Commons:Oversighters/Requests/JGHowes

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The candidate requested offwiki to withdraw this request, so I close this accordingly. --Krd 15:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JGHowes

Vote

Links for JGHowes: JGHowes (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I'm willing to lend a hand to the Oversight team. As a long-time admin, I have a good understanding of Commons policies in general and COM:OS in particular. While the four currently on the oversight team have handled my suppression requests in a timely manner, I believe that having someone such as myself in the Western Hemisphere timezone would enhance response. I'm already identified to the WMF, having signed the Confidentiality agreement under the Access to non public information policy.[1] —  JGHowes  talk 00:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

  • In the light of the serious governance that any oversighter role should have, I'm raising this question though I have no memory of significant interaction with yourself over the years.
Your RFA in 2009 was raised in a slightly simpler environment of Commons, such as having far fewer policies, but the summary close includes More seasoning is needed before handling the tools over as the nature of the opposing votes. Examining your current contributions, they are what most contributors would consider very low for someone joining the Commons Oversight group, such as having uploaded ~500 files over 13 years and made 5,300 total edits (an average of about 1 edit a day), and the seasoning question can be legitimately asked in this application.
Why is your experience sufficient compared of the rest of the Oversight members, when they applied for the role, and are there areas or subjects where you have insufficient experience to act as the Oversighter or for which there may be a potential conflict of loyalties? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the role of a Commons Oversighter is for the removal of non-public personal information such as phone numbers, libelous/blatant attacks "on the advice of WMF counsel" or when the case is clear, or copyvios "on the advice of WMF counsel", I do not see any potential conflict of interest at all in fulfilling those functions. In recent years, I have been mostly active as an admin, rather than contributing my own photography. My Commons admin activity includes SD, which is not reflected in edit count. For example, I've deleted 8,461 files as an admin per Commons policies, which aren't included in that 5,300 edit count. To date, none of my DR closes have been overturned, which I think demonstrates clear understanding of Commons policies, guidelines, practices, and sound judgment.  JGHowes  talk 19:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Generally, DRs do not get overturned, as the process for challenging them and the UNDEL process is not well understood and as the burden of evidence is presumed to be against the undeletion requester, often requires overwhelming evidence to reverse without OTRS tickets or lengthy discussion. Examining your deletions, the vast majority appear to be undiscussed speedy copyright violations, with apparently a small ratio having associated DRs, though this is based on a relatively trivial examination.
Briefly reviewing deletions does highlight three deletions in the last few months where you have deleted files or file revisions where the history now shows yourself as the only uploader, apparently the only responsible named account in the logs:
  1. File:Riane_Eisler2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), G1, no further details
  2. File:Majestic_Radio_model_161.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), G6, multiple deletions, no linked discussions
  3. File:Jack_Settleman_at_Super_Bowl_LIV.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) complex log, multiple deletions, a restoration with revision deletions, sysop-only protection, no linked discussions
A key aspect of the Oversight function is to retain as much open history and traceability for project content as possible, and the actions of oversighters is highly constrained as described at Commons:Oversighters, including ensuring log comments are clear without compromising necessary and justifiable oversighted material. Given that in one case the deletion log refers to a talk page discussion that is not findable as no link or account name was given apart from yours and the discussion does not appear on your talk page history, do you feel that your actions on these files has met these standards the community requires of oversighters? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, a technical issue, the brief review of deletion histories used the deletion log, consequently it was missed that another account (with 6 edits total) originally uploaded file #3 though the name of the account is not mentioned in the deletion log but is visible in the upload log. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fae, I'm not quite sure I understand your point. None of the 3 examples mentioned above were Oversighted, nor would they qualify for suppression. As routine deletions, their complete history is still available for any admin to review, using the view/restore function available to admins.
Regarding these three files,
The point being made is that the good documentation associated with actions is illustrated by these examples, and provides an insight into the understanding of transparency and correct use of log comments. Once a file or a revision has been deleted, it is made invisible to the community, and permanently so with oversight actions.
In #1 the deletion log should have a comment that referenced the OTRS ticket and/or provided a link to the later upload, which is otherwise opaque to the reader.
In #2 the deletions have no explanation of being enhancements or crops, or that these involve no other editor apart from yourself. File revisions should not be deleted permanently from view just because of simple crops or enhancements, this appears to be an unjustified use of the deletion privilege, and leaves a concerning unaccountable deletion log.
In #3 the deletion log has no reference to the Phab task you have now mentioned. The lack of comments in performing the deletion actions makes the history opaque to future readers.
Thanks for your replies. --Fæ (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns similar to the above. Generally if a user does not participate in the main fields on Commons, file uploading and categorization, I am not sure if the user then also knows the current policies and discussions in this fields. And JGHowes is also not active in patrolling. So if it would a request for adminship I would oppose.(But of course in DRs, just to mention this.) Here it is about an other role but of course linked to the regular admin role. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File uploads are here [3] and I've performed 972 actions in the last 30 days alone. See my contribs and log for details.  JGHowes  talk 19:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked this and I think it is relatively low for a very active user. But of course you do not have a many month inactivity like some admins get the role last year. Because of this a question. You do not contribute to Commons:Village pump or the other platforms. But do you read there and at the other language versions you understand? Because although they should not, users request the removal of their personal information on these pages. --GPSLeo (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPSLeo, it's true that I'm not a contributor at VP, usually just skimming the Contents. But of course, if I'm an Oversighter I would need to be on the lookout for that. As to foreign languages, I've studied and speak French and German reasonably well. But, alas, can't read Chinese or Arabic at all.  JGHowes  talk 20:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the questions raised above are fair to the candidate. I'd say only one or two of the current oversighters here are active on-wiki. But I trust them to keep the oversight tool because there may be working behind the scenes, waiting for requests for suppression of sensitive personal information. I must note however, that the number of log and revision deletions by the candidate is kinda low, and I'm concerned about that. I'm inclined to support though, because I'm convinced that we need an oversighter at the Western Hemisphere (all of the current oversighters are from Europe), and I don't see any other concerns about the candidate. But I'd wait for a comment from an oversighter before !voting. pandakekok9 02:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please opt-in to X tools at User:JGHowes/EditCounterOptIn.js? ~riley (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done And see also XTools analysis: [4]  JGHowes  talk 21:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Oversighters/Requests/JGHowes&oldid=526899318"