. Please nice Wikipedians, read the label my mummy stitches on her toys, and give my mummy credit for her work so that future children can enjoy her cute toys.“
Admins should deal with DR professionally and not let the ignorance or perceived childishness of some wind them up to the point where they start writing mocking insults. Later, Slowking commented that Fae might not be so welcome at future meetups “because dumping on those who do, might get you unloved“. Fae, now at boiling point, attacks slowking for “a rather personal and threatening sounding attack” on Fae. Fae repeats this “this appears threatening and personal, a comment you would expect to come from someone stalking you“, “The wording appears deliberately chosen to make me feel unsafe to ever physically attend a Wikimedia funded event“, “This is not an overreaction, this a factual reading of your text above, and the words you are choosing fit every conventional definition of harassment.” So a DR on plush toys becomes a nuclear-war allegation of stalking and harassment.
Oddly enough, Slowking has not been seen around lately, and it looks like the reason is Fae, who with Jeff G as his sidekick, has made a pretty effective demonstration of his power on Commons. Looking at some previous discussions, Fae seems to thinks the Cuteness Association is a parody of the affiliates association he started and made himself president of (and was quickly removed from) after he was booted from Wikimedia UK. Also note this discussion, started by Jeff G, that Fae bragged about providing the diffs against Slowking. Unlike Fram, Slowking does not get the right of reply, or even talk page access. But I guess that’s Commons for you, not exactly a collaborative environment. Anyone who tries to keep the newbies away from the biters learns very quickly that the inmates are in charge of the asylum. Finally, Jeff G. runs to try to get Slowking globally banned, but doesn’t get very far. Behold, once again, Dunning-Kruger in action, while the real “content creators”- and team-minded individuals – are sidelined.