Commons:Requests and votes/Jeff G.

Jeff G.

Hello all. I am nominating myself as an Administrator on Wikimedia Commons. I became a Commons Editor on 19 February 2007 or perhaps earlier via IP Address, I actually registered on Commons on 25 February 2007, and I became an English Wikipedia Editor on 21 December 2006 as JeffGent and changed name on 31 May 2007 to Jeff G. I have over 3,400 contributions to Commons[1], including over 800 in the Commons namespace[2] and over 1,100 in the User talk namespace [3]. I also have over 2,400 contributions to English Wikipedia[4], over 11 contributions to MediaWiki Bugzilla[5], and an account on Flickr. I am trusted as a Flickr reviewer. I understand and agree with the goals of the project. I have a user page on the Commons, am a Commons contributor, am interested in helping the Wikimedia Commons community, and have email setup. I agree to follow relevant policies and respect consensus of the Commons' users. I have added Babel info on my user page, so other users will know languages I speak or understand. I have read Commons:Deletion guidelines and the top section of Commons:Deletion requests, and have filed deletion requests on those bases. I have the following pages on my watchlist: Commons:Help desk, Commons talk:Licensing, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subsections: Vandalism, Attention, User problems, Blocks & protections and Commons:Disputes noticeboard (formerly Disputes). I try to make the world, the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community, and Commons a little bit better with each edit/action (which sometimes includes inaction). Yes, I have stumbled a few times, but I have apologized and learned from my mistakes, and am capable of changing my opinion given enough logic and/or evidence. I am civil. I link, tag, name, and describe my images. I do not upload copyvios. I welcome new users. I warn testers, vandals, warning removers, the uncivil, and those with inappropriate usernames. I have an appropriate username. I try to use an Edit Summary to summarize each and every edit, and have done very well at that by some estimates on English Wikipedia[6][7].   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would expect to do things that I have recently requested Administrators to do: review and delete images that have ripe pending speedy deletion tags; close deletion requests that have a clear consensus; act on the subjects of undeletion requests (given a consensus); edit protected pages, and block users. I could at some point want to unprotect pages and unblock users, but I haven't seen enough of a need for that yet to call on someone to do it. I believe my main area of work in the near future would be to do the first three above: review and delete images that have ripe pending speedy deletion tags; close deletion requests that have a clear consensus; and act on the subjects of undeletion requests (given a consensus).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding templates: they have been honed here by the community to fit the community. They work. They are efficient, where as reinventing the wheel generally is not. I am sorry if using them causes me to seem impersonal. I will try to add a personal touch to them when I use them. Yes, I care strongly about the use of the Edit Summary, and have worked at changing Template:Summary (hopefully for the better); maybe I would care less if the search capabilities available here were better. Yes, I have copied some templates from English Wikipedia that don't really need to be here; much of that copying was redlink avoidance that perhaps went too far, but I think use of Template:Editprotected (and watchlisting of its Category:Commons protected edit requests by many Administrators) has shown its utility here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 04:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support -- about time :-) / Fred J 06:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Seems likely to make a fine sysop. Jahiegel 08:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support We all make mistakes, but not everybody is willing to acknowledge that and apologize. Those who do are suited for adminship. I am still worried though by the recent troubles in the deletion requests though, and I hope that you in the future you discuss things that do not need a deletion request though the user's talk page instead of just marking them for deletion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the future I will discuss things that do not need a deletion request though the user's talk page instead of just marking them for deletion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Siebrand 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Jeff in general has done very well in ticking all the boxes, dotting his i's and crossing his t's. But I am still uneasy about the way he interacts with other users. IMO he vastly over-uses templates to communicate with other people and tends too much to assume the standards of enwp apply here. Examples include edit summaries, removing talk page notices, "appropriate username", informing people that they should archive their page...to me these are incredibly peripheral issues that I can hardly imagine wasting breath on. Several people now have expressed surprise/bewilderment at receiving the "edit summary" template, but it is almost as if Jeff doesn't understand why they have this reaction... I have more confidence in admins who understand the spirit rather than the letter. The inappropriate del-requests are also a bit recent for my liking. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you for expressing those concerns. If you look more deeply into my contributions, I think you will find that I also understand the spirit of the Commons, and have tried to help it not only by changing image description pages and categorization to be more accurate, but also by documenting my changes in Edit Summaries and by helping others to do the same. Until we have enough people with enough time examining the details of edits, we must rely on Edit Summaries as a time-saving measure.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose As Pfctdayelise. The deletion requests and the use of templates instead of a message on the user's talk page are too recent for me to support. He is very helpful and goes by the book, but I think more time is needed before a request for Administrator. --Digon3 ^talk 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have apologized for my deletion requests and the impersonality of my use of templates, and am changing my behavior with regards to them.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose with regret. There is much in Jeff's favour indeed. He is very hard working. However I do have concerns about his interaction with other users and his understanding of such interactions. I share Digon3's & Pfctdayelise's concerns. There is a sense in which I hope this RfA succeeds an we are proved wrong but I am not certain enough of that to vote neutrally --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose with much regret as you do valuable work here and I feel that you would do many good things with your tools. But your style of interaction with other users is already an issue and will cause too many problems related as you use your admin tools. I hope this feedback will help you to understand the problem and you change your manner of interacting with users. If that happens I will happily support you in the future. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose per interaction with other users. ~ Wikihermit 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Jeff is very hard working and committed to the project. He has acquired a good knowledge of policies and processes relevant to being an admin. Yes, he has also made some mistakes but seems to have learned from them. And yes, he may be over-reliant on template messages but I don't see any instance in his contribs of rudeness or incivility. On balance I think he would be a positive addition to the admin team. WjBscribe 06:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Whenever I have to agree to pfctdayelise, but hard-working community member. --Polarlys 09:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose per the concerns outlined above, my dislike of the content and format of the nomination text and the link to this request in the user's signature. Adambro 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  What do you not like about "the content and format of the nomination text"? No one objected to the former links in my signature, which were to my "Flickr review status nom" (now archived here) and before that "supports deadminship for inactivity". Such links are and were neutral, and do not appear to conflict with any policy or guideline.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 04:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Neutral Great contributor to Commons. However, somewhat brusque approach to other users gives me some concern, especially considering many of our users do not speak English as a primary language. Definitely a dedicated and hard-working member of the community, however, so sitting on the fence here. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  I have tried to help users in other languages (such as Spanish), even in languages I don't know via templates, but have been reverted for the latter behavior[8].   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Marcus Cyron 19:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral I was going to nominate this user had I not went on vacation, but seeing the opposes made me think, and I cannot help but sit on the fence. Jeff G. is a level-headed user most of the time, but some interactions with him give the impression that this user goes by the letter most of the time. I've also seen an undeletion discussion closed by him that looked like something that belonged on en.wikipedia, and that is very troubling to me as well as other users. Based on these interactions with other users, I am interested to see how this user reacts to some difficult deletion requests that may result in participants of that request spamming the administrators' noticeboard. (→O - RLY?) 01:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  I do not remember closing any deletion or undeletion discussion that had not yet been acted upon by an Administrator; all my closes should have been cleanup only. Which one are you referring to? Thanks, gotta run!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 11:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  Do you remember now? And yes, that was for cleanup purposes (→O - RLY?) 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  I remember making that closing edit, for cleanup purposes, over ten days after the last activity in that discussion. The undeletion discussion (without subject header due to a bug in DRBot) is archived at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2007-08. I did not participate in the undeletion discussion, nor did I upload the image. The deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg, on the other hand, is admittedly a mess. I created it out of the hodgepodge of discussion/talk on Image talk:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg, User talk:Jeff G., and User talk:Polarlys, plus the undeletion discussion. I was acting on my reading of the Foundation Resolution on Licensing policy and our deletion guidelines. However, given Mike Godwin's take, I have expressed my opinion to keep. I don't think withdrawing my nomination of that file for deletion is a viable option, as it's really up to the community to make the decision. Gotta run!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  Jeff: the reason why there are no subject headers in the archivation is not due to a bug with DRBot but because you put the udelh below the header, so it didn't get archived. Bryan explained on Commons_talk:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests. / Fred J 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  "some difficult deletion requests that may result in participants of that request spamming the administrators' noticeboard" should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Something is not right if an admin candidate needs to point out every policy and guideline he follows, and everything he does that makes him a good user. /Ö 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I was trying to emulate the behavior of past successful candidates in "ticking all the boxes" per pfctdayelise above by including lots of potentially helpful information. I did not think "I hereby self-nominate." would be sufficient. Perhaps I included too much - what would you not have included, if you were me? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose recurrent aggressive behaviour revert deleted content in talk pages and inadequate sense of realities (mingle with conflicts where he is not concerned and make them worse by tactlessness). --Juiced lemon 07:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  Discussion of the behavior of this poster is best left to other venues.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose (comment removed) Michelet-密是力 11:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC) OK, this was a bit too rude - sorry - but there is still a problem in your approach. Michelet-密是力 12:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  What makes you think that "Source="[9] and "Source=(irrelevant)"[10] are appropriate in any information template on any image description page?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  For a self-made image, the "source" field is irrelevant when the "author" one is given. Use common sense (your brain, you know...), this is what I expect from admins. Users uploading images are unfamiliar with Commons conventions. I don't want users to face some kind of arrogant loveless automate, I'm not the only one to think there is a problem here, this is why you're out as far as I'm concerned. Michelet-密是力 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Everyone: please be civil and have some respect for the fact that applying for adminship means opening yourself to criticism and making a small leap. Show some restraint instead of jumping in with glee to attack someone for showing some small courage. Everyone will benefit from this. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose I can't support at this time. My thoughts on this matter are well-expressed by pfctdayelise, Herby and FloNight. I strongly encourage everyone to avoid incivility, especially on this page. Jeff G. deserves no less. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry Jeff, but I do agree with pfctdayelise--Tarawneh 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Close - I do not believe the consensus exists to promote JeffG at this time. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I have to ask if you think actively seeking out the mistakes of other folk up for admin is something you see as a constructive contribution towards the community and the process? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Any candidate for Administrator is going to be subject to extra scrutiny, and if that scrutiny reveals a problem, criticism. It goes with the territory. I have been applying extra scrutiny to such candidates for some time now. And the same goes for candidates for Flickr reviewer (with special attention to their Flickr-related uploads). I self-nominated knowing full well that I would be subject to extra scrutiny. And on the point of today's edits to other candidates' user talk pages, I (unlike some of the other candidates) do not bury the evidence of my mistakes, I fix, apologize for (when necessary), and archive them. So, yes, I think it is a constructive contribution towards the community and the process, helping us all to know more about the candidates so that we can make better-informed decisions about their candidacy.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you place this message on my talk page as I have had nothing to do with the image concerned?

When I made that edit (21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC), just three minutes after making this edit, I was under the mistaken impression that you were a checkuser on English Wikipedia, based on a misreading of "English Wikibooks" on m:CheckUser Policy. I acknowledged my mistake in this edit. I apologize for dragging you into that discussion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Was your comment of "Bravo" here on the blocking of a user a useful comment?

Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, it wasn't very useful. I have replaced it. Thank you for pointing that out.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question: what would you use your admin tool for? (Copying User:Piotrus relevant question to Florent) To be more precise: Which tasks do you expect to do where you will need the extra sysop-functions, and what to you believe will be your main area of work in the near future? Finn Rindahl 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, I'm sorry I didn't cover it in my nomination. I would expect to do things that I have recently requested Administrators to do: review and delete images that have ripe pending speedy deletion tags; close deletion requests that have a clear consensus; act on the subjects of undeletion requests (given a consensus); edit protected pages, and block users. I could at some point want to unprotect pages and unblock users, but I haven't seen enough of a need for that yet to call on someone to do it. I believe my main area of work in the near future would be to do the first three above: review and delete images that have ripe pending speedy deletion tags; close deletion requests that have a clear consensus; and act on the subjects of undeletion requests (given a consensus).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)