Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ: Difference between revisions

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to put myself forward for admin tools. Over the last year I have committed to Commons projects, mostly in my role as a volunteer leading the GLAM UK programme, my work as an OTRS volunteer (for which having tools would mean a wider scope of the types of ticket I would pick up) and also my work as a trusted user (using my own scraping tool to help check and empty the Flickr backlog queue of dubious uploads every now and then). I run Faebot, though I recently paused in using my iMacro scripts as I would like to move to more standard batch upload tools for larger upload projects. In 2012 I will be part of a number of Commons projects and partnerships, including my continuing involvement in the future batch upload tool and some very high quality uploads with our UK GLAM partners; though it would always be useful to have a GLAM-knowledgeable admin available to help out, more important will be my experience of helping with all types of admin tasks on Commons to inform these projects as well as continuing the support I already give to the institutions on how to encourage Wikimedians to join in with making these projects a success, as well as promoting the use of simple policies for copyright and attribution. Fæ (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support It is rare that there is a "no brainer" here these days but this is one of those - thanks for helping - appreciated --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Goes to show how wrong I can be at times... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Strong support Good user --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 21:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Looks fine. Good luck in advance! Trijnstel (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Ezarateesteban 03:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Sure. I told him about this 2 months ago--Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support AMERICOPHILE 07:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Support}} Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Striking !vote for now. I'll re-evaluate later. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support İyi bir hizmetli olabileceğini düşünyorum. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 10:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll try my best. Fæ (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Polarlys (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Poco a poco (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I am in good company with this vote and for good reason.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose his responses on deletion requests show a lack of understanding of our policies and cannot be trusted with the tools. He also takes a hypocritical view on deletions - he felt that his own self requested deletions that were not requested on Commons were okay but that a DR by someone else requesting their own pictures deleted should not be allowed. Admin are held to a high standard of conduct, and this makes it seem like he will abuse the tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claims about my opinions in someone's requested deletion never happened as far as I am aware. --Fæ (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You claimed I was harassing you by using your request for an image to be deleted as an example that we allow user requested deletions here. Such a claim and the hypocrisy are exactly what is not needed in an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, I concur. It did happen, in fact it interrupted a fine argument OR and myself were having! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Ottava. Self-interested deletions (and deletion of the record of deletions) are totally against the values of transparency and openness that some people in the Wikipedia world still believe passionately in. Wikipedia is not censored! Peter Damian (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Ottava. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose. He ran for admin on en-Wiki and did not disclose his previous background, saying it made no difference, but afterwards many people felt that it would have. I would have respected him more if he shared it and still probably given him the benefit of the doubt.TCO (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disclosed a clean start up front and sought advice from Arbcom as part of my successful RfA. I remain the only admin on Wikipedia to have openly disclosed a clean start. --Fæ (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless, there were several people that said they would have felt differently than Arbcom (or an individual arbitrator?) Still, kudos for passing with disclosed clean start. I just feel more comfortable holding off on the tool additions, for now. Hang in there, however this goes down and keep your poise. And kudos for the content.TCO (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Ottava. RMHED (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Previous background as referenced by other !voters above. His emphasis on what he's done in the past rather than what he intends to do in the future as an admin. And finally I don't feel I can trust someone who deliberately either hides his past misdemeanours or makes light of them. I don't think he'll be neutral with the tools and more importantly neutral in his interactions with other editors. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer to the existing plans for 2012, I thought that seemed enough in terms of plans for the future. As for the "background" referred to, there is a lot of speculation and rumour there rather than fact. --Fæ (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existing plans you referred to don't really need an admin's bit to achieve. And as for the speculations and rumours, well there's an awful lot of deletions going on your behalf too. The fact that there are so many "speculations and rumours" about you, well isn't this going to cause you (and eventually the project) problems that could make your work as an admin difficult, if not impossible? As for your clean start, well that's got to be a fallacy, no-one ever gets a clean start in the wikiverse, there are too many people here with long memories. Personally I don't feel the photos you had deleted were a problem, but the fact you had them deleted is. Also the timing of your clean start is also, in my view, problematic. So sorry, although I don't know you from Adam, but from what I've seen here and there in the last hour makes me feel that I couldn't trust you as an admin. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Anthøny 00:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Ottava and TCO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That was Epbr123's third edit on Commons in 2011, following only 7 edits in 2010. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does it matter how a person picks and chooses his/her edits? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - From what I've seen, Fae seems to be a good person to have onboard, and I'm always happy to get more admins. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Fae was not altogether frank in replying to Saibo below. Further his !voting in deletion discussions show the same sort of features that led to an RFC/U on his old account on Wikipedia. I do acknowledge his good work for WMUK in organising various GLAM events but the misleading answer he gave to Saibo does not strike me as appropriate for someone seeking to be an admin or holding a position as a Trustee in a Wikimedia-related charity--Peter cohen (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave the most appropriate response as Peter Damian/Edward Buckner's block yesterday seems the most likely reason for him appearing immediately afterwards here. Your interpretation seems speculative with regards to events before my clean start, unless you have a special insight that I am not aware of. Please keep in mind this discussion is about a request for administration, your opinions with regard to my position as a trustee of a charity are off topic here. --Fæ (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Above user's sixth edit to Commons in the past year. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at [1] you will see that my interest in Wikimedia projects as a whole has recently been re-ignited after a relatively quiet period of over a year. Mattbuck's attempt to cast aspersions on my !vote because of my inavtivity here in the first ten months of the year when I only made one post should be disregarded. My activity here has increased in the last two months inline with the increase on Wikipedia. I am an editor in good standing in all Wikimedia projects where I have participated with a clean block log. I am therefore entitled to participate here. it should also be noted that I criticised Peter Damien and Ottava Rima in the Village Pump thread about the out-of-process deletion of the image that Ashley had previously loaded. Therefore the implication in Matt's post that I am a meatpuppet of their's is invalid.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose for a number of reasons. The rationale you state above doesn't really indicate any clear need for the sysop bit in order to carry out most of these tasks. You can encourage new Wikimedians and work promoting copyright policies without being an admin, for example. Having said that, it would be potentially useful from an OTRS perspective in reviewing deleted images. I am also concerned with issues that some of the others have brought up regarding your activities on enwiki. There is the issue of duplicity regarding arbitrary deletion of images as mentioned above. Also, I'm rather unimpressed with your snarky comments towards SarahStierch at DR here and I don't think an attitude like that is sometime I'd like to see in an admin. Also, to Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) - those edits weren't oversighted but RevDel'd. Admins can still see them (I checked). Having said that, I'm not sure I understand why, as the public logs really don't' indicate a valid reason given the edits - Alison ^❤ 03:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Sorry, but I have a great difficulties believing that a user who justifies keeping an image of a penis with a comment like this:"In general I find the argument that we have enough penises already highly dubious; I believe if we compare with Trafalgar Square, we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet." should be getting the tools.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Mbz1 and Alison. I would expect more circumspection and discrimination in assessing realistic educational usefulness. --JN466 04:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support My opinion is that Fae's contributions have been constructive and many of the opposers here (but not all) are here simply to pursue a campaign of criticizing and exposing Fae's activities, of which I have found no significant issue. ←fetchcomms 04:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the activities that people are worried about, it's the deletion, after the event, of any reference to those activities. If they are not a problem, then why delete reference to them? And again, why the automatic deletion of question on the WMUK site that are nothing to do with any such activities, but rather questions about the honesty and integrity of actions made as a director of a Wikimedia charity? In the real world, we do not automatically punish those who scrutinise the actions of the great and the good, and who are concerned about public benefit, utility and all those good things. We have laws preventing the victimisation of those who raise such concerns, and who ask probing questions. We do not call them trolls or accuse them of harassment. The irony is that this is all happening within a movement that is committed to freedom of information, free speech, and is generally against cabals, back room meetings, smoke and mirrors and all that sort of thing which I detest. We need to make a stand at some point, and this is it. Fae stands for everything that the Wikimedia movement should be against. Peter Damian (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong venue to complain about WMUK's integrity—isn't there some charity oversight committee in the UK to file complaints to? (At least, in the U.S. you can complain to individual states' attorneys general.) I don't think Fae's actions on Commons are totally unjustified, though I think that actions such as the blocking of Bali ultimate and the subsequent revdels were improper, and I'm judging him from his contributions to this site. ←fetchcomms 16:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose As per the discussion below in relation to deleted images, I am afraid that Fae obfuscates realities, and this is not a thing that admins should be doing. Wikipedia history is irrelevant here (although concerning), but I see that Fae is bringing some of these behaviours to Commons, and admins should avoid doing such things. russavia (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment BTW - babel would be appreciated Commons being multilingual. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already added by Fæ. Trijnstel (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Please enable Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary in Special:Preferences. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done --Fæ (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• All those opposes looks a lot like canvassing imo. All users after Ottava didn't edit for a long time. Especially RMHED (his first edit in two years!). Trijnstel (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is really ridiculous. Bali ultimate didn't even editted here before. :/ Please stop with this now! Trijnstel (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question It appears that an oppose !vote from User:Bali ultimate has been not only removed, but oversighted as well (and the user has been indefinitely blocked). It is not clear to me why they have been blocked and I do not recall the exact wording of their oppose !vote, but at the risk of being blocked myself for inadvertently repeating the wrong thing, Fæ is open about being Wikimedia UK Trustee Ashley Van Haefton. Ottava Rima has already mentioned the issue of out-of-process deletions of images uploaded by Van Haefton's previous accounts. So far as I can tell, Bali ultimate was blocked for accurately describing the content of one of those images. This is not grounds for either oversighting the comments or blocking the user. I think that both the block and the oversighting of the !vote need to be reviewed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Delicious carbuncle. For your question to have full appropriate context, have you got anything to add with regard to the suspected canvassing mentioned above or your long term special interest in me? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that I supplied the context - a user expressed their opinion with regard to your candidacy, they were blocked and their !vote oversighted. I assume you are making reference to disagreements that I had with your previous en.wiki account, but I would prefer that instead of making veiled accusations against me that you simply come out and say whatever it is that you have to say. You will recall that I have little patience for your games. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you canvass off-wiki for !votes for this RfA? --Fæ (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As if all the deletions and blocks around here weren't canvassed off-wiki by you. Hypocrite.67.168.135.107 08:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is not true, the canvassing against me for this RfA is easy to spot considering the dormant, new and rarely used accounts that appeared out of the woodwork at the same moment, that other contributors would take action is hardly surprising and is not evidence that I have superpowers over Wikimedia Commons. When this RfA is closed, the effect of canvassing will be taken into account. --Fæ (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It sounds to me like there's an awful lot of bad faith wrapped up in that assessment Fae, and to try to wave off the opposition to your adminship in this way is just lame (and a time-honoured method of those losing the vote) and just may be a possible indicator how petty you could be as an admin. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was responding to a specific claim that I had been canvassing. I would think it obvious that canvassing has been going on here, just not by me. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's still a 'sour grapes' methodology to try to discount the comments of your detractors in this way, most of whom have given salient reasons for their opposition. I just wish the same could be said for the majority of your supporters. My take on the matter is that the RfA has indeed been discussed off-wiki in venues such as WR, though I don't believe that it has occurred as a deliberate act of canvassing. Although I don't feel duty bound to reveal where I heard about the debate, but I shall say so anyway. I saw it mentioned on COM:AN, as I suspect quite a few here did. I don't see the post there as canvassing in any way, shape or form. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not often I'm in agreement with DC, but I'm in total agreement with his above comments. There seems to be much going on here behind the scenes to prevent total transparency. Admin Romaine (talk · contribs) seems to have been working overtime in the deletions and oversighting business. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Could someone (Peter himself or Fæ?) explain the comment by Peter Damian "Self-interested deletions (and deletion of the record of deletions) are totally against the values of transparency". What and where happened this? I mean - no on Commons (as you are no admin here). Where then? Where are or were you admin before? To be sure: I do not request personal details. It is obvious that something is fishy here - in whatever direction. --Saibo (Δ) 01:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter Damian (or Edward Buckner as he also refers to himself on :wmuk) is probably referring to his allegations which resulted in his block (not given by me) yesterday, see wmuk:User_talk:Peter_Damian. As you point out, this has nothing to do with Commons. --Fæ (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Peter is referring to the deletion discussed in this thread where an image that Fae uploaded withone of his previous ids was deleted. User:Dcoetzee appears to have been misled into thinking that the user who made the original upload had left Wikipedia, when in fact he has been continuously active both there and here under his new id. Also Dcoetzee seems to be under the impression that Fae left his old account on Wikipedia following personal attacks. In fact he was the subject of an RFC/U. Carbuncle and Bali were among his leading critics there. The voting pattern in the examples I list below seem to match up with their criticisms of him there. So it is hardly surprising they have voted against him.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes as Peter C. correctly says I was referring to the original deletion discussion and the attempts at wiki.en to stifle any discussion of the issue. But there is no harm in adding the fact that I was blocked on Wiki.uk simply for asking questions and expressing concern about some serious issues (nothing to do with the image deletions, by the way), and not making allegations of any sort. Fae clearly canvassed for this block, as well as deleting questions from his talk page with the comment 'soapboxing'. In my mind he stands for the culture here and on wiki of suppressing discussion under false pretext ('harassment', 'trolling'). He represents censorship, disregard for freedom of information. In short, everything the wiki movement stands for. He is absolutely not to be trusted. Peter Damian (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Ashley, could you please explain your !votes in the following deletion discussion?

1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:My_Cock.jpg
2. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Freeballsagger.jpg
3. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Prostitutes_in_the_street_of_Reeperbahn.jpg
4. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hanes_Underwear.JPG
5. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Smokah_Shit.jpg
6. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ejaculate577.JPG

You seem to have been on the losing side on all of these.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that the above list of DRs is strictly relevant, other than the last one that is. Fae: "Sorry, I don't find it in the least bit funny that the (apparently North American) "anti-pornography" paranoia and "moral" stance that some try to promote on Wikimedia projects has resulted in previous purges of potentially educational and cultural images from Commons on completely biased and arbitrary grounds." Whilst I congratulate Fae on his refreshing open-mindedness I have to say that the duplicity shown by the dichotomy of the last half of that quote and the requested deletions of his own pictures is disappointing and not good evidence that he would make a trustworthy admin. --Fred the Oyster (talk)

It is relevant when he is applying to be an admin and appears to have a different understanding of policy from that held by existing admins.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If all the "personal information" that User:Bali ultimate posted has since been posted by someone else, as appears to be the case, why is he still blocked? All that's been removed, in effect, is the reasoning behind his his oppose vote. His talk page editing was also disabled, so there is no way for him to request an unblock.67.168.135.107 03:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on the comment - this sort of block without representation is against everything the movement should stand for (even if, sadly, the reality is different). Peter Damian (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello anon IP account 67.168.135.107. You have been blocked for a year on Wikipedia as a known banned user [2]. Would you like to confirm who you are and why you have been on a long term campaign of harassment against me on more than one Wikimedia project? --Fæ (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been blocked for a year on another Wikimedia website by a paid employee of your Wikimedia UK, is that correct?[3][4]67.168.135.107 08:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linking to evidence of your personal harassment of other contributors hardly helps your argument. Considering your ban above, by writing here are you bypassing a current ban or block on Wikimedia Commons? --Fæ (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been blocked for a year on another Wikimedia website by a paid employee of your Wikimedia UK, is that correct?67.168.135.107 09:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This has nothing to do with this RFA, but as I have been accused of obfuscating I will reply briefly. As can be read on the chapter website, Richard Symonds works as an office manager for the WM-UK chapter. He reports to the CEO. His role as an admin on Wikipedia has nothing to do with his office manager job and he is never asked to use his admin tools on Wikipedia as part of his job for the chapter. Consequently the answer is that you were blocked by an unpaid volunteer Wikipedia admin who happens to have a day job for the chapter. Symonds does not report to me and I do not tell him what to do. You can write to Jon Davies (CEO) with any complaint you might have, though this would require you to write under a real name.
        • I have answered your question, please do me the courtesy of answering mine. Are you bypassing a current ban or block on Wikimedia Commons? --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • His role as an admin on Wikipedia ... Shouldn't ceasars wife be beyond suspicion? John lilburne (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• For OTRS-work, one does not need to be an admin here as Fæ said himself when Jcb was deadminned. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Should the Commons-Community decide or the one from En.wp? I suggest closing this request without any result as it is flooded by canvassed users never voted here before. -- RE rillke questions? 12:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Or, better, just disregard their votes.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it matter where they come from if they are bringing factual and truthful insights into the character of Fae? After all it is in the interest of the Commons community that we gain admins who are worthy of the job. Personally, I feel that the more information we have the better, on the proviso that information is true and correct of course. To be honest so far I haven't seen anything that hasn't been true, or at least I think so, Okay so some of it has gained emphasis that perhaps it shouldn't have had, but I sure we voters can figure that out for ourselves. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Fæ has asked me "Did you canvass off-wiki for !votes for this RfA?" and another user above makes reference to "canvassed users". For the record, I did not canvass on- or off-wiki for votes, nor have I emailed anyone to solicit their votes. There is a discussion about this request on Wikipedia Review, which may explain why some users who do not ordinarily watch these requests are aware of Fæ's request. I invite regular Commons contributors to read it and decide for themselves whether or not it constitutes "canvassing". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There is information in that thread on WR that makes me uncomfortable about Fae being a straightforward editor, let alone an admin. His past history on en.wp with name changes, tag-teaming, really bad (Turkish baths) decisions with regard to BLP matters and gay porn PoV pushing is hardly the makings of a trustworthy admin. Especially the last two I listed given the (ever increasing) amount of male porn available on Commons and images of living people. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]