Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators | Requests
Revision as of 15:03, 4 October 2019 by 99of9 (talk | contribs) (Fmt fix)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Result. Unsuccessful. 99of9 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 11:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Reminder: Please keep the tone and comments in this discussion respectful and civil toward both the candidate and other commenters.

I would like to put myself forward for admin tools. Over the last 3 years I have made significant contributions to Commons:

  • 70,000+ images uploaded from a wide range of sources, including over 2,000 of my own photographs. A summary can be found on my user page.
  • 680,000+ edits [1]
  • ~1.4 million edits by Faebot.[2] Much of these have been part of my project to add place categories to uploads from Geograph, this being a comprehensive photographic record of the whole of Britain. Other projects have included identification of problematic mobile phone uploads by examining EXIF data, automatic categorization of identical duplicates using the Commons API for when upload tools have failed to do this for themselves, and a number of varied special requests raised on Commons:Bots/Work_requests that I found interesting to handle.
  • Discussion and development of Commons policies and the presentation and promotion of Commons in 'real life' with GLAMs and other institutions over the last couple of years, such as the British Library, the Wellcome Trust and Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums.
  • I am a founder of the GLAMtoolset project and represent the UK on the Steering Group. This is a large inter-chapter funded project in partnership with Europeana, to make available an easy to use set of Commons mass upload tools for GLAM professionals to apply to their institutional media collections and archives.

Though it would always be useful to have a "GLAM-knowledgeable" admin available to help out, more important would 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 (and lobbying) on how to avoid copyfraud and the use of simple policies for copyright and attribution.

Declarations:

  1. I am a founder of the proposed thematic organization Wikimedia LGBT. meta:LGBT
  2. I am a trustee of the charity Wikimedia UK. wmuk:Board

--Fæ (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Corrected per the command by Túrelio (He asked; not requested to correct this accordingly). My vote is based on Commons:Guide to adminship and Commons:Staying mellow; I'm not aware of any previous or EN:Wiki related issues that discussed below. I expect more matured and controlled behaviour from admins. (I didn't understand what A. Savin meant by some oppose voters do not seem really representative for the Commons community. Do we have separate classes of memberships like Blacks and Whites? JKadavoor Jee 10:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Vast contribution record." Most of that is script based editing that can be done by bots, but is instead done by a lot of admin who have been criticized of using the scripts to hide some edits that are not agreed upon by the larger community. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out by Russavia that many people without Commons contribs are voting. The above user is supporting with his second contrib. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TheOverflow has been a Wikimedia contributor since May 2012. I don't believe that we should discount !votes. Everyone should be free to express their opinion, and we shouldn't ignore anyone's opinion. If he or she is familiar with Fæ and WMUK, then his or her insight should be valued. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me make my third 'contribution' by saying I am a commons user, not a contributor, and I often observe, what happens behind the scenes. This RFA as motivated me to participate in the discussion, and I feel my observations are relevent. So, please consider my view, even if you discard my !vote. TheOverflow (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
collapse mostly off-topic now that Kevin has clarified. Stick to the topic at hand please.
:::See that makes this bit right here so hard to understand. Can I ask what are you like at back-pedalling ? Penyulap ☏ 06:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the difference between was and is or is this too hard? A view on en:User talk:Fæ may help. --Túrelio (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turelio, that was a little too hostile. It is common for people to continue to use a ban to justify an oppose even if the ban is over. Rarely do people support admin when an individual was merely blocked until at least 6 months have passed. A ban is sometimes never overlooked. The ban dealt with policy that directly affects Commons (copyright), and this is concerning to a lot of people. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, except that Penyulap was not justifying their oppose. S/he attempted to argue/ridicule/trap Fae's answer to someone else. When you do that without getting your easily checked facts straight, you should expect some egg on your face. --99of9 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your statement is that nether Penyulap or Kevin stated that the ban was currently active. They mentioned "the ban." There was a ban. It was a rather major ban. It is a pertinent ban. The responses to try and discredit it do the support no favor and were hostile and not within Commons policy. "Egg on face"? No, not even close, and it is kinda incivil for you to make the statement because it is a standard battleground "me vs you" statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though the English Wikipedia Arbcom has no particular authority on Commons, it would be helpful if you could link to findings of fact or eventual remedies where copyright was an issue rather than leaving this as an open implication. My understanding of the case was that though people made multiple allegations relating to copyright theft and other crimes, the intense and detailed investigation conducted (that included my contributions to Commons), reached a conclusion was that there were no findings relevant for these allegations and these had no bearing on the ban relating to "Wikipedia's norms and policies". --Fæ (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Finding of Facts" are only used if there is something to be acted upon and necessary. The question of the map, for instance, was what sunk your previous RfA and was central to you being dragged into ArbCom on en.wiki. You can't say that copyright wasn't an issue. You can profess to be innocent of copyright infringement. Sure. But you can't say that it wasn't an accusation lodged against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, there was nothing to be acted on with regard to these allegations, because there was insufficient evidence to take action. Copyright was not "central" to being "dragged" to Arbcom, as anyone who reads MBisanz's original case statement can tell, as it is not mentioned. It is factually incorrect that this "sank" my last RFA, the last RFA was not closed, I withdrew the RFA shortly after receiving a threat as part of an off-wiki campaign which my partner and me were distressed by. --Fæ (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Ec with OR) I confirm that's correct 99of9, it looked like politician's double-speak to me, Kevin mentioned something about a ban, and Fæ gave what looked for all the world like a denial, I don't care if someone is banned on en.wiki, or every other wiki for that matter, proof is I quite like Michael, who says along the lines of ( struck I was banned by a bunch of idiots (or whatever) inserted "That's just what Fæ and ArbCom believe"). I like and prefer that 100 times more than what looks to me like something intended to mislead. I don't mind, and am happy to look past other people's opinions to make up my own, and just as I said in the very first vote here, the first sentence, it's the gaming that I object to. The spirit is the most important thing.
99of9, your coment is very ambiguous, this response is for only one of it's possible meanings, if my response doesn't make sense, please rephrase a bit so i can respond to the other meaning. Penyulap ☏ 15:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that you recall our conversation correctly. I didn't describe ArbCom as a "bunch of idiot". ArbCom possesses great people such as Newyorkbrad. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottava_Rima and Penyulap: It's probably best if you two were to allow Ktr101 to respond to Fæ's response on his or her own. If Ktr101 was mistaken, he or she can say so and clarify for us. If Ktr101 was indeed referring to the past ban and not a current ban, then he or she can tell Fæ what he or she actually meant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9: It seems Commons admin panel is the last refuge of all banned, blocked and warned members of our sister wikis. Do we need to strengthen our admin community with people who have ability to throw eggs to the faces of poor contributors? JKadavoor Jee 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to his past ban, as it was far too recent for me to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes does good work, but could benefit from mastering nose to the grind wheel stuff rather than endlessly trying to inflate his upload and edit count.--KTo288 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that you have your own problems on en.wikipedia? Because I do not see any edits of your account on en.wikipedia [5]. Your first edits suggest that you aren't a new user, and your statement above seems to verify that. You sure have waded into some very controversial topics, and right from the start. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottava_Rima: Sinnamon's enwiki activity isn't relevant to this discussion or to his or her right to state his or her opinion in this discussion. Can you please stop looking for votes to discount? It isn't helpful. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is, because the user practically admitted that they are a sock puppet of an established account. We need to be sure that there are no duplicate votes, and I believe a CU is warranted here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Are you suggesting that you have your own problems on en.wikipedia?" No, I am not. I am suggesting that "A past trouble on English Wikipedia should be counted as a badge of honour on Commons." In other words I will not edit ENWP even to change the incorrect spelling. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sinnamon's comment is against the spirit of WMF, and should be discouraged. They are not enemies; fighting each other. It is a pity that many banned, problematic users find refuge in another projects and use their wicked abilities to damage the goodwill of WMF. JKadavoor Jee 02:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It seems that Sinnamon's vote is to further wage war against another project. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I do believe people can learn from what went wrong in the past and I'm convinced about his good intentions. Jcb (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose While I firmly believe people can change and that second chances are important, they must come after sufficient evidence that the requester has learned from his or her mistakes. At this point, I do not have enough confidence that Fæ has changed enough to allow me to feel comfortable extending him the trust necessary for access to the admin maintenance toolset here on the Commons. I'm sorry. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral per Hahc21. --Ricordisamoa 22:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - at this moment, as I fear that admin Fae would be subjected to extreme scrutiny and would be too much a target for his enemies. --Túrelio (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • have you ever used sock-puppets outside of LEGIT sock-puppets such as robots Fæ ? Penyulap ☏ 11:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. A long time ago I used some accounts for privacy reasons, this is perfectly acceptable within the policy you appear to be referencing. For the last 3 years I have only used User:Fæ and User:Faebot on Wikimedia Commons. --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK good enuf for me. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Privacy is no problem, just how many privacy accounts are you talking about ? Penyulap ☏ 15:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two privacy accounts, making trivial numbers of contributions to Wikimedia Commons (as in fewer than 10 files uploaded) and retired more than 3 years ago. Fæ (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That sounds ok. So what is your attitude to people double-voting (or more) in admin elections, under what conditions is it OK with you ? Penyulap ☏ 19:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see how that question is relevant. I don't believe that Fæ was involved in vote-stacking. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry to be confusing, I don't mean Fæ's alternative accounts, I mean his recent very strong support for burying all discussion of double voting in an admin election which had only just been uncovered. Seems there is a time limit, that if you get away with rigging elections for long enough before it's discovered, then that's all just fine and discussion should be stifled, I'd like to know if that's a good summary then or now. I'd like to know just how much of a complete blind eye two-tiered justice system we want on commons. Penyulap ☏ 22:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • If I suspected such a thing was occurring, I would raise it for investigation with our Bureaucrats who have the burden of responsibility for ensuring that the process for creating and removing administrators is properly managed. The particular case had privacy issues that dated from 8 years previous to the discussion you took part in. When someone admits to having made a serious mistake but points out a privacy issue, I would much prefer to leave it for proper full investigation by Bureaucrats or Oversight depending on the nature of the mistake/problem; it seems common sense and basic human respect to treat privacy matters conservatively, particularly for an admitted mistake made years ago. If you have any remaining concerns for the case you refer to, considering that the accused account retired due to the discussion and their concern and distress related to a potential invasion of their private life, you may want to raise the matter again on COM:BN rather than here or elsewhere. I had no personal connection to the account in question, in fact I cannot recall if we had interacted in any significant way before the date of the discussion on AN/U, certainly I have not interacted with them since they retired from Commons. --Fæ (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I can see you are quite fast in finding an excuse to close community discussion, enabling the admin, who has not been de-sysopped, to at any time resume their tools upon making a request. The 'privacy issue' you speak of is, and correct me if I am wrong, that after they were caught, they claimed it was a family member, so if someone was caught out for making 12 votes 8 years ago, but after they are caught they suddenly remember they have 12 cousins, that's good enough a reason to censor all further community discussion, derail the de-sysop process, over concern for 'privacy', do you think that would be a fair balance between privacy concerns and proper functioning of the bureaucracy ?
The person has not been de-sysopped, the community is now divided between those who feel that the sysop was being hounded long after the fact and those who feel it is not appropriate to double vote in elections on principle alone, the process has been derailed, how do you count the cost to the community against the cost to the admin ? Penyulap ☏ 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go -FASTILY 04:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well that clears a few things up, and spells out the chilling effect Alison mentions. Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the community is now divided", on examination seems to be a parody of the discussion. COM:BN is the right place to ask for a Bureaucrat to investigate further, or take action. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well I don't know what discussion you're looking at, but I do know you're sadly mistaken if you think rigged elections are a laughing matter to all sections of this community. The discussion was re-opened and re-closed at a guess a dozen times, and there are discussions devoted to the closure of that discussion itself. There is a difference between resolving differences and simply censoring, bullying, suppressing, and ignoring people. That is the difference which makes or breaks a volunteer community.
I've reminded you more than once you should listen to other people if you want them to listen to you, and that is pretty much the reason that this RfA is going to fail, (yes, let me be the first to break the news, it's going to fail) because you have to listen, rather than ignore other people, even those you disagree with. The community IS divided over the rigged elections and there is a huge difference between 'victory' and 'harmony'. Penyulap ☏ 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that information should be hidden. Sharing news and information for discussion on a forum isn't a crime. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noting for general reference that Michaeldsuarez is banned from the English Wikipedia [6] after the Arbitration Committee found that he had carried out off-wiki harassment against Fae,[7] which he attempted to justify in very similar terms to what he has said above.[8] This should be borne in mind when reading his comments. Prioryman (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Edit conflict) So ? everyone's been banned from en.wiki by arbcom haven't they ? Michael, Fæ, Jimbo and me. Oh, except for Jimbo and me. If Michael can't talk because he was banned by arbcom on en.wiki then why should Fæ be a sysop when he's been banned by arbcom on en.wiki ? doesn't make sense to me, I say 'who cares' lets just stick to what is here. Fæ is welcome to have an RfA and Michael is welcome to comment. Penyulap ☏ 20:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure why you think Fae is banned when in fact he is not. He's in a very different position to Michaeldsuarez, who is not only currently banned, but was banned for harassing Fae. You would think that Michael would have learned by now that he needs to stay far away from anything to do with Fae. Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • (Edit conflict) I must be mistaken, you see I looked at his en.wiki userpage, and it was kind of blank, well, compared to mine it is anyhow, so I looked in the history and the last few edits are all about arbcom bans and stuff, point is, none of it matters. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't harass Fæ. That's just what Fæ and ArbCom believe. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • well I guess that is an open way to put it, and it seems I was correct about my guess. Still, I think both of you are good contributors here. Just that I think Fae doesn't have the moral direction other admins I support do, and his responses here aren't helping. Generally I like to predict what information people would like to know and give it to them before they ask, or straight away. Fae makes some admirable admissions, but leaves out so very much which is clearly relevant that it makes this whole RfA feel more like a cross-examination of a hostile witness. I like the way you put it Michael, that you're banned by people who are out of their minds, cause then we know. Simple. Hmm, I wonder what other new things will come out as the week progresses. sigh. Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that information should not be hidden (actually, I opposed Michaeldsuarez' ban just as I opposed Fae's). It is apparent that those interested in having a Commons that is not owned and operated by Wikipediocracy will need to reach out and "CANVASS" in the future. One admitted strategy of Commons' opponents, as mentioned on w:User talk:Jimbo Wales right now, is to try to worm their own people into adminship in a sort of stealth jihad to take over the site. Since they keep their own forum and are lining up their rank and file to vote in things like this, they are having a disproportionate impact. The only way to counter this is if the regular Commons contributors who believe in wide-ranging, uncensored holdings make the decision to organize and get out the vote themselves for their RfAs in the future. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I only approached two users with offers of nominating them for sysop: WhatamIdoing and Stefan4. Neither of them are Wikipediocracy users, I first approached WhatamIdoing in November (long before Jimbo made his suggestion), and Stefan4 is a recipient of of the "Hot sex barnstar". Wnt, stop trying to scare people. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I'm a Commons admin of some five years now, as well as being a moderator and one of the original founders of Wikipediocracy. These positions are by no means mutually exclusive. It sounds to me like you're suggesting people should not be open about such things, lest they be accused of all sorts of bad things. This will just lead to people going underground, and not openly able to speak on other sites as they see fit - a chilling effect, if you will. I'm definitely against that, which is why I'm standing up to be counted here - Alison ❤ 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it, Alison. We all know - and you better than most - that Wikipediocracy is Troll Central. You also know perfectly well that Michaeldsuarez is under a ban for harassing Fae off-wiki. Put the two together, and it's perfectly obvious that he is continuing the feud that was supposed to have been ended by his ban. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are people forgetting that the off-commons mentions of RfA works both for and against a candidate ? I can see support for Fae stating 'I'm voting here in response to the canvassing'. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on now, stop being rational and analytical... It's much more fun to pretend there is a "stealth jihad" to "infiltrate" sleepers into the Commons administrative corps on account of Jimmy Wales recently suggesting that was the way to clean the festering Commons stable. Of course, that's silliness, the way that house will be eventually cleaned is through WMF intervention and a black-hooded executioner's axe... Someday, someday... Carrite (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I am the only person who had commented in the section above who actually got here from WO and I did not vote. What I did is point out that the hefty contribution figures given by Fæ are misleading. See this instance where he made nearly 5,000 edits, mostly image uploads, within the course of two days, or this one where he makes 5,000 minor changes over the course of a single day and that is just what fits on the page as there were more of those edits that day if you look at contribution history before and after that page. Such edits are happening over time periods that make it highly unlikely these are anything but automated edits with the exception of a very small morsel. It is something he has been doing a while such as back in December when he made thousands of edits over the course of days adding categories for uploads by x user with very minor copy-edits in between. He made less than 15,000 edits prior to the arbitration case on en-wiki and less than 3,000 to Commons space, most of the latter also in the past year. That is not to suggest these recent contributions are not significant or constructive, but scraping image databases and minor copy-edits or categorization demonstrate little about his ability to be an admin and appear to have been a response to developments on a different project geared at puffing up his credentials.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a regular editor here, so let me break this down for you, and give you some insight on how Commons works:
  • This edit is problematic why? You do realise that we are a repository of freely licenced media and to be a repository, you need to have the media. So uploading files is what we do, and we encourage all editors (new and established) to do this.
  • This seems to be replacing a template used in images with a more suitable one. If a better information template can be used to provide better information to our reusers, then great.
  • This and this were adding categories to an editors uploads, to make it easier for the community to deal with an issue it had at the time. I believe this was done at my request from memory. I also asked Fae to do exactly the same to my uploads, but only because I wanted to keep track of files I've uploaded over years. This is collaborative editing, which is what we are here for.
  • His edit count is irrelevant in the over scheme of things, but given that he was banned from enwp, and still stayed dedicated to our projects by way of contributing here is fantastic, and should not be frowned upon.
  • Other examples of how Fae has so-called inflated his edit include Category:Images from norden.org uploaded by Fæ and Category:Files from Imagicity.com (processing) -- both high valued streams that I personally asked him to upload -- not because I thought he needed to inflate his edit count, but because they are high valued streams that we need on this project -- one full of Scandinavian politicians photos that I told editors on the various WP that we have access to -- the other being the stream of an expat academic in Vanuatu who has captured that island nation and its people beautifully.

I hope you can understand why when someone with 93 edits since 2007 comes to this project (8 of them connected to this very RfA) and basically tries to bring unproven and somewhat outrageous insinuations into the equation, I sincerely hope you don't mind it when we tell you exactly why this isn't being "The Devil's Advocate" but something else completely, as I have done above. russavia (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I am not disputing whether those contributions were helpful or not, but whether they indicate anything of value regarding his desire for adminship. It does seem as if he has just been trying to pad his résumé since that case on en-wiki.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use Wikipediocracy for canvassing. I use Wikipediocracy in order to inform people (informing is not the same as creating !voters) and to provide an alternative forum for people who can't speak out on Commons (i.e. banned people) to let their thoughts and feelings be known. I don't use Wikipediocracy as a pool to draw !voters. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Overflow voted in support on his second edit. I think that the support is more curious than the oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TheOverflow has been a Wikimedia contributor since May 2012. I don't believe that we should discount !votes. Everyone should be free to express their opinion, and we shouldn't ignore anyone's opinion. If he or she is familiar with Fæ and WMUK, then his or her insight should be valued. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is quite interesting, User talk:Jkadavoor#Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ2. Seems to raise the question, are people allowed to speak openly and honestly about their feelings in an admin request, Fæ, what do you think, do you feel that the oppose vote should be seen as a personal attack ? should people be free to say what they think without feeling hounded, or that they need to watch everything they say, lest admins appear upon their talkpage using threatening lanugage, what kind of an environment would you like on commons ? Penyulap ☏ 06:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An allegation of "Bad character" is damning and requires unambiguous evidence. Túrelio states this "is an ad-hominem argument, a personal attack", I suggest you ask them to clarify that point. As the allegation is against my character, any view I provide you with on this would be called partisan.
I would like Commons to be a mellow and non-hostile environment. Part of the role of administrators is to work constructively towards this goal. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting fire with petrol doesn't seem the way to go. That editor seems quite gentle and polite from the contributions they make, so a confrontational approach is not called for and will be counter-productive. Personally, if someone calls me an idiot, I'm usually first to agree, and then if I care, I might ask in a friendly manner why they think so, or what is the most idiotic part of my repertoire of stupidity. That approach gets better results than going to war. But that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we can all agree I'm an idiot, right ? Penyulap ☏ 10:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question If you are appointed as an admin, and User:Pieter Kuiper is at some point unblocked by the community:
  • How will you react?
    • I will stay clear of him.
  • How will you relate to him?
    • I would not. I would leave any problem resolution to others.
  • How will you respond if he nominates 10 of your files for deletion with rationales that he and some other members of the community think reasonable?
    • Pieter has raised many perfectly good policy based deletion requests on my uploads and when he is unblocked, I am happy to leave the outcome of requests to the community.
  • How will you determine the difference between legitimate discussion and harassment?
    • As I would avoid any interaction, I would leave it to the community to decide.
  • What will you do if you feel he is harassing you?

--99of9 (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question Fæ, you said earlier that you have confined yourself to two accounts for the past three years but prior to that you had used alternate accounts (which you call privacy accounts). You state that there were "two privacy accounts, making trivial numbers of contributions to Wikimedia Commons". I realise that you may not have used these accounts for years, but can you take some time and confirm that there were only two alternate accounts? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm for the community that there were only 2 accounts actively used here on Commons as so-called privacy accounts. russavia (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. How are you able to answer this question on the candidate's behalf? He's been asked to confirm that he only used 2 different alternate accounts (which he refers to as "privacy" accounts), which, to my simple mind, is a question he can only answer himself. You can tell us what you are aware of, for which I'm sure we are grateful, but the question asked is another thing entirely, surely? Begoon - talk
Russavia, I don't want to see this RfA devolve into the mess like Fæ's first one, but a reassurance from you is worthless. I believe Fæ's statement to be provably false, but without being able to ask about specific accounts, it is difficult to challenge it. With Fæ's permission, I would like to ask about specific accounts, which he can then comment on whether or not they are his - does that seem reasonable? Since Fæ pretends not to interact with me, you are welcome to answer for him in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, sorry if I committed some sort of faux-pas - I didn't realise there was some kind of proxy conversation likely to occur here - ignorant of that part of the history. This kind of multiple account thing always gets very confusing for me - seems to make open discussion difficult. I'll butt out now, with apologies for my earlier confusion. Still interested in the general answers to the question though, given the history I have seen. Begoon - talk 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious Carbuncle, I have advised Fae to stay well clear of you, and I advise you to do the same with Fae. I have stepped in as someone who has his privacy in mind. I have answered your questions based upon the information that I was aware of, and also upon information which Fae provided to myself and the English Wikipedia Arbcom (not that they have any authority on this project). The information he has provided is found at en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Use_of_multiple_accounts; which finished a year mind you and this RfA is not an extension of your battlegrounds there.

To make it easier for people to understand this spreadsheet lays out all of the accounts, with the exception of the 2 privacy accounts. Fae compiled the list, I provided the annotations. Whether those privacy accounts are named elsewhere is not my concern as an admin/bureaucrat on this project, but they should not be named on this project out of decency to Fae and his privacy . I know what the two privacy accounts are, and I have also shared this information with another bureaucrat, and it's my opinion that they were legitimate use of the accounts under the circumstances; although their use may have presented some problems. There are other admins who are also aware of them by their own methods, but whether they pipe in that's up to them.

It's up to you whether you wish to proceed with this line of questioning, but I will not be confirming nor denying those accounts for you, at least not on Fae's behalf. This RfA is about moving forward; Fae knows he may have erred in the past, but he has clearly turned over a new leaf. russavia (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I understand. Sorry if I'm still getting it wrong, but that's a very confusing set of instructions/explanations/imperatives you give above. DC shouldn't pursue the question. Should I? Or would that be advised against in your position as Bureaucarat/Admin? It all seems so complicated for such a simple question. What does "although their use may have presented some problems" mean?
I'm really not trying to beat a dead horse here, but it sounded like such a simple question to elicit such a complex, obtuse answer, and reminiscent of the historical lack of openness from en.wp associated with the candidate which initially gave me the red flags causing me to oppose. Can you just help me understand why all this cloak and dagger stuff needs to exist here? Begoon - talk 19:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because of long-term harassment, hounding, and lack of respect for editorial privacy (both on and off project). It's as simple as that really. russavia (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Ok, well I won't press any more, since it is becoming too confusing, and it appears the candidate does not intend to address the question, which is, of course his right. I won't say that doesn't disappoint me, though. Perhaps a less confusing and stressful approach would have been for Fae to just make it clear himself that he felt enough questions had been answered on the matter, and he didn't intend to respond further, as I noticed one of the other current candidates did politely and diplomatically in their RFA. That seemed an acceptable, drama free way to handle things, but hindsight is 20/20, I guess. Thanks for your time trying to be the man in the middle, anyway. Begoon - talk 10:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, the accounts that were listed in the ArbCom case is not a complete list, as Fæ will attest. Fæ was banned from the Engligh-language WP as a result of that ArbCom case. One of the conditions of Fæ's unblocking earlier this year was that he disclose all alternate accounts to ArbCom, which they have confirmed that he has done, although they ArbCom did not provide that list to the community or disclose how many alternate accounts Fæ listed. Although they have no standing here, perhaps one of the Arbs would be willing to confirm that with the sole exceptions of Fæ and Fæbot, only two other accounts from the complete list of Fæ's known accounts have edits on Commons? Would that be acceptable to Fæ? And, to you, of course? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have said all that I will say on the matter DC. Continue this line of questioning directly with the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee; it's a matter for them, not for us. We don't dwell on ancient history here, and I am well aware of the ongoing harassment of Fae, and the continued threats of harassment being made offsite, so I suggest you take it to English Wikipedia where this is actually relevant and more inline with what they allow. russavia (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the English-language WP. It is a question about whether someone who is asking for advanced privileges here is, frankly, lying about their use of alternate accounts. That is something that I think the Commons community would want resolved. I have offered a way to settle this question that will not compromise Fæ's privacy by revealing the names of the alternate accounts. If Fæ has been truthful about their past account use, he has nothing to lose by doing this and has an opportunity to make me look foolish by putting a conclusive end to my questions. This is not "harassment", but the type of basic diligence that I would expect on any project. Considering some of the people who have been given admin and bureaucrat rights, I think it would be in Commons best interests to look more closely at candidates. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not slander other users. If you have evidence, present it, otherwise keep the innuendo to yourself. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing others of slanders is a legal threat that is normally met with an indefinite block. I will give you an hour to strike it and apologize before I ask for your immediate ban until the threat can be deemed no longer pertinent. After all, and you have done the same towards others using the same terms. Hypocrisy and incivility isn't acceptable conduct on Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, I meant slander in terms of "accusations without evidence" rather than any legal sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed as such, but you were unwilling to assume the same for others and you pushed for NLT here with such a strict interpretation before. It just isn't fair for an admin to do such then perform the same action when it suits them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mattbuck, with respect to Fæ's privacy, I will not name his alternate accounts without his permission. This prevents me from presenting my evidence, as you put it. I have suggested an alternative way for Fæ to confirm his use of alternate accounts without disclosing them. There is nothing slanderous about my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is really rather Ted Cruz-esque. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I can clarify, and I believe I wouldn't be alone in my own thinking, when I ask someone about alternative accounts as I often do, I don't want, and don't actually care, if they name those accounts. What I am looking for is a clear outline of the activities of those accounts, a narrative to explain the anomalies in the regular contributions for an editor. If Delicious carbuncle has seen something unusual, then a simple frank narrative which encompasses everything that Dc has seen would, I think, satisfy Dc. At least it would satisfy me if I was concerned. The discussion doesn't need to go so far into hostile territories, not for me, and I think some others may feel the same way. Penyulap ☏ 18:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Break

 Question You have uploaded into Commons from public-domain-photos.com a lot of photos, which depict signs. You have categorized them only as Category:Signs. For example, see three files in this category, which have name "Alligator ...".

  1. Why did not you add more categories?
    The source site is organized into reasonable folders and I used these to choose the most relevant initial category for the upload. With a large upload, I can either have a backlog category, like Category:Royal Naval photographer (check needed) (used by WikiProject Military History), or use the generic/higher level category as a place for the wider community to help with categorizing photos. In the majority of cases, other volunteers have more experience in choosing the best sub-categories and have been involved in their development. To my memory there was one request to move photos from this upload from a generic category to a backlog (here), this worked well, but there is no accepted best practice community wide to use temporary categories rather than generic categories. A related question on this upload was raised at User_talk:Fæ/2013#Pics_from_public-domain-image.com. I would be happy to follow any consensus view on how best to handle these sorts of initial categorizations for larger quantities of uploads.
  2. Why did not you add place? For example, I am not sure, do these places situate in USA or not?
    I'm afraid there was no consistent data at the source site. Some sub-sets were from recognizable official sources, in particular there were a number from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, however even these cannot be guaranteed to have all been taken in the USA.
  3. You did not upload these files using Faebot, but using Fæ account. Maybe this is worth explaining. Taivo (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Approved bot accounts always have a well defined scope and the bot operator should take care to stick to these boundaries, otherwise the bot-flag might be accidentally hiding changes or uploads that ought to be more visible to the community. Faebot's scope is limited to media related to GLAM projects and Geograph uploads, so for this manual upload that was supported by some scripting, Faebot would have been the less accountable way of preserving this public domain material.
Thanks for raising the question, it highlights the issue that Commons would benefit from a better community consensus on best practices for batch uploads, particularly appropriate and transparent use of bot accounts, use of backlog categories, categorization against the uploader and use of templates with included (effectively hidden) categories. --Fæ (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Do you think this complies with Commons:Administrators#Community_role (COM:MELLOW)? --McZusatz (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct my recent mistake in failing to live up to the aims of the Staying mellow essay. I would like to apologise to Tarc for letting the several years of history behind his comment get me rattled and move me to make a non-constructive comment. As I replied above to 99of9's question, the correct process should be that I seek independent advice or find a neutral forum to raise any question about what I perceive as harassment.
In this case, Tarc proposed on Jimmy Wales' en.wp user talk page that the {{The Hot sex barnstar}} should be re-created featuring my underpants and soon afterwards took part in the associated deletion discussion, which up until that point I had avoided. If Tarc still wishes to create an alternative using one of my available images such as File:AussieBum Undies in ice blue.jpg, then he is welcome to do so, and I will leave it to the community to decide if this is useful, or intended as some sort of personally targeted provocation. Instead, I would recommend a logo could be made from a derivative of my upload of the high quality and artistic photograph File:Naked to the world.jpg, which conveys classic homo-eroticism and sexuality without being as vulgar or potentially offensive in use as the existing template. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are willing to change your mind and try to respect the guidelines, I have no problem to give you a chance. Your response to my oppose vote above is very friendly compared to the other admin. JKadavoor Jee 11:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jkadavoor, I aim to respect Mellow and try to put things right when I stray from it. We are all human, and all make mistakes. Even if I were to be spot on 99.9% of the time, being responsible for 2 million edits made to Commons makes for a big pile of human error to live up to. --Fæ (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 QuestionI've already voted oppose, so if you don't feel inclined to do't feel you need to reply. Tell me your thoughts with regards to File:A CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter with the U.S. Marine Corps' Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron (HMH) 363 flies past an observation post at Forward Operating Base Edinburgh, Helmand province, Afghanistan 120101-M-UC900-034.jpg, first thankyou for uploading it, but if you didn't think that it was educational why bother uploading it in the first place? however once you had why didn't you spend time to try and understand and categorise it rather than immediately nominate it for speedy deletion? How many of your edits and uploads have been in the same vein, and if you recieve admin tools would you have speedily deleted the file?--KTo288 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I had missed the oddity of this image when I uploaded this in a batch in April this year (I look at these at 90 images a time on the DoD defenseimagery.mil site). I raised the speedy as there was no context on the Department of Defense website as to why this image was of a broken pane of glass.[9] The DoD images are mostly self-uploaded by non-professional photographers who are in the armed forces, in this case it appeared that someone had mistakenly uploaded the wrong image against the description. I was happy with your suspicion that the broken pane was due to active insurgent action, even though that is only a working assumption, it is a good rationale to keep the image as being realistically usable for an educational purpose.
To date I have uploaded just over 14,000 DoD images, mostly selected based on interesting themes, such as being part of the London Paralympics in 2012.
I would not delete my own speedy deletion requests. --Fæ (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also how about File:Snigging a log (2429906529).jpg, File:Clutch (6343148329).jpg and File:Prep (6343160039).jpg I've had to fix the categorisation on three of your uploads in the last hour, is this indicative of your work, or do you really believe that these files are properly categorised in Category:Drag (fluid dynamics). Which do you think is the wisest option, uploading files and leaving them uncategorised so that they can be properly categorised by other users, slowing down taking the time to properly categorise those files you do upload, or upload files and allow them to be miscategorised?--KTo288 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting and correcting these 3 photos being mis-categorized back in January and March this year. I can see there are no other examples poorly choosing this category. I do not believe this error is indicative of my work. Out of my c.70,000 uploads, approximately 18,000 have been uploaded from Flickr using different scripts, these can be reviewed at Photos uploaded from Flickr by Fæ using a script and have added a great deal of high quality educational, historical and cultural content to Commons. These 3 files were uploaded with the excellent Flickr2Commons tool by Magnus Manske. I have not used this recently due to questions about how different upload tools were handling duplicates (for which I wrote a generalized duplicate check script to categorize these, and as a result the community corrected several hundred problem images, out of around a half million) and due to the ongoing knotty problem in Flickr2Commons of how to best use Flickr tags to find Commons categories. This was the source of the problem you identify, as Flickr2Commons matched “Drag” to “Drag (fluid dynamics)”. Unfortunately the tool does not highlight suggested matches to the uploader as part of the pre-upload display, which might help circumvent some of these errors. This is a problem I recognize, and have often used VisualFileChange to batch-fix poorly selected categories after upload, as well as individual corrections, sadly I overlooked the 3 you correctly highlighted and have fixed already. If anyone can find dubious categories elsewhere, I welcome them to comment on my user talk page and I will happily investigate to check if there is a wider issue, as well as correcting the particular errors.
On the general issue of how much categorization should be done on batch uploads, I think that reasonable work should be done, however comprehensive or even good categorization may not always be possible, and there are many benefits, particularly with GLAM partnerships, for getting on with an upload using basic categorization, and then working with the wider community to encourage improving categorization in the long term. The COM:Geograph project is an excellent example of high value with 2 million photographs of the UK uploaded to Commons, ensuring their preservation, and the community taking years to slowly categorize and make use of them. My own tools to use Ordnance Survey open data to add place categories to all of the 2 million files over the coming year, I think shows how committed I am to helping with massive improvement of categorization on Commons using better tools and techniques, rather than being restricted to manual categorization, which is highly likely to be unable to cope as Commons grows from 17 million images to 100 million without an equivalent exponential growth in our volunteer numbers. --Fæ (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do wrong? Doesn't my concern deserve a constructive response? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sysops must be capable and willing to interact with people that they dislike. Sysops can't always just deal with people that they like. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You hat other people's on topic comments, then harass people on their talk page about not fixing something you could have fixed. This low level of disruption is unbecoming. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a symptom of the issue, but I can't fix the issue itself. I left a message so that he can uncover the cause of the issue and deal with it. I didn't want hyperlinks to become broken for a second time. I wasn't harassing Fæ, and I expect a sysop to deal with totally benign messages constructively, not with a response that in essence means "I wish to ignore you." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have a long, negative history with Fae. Why would you think any such message would be appropriate when it could be construed as harassment by any outsider? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unblocks of course, just because someone gets blocked doesn't mean that you can prevent them interacting with wikipedia, as DDOS has no real solution, as many squids as we have, there are always people who are crafty enough to take everyone off to that blue page that says wikipedia is not working try again later, (after the attack subsides). There is no such thing as ignoring people on the Internet, just an illusion. 'Not talkies' is not always a professional approach. I noticed an approach here that I still don't understand, Fæ said he didn't want to talk about the subject of Pieter Kuiper because it was "too painful", however, even today he has an archive bearing Pieter's name on his talkpage, which I don't understand, but then I'm not all that bright. Penyulap ☏ 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ2&oldid=369332307"