Commons:Administrators/Requests

Requests for adminship

watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Alachuckthebuck

Alachuckthebuck (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 18:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Alachuckthebuck, A license reviewer and antivandalism user. I've been helping out at FILTERT and assisting when I can, but have been running into issues where neither Jeff G or myself can see the filter entries due to private filters. In addition to the visibility issue, a large amount of our filters need to be rewritten for temporary accounts, and I want to help start that effort. In addition, I'm planning on helping at RFR, mainly with autopatrol, patroller, and rollback, as those are the areas I'm familiar with. I also intend to continue closing LR requests. In addition, I also run Chuckbot, the mass rollback bot used to clean up FlickrReviewer2's bugged reviews in January. All feedback is appreciated. If you have left feedback on my talk page, I've read it, and tried my best to implement it.

I'm familiar with commons policies and have a general knowlege of global copyright, and a very good knowlege of US/UK copyright, and will consult with other admins on any action I'm nor 100% sure on. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support Active contributor, understands licensing and good with fighting vandalism and sockpuppetry. And, we still need more admins. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 18:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now- looks like a great editor from what I have seen in their contributions; going to read more of their contributions to check if there are any issues, but very much leaning support for now. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose per Bedivere- Chuck's a great editor who can become a great admin once they show improvements. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bastique. Yann (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HouseBlaster below – Chuck still has my confidence. Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TenWhile6 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bastique. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per Bedivere — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've found Chuck to be too eager to jump in and help, even when they're out of their depth. They don't know what they don't know, and that means that they have a tendency to confidently give incorrect advice. When they're reporting an issue, it's generally a good report (though there are exceptions). However, when they are responding to other people's questions or jumping into ongoing discussions, it's a dice roll whether their participation is a net positive or a net negative. Knowing the limits of your expertise, and when to leave an issue to other people better prepared to deal with it, is a vital skill for anyone that wants to work in deletions that Chuck still needs to develop. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Could you provide some examples where Alachuckthebuck has jumped in unhelpfully in your opinion? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Elli (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm of the same opinion of TSC. It's not a great deal, though, as I think they can still show some improvements and renominate themselves or have someone reapply you in some more months. --Bedivere (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Is Chuck perfect? No. Is anyone perfect? Emphatically not. It is always a good idea to be careful when diving into new areas, but I fully trust Chuck to be careful when diving into the role of mopping. Best, HouseBlaster (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the most active Commons editor. Not by a long shot. But I am a little surprised that the only diffs (that I can see) to back up the claims of over-eagerness are:
1. a single poor CU request (even though When they're reporting an issue, it's generally a good report)
2. The mis-tagging of a single image from [n]ot even a year ago
3. Some confidential ANPDP stuff
And that's what we are going with? That's the strongest evidence we have? If it is a general, pervasive problem, pulling up diffs or other evidence should be a cakewalk. To engage with the two bits of evidence we do have, I think (1) is a single mistake and (2) is from a year ago. For (3), if more people with access to the ANPDP-protected information agree with Revi, or were able to give even a vague indication of why it makes Chuck unsuitable for adminship, I'd reconsider. But, in the meantime, I'll add that if you are not making occasional mistakes, you are not growing as a person. I am now at Strong support. Best regards, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I get your point, we all make mistakes, I have made a lot of them as an admin to be honest. It's just that I don't feel like they are quite yet fit for the role, not that they can't become an admin later... Bedivere (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how is Chuck supposed to know how to become fit for the role if people don't give him specifics? Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TSC pointed out very clearly which are those specifics. Bedivere (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "specifics", I mean specific interactions. Again, if this is a pervasive problem, finding evidence to back up claims should be easy. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.--RoyZuo (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Bedivere. Alachuckthebuck generally seems like a nice person. They can sometimes make less then helpful contributions to conversations though. I fully support them becoming an admin if, or when, they improve on it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This editor needs a lot more work to be an admin. Not even a year ago, they marked a picture I took of a known figure with my own camera as copyrighted. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please give link, thank you. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 09:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Modern primat: Special:Diff/849027156/870674833. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Bedivere. --Mateus2019 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 09:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna have to go with a weak not yet per Bedivere, though I do think this is easily fixable if things change by the end of this year. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: Please check your work. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how is SHB's work relevant here? _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 18:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In previous version, the template was broken. — regards, Revi 19:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think that Chuck should gain more experience about adminship. In my opinion Chuck’s adminship request is early. After gaining experience and working more, I will support Chuck’s adminship. --Kadı Message 11:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that this user needs more experience before they can be trusted with admin bit. (Before you ask: sorry, I am not allowed to disclose how I got the "impression".) — regards, Revi 11:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Revi C., Can you please email me privately about this "impression"? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the answer have to be no, but I think I'll be able to do that by end of next week. (Tentative; no guarantee) — regards, Revi 18:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Chuck has been around and they're good at a lot of things, but I think this is too early from them. Perhaps in a next few months. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 18:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral per Aafi. Jianhui67^T★C 10:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — ArtSmir (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.—Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 01:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is my personal belief that adminship at Commons are generally a bit unforgiving of occasional mistakes. I've seen them around and they do a pretty good job.--Takipoint123 (💬) 09:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has regularly been a source of feedback and support. Has been patient with my mistakes. Jerimee (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can you explain the block in 2024? JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 20:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My block was a 3 day edit warring block over a speedy notice on a Vogue Taiwan image. That block was 100% my fault, and I should have just put a DR notice rather than reverting it. Here's the relevant thread regarding the block and my response. I'm happy to answer any further questions or clarify any other points or details about the block. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]