Support = 31;  Oppose = 14;  Neutral = 1 - 69% Result. Unsuccessful. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G.

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

Scheduled to end: 05:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As has been seen on COM:AN recently, Commons needs more Admin attention. I hereby volunteer to help. You may find more information about me at User:Jeff G.#Introduction and elsewhere on that page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Votes

  • Concerning the Maslow file: you didn't mark it as patrolled (it's still unmarked). I think marking a file as patrolled is something you need to do when you place any deletion template (maybe it would be good to have this automated), it's kinda sloppy not to. Eissink (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    @Eissink: Frankly, I can't see any way to mark either Maslow file description page as patrolled at present, but I also can't see any patrol activity in their patrol logs. Also, I assumed that I, as a member of the Image reviewers group, and Kwj2772, as an Admin, would automatically have our edits to those pages marked as patrolled via our autopatrol rights, so there would be no need to patrol them manually.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if that is how it works, it certainly doesn't appear that way. I just, after you reply, marked the file. It's not a big deal, but I always (unless I forget) flag files marked after attaching a template. Maybe something to contemplate further. Eissink (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Speaking on a personal level, I've found Jeff G's performance to be far less than satisfactory. In the past, he has exercised extremely poor judgment by voting to keep clearly out of scope images which were later deleted by universal consensus. He has filed frivolous deletion requests, attempted to provoke negative reactions and brought complaints against good faith users when there was - quote - "no evidence of actual wrongdoing". Due to these and many other actions I've witnessed, I have no faith in this editor, and - in my humble opinion - neither should anyone else here. AshFriday (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realise that the links you have provided clearly state that the files were not deleted as alleged pornography with children, but rather as out of scope. In fact their deletion under those grounds was overturned. I also find it interesting how a person can have a strong opinion when Special:ListFiles/AshFriday has two files, one of them is incorrectly rotated image and the other claims to have adjusted colours while somehow (accidentally?) changing the resolution. I trust that the closing admin will not simply count the votes, because something strange is happening here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you didn't read the deletion logs very carefully, or else chose to ignore the following:
  • 21:49, 12 February 2018 Jcb deleted page File:Buang air besar.jpg (potential underage porn -)
  • 21:49, 12 February 2018 Jcb deleted page File:Penis ereksi.jpg (potential underage porn -)
  • Whatever the case, the images involved two naked and partially clothed youths with erections, neither of whom looked like adults. I have a "strong opinion" because potential under-aged pornography has no place on commons, and no administrative candidate has any business voting to keep it.
  • Incidentally, my upload count is irrelevant: as an established user with over two thousand edits under my handle, I have every right to vote in RFAs and express my reasons for doing so. I trust that the closing admin will take all of this into consideration when they tally the final count. You're welcome. AshFriday (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen that, I also see that this deletion was undone because it wasn't correct. I also see that this deletion was before the vote, and therefore you are telling a falsehood when you have claimed that the image was deleted as potential child pornography after Jeff G has voted keep. The correct statement would be "Jeff G has voted keep on a file that was initially wrongly deleted as 'potential child pornography'". But that doesn't sound as bad, despite being the truth. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever, dude. He voted speedy keep on photos of naked/partially clothed teenagers with erections. He doesn't deserve to be an admin. There are some extremely good reasons why so many other editors have voted strong oppose on this thread. AshFriday (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support An active user with lots of good administrative works. Despite mistakes are made, Jeff has shown improvement since the previous RfA. No one is perfect. Considering his contribution and the history of RfA, a chance should be given. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Jmabel and T Cells. --Achim (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Herbythyme. Jianhui67 T★C 13:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely, deserves a chance.  Support, his contributions matters. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose See Stepro. --Nicola (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Stepro and previous RfAs --Didym (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I find Jeff to be easy to work with and he would be a hard-working admin. Although dismayed about the porn case mentioned above, I don't believe that is likely to be predictive of his future conduct.  JGHowes  talk 14:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very involved and experimented user who deserves a chance. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per King of Hearts and previous nominations. Also per my recent limited interactions. He gave one line comments at this category discussion, and never really engaged. And then he basically told me to shut up. See diff. Unlike another admin who politely asked the same thing. See diff. By the way my last pings that Mike Peel complained about got another admin to reply. Looking at his past nominations I note what I feel concerning his interactions: "Bitiness" and officiousness. Too quick to act. A hat collector. But what I see most is a lack of intellectual rigor. Not all of us are cut out to be Wikimedia admins. I certainly am not. I don't have the patience to deal with some people. I am an admin/bureaucrat though of 2 wikis; one on Wikia and one on Shoutwiki. But I am the boss on those 2 particular wikis. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Even with the mistakes, Jeff deserves this. ミラP 22:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Christian Ferrer, JMabel, and 1989. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Ellin. ~riley (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support In my opinion, Jeff definitely deserves a chance. Per Jmabel. Ahmadtalk 04:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - I am quite disappointed in the tone of this discussion overall. I am frankly saddened that two early oppose !votes, and those most often cited by others, are pretty clearly motivated by...how to say...personal reasons. And no less in reference to 1) a discussion where the user was nearly blocked by two different administrators and lost rollback access for cause, and 2) a discussion where the user lost their administrator access for gross incivility. We should really be striving for at least some level of decorum, and at least pretend formulate some rationale not based on a vendetta. I am not sure I have supreme enthusiasm for the weight these ought to be given by the closing crat. GMGtalk 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? I cited the previous discussions why I consider this user not to be trusted with admin tools. I consider it offensive and a personal attack that you dismiss that as "personal reasons" and a "vendetta". Jeff G. bad such a bad impression on me in his previous actions (like the incidents you mentioned before) and seemed so eager to get adminship previously that I actually already as a preventive measure had this page on my watchlist. I only do that if I consider people getting adminship is a great risk to this project and that's what's the case here. Multichill (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm quite upset about your comment. Incidentally, I am still have the opinion that "these two administrators" should apologize to me for their mistakes and that an admin should give me back the rollback rights. That would be "decorum". Accusing myself of a "vendetta", on the other hand, is definitely out of fierce and an unjustified accusation on your part. --Stepro (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GreenMeansGo: If you're so convinced that the "two early oppose votes" were motivated by "personal reasons," why don't you simply collapse their remarks like you did with my questions in the comments section below? AshFriday (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. I find most of the opposition unconvincing. For example, Stepro's !vote is of an instance where everyone was in the wrong: Stepro nominated images which they did not upload for speedy deletion by uploader request, Tm removed the tags outside of process, Stepro invoked a misunderstanding of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license terms, and they both edit warred, with Stepro abusing the rollback tool (resulting in its removal). Jeff G posted on the OTRS wiki with a link to the AN/U discussion, asking for review of Stepro's OTRS status. Although everyone agreed (at least, as far as I saw) that no action was warranted, Jeff G's bringing it up was fair: the idea that action could be warranted was not absurd.
The rationale I find most convincing is that the community has insufficient trust in Jeff G. Although many undoubtedly do lack trust in him, I believe this request shows that they are in the minority. Although "well, we can always revoke it later" is not a good reason to give someone the tools, in my opinion, it is a good reason to give a chance to someone who we might not otherwise. I would do so. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rationale I find most convincing is that the community has insufficient trust in Jeff G. Although many undoubtedly do lack trust in him, I believe this request shows that they are in the minority".
The words "many" and "minority" are somewhat incompatible in this case. If Jeff has stirred up this much opposition as an editor, the situation is likely to become far worse if he's granted administrative powers. AshFriday (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree. I think that (1) "many" and "minority" are entirely compatible in this case and (2) I am not so sure that things would get "far worse if he's granted administrative powers", as I don't see much above that would demonstrate that. Some of the above opposition is spurious, some is based on lack of trust or other concerns, but I don't see anything above that suggests he'd abuse the tools, which I think is the relevant consideration. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Question How would you respond if File:Rodrigoparedes 299-365 (37924882086).jpg was nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale: "derivative"? What would you take into consideration? --99of9 (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @99of9: Thank you for alerting me about that file. Despite the fact that I uploaded it, I have nominated it for deletion, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rodrigoparedes 299-365 (37924882086).jpg. I'm sorry I uploaded it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work. --99of9 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @99of9: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff G.: You're right that it should be deleted, but I think a full answer to the question would be nice: what would you do if it was "nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale: 'derivative'" (cleaned up, emphasis added) at the time 99of9 asked their question? How about at the time of upload? Assume someone else uploaded it, and you were deciding how to respond to the speedy deletion request. Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdaniels5757: Since 'derivative' is only mentioned at COM:CSD with relation to an original work, and no original work is specified in the question, I would convert the SD tag to a DR, asking what original work it was a derivative of. If this were another file and I were an Admin and didn't believe there was an original work, I would remove the SD tag and explain that in the edit summary.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Jeff G. generally I think you are a very valuable editor but could you explain what you have learnt from your previous failed RfA (1, & 2 & 3)? Regards. T CellsTalk 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @T Cells: I think you and Multichill missed one, but using your numbering: from 1, I learned that people react badly to the "edit summary" template, to reduce RfA nomination text, to not advertise my RfA in my sig, to put udelh templates above headers, to avoid unblanking user talk pages, and to be less BITEy. From 2, I learned to stop using {{Oa}}, to avoid quick and flippant and facetious responses, and to avoid taking the bait and disengage from those who insist "it's your responsibility to address my concerns". In that RfA, I posted some of what I had learned in this edit 17:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC). In 3, I learned that opinions from other RfAs can be cited, that I shouldn't transfer from Flickr without careful curation (I don't do that any more), and that defending myself is frowned upon at RfA. In that RfA, I posted some of what I had learned in this edit 04:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC). For completeness, from Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. (which I did not name/number), I learned to be on my best behavior during RfA, and to put my babel boxes at the very top of my user and user talk pages. I've also learned that convincing users posting to a particular page to sign their posts is pointless and BITEy while SignBot is active on that particular page, so I don't do that any more.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to let you know I support your creation of {{oa}} and I actually prefer when people approach candidacy seriously and provide complete information in their nomination. In Russian language there is a phrase "Once burnt by milk you blow on water", I am unsure if such a saying exists in English, but perhaps you are overly cautious. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gone Postal: Thanks. In English, a similar phrase is "Once bitten, twice shy". The portion I moved to my Introduction was as follows: I am a member of local groups Autoconfirmed users, File movers, Image reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors, Translation administrators, and Users, as well as global groups Global IP block exemptions, Global rollbackers, and OTRS members. My previous RfAs here were Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Jeff G., Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G., Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 2, and Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 3 (and I have learned from each of them). I have: Admin experience on Wikimedia Outreach, the Test and Test2 Wikipedias, Deletionpedia.org, RationalWiki.org, TheTestWiki.org, and various Wikia Fandom wikis; Bureaucrat experience on Test2 Wikipedia, TheTestWiki.org, and various Wikia Fandom wikis; and non-wiki Network Admin and Private IP Registrar experience at Canon USA and other client and employer networks in the New York Metro Area.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Would you delete a useful photo with a Commons-valid CC license just because it is limited in its re-use outside of Wikimedia projects due to personality or moral rights resp. patent or trademark rights? Please explain your understanding of different rights and how they affect photos of Wikimedia Commons. Thanks in advance! —DerHexer (Talk) 11:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DerHexer: No, I wouldn't delete such a photo. We don't delete here on the basis of patent and trademark rights, we just document those rights as non-copyright restrictions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  •  Question Over the past 13 years, you have failed no less than four different RFAs that I know of, with a large number of fellow editors opposing your various nominations. What are you doing wrong to turn so many good faith users against you? AshFriday (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AshFriday: That seems to me like a rhetorical question, and rather out of line. I realize that the theory is that questions here are for Jeff, but given the belligerent nature of the question I'm going to take the liberty of responding on his behalf, and he he can feel free to accept my response, dissent from it, or just leave it to stand on its own.
There are people who are not thrilled with Jeff because he doesn't pussyfoot around. He states his opinion clearly and doesn't avoid controversial matters. Inevitably, that means not everyone is always going to be happy with him.
I, for one, would like to see a few more admins who aren't afraid to stick their necks out. You may prefer otherwise, which is of course your prerogative. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am human. I am not perfect. I have made mistakes, apologized for them, and tried not to repeat them. I detailed what I learned from my mistakes (and from posts by others) above 06:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jeff G.: In retrospect, do you think it was a mistake, voting speedy keep on two files which were later deleted as potential underaged porn? Are you prepared to apologize to the community for doing so? What, if anything, did you learn from the experience? AshFriday (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite inclined to agree with Jmabel in viewing this as largely rhetorical, rather than a genuine attempt at seeking information or clarification. I am therefore collapsing this. Anyone is free to support or oppose based on their individual rationale. But this section is for seeking feedback to inform that position, and not for seeking post hoc retribution for it. If we must carry on tangential side bars on our personal areas of interest, please do so elsewhere. GMGtalk 12:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GreenMeansGo: I am stating for the record that I take great offense at your collapsing of my questions and the veiled allegations you've made against me in the section immediately above. I have legitimate concerns about Jeff G's performance; as an established user with over 2,000 edits, I have as much right to address these concerns as any other editor on this thread. AshFriday (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]