It is my pleasure to nominate Jeff G. for adminship. In the few years that I've been on Wikipedia, I've run into him a few times, and his work has always been stellar. Given his work both on here and numerous other Wikimedia projects, it's long overdue. As I write this, he's currently a rollbacker, reviewer, file mover, account creator and autopatroller on this wiki; an autopatroller, file mover, rollbacker and image reviewer at Wikimedia Commons; and an administrator at many other Wikimedia and Wikia projects. Given all of this, adminship for Jeff G. seems long overdue. It is my hope that the community will agree. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept the nomination. I am currently: an Autopatroller, Reviewer, Rollbacker, File mover, and Account creator here on English Wikipedia. I participated in admin coaching via pages User:Jeff G./Coaching and User:Jeff G./Admin coaching. I became a Wikipedia Editor on 21 December 2006 and edited as JeffGent until 31 May 2007. I was granted rollbacker rights on 10 January 2008 and 24 July 2010., Autopatrolled rights on 22 June 2009, Reviewers rights on 13 June 2010, File mover rights on 16 March 2011, and Account creator rights on 21 December 2011. I was the subject of a Wikipedia article (sadly, an attack page) for about two minutes. Rlevse identified me as an "Awesome Wikipedian" and declared 2 November 2009 "Jeff G.'s day" in this edit, a year before vanishing. Sometimes there are not enough admins online, and Jimbo himself wrote that adminship was "not a big deal". I have been on the List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits since 9 March 2008, and have been as high as #95 on that list. I have been on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits since 20 January 2008, and have been as high as #254 on that list. I have created over 157 pages in mainspace. I consider myself to be a moderate immediatist and a moderate statusquoist. I helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface and the help desk. I am human, so I make mistakes, but I own up to them and learn from them. The more this project expands and the more advanced the vandals get, the more work there is in policing that expansion, so I use well-developed semi-automated tools like WP:HUG, WP:AWB, and templates to keep that policing work efficient and effective, and I apologize if they sometimes come off as cold and impersonal. Of course, I would continue fighting vandalism, but I would also have the ability to make the requested blocks at WP:AIV, perform the requsted deletions at C:SD, perform the requested protection and unprotection at WP:RFPP, provide the help requested at CAT:AH, etc. I have read everything on Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Template:New admin school. — Jeff G. ツ(talk) 20:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Over two years ago, I misinvoked WP:EVULA (felt that I was right) in continuing to revert what I felt was vandalism, and got blocked for it without notice. The duration of the block was 28 minutes. I have occasionally come into contact with users who I felt were not here to help write an encyclopedia, and I have been civil while encouraging them to either stay and be civil or leave. You may find some of their names in the "Oppose" section below.
4. Since the "articles created" tool is down at the moment, would be kind enough to post a list of the articles you've created?
A: I've created many more mainspace redirects than articles. I'm afraid I don't have time right now to generate such a list manually, sorry. As far as percentages of mainspace page creations that survived until the last time I checked, I 'd say about 97% were redirects and about 3% were articles . I asked the maintainer of that tool to allow use of it and other tools in a few ways earlier today. — Jeff G. ツ(talk) 21:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
5. The tool server is down right now and Wikichecker is being fussy. A.) How many edits have you made to Wikipedia overall? B.) I see you were blocked back in 2009 for edit warring for 24 hours (ano this will not draw me to oppose), a few hours later, the same user unblocked believing that you understood your mistake. This user trusted you, are you willing to give other users that same trust when it comes to blocking? In other words, are you a believer of second chances? Why or why not? C.)I rarely question candidates but when I do, I create a multipart questions to get a good understanding of them. "What on Earth makes you think that you are qualified to be an admin. You are a bad editor and always have been. I can't believe you were nominated." Please note that this is not a real personal attack and is merely trying to test the candidate.
A. Special:Preferences says "Number of edits: 78,616". Some of those were deleted. My edits to other language Wikipedias have not amounted to much. — Jeff G. ツ(talk) 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
B. I believe in second chances. — Jeff G. ツ(talk) 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what above you are talking about but you aren't quick to snap at a personal attack and that is what I look for in candidates.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it your idea that it's only abusive editing from IP addresses that's sockpupetting, whereas non-abusive editing wouldn't be? And in what sense can an IP be considered a sockpuppet in any case? MalleusFatuorum 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Some of my content work this past year has been behind the scenes, helping users with their first articles via WP:IRC channels, usually #wikipedia-en-help. This work has helped some articles get good enough to be moved to article space, and has helped some users to realize what our verifiability and reliable source policies are, why, and how to satisfy them. — Jeff G. ツ(talk) 23:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: As the edit counter created by X! is down, I used WikiChecker to obtain the information. The edit stats are now posted on the talk page. Alpha_Quadrant(talk) 00:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I set up X's edit counter on my toolserver account. Traditional stats posted.--v/r - TP 03:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you wouldn't object to elaborating on why it is that you think the candidate would make a good administrator? I understand that the usual rule is that bald supports are taken as tacit agreement with the nomination statement, but in this case it really says nothing. MalleusFatuorum 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it says that he is a stud. But in general I agree, I don't see this as much of an endorsement either. -- Atama頭 00:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sad that it comes from a sitting administrator then. But as "Stud" was capitalised I thought it must be Jeff's real name. MalleusFatuorum 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I hate to start a RfA like this, and let me first say that I've seen you around and it has always been positive. That said, it doesn't reflect too good on you to say your best contribution was Daniel Terdiman, considering it is Kevin Murray (talk·contribs) who brought it from this spam-ish stub to this acceptable short article. The nomination (and your following statement and userpage) is also a bit too focused on your collection of flags and "achievements", and I'm a bit puzzled that you created this RfA page a year ago. More impotantly though, going through your contributions, I see that the only thing you did in the article space last year was huggling. Anti-vandalism is valued, but I'm looking for at least a basic level of substantive article editing in an administrator, and I don't see that here. Sorry - CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a very ill-considered nomination of someone who appears to be a badge collector. MalleusFatuorum 23:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add to my oppose that the answer to Q3 is very confrontational, not at all what's needed in these difficult days for Wikipedia. MalleusFatuorum 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Jeff has always seemed like a nice bloke when I've come across him, but he seems far too focused on attaining every hat under the sun, and he seems to see his various user rights (and adminship) as a status symbol. The umpteen million hats he wears across various wikis shows that he probably knows how to mash the buttons, but adminship on what I would call a "real" WMF wiki (ie one that hosts educational content rather than those that exist mostly for editors) is much more about judgement than button-mashing. Jeff, I'm not convinced that you have that judgement, at least not yet. I've declined an extraordinary number of your AIV reports in the past (and found your responses to concerns about your accuracy with Huggle and AIV reports to be less than encouraging), to trust you with the block button just yet. Your accuracy rate seems to have improved of late, to give credit where it's due, but I've also seen less of you at AIV. Finally, you seem to have a bit of a problem admitting when you're wrong (or at least dealing with good-faith disputes), as seems to be evidenced by your edits at Navy Mutual Aid Association recently—you tagged a long-standing article for speedy deletion under A7, which was declined by an admin because it had an obvious assertion of significance, so you slapped a load of maintenance tags on (without nay real effort to fix the problems yourself), then PROD it (and if the other editors' summary is anything to go by, you clearly didn't look for any coverage to help establish notability). After the PROD was declined, you sent it to AfD with a rationale that seemed to suggest it had had some arbitrary time limit in which to improve, and made this reply to another editor, completely overlooking the substance of their argument. That gives me great concern about how you would use the delete button, and is fairly typical of your haste, excessive zeal, and your determination that you are right and refusal to back down when you might not be. Sorry Jeff, I would like to support some day, but right now you're displaying too many traits that the admin corps could do without. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, the answer to question 7 is just wrong, as a cursory glance of WP:SOCK would show. I expect RfA candidates to haveat least read the policies they would be enforcing if their RfA were successful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As Hj said some of the answers are plainly wrong and i don't see enough knowledge here that would demonstrate the ability to use admin powers fairly. The fact that this may just be another trophy also concerns me why would you create a Rfa a year before you use it.EdinburghWanderer 00:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Per HJ above. Concerns about answers + hat collecting. Lord Roem (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I had the candidate's talk page on my watchlist for a while, and it was clear that he was screwing up again and again. Keepscases (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
(e/c 2) Not now. I'm impressed with the amount of work you've done, and I want to support the nom, but I'm troubled by the answers. Some answers are on point; number 1, for example, is clear. Others seem to miss the question or are too terse to evaluate. Number 2 asked for "best", but the answer seems to be "all". Number 5B doesn't say why. Number 7 is slightly off; the follow on didn't help. (And snaps to 28bytes for the Q.) The nom acceptance is long and anticipatory and almost argumentative. I think an admin's interests can be narrow; breath and quantity are commendable, but I'd like to see some depth and understanding. I poked around some contribs; I didn't see anything bad, but a deletion discussion made me wonder if you want to debate everyone who disagrees with you. My problem is the answers to the questions. Come back in six months. Glrx (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry, I was going to support, but your answer to question 7 is just...totally incorrect. --Bmusician 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose HJ Mitchell's candid assessment is right on the mark.--Hokeman (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, I wish I could support, but per my experiences with the user he is very permission grabby, and sometimes immature. His userpage on other non-WMF wikis consist mainly of "I am (admin|rollbacker|reviewer|other permissions) on xyz wiki", which seems to me that he is wanting to get as many different flags in as many places as possible, and some of his actions on-wiki and on IRC are questionable, at the least. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but an admin who does it just for the title isn't something we need. Frood!Ohai! 03:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - I've run into Jeff in a number of places and my personal interactions have always left a good impression. And the way this RfA seems to be going, another oppose will be redundant and unnecessary. So I'm putting this in the neutral section. But honestly, the answer to number 7 above is worrisome, and I do see too much of an emphasis on wanting the title of admin, yet no real focus on what you'd actually do with the bit. You've done well as an editor and I hope you continue to do well as one. -- Atama頭 00:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.