Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Giggy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Symbol support vote.svg Support = 37 (including 1 hell yeah and one 718smiley.svg Support, and no Bryan, you can't vote twice; Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose = 0; Symbol neutral vote.svg 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)

Giggy

Vote

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

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)

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)

Votes

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. Majorly (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - seen it coming =p --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Obviously I have not done much, if anything to Wikimedia Commons. But I am still supporting Giggy. I know Giggy over at EN Wiki and I have been nothing but impressed at the level of the work he puts into it. I feel that Giggy would be beneficial to all wiki's being a beauracat of Commons. :)Tinkleheimer 08:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - An excellent Wikimedian and admin who has earned my respect and trust. Durova 08:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looking at the summary of the work she's done, it's clear that she has the judgement, trust of the community, and has worked to improve an aspect of commons in a meaningful way. I'm happy to support. Adam Cuerden 08:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support abf /talk to me/ 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Foroa 11:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --my name 13:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportChristian 13:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • support --Szczepan talk 01:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (DES) 10:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's Giggy. c'mon, of course I'm going to support. Rocket000 11:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Make that Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Rocket000 04:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice behaving user, knows our policy. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • support. - Innv 04:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hell yeah. ~ Riana 08:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DanielB 08:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 718smiley.svg Support Finn Rindahl 09:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ahonc (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That Giggy... he'a a major wiener, who I wouldn't trust with the keys to the wiki of my worst enemy. Plus he's Austraaaaalian and we have too many of those in positions of power. :) Despite all that, Symbol support vote.svg Support of course. OK more seriously, Giggy is a hard worker who's been around quite a while. He gets the wiki way, and knows where his towel is. He MIGHT blow something up but it would be done with panache. I'm exceedingly delighted to see that Majorly nominated him. He'll be fine. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per everyone else. I trust him 100%. There's nobody better suited for the job. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - absolutely :) - Alison 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Giggy is clueful and hardworking. Different time zone is a plus. Thanks for helping out! Patrícia msg 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes! -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC) -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You already voted above (see vote #6) Majorly (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        •  :( I can't vote twice? ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, as a 'crat I'd probably have to discount it. ;) But I appreciate it! giggy (:O) 10:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - OK. Marcus Cyron 11:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I've known worse (let me see - is that true.....:)) --Herby talk thyme 07:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Sure; I read somewhere that more 'crats would be handy and I have no concerns about Giggy and this certainly seems to be the consensus above. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - absolutely no concerns, knows what he's doing and having more admins and bureaucrats in preperation for the more users that Single User Login will bring is a sensible course of action. Nick 10:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - a giggy for crat..hahaha...please go for it :p ..--Cometstyles 10:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support EugeneZelenko 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh the things that happen when ones otherwise occupied for a couple of days. Gnangarra 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S[1] 12:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why not me? :-p Maxim(talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In reading the comments below regarding Meta I have to agree with Majorly (What is the world coming to?!) - Giggy is ready to be a crat here, but not an admin at meta. They are different projects, and should be considered differently. With that out of the way, this is a Symbol support vote.svg Very Strong Support. Giggy will make a fine addition to the team, and I'm glad to see that we're considering requests for bot flags alongside RFAs, which is the consideration which usually dominates RFBs. And Lar is right, any disastrous explosions would be done with panache :) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In principal, see my comments at Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Herbythyme (bureaucrat) "Do we need more bureaucrats?". Of course, let me add that I am confident that Giggy will not abuse this and see no other reason not to support him. Bastique demandez 19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Monobi (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • My successful RfA can be found at Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Giggy. giggy (:O) 02:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • That's good enough for me! Adam Cuerden 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
Thanks for the clarifcation Majorly. This does not affect my support for Giggys RfB. Finn Rindahl 08:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)