Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 3

< Commons:Administrators | Requests
 Support = 8;  Oppose = 12;  Neutral = 0 - 40% Result. Unsuccessful. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G.

Vote

Jeff G. (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 11:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to propose Jeff G. comme administrator on Commons. He is a contributor since February 2007, and has over 200,000 contributions to Commons. He si very active, responsive to requests and critics, and has shown that he is able to change when needed (see previous failed nomination). He knows quite lot about copyright and other Commons policies. I expect him to accept (and eventually complete) this recommendation. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Thank you for trusting me with this nomination. I humbly accept. In addition to what I have written in my past nominations, I fully support both the copyrights of content creators (during their periods of copyright) and the rights of the people to benefit from their works once those copyrights have expired or have been properly licensed.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

I don't.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no answer. Jeff_G. certainly has a grudge—see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_76 #Slowking4, meta:Steward requests/Global/2019-04 #Global lock_for Slowking4—but prefers to conceal true reasons behind the feud. This attitude doesn’t earn respect from me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment IMHO Jeff had good reasons to report Slowking4 on Commons. There is quite a consensus for the block. Now the report on Meta was not needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The two users escalated their feud into a public quarrel, Slowking4 received a (temporary) block, Jeff_G. provoked Slowking4 further, and Slowking4 got an indefinite block. What could do person not having a grudge? Just forget about his foe, given Slowking4’s ban from English Wikipedia. But contrary… Jeff_G. tried to finish off the vanquished enemy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Incnis Mrsi: Slowking4 is not my foe. I am not feuding with him. I had nothing to do with his block on English Wikipedia, his refusal to fix his broken user talk page, or most of his other behavioral issues. He brought those upon himself. I merely tried to communicate to him their unacceptability, pointed them out to the community, and explained the communications I had tried.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not cool at all Jeff G., please differentiate the difference between m:Global locks with m:Global bans, as per Global locks policy said "As a general rule, global locks happen almost always in clear-cut situations.". You almost make life harder for the stewards, if stewards really did the lock, they will be the one who being put under fire for "being abusive".--AldNonUcallin?☎ 08:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aldnonymous: It is clear that account Slowking4 is indefinitely blocked on multiple individual wikis, qualifying that account as one of the "Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis" per m:Global locks. However, please note that I have not pursued a global ban against him.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What did you pursued? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: you forgot that sentence is not a standalone and still have continuation here I will give you the rest of the sentence. "...., such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal ", and hence since it can't fall into normal global lock, it should go as RFC for Global Bans instead.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 12:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G., do you notice the difference now? If you did pls give confirmation, since I do want to support a net positive user like you and change my neutral vote to support.--AldnonymousBicara? 07:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aldnonymous: I understand that successful global bans are enforced by global locks and blocks. I have been wary of starting an RFC for a global ban of Slowking4 due to the failure of m:Requests for comment/Global ban of Hasive and some opinions on this page. You are welcome to start one.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you did understand the difference of global ban and normal global locks.--AldnonymousBicara? 12:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Incnis Mrsi: I planned to complete the uploads from that flickrstream before moving on to better categorization, but I have been frustrated by timeouts and resource limitations with Flickr2Commons that inhibit completion of the uploads.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you banned from Cat-a-lot? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. I will work on categorizing them later when I have a solid block of time to devote to that task.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to answer all questions at my RFA. I think I'll stop now.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am discourage that Jeff's response here is to imply bad faith motive of all those opposing his nomination. That's really not an approach that is going to encourage anyone in his capability for self-reflection. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I was implying nothing of the sort.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you were asked "why do you think so many people have voted against you" and responded that your reply would have speculated on the motives of others. In other words, you couldn't possible see, or wish to mention, any defect in yourself that was responsible. -- Colin (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I do see defects in myself, I'm only human. Revealing them in public is embarrassing, so I try not to. OTOH, I do admit to being nerdy, geeky, overweight, and other adjectives/attributes as seen on en:User:Jeff G.#Userboxes and in lesser quantity User:Jeff G.#Userboxes. As for the opinions of others here, they are welcome to express them subject to policies & guidelines, but I reserve the right to defend myself. I am certainly not here to create drama, quite the opposite (I moved quickly to try to rid the project of certain drama creators).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt drama, I think one important way to reduce drama is to close discussions that are no longer productive or proposals that aren't swiftly being endorsed. You kept the AN/U open on Slowking for a month during which time most of the comments were critical of you. He was blocked eventually, but the issues you raised weren't themselves significant, and the petty nature of some led to suggestions of a grudge. Regardless of what I think of any users here, I don't think it is fair to make an AN/U thread "sticky" where that user is under continual attack and encouragement to find faults. You opened a proposal at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Upgrade Commons:Staying mellow from Essay to Guideline which was hasty, ill-considered and is going nowhere. Please put it out of its misery. It isn't suddenly going to get a flood of support, and needs to be archived. Keeping that open suggests you lack judgement of community consensus. And this RFA. I don't really know why Yann thought now was a good time for it, but at 12 oppose, 3 support and 4 weak support, it isn't going to get the bare minimum 75% support (or perhaps even the 8 support). What purpose does keeping this open serve? You haven't had any new votes now for days. -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Slowking4 kept writing things I felt were pertinent to his section at ANU, so I kept reporting them. Proposals go nowhere and get automatically archived all the time, they are rarely withdrawn. This RFA is "Scheduled to end: 11:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)". Do I even have standing to close it, given that I didn't propose it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You complained that Slowking had said something negative about Jcb, a criticism (if it is such) that could be levelled at nearly everyone who participates at AN/U. When that farcical reason-to-block failed to attract any consensus for admin action, you exceeded it by stating "The user is also violating Commons:Signatures policy and common norms of capitalization, such as in this edit.". So he forgot to sign once and didn't start a sentence with a capital letter. You really think that is a valid reason to block? I guess if you think folk who don't sign should be blocked that explains why you've been so hostile to the newbies. I want someone with access to the block buttons to have even half a clue about what merits blocking, and not to waste Community time with "OMG he didn't sign!" AN/U micro-drama. -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: Yes, this RFA isn't going to pass, but usually bureaucrats close RFAs. IMHO, some of the criticisms here are not really fair. There are based on old issues, and I think Jeff has improved since then. There is no comment, either supporting or opposing, from most of the active admins, which I find a bit strange. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yann actually a third of failed RFA are withdrawn and a small number are closed early per "snowball". You might consider doing Jeff a courtesy of withdrawing this. I could speculate that most of the active admins see a fourth failed RFA for Jeff and have better things to do with their time. And on that note, I'm unwatching this. -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here to explain my opposition above I would start with some general points I've observed expressed by Jeff G. and will also have to state that I “don't keep tabs on users” so I don't have all the Diff’s so if I'm wrong about something then please correct me as I like Jeff G. and don't want to oppose them. Let’s first start with the apparent grudge they seem to harbour against Slowking4 (who admittedly has recently been banned for life from Wikimedia Commons (mobile link) and might even be facing a global community ban, but most of this concerns the situation before the ban). For quite some time Jeff G. has been trying to get Slowking4 banned often over minor things, I’m not saying that Slowking4 was always in their right but it kind of shows some level of unmellowness to constantly report the same person over very minor things which in many cases was very ambiguous. Now in the hands of a user who can’t themselves block other users this isn’t that bad of a quality as the community has repeatedly spoken against the measures suggested by Jeff G. but a sysop can block a user without community review and bad blocks rarely (if ever) get reversed and Jeff G. has made it quite clear that they have a lower threshold for what’s “a blockable offense” than most current sysops. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donald Trung: respectfully… don’t fuel hysteria and spread gossip. There is a consensus of admins that Slowking4’s user_talk right is due to be reinstated in July. Slowking4 didn’t show enough respect for Wikimedia Commons and now faces consequences, but it doesn’t make him banned, let alone for life. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also seen Jeff G. express support for a local version of the English-language Wikipedia's G5 which isn't bad by itself as everyone is allowed to have their own opinion, but sysops generally can enforce rules that have been rejected or they had up without much opposition (for example INeverCry enforcing English G5 which I found quite a lot looking over uploads of Russavia socks often stating “copyright violation” and then later uploads even by other users being deleted for being “previously deleted for being a copyright violation” but that’s a can of worms I don't want to open here, it's just that sysops trust each other's judgements a bit too quickly). Further I’ve seen him once support a block for a productive IP user because he once referred to having “a master account” which was denied a block (though I can't remember of which forum so I can’t really cite it here), I just have the idea that Jeff G. is a rather exclusionist person when it comes to the blocking policy and its enforcement. And also Jeff G. tends to overuse the “{{Please sign}}” template over which I have mixed feeling and will defend him. First of all unsigned posts aren’t read by archiving bots and a post where the last comment is unsigned will not be archived so these comments are helpful.
  • As Jeff G. comes off as an intelligent man (or boy, I don't know his age) so I do think that if he asks people to sign their comments without giving them actual help that he probably did try to research the topic for them. As probably 99% (ninety-nine percent) of all users who don't sign their edits are either new users or content creators who just haven't accustomed themselves to how Wikimedia talk pages work the “{{Please sign}}” message is most certainly helpful. However if one looks at it from a perspective of one of these new users who are just looking for help on a website they don’t understand then seeing such a (somewhat) condescending message with no real help offered can come off as pedantic and may even be irritating. I actually think that Jeff G. should continue using the “{{Please sign}}” template in the Wikimedia Commons help desk, but want to note that simply templating people with no further attemps at positive interaction comes off as apathetic.
  •  Comment, the name of this RfA is wrong, the previous one was called "Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 2", so this would be his 3rd (third) RfA. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment, all of AshFriday's reasons for opposing are bad in my opinion, Jeff G. Conducted himself in good faith during every one of those occasions, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Hi, Jeff. At your last RFA I said "I'd like to have supported Jeff, because I believe his heart is in the right place, and he obviously wants this very much. Unfortunately I've seen too many of his interactions where the "bitiness" and officiousness referred to by many commenters is an issue. This seems especially common in dealings with new users, and is exactly what we don't need in an admin. I'm also concerned about his ability to make difficult judgement calls - as others have remarked he has a tendency to "follow the herd" without much demonstrated independent thought. This will sound harsh, but I see, too often, a "mall cop" approach in Jeff's dealings, and frankly that is very worrying for a potential admin. Jeff says all the right things here - that he's "learned" from previous failed attempts, but he doesn't tell us what he's learned, or demonstrate what the resulting change has been."

    I'm in the same position again - I'd like to support you, but I still don't see a clear statement from you indicating that you understand the reasons your previous attempts have failed, and what you have done and are doing to address the issues. Indeed, I actually see something of a continuing "biting newbies" issue with recent discussions about your first response to new editors being to publicly 'embarrass' them for not signing a post etc. You do much good work, but I still can't support you for admin until I'm convinced you understand these issues fully, and would be able to exercise proper, individual, personal judgement as an admin. Do you think my assessment is fair, and if not, why not? Thanks. -- Begoon 00:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon: Thank you for asking. I have tried to be nicer to newbies. I have toned down the message I was sending those who didn't sign their posts, and included a welcome. I welcome all newbies who post at COM:FILTERT and have not already had a reply. However, I cannot in good conscience allow copyvios to stay here any longer than is absolutely necessary.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don’t perceive the episode with “pedantic” messages an anything affecting admin’s judgement adversely. As for “proper, individual…” – did Begoon see it in practice, on such scale? We see Begoon as a regular pundit on various RfAs for years, but where is Begoon when the community needs to enforce “proper… judgement” against abuse? This is stupid Wikipedia-style governance when any admin candidate receives a storm of criticism, whereas dickery by established admins is rarely combated. Wikimedia Commons doesn’t differ much from wikipedias, unfortunately. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was not with being "pedantic" but with being discouraging and publicly embarrassing newbie contributors. We expect Admins to reflect Community values, one of which is not to bite the newcomers. So I would expect admin judgement to be 100% encouraging to newbies who post to the help page in good faith, and to recognise when it is appropriate to be critical. Incnis Mrsi, I don't think your criticism of Begoon or general complaint about Commons RFA, is appropriate or on-topic at this RFA. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff_G._3&oldid=346478985"