Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Giggy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 37 (including 1 hell yeah and one  Support , and no Bryan, you can't vote twice;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 0 - 100%(ish) There is consensus from the Commons community to grant the tools. Giggy is now a Commons bureaucrat. Patrícia msg 10:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

Vote

Links for Giggy: Giggy (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I'd like to propose another candidate for bureaucratship. Giggy, also known as Alex, has been a contributor to Commons since August 2007, and an admin since November the same year. It is no secret he and I have had our conflicts, but personal issues aside, I believe he would make an excellent bureaucrat. He is one of the most active admins in the area of promoting new Flickr reviewers, an area which, like adminship requires the closer to view comments and make a decision. Similarly, he is very active in closing deletion requests, which are a bit of a chore (hence why I don't do them ;0) He is also very helpful on various noticeboards such as the admin noticeboard and village pump. Giggy is pretty much dedicated to commons, and while he's not the most active admin in terms of logs, he's here every day and contributes very constructively. I think Giggy as a bureaucrat would only be a net benefit to the project. Thank you for your consideration of him. Majorly (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Majorly (also known as Alex! :)), I accept. I have been active in areas relating to adminship, renaming, and (although to a lesser extent) bot related matters, for a while now, and I hope I can be trusted to assist the community further. giggy (:O) 02:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

  • My successful RfA can be found at Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Giggy. giggy (:O) 02:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you expand on what you know/do and would do with bots? And what would your thought process when closing discussions (DR, RFX), especially ones difficult to decide? 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 03:16, 17 May 2008 (GMT)
    • Hey O, thanks for commenting. I have Commons:Bots/Requests for flags on my (rather dense) watchlist, and try to at least read it, if not comment, as often as possible—I often find that the comments I intend to make have been by others, so I'd be limited to a "yeah, what he said" which probably won't help much! There are also cases where the technological aspect is over my head. I have a bot flag for Giggabot, though (to my surprise) I haven't had the chance to use it yet...maybe one day. For what it's worth, and I know this isn't Commons-specific but it is kinda relevant...I am currently undergoing a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group on the English Wikipedia. So yeah, I don't do as much bot stuff here as I could (due to redundancies and the like) but I certainly think myself capable.

      To answer your second question, the buzzword is consensus. Currently when closing DRs I do this as best I can—I weigh up the arguments on either side, and any other comments made, and attempt to make an informed decision. Some DRs receive no comments other than the nomination, and in those cases I apply my (admittedly not the best) knowledge of our policies in attempting to close it correctly. If I'm not sure which way to close, I leave a comment. It would be the same in RfXs—I would weigh out the arguments on both sides as best I could, and try to make an informed closure based on them. If I couldn't, I would leave a comment indicating this and try and raise it with a more experienced bureaucrat. Because RfX decisions are more difficult to overturn, it's important to make sure consensus is adhered to correctly—the advantage here is that you don't need as much knowledge of copyright! :)

      I hope this answers your questions. Please ask if you have anymore. Cheers, giggy (:O) 07:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically, it is only the close cases that really require any kind of thought (75-80% where the voting is close). Otherwise, a bot could probably do the job as well. I have a question: I'd like to know your opinion on the recent poll to limit who can vote/stand on RFAs. If it was implemented, would you have really ignored good faith editors just because they didn't have enough edits? What do you think of "single purpose accounts" coming from other projects just to vote here (for example, on RfAs for Spanish Wikipedians, the voting tends to be much higher than the norm). Majorly (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the community agreed on a policy/guideline/whatever you want to call it about edit count required to participate in RfA, I as a 'crat would adhere to it. It is the work of the 'crat to determine community consensus and part of this is working within the guidelines the community has said they'd like you to work in.
          However, as far as I'm aware, nothing official came as a result of that approval poll, and so the status quo remained/remains. Thus, anyone with an account is able to vote in an RfA here. If there is evidence of votestacking this will obviously be taken into consideration, as it should be, but the long of the short is that no, I will not be ignoring votes unless and until the community indicates they want this to happen. giggy (:O) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you (or others) provide a few examples of projects, movements, or other activities you have been involved with that have improved Commons, or difficult issues that, in your opinion, you handled particularly well? Just to give us ignorant people a flavour of your contributions to commons. =) Adam Cuerden 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I'm always worried when I say something like that in text that it could be taken the wrong way, so let me just say that I don't have any doubt you've helped commons, but I'm not personally aware of your actions, so best learn about them before I vote =) Adam Cuerden 06:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comment Adam. I like to think that most (if not all...) of my actions have helped Commons in some way, but I get the feeling you want something more significant (feel free to correct me if I'm on the wrong track). As was said in the nomination here, I do a fair bit of work around deletion requests (DR), and have made some tough closes where (as I said to O above) I've had to weigh up consensus against Commons policies and other issues. An example of this was Commons:Deletion requests/Texas FM shields 1—I like to think I handled that rather well. Another area where I'm active is in that of Flickr reviewing—of late, I've been doing most of the work in keeping Commons:Flickr images/reviewers running relatively smoothly, and while it isn't a huge issue, it does bear somewhat of a resemblance to bureaucratship—reading consensus, making a decision, and "promoting" a person.
        I'm not sure if this fully answers your question, so feel free to clarify it, and I'd be happy to say a bit more. Cheers, giggy (:O) 07:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit worried about the bots. If you had no other choice but to close, what would you do at Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)? 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 16:37, 17 May 2008 (GMT)
    • Thanks again for the question. Looking over that discussion, I would say that the general way forward from there would be to try and reconsider how the bot works. Perhaps make the username field a requirement before the bot uploads automatically—I generally use this system and always include my username (and always edit the image page afterwards so it shows in my contribs), and I think making this a requirement would help. This idea seems to have some backing. Issues that are native to other projects are not as much as a Commons concern...all we can do is hope Magnus can write code that deals with them. The discussion here seems to agree with this conclusion/suggestion. We must now hope that Magnus will take this all on board—as the account isn't flagged as a bot anyway, there isn't much that can be done while wearing a 'crat hat in this regard. giggy (:O) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually we have 8 Crats. Normally that should be enough. Why we need 2 more? Before I vote, I would like to get an answer. How much of the actual 8 Crats we have are active? I ever have a problem, if too much person have such rights. Marcus Cyron 13:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can see the user rights logs here and the rename log here. These are the two logs reflecting bureaucrat actions. Not all bureaucrats are very active in these functions, although some are active on Commons. Eugene is by far the most active 'crat, I think. I'm not sure if there's a tool to check 'crat activity as there is for admin activity. Patrícia msg 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Marcus, until recently I think I shared your opinion, but as Majorly said here, the fairly late closure of Spacebirdy's RfA showed we really could do with someone else. Being in a different time zone to most of the other 'crats, I believe, I think I could really help in this regard. giggy (:O) 23:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question (to Majorly as nominator): While I'm not in mind to change my support vote for Giggy as bureaucrat I would still like some clarification regarding the nomination. I'm aware that it is the participation at Commons that counts at RfA/B here, but I still want to bring a cross-wiki issue up. I'm not frequently logging on to Meta but while checking Alisons RfA over there (closed successfully of course) I noticed this m:Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Giggy. @Majorly: What made you change your mind from May 16th when you regarded Giggy "immature and not at all suited" for adminship at Meta to May 17th when you nominated him as 'crat here? You wrote "personal issues aside" in the nomination, I still find this change in attitude so odd that I would ask for a clarification. Regards, Finn Rindahl 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Things were said that shouldn't have been, on both sides, which are regretable. He wasn't ready to be a Meta admin in any case, but he's certainly ready to be a Commons 'crat. That's all that matters here. Majorly (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finn, I have emailed you (and would prefer if anyone else with questions about this also email them, though obviously I can't control this and it's up to you). giggy (:O) 07:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifcation Majorly. This does not affect my support for Giggys RfB. Finn Rindahl 08:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Giggy&oldid=66954643"