Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 21;  Oppose = 11;  Neutral = 0 - 65.6% Result: Unsuccessful. --Krd 06:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G. 2

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 04:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

My fellow Commons editors, I understand the current shortage of active Administrators, and I would like to join their ranks. I am a member of local groups Image-reviewer, filemover, and rollbacker, plus global groups OTRS members and Global IP block exemptions. In my 11 years here, I made over 128,300 live edits here on Commons, and over 239,900 globally. I started two previous RFAs here on Commons, Commons:Requests and votes/Jeff G. (31 August 2007) and Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. (5 May 2017), and I learned from the mistakes they highlighted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support user active in areas related to administrator's work. Also, as OTRS agent he can make good use of the rights. I trust him. Ankry (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A reasonable, helpful, and very hard-working, seasoned editor in my experience. I read about the past incident where he spoke out-of-turn to an admin, but that was then and this is now. I think it's time to take this step. WikiPedant (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Full support; per users WikiPedant and Ankry. Hystrix (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •   I would trust him with admin bit. — regards, Revi 06:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Regretful oppose Jeff often weighs in on the admin boards and deletion and undeletion requests, and mostly on what turns out to be the "correct" side. At first glance, he would seem to be an excellent candidate... however, he often takes a somewhat BITEy stance, and can frequently come across as officious. We should all endeavor to put more thought into our edits, but the creation and very frequent use of templates like {{Oa}}, which reads like a form letter (because it is), displays an attitude that I don't think should become more prevalent among users with the bit. Jeff's helpfulness is often marred by the perception that he's simply rubber stamping others' decisions... there are backlogs, yes, but they should not be resolved by putting even less thought into our responses that we currently do. Some long time Commons users have an unfortunate perception that Commons is an "admin versus user" battleground, a mostly unfounded perception which we should strive to keep untrue... giving Jeff the bit would seem to be a step in the wrong direction in realizing those perceptions. Storkk (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Storkk: I stand by my statements and comments in those RFAs, including those concerning use of templates. I developed {{Oa}} from often-used verbiage on COM:UDR. I put thought into each and every time I use it. Having the bit would allow me to research a deleted file and provide a custom reason of exactly why it should or shouldn't be restored, avoiding the need for me to use that template.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Yes, I am older. Older than the World Wide Web.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Storkk, such template {{Oa}} may be sometimes appropriate but should not be used systematically IMO. This user leaves me a good general impression, and without doubt he is involved in the life and administrative tasks of Commons. The water has flowed since the last Rfa and since the event that had caused so much opposition including mine. For me he deserves a chance to try. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Storkk --Didym (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. -- Geagea (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support excellent editor. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater; Jeff is qualified and would do far more good than bad as admin. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Sebari & Christian Ferrer & Magog the Ogre sums it up :) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Opposes are unconvincing. Jeff as an admin = net benefit IMO. -FASTILY 07:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support although I tend to agree with fellow concerns that Jeff is a bit too bite-y, I think he will do well. He's been here for several years küñall (nütramyen) 21:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Magog the Ogre & Fastily. --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jeff had come off a bit BITEy before nor do I always agree with his opinions but when we disagree it has always been substantive. Jeff's positives far outweigh his negatives IMO. I hope in the future he doesn't feel a need to include quick flippant responses and is mindful of the responses in this RfA. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose 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 sympathise with the tendency towards "bitiness" - it's easy to slip into that mode (I can be guilty of it myself), but it's unsuitable for an admin, and one of the reasons I'd not recommend myself... Adminship isn't for everyone... If this passes I hope Jeff will note that these concerns appear to be shared even by supporters and bear that in mind. -- Begoon 15:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Begoon: You could have asked what I've learned. I've learned the following: to ask, rather than assume; users who upload copyvios usually don't understand that they are doing so; {{Copyvio}} and {{Copyvionote}} were too uninformative, so I pushed to make them more informative, and thus kinder and gentler; {{End of copyvios}} as a final warning went too far too fast without an initial warning, so I made kinder and gentler {{Fcs}} to stand for File Copyright Status and to fill the gap as an initial warning; {{Vd}} was sometimes too strong and weaker {{Weak delete}} had a relatively long name, so I made {{Vwd}}; and {{Undeletion request by OTRS}} had a long name, so I made {{OU}} to stand for OTRS UDR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I could have asked. I'm not under examination here though - you've volunteered to be... In a way I did "ask", by pointing out the lack of detail which I would have expected to see as I did, and you've very kindly attempted to address it, thank you. Every "solution" you point to is a template. That's, interestingly, another criticism I've seen made of your approach - you far too often prefer to communicate impersonally by template rather than engaging conversationally. Is that a fair observation, do you think? I've seen it said of you on a number of occasions. -- Begoon 18:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Begoon: Allow me to reiterate from my first DR RFA: "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."   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By your "first DR", I take you to be referring to Commons:Requests and votes/Jeff G., where I found that 10-year old comment? It's fine to use templates where they are appropriate, but I guess the fact that people are still commenting on this impersonal aspect of your approach might mean that some were hoping you might have "learned" to add a more personal and helpful touch to individual cases over the years. You clearly feel you've done something along those lines by "improving" some templates and creating some shortcut links - maybe some people feel that, as the old adage goes, "when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and that, while "better nails" can be a good thing, considering even better, more tailored individual approaches outside the hammer/nail paradigm, by actually engaging rather than what can feel like robotic templating, would be an improvement well worth striving for. I'd tend to agree with that. -- Begoon 06:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Begoon: Right, my first RFA here. Sorry, I blame the below conversation. Look at how well actually engaging is working out.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed you meant RFA - it was pretty clear from the context. Still, if I could be permitted a little dry humour, you should probably be very careful with typos when requesting user rights, because, even with clear context, folks have been known to pounce on that kind of thing as partial justification for opposing, and, honestly, DR wasn't even close to being correct... . Anyway, I've said more than enough words here - good luck with the rest of the discussion, and thanks for all the responses. -- Begoon 08:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Very strongly oppose. This user voted to keep two photographs which were subsequently deleted as potential underaged pornography. Note that in both cases, he votes "Speedy Keep". Whatever his reasons for doing so, his decisions were utterly inexcusable and there is no way that he should ever be granted administrative powers.
AshFriday (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AshFriday: I was opposing your one-man crusade mission to delete "smut" (whatever that is) from Commons per COM:CENSOR. Both those files were kept at DRs by Yann. There was no speculation in those DRs about the subjects being underage. I wonder why Jcb deleted them out of process without second DRs.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about me. You voted to keep two images that were deleted as Potential Underaged Porn. Do not attempt to blame me - or anyone else - for your poor judgment. If your immediate reaction is to lash out and blame others for errors that you made, then I suspect you'd make a very hostile administrator indeed. AshFriday (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AshFriday: I didn't lash out, I explained. In each DR, there were three other people who !voted to keep with good reasons, plus closer Yann. Why didn't you raise the "Potential Underaged Porn" argument in your original nominations of those files?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: As I said, this isn't about me. Claiming that I'm on a "one man crusade" doesn't excuse your voting to keep potentially illegal material. Instead of demanding answers from me, perhaps you should focus more on explaining why you didn't notice that the photos featured potentially underaged subjects (and why you didn't vote to remove them as both the law and common sense would dictate).
In each DR, there were three other people who !voted to keep with good reasons...
There is no "good reason" for keeping underaged porn. However, your comment prompts me to ask: is this an example of you "voting with the herd"? Leave the other voters out of the discussion, as they aren't applying for an administrative position. Instead, explain how someone with your eleven years of experience didn't notice there was potentially illegal material on the site, and worse still, actually voted to keep it because you didn't like the nominator thought the nominator was on a "Mission". AshFriday (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase struck out and reworded as a courtesy. AshFriday (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AshFriday: Concerning "voting with the herd", in each DR the tally was 2 delete to 1 keep when I !voted keep, so that was technically "against the herd".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Your exact words:
In each DR, there were three other people who !voted to keep with good reasons...
Too late to back-pedal now. AshFriday (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AshFriday: I take your accusation that I don't like you as a personal attack, and you are hereby requested to cease and desist from making personal attacks. I don't like what you've done here and the "smut" portion of what appears to be your mission statement, but I have not expressed any judgements of you as a person.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: And I consider your claim that I'm on a "one man crusade" to be both insulting and a personal diatribe against my character. You are hereby requested to cease making these personal attacks and remember that you have opened yourself to criticism by your own free will. AshFriday (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AshFriday: I struck it out.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You lashed out at me when you claimed I was on a "one man crusade". You were angry because I posted links to a crucial error on your part and now you're trying to shift the blame onto me and everyone else who was involved. That's an extremely poor showing on your part, and if you have one ounce of integrity left, you will admit that to the rest of the community. AshFriday (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AshFriday: All material is potentially illegal in some jurisdiction or another. Even your choice of username could be considered blasphemous in the Holy See. You seem to be ascribing motives to me without evidence, while I have the continued evidence that you are "Planning to clean up en.Wiki and Commons of copyright vios and smut" right there on your user page. If that's not a "one-man crusade", what is it? Note that I did not originate that description, it seems that was Davey2010. I will admit that I react negatively to censorship, but I think many of my colleagues here share that view. What makes you write that the depicted individuals were underage, or that the depictions were pornographic (as opposed to just explicitly showing genitalia)? You seem to be the only person with that opinion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: The issue here is whether you'd make a good administrator or not. The ability to accept criticism - even from someone whose views you openly dislike - would be a sign of a mature administrator if nothing else. Unfortunately, you lack the humility necessary to listen to complaints about your conduct, as a number of other users have pointed out in the comments section.
You've accused me of being on a one-man crusade, based on a single word on my user page, yet that word literally never appeared on any of my DRs. The rationales given were always out-of-scope, poor quality, or personality issues - no exceptions. Considering that you voted to keep images which at least two Adminstrators have decided were plainly out of scope (or potentially illegal), I could just as easily accuse you of having an agenda to keep worthless porn on the project. I won't however, as that would undoubtedly violate AGF.
What makes you write that the depicted individuals were underage, or that the depictions were pornographc (as opposed to just explicitly showing genitalia)? You seem to be the only person with that opinion.
No, you already know I'm not the only one. A well-trusted and highly experienced administrator saw fit to remove the images in question after the DR had been closed, meaning that there was reason for concern. I trust his judgment far more than I trust yours. If you believe his judgment was in error, I suggest you take the matter up with him. Incidentally, he wasn't the only admin to remove images you voted to keep.
A few people have already noted your history of jumping the gun, "bitey" replies, posting templates and making complaints on User Problems rather than attempting to discuss things reasonably with users you disagree with. Do you seriously believe that you're right and all of your critics are wrong? For my part, I've made my position clear: you would make an extremely poor administrator, one of the worst this project has ever seen. As I said, if you have an ounce of integrity left, you'll admit your shortcomings to the community, and explain why you voted to keep two images which were later deleted as potential underaged porn. AshFriday (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment there was nothing remarkable about these two images. From looking at the images (yep, I did), it seems very unlikely they are underage. I brought a more concerning image to the attention of oversighters, who have deemed it not worthy of oversight (which is possibly why no one has oversighted these). These are literally no different than every other useless dick pick on here. This appears to be just a bunch of pearl clutching and revenge for opposing his deletion requests.
That said, the images are definitely smut and not worthy of inclusion here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to disagree; a well-trusted and highly experienced administrator saw fit to remove the images in question after the DR had been closed, meaning that there was reason for concern. However, even if the images weren't underaged porn, it's still remarkable that Jeff would vote to keep a clearly out of scope photo for any reason. That is not the kind of behavior we expect from the administrative staff or even from the general community. AshFriday (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. Jcb has a history of doing non-speedy deletions without a DR, and that has been controversial. If you feel the image should be deleted because of out-of-scope, you should declare it a scope issue as the nomination text; otherwise people are always free to use "Commons is not censored" against the DR. In addition, for underage porn, you should report to legal-reports@wikimedia.org, not DR. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are blatantly wrong, in case of underage porn the very first and immediate step is deletion. Jcb (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I declared both of two images as out of scope in the original nomination. I suspect that Jeff didn't even look at them closely, he just voted keep because he has issues with me. Fortunately, at least one administrator decided to disregard the clearly biased consensus and delete the images as potentially illegal material. If I understand our child protection policy, the Admins have the discretion to do that where underage porn is concerned. Please correct me if I'm wrong. AshFriday (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AshFriday: Actually, we don't have a "Child protection policy", we have a proposed Commons:Child protection, please get your facts straight. Would you describe the subjects of those photos as prepubescent, pubescent or post-pubescent minors? I would describe them as young adults. Also, you did not mention scope per se.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: No, I've finished answering your questions; you applied for administrative powers, it's your responsibility to address my concerns, not vica-versa. Go down to the comments section, I have a few questions for you. AshFriday (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Thank you. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support My perception of Jeff G.'s edits where not entirely positive. He should keep in mind that there are always fresh editors that somethimes do not know yet better and make seemingly trivial mistakes. I like that Jeff G. is reflecting on his actions and generally is an active and constructive contributor to Commons. --Schlurcher (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Yes, Jeff G. is continually active including in administrative areas. However, I do not see the carefulness I would expect from an admin. Just right now I had to revert three {{No source since}} taggings: [1], [2], [3]. Just because a link delivers a 404 for scans uploaded for more than ten years ago does not mean that no source is given when there is a full bibliographic reference given and/or the link can be easily updated just by searching at gallica.bnf.fr. Such carelessness causes precious images to be lost and deleted from the projects as not everyone who was active ages ago will be ready to react within a week. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AFBorchert: In each case, @Yann had previously added Category:Images from Gallica with broken source to the file in late August of 2017, and had added that cat to Category:Images without source two years earlier. Both cats should ideally be empty of files. We should not have images here with broken or nonexistent sources. How long should I have waited?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't have done this at all. If you do not see the problem with your taggings you are not fit for adminship. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there will be files with a broken source. That's why I have advocated since long a systematic license review for all external files. There are several reasons for this: the source website has changed; people uploading files with incomplete or broken source, and the source website is poorly indexed, so we can't find back, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer not to see No Sorce tag of File:Святой град Иерусалим.jpg for example. Old map from the 18th century. It is better to try to find good source rather than nominate. especially whan some sorces given in "Other versions" section. -- Geagea (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that all today 'no source' taggings by Jeff have to be rechecked. E.g. in this case the source link was not even broken, everything was fine. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: I'm sorry, it's my fault you didn't remove Category:Coats of arms of cities of Indonesia needing source when you made this edit.?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Facetious replies probably not the best idea in an RFA, FWIW. Storkk (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A user blindly tagging a file for deletion would lead to an administrator blindly deleting a file. On top of that, responding with an attitude. Not the type of approach or temperament fit for the role. ℯxplicit 05:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: A user blindly adding a source without addressing a "needing source" category could just as well lead to an administrator blindly deleting a file. I am sorry I didn't look through the files in Category:Coats of arms of cities of Indonesia needing source more thoroughly before tagging them. I am now continuing to look through them.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Agree with concerns by some users that no-source tagging by Jeff is problematical and sometimes overtly mindless. But we had some sysops who knowingly delete images nominated by a banned troll, who delete file redirects contrary to the policy… and I gathered little support when rallied to reverse and/or deter such bad things. Moreover, Commons has a score of “admins” who not only contribute miserably small amount of actions, but are virtually unseen on the site altogether. Don’t exercise hypocrisy, people – Jeff will not break the world with sysop and certainly will not populate the worst tier of admins. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  •  Question Hi Jeff G. I am not impressed by your rationale to be honest with you. I recently expressed concerns about shortage of admins and the effects on backlogs. I'm in support of having more experienced users to help deal with the backlog but sadly, your rationale did not include how you tend to contribute as an administrator or how you plan to deal with the backlog.
  1. Do you want to be an admin here because you want to join the rank?
  2. How do you plan to deal with behavior like this one?
  3. In April, Begoon left a note on your talk page apology, of sorts... here. They said You have this tendency to barge into discussions you're not really a part of with comments that, at first glance to an uninvolved user, might seem authoritative, but in fact are basically unnecessary and seem to come from some sort of innate need to be "noticed" or "respected".. Instead you listed your user rights on Commons (Image-reviewer, filemover, and rollbacker, plus global groups OTRS members ) as if it's a form of authority over others. In this RfA, you have listed these same rights and that you want to join the admin rank. I come across this as someone who is only interested in power on Commons. Can you explain how this is not a problem? T Cells (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@T Cells:
  1. Yes, I want to join the ranks, but also I want to help with the backlogs and the bit could really help with my OTRS work by letting me see deleted files and restore the ones for which we have OTRS permission, without bothering other Admins. I had more detailed plans in my previous RFAs.
  2. Whose behavior are you asking about?
  3. Some of the disqualifiers for adminship here in the past have included not having the experience of filemoving or license reviewing. I have earned the trust of Administrators here such that they granted me those rights, and I have experience as a result of using those rights. Similarly, I have earned the trust of OTRS Administrators, and I have experience as a result of using my OTRS membership here on Commons as well as elsewhere. I felt that information was pertinent to users reviewing this page. That I have not done serious image manipulation lately does not disqualify me from commenting on a particular Village Pump Graphic Lab subpage. My interest here is not power, it is better custodianship of this project, on the behalf of our users here, our reusers on other WMF projects and beyond, and rightsholders.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do I take this response as an explanation to my question and comment in #3 above? T Cells (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From this response, it's seems joining the rank is more important than dealing with the backlogs and as such your first priority. You have more detail plans in your previous RfAs but you do not have those plans again? Joining the admin rank is what you want now? T Cells (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this one. I have added more questions above. T Cells (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@T Cells: One of the criticisms of one of my previous RFAs was that it had too much detail, so I tried to strip some of that away. I stand by my statements and comments in those RFAs, including those concerning use of templates. If you are asking about my comment on MONUMENTA's frustrating conduct, I was making a suggestion, which I later reformulated.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment and question at #3 above. It begins with "In April Begoon"..... T Cells (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@T Cells: Please see my reply at #3 above. It begins with "Some of the disqualifiers".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. T Cells (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Schlurcher: Yes, those edits were somewhat BITEy. However, Administrator candidates are necessarily held to a high standard. That user's nom was transcluded in the wrong place and said nothing positive about why they wanted adminship. By the time I saw Guanaco's kinder edit, it was too late to change mine, as the page was already protected.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G., I have decided to support you per your response to this question. It does appears that you understand why been bitey is a potential problem and I want to believe that you will take the concerns expressed above into consideration going forward. I wish you all the best from Nigeria. Regards. T Cells (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@T Cells: Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G., thank you. --Schlurcher (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Please answer the following questions:

1. Why did you vote to keep images that one administrator deleted as potential underaged porn and another administrator stated were "definitely smut and not worthy of inclusion here"?

2. Do you object to the administrator's use of the word "Smut"? Explain your reasons in detail.

3. Hypothetically, if another administrator placed a Speedy DR on an out-of-scope or illegal image on the basis that it was "smut," would you vote to keep it because you feel the administrator is on a "mission"?

More questions soon. AshFriday (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment All of this has been discussed above. No need to repeat it here. Also, out-of-scope images are not speedy deletable and I hope Jeff would convert such an image to a regular DR, like any administrator should. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Srittau: I'm sorry to say this, Sebari, but I believe he needs to address these issues. He stated above that removing potential underaged porn without a DR was "out of process". That is just downright crazy: none of us should tolerate even the possibility of illegal material on the site. If I'm reading his answers correctly, he would ask for a community consensus rather than deleting it on the spot. In the meantime, Commons could hypothetically be hosting underaged pornography while Jeff G. argues about the definition. We need to be sure that he would use common sense where common sense is required - and I've seen very little in his replies so far. I won't push the issue any further, but we have to be extremely careful whom we grant administrative privileges to. AshFriday (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are outright lying with your claims of "underage porn" and are repeating the same strawman over and over again. You have lost all credibility in this discussion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have the inclination to undelete the mentioned files and give a proper due process --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the image be restored to give a proper due process. T Cells (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Commons:Deletion requests/Contested "speedy" deletions on RFA Jeff G. 2 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Jeff G. is there any reason why you ignored the the two users who left a note on your talk page about your no-source tagging? You seemed to have ignored these users while you continue to comment here. This sort of behavior is not good for a RfA candidate. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@T Cells: I read those posts, but was working on more recent (and therefore likely more pressing) issues and promise fulfillment first, plus RL issues. I have now attended to them. Sorry for the inconvenience and delay.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your "sorry for the inconvenience" response to the user is insufficient. They need to understand why you tagged their images for deletion and if you think you have made a mistake, they need to know and apology may be necessary. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@T Cells: I added that information.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but in general, I think you need to desist from using the no-source tag altogether. Recall you wrongly tagged an image of a Wikimedia event I uploaded as no source. You failed to listen when I tried to explain to you that the image is de minimis until you were told by another user that the image is de minimis. Considering that the event was few days ago and many other users have raised the same concern, I am tending towards changing my position with respect to this RfA....What do you think? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@T Cells: I think your file still satisfies "X is referenced in the description", as specified at COM:DM.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff_G._2&oldid=307430895"