Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(5)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 23;  Oppose = 26;  Neutral = 0 – 47% Result: Unsuccessful. Dschwen (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 20:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

For 4 years I have helped with many contributions to Commons and learned much through cooperating with others on this project. A few facts about my volunteer work:

  • 750,000 images uploaded from a wide range of sources, including over 2,400 of my own photographs. A summary of these mini-projects can be found on my user page.
  • I have a large number of edits on Wikimedia projects with most of these on Commons.[1]. I have a couple of million edits under Faebot and 25,000 under Noaabot.[2][3]
  • 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 Wellcome Images, the British Library and Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums.
  • Steering group member of the GLAMtoolkit project. This is a large internationally 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.
  • Co-founder of Wikimedia LGBT which includes the Commons initiative LGBT Free Media Collective.

I created my Fæ account in early 2010 with a trivial number of edits on Commons before that using other accounts which I retired at that time. There is a summary of old accounts with an independent summary of the facts given in this past RFA. Links to past RFAs are: 2011, 2013, 2013, 2014.

The most obvious area where I need the admin tools is handling deletions and undeletions, examples include:

  • Developing tools for automatically scanning and analysing mobile uploads, including marking blatant copyright violations which could be deleted on sight. Being unable to act on these has resulted in experiments like User:Fæ/Mobiledeletions being parked.
  • I have done a lot of work with identifying duplicates, this resulted in many thousands of deleted files which I could have handled myself.
  • Live reports I have created such as BLP overwrites and Wikinews DRs lead naturally to deleting and undeleting images. I would like to implement Commons fair use upload bot and research a better way for admins to split file histories, activities which are hampered by a lack of these rights.

I cannot imagine being particularly active in blocking accounts, though I did use tools in interesting ways on en.wp (where I was an active admin for 2 years) to identify anonymous vandal accounts and (uncontroversially) blocked a large number of them on that project after suitable warnings had been exhausted. --Fæ (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support Fæ must be one of most active and experienced users who is not an admin. He has my support. --Jarekt (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Absolutely no confidence in this user's judgement. Эlcobbola talk
  •  Support There is a clear need for the tools as per what Fae has written above. Any concerns, which I actually think would be unlikely at all, could be addressed if the need arose -- just the same as any other editor/admin. But as it stands now, Fae's activity levels require the tools, and it would be to the benefit of the wider Commons community. russavia (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • still  Strong support --Didym (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, obviously. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose I cannot think of a worse user to be given admin rights. The ability to write tools and upload files is not in any way an indication of suitability for adminship. In my experience, Fae is incapable of providing an honest and fair account of an opponent's previous comments let alone describe their point-of-view. This leads those who he is in conflict with to have to defend themselves against the most preposterous attacks on their person, while diverting attention from the real misbehaviour. Fae too often trolls important discussions, which end up distracted to discussing him rather than than the point at hand. We do not need admins whose main contribution to a debate is to spark the need for "off-topic discussion closed" templates. Fae just doesn't play fair and has very poor judgement. And on areas apart from the clear social interaction issues, such as knowledge of copyright, I've found Fae woefully and surprisingly lacking in even basic facts that are well documented in policy. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Good basis of admin - honest, reliable, experienced and with a knowledge regarding to copyright and Commons policies. We really need experienced user helping in closing DR's and other admin area. -- Geagea (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Previously I voted support/weak support/neutral, but why should I trust someone who apparantly doesn't trust me? Trijnsteltalk 23:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do hope you're not advocating a cliqueish approach where to gain your support, one first has to support someone (i.e you). There's many reasons to Oppose Fae, but because they distrust you or have spoken out against you is not one. Nick (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course not. What I meant was that CUs should be among the most trusted users. And what he asked - or more, demanded - was information from the private CU log. He should know that he can't ask such a thing from us. Checkusers aren't allowed to share such information with users who don't have access to the CU tool. The fact that he didn't accept this answer and even wanted to open an RFC to 'force' the CUs to actually share private data only confirms to me that such a user maybe shouldn't have sysop rights. Which is imo a shame, because Fæ has (almost) all the knowledge to become a decent admin. Trijnsteltalk 23:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this was not what was requested. I suggest anyone interested read the request, not how it is being represented above. Fæ (talkH) 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a fair comment. If someone mistrusts me for invalid reasons, can you actually expect me to trust their judgement? Of course not. The fact that Fæ does not trust Trijnstel, one of our most trusted CU colleagues, speaks badly of Fæ, not Trijnstel. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, could you provide a link to where I state or imply that I have any mistrust of Trijnstel or their judgement? I cannot recall ever making such a statement, or even thinking such a thing. Trijnstel was referring to Commons talk:Requests for checkuser#Transparency which was a matter of process transparency and made no implication of mistrust on my part for any check-user or in fact any individual. As far as I know Trijnstel has never run a check user on my account, nor has taken any particular action on any of my accounts on any Wikimedia project, so I have absolutely no reason to mistrust them. I am sad to see that my governance related request has been spun into something it obviously is not. --Fæ (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole discussion implies that you don't trust any of the CUs to follow the policy requirements when doing checks. That would include Trijnstel. Further, your repeated comments such as:
"A minor point of clarity, if no CU has ever been run on me, and there has never been a request, then this should be an easy positive answer to give."
is perfectly illustrative of why I voted against this RFA. Three of us explained to you that if a CU had been run on you without a problematic result, then there would be no record and that if the result of such a check showed a problem, you had no right to see it. So, in the one case, there wouldn't any way to answer your request except from memory {possible but very unlikely). In the other case you would have no right to an answer. We spent 2,300 words there discussing something that I've summarized here in fifty. I simply don't have time to have extended discussions over simple points. And note, please, that I do not in any way intend to minimize the importance of the subject, but that the inability to respond to the question has a simple reason. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe all the drama may be not due to the Fae’s lack of abilities for the position, but some kind of boycott (a stonewalling, if you will) against him — and therefore the existence of drama is an additional reason to support this request…? -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is most regrettable that instead of being able to celebrate Fae's undoubted experience, dedication and skills at being the most prolific uploader of freely-licensed third party content, we are again being forced to assess his capabilities in the entirely different sphere of adminship. It's difficult to understand why the personal desire for adminship is so strong that we have had two applications a year for the last two years, each of which must have been pretty painful for the candidate. Recommendations to the candidate made in previous RFAs in 2011, 2013, 2013 and 2014 have been completely ignored, and such is the lack of self-awareness of deep-seated behavioural problems that this RFA is pretty well a cut and paste of the last, again focusing largely on the candidate's credentials in bot writing and uploading.
In all four of his previous unsuccessful RFAs, strong objections were raised by a wide variety of respected editors, and the same has happened again here. Colin's comments describe a fixed and entrenched pattern of behaviour that will be depressingly familiar to anyone who has had the misfortune to find themselves on the receiving end of an unexpected attack for some imagined slight. The issue that Trijnstel mentions is a good recent example, and she has reason to feel bruised by it. A minimum requirement for an admin is trust, and it appears from a notice prominently placed on Fae's talk page [1] that he no longer enjoys the trust of the OTRS admins. They have not so far as I know publicly stated why Fae's OTRS rights were summarily removed, but an admin who has been refused OTRS access would be a real concern for me at least.
The addition of Fae to our corps of admins would inevitably hugely increase the level of bad-tempered drama here and would not enhance the reputation of Commons. Sorry, but once again I cannot support. I would recommend that Fae steps back from this and focuses on the upload work for which he is well known and respected. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Removed this morning. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"They have not so far as I know publicly stated why Fae's OTRS rights were summarily removed" - So your objection is ad hominem, not based on any evidence of malfeasance at OTRS. For shame. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy, my comment regarding OTRS was based solely on the content of the notice that Fae was displaying yesterday on his talk page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, -revi. Why on earth would you strike that, given the concerns you still express? The support vote just 3 above says "we reward people...", with basically no other rationale, and russavia didn't query that. Don't be badgered into changing your vote by partisan supporters selectively posting requests to "reconsider" next to votes they don't like. Begoon - talk 16:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, I hate WikiDrama, so let's finish this unconstructive things with my unstrking. — Revi 19:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Revi, I agree that evidence of CU misuse should be a matter taken up with the OC. This was not the nature of the request for transparency that I made. Please refer to the original request and my reply to the second question below. --Fæ (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin, would you say that Fæ’s civility is below the average of those who already hold the admin mop? Because frankly, even if the direst predictions about what would happend should Fæ be an admin were true (and now, after 2 years of reading about it and of some interaction with Fæ, I find those to be just conventient boogeyman stories), his purported unsuitableness for the role is pretty tame compared with the barrage of uncivility and drama-stirring we get from some established admins, none of whom with Fæ’s obvious advantages. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tuválkin Just like a DN, we're here to discuss one person, not all the rest of the people in the category. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Applying your analogy, Ellin Beltz, we should evaluate Fæ’s merits on his own and decide upon that — and afterwards go through the whole list of admins and kick off all those who doesn’t measure up to those same criteria. I’m all for it, but we both know it will never happen, and that it simply doesn’t work that way. So, no — this is very much not «just like a DN». -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron Blaze people are free to say whatever they like in free societies. And because I live in a free society I am free to call you out on your claims. This is the discussion in question and I am calling bullshit on your claims. Your comments there were amongst the most idiotic I have ever seen on Commons; that was until I read your comments just now. Not only are the comments idiotic, but they are disgusting and insult the intelligence of every single one of us. Don't bother replying, you won't be getting a further response here. russavia (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't the discussion I remember but it does highlight a trend with him of attacking IPs ... and given that bit of vitriol no one should be surprised you are Fae's most ardent supporter. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So Saffron Blaze what was the discussion you remember? I'm still calling bullshit on your claims. The only vitriol is coming from you, both at this discussion and the linked to discussion -- what is coming from me is a statement of fact that you are acting in a ridiculously trollish manner, and with clear evidence of it. Quite seriously, link to the discussion you remember -- put up or shut up. russavia (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you would talk of trollish behavior. As to the discussion, you found the last one so go find the others. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the main thing I have learned from RFA feedback is taking care to side-step drama while persisting with facts to support potential action or change needed. Since my last RFA I have taken care to express concerns in limited factual way, often in a single statement leaving it to others to make further comments, and in preference have solved most tricky issues by direct email or via private chats on IRC. I can dig out examples from the past year if you would like to review them.
If folks commenting negatively here believe they have an example where I created or inflamed drama on Commons since my RFA, I would be happy to discuss that case more specifically. I am very sad to see such pointed remarks from Colin and The Land, as I have had no interactions on Commons any Wikimedia project with them since they commented in my last RFA ten months ago, so their views are either based on events long past or Commons discussions that they were uninvolved with.
As for trust, this is more a question of perception, which I can respond to if someone were to explain their concern with a specific instance of my failure on Commons, nobody is perfect after all. It remains impossible to defend myself against unsupported ad-hominem remarks or political statements. --Fæ (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really count "sincef my last RFA ten months ago" as "long past". The outrageous behavioural issues I witnessed were spread over many months so one can't really put them down to feeling a bit tired one night, for example. My own personal experience is far from unique and part of a problem spread over years and on multiple Wikimedia projects. Is there any evidence that someone who doesn't appreciate a photograph of two naked men "with their freakin' dicks out" might be NSFW has improved his skills of judgement? Or that you have come to realise that implying anti-LGBT bias in your opponents (as happened to me, and also the whole of the feature picture forum) was kinda bad and wrong of you? Or perhaps this admin candidate, who wishes to participate in deletion closures, actually now understands what "derivative work" means (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Toys, July 2014) and has read our official guideline on the term. You claim my remarks are based on the Fae of the past (which you don't challenge) and you are now a changed man. But a man changed enough to change my vote would admit his past failings, indicate remorse, and attempt reconciliation with those he had wronged. -- Colin (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Colin. I had hoped that avoiding you completely would calm you down. I am sorry that after 10 months of zero interaction you are still so angry about the fact that we disagree about how to implement "NSFW" on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"you are still so angry about the fact that we disagree about how to implement "NSFW" on Commons" thanks for providing a current example of your inability to describe an opponents POV. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your POV, you have described it quite well, we just are not going to agree on whether artistic homoerotic photographs (the cases I recall were not blatant sex images) should be managed on Commons as NSFW or potentially offensive, when anyone is free to apply their own browser add ons to do the same job if they want it. Contributors are free to have varied view points, what matters for implementation is whether a credible community consensus can be reached even when individuals are always going to disagree. Colin, I think this is old ground and it bears very little relation to my ability or suitability to be a Commons administrator.
With regard to derivative works, my views on this have shifted over time, as has the practical implementation of the policy. I refer to the effective case book of images we use and this continues to improve. Liminal cases are always going to be debatable, especially as interpretation in different countries does vary. If you feel I still misunderstand this area of copyright, then by all means explain what the issue is and the examples you have in mind and I can talk to those instances (presumably deletion requests) and review whether I was indeed mistaken. --Fæ (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Colin but Fae is correct. He has steered clear of you for 10 months, and disagreement over so-called NSFW images is hardly a good reason to oppose when Fae has clearly demonstrated he has a need for the tools. It is somewhat telling that this disagreement erupted your end when it was "two dicks" rather than the T&A that has been seen at FPC time and time without any such nonsense. russavia (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
russavia while I am grateful if indeed if Fae is making a determined effort to steer clear of me and to abstain from trolling contentious discussions, this doesn't in fact change Fae's character as is clearly demonstrated above. Giving Fae the admin bit would only make it more likely that he fall into conflict with others (only he'd have a position of authority and power) and be expected to become involved in and to close contentious discussions. Does any rational person here think Fae could accurately construct closing remarks without himself sparking new flames? I'm glad for Fae's responses because they highlight how little has changed. And I note from your "it is somewhat telling" comment that you yourself have not improved your character: it is "telling" that you should play that card. Take my "two naked men "with their freakin' dicks out"" comment, which was an example of where Fae's judgement is poor (this is an image that is clearly NSFW no matter what one's opinion on censorship on Commons should be). But rather than admit here that his judgement was poor in that example and that he has learned, he diverts the discussion onto ground that is contentious in the community (the management of such images). This is classic Fae. (But seriously, Fae, "browser add ons", bless, how quaint). As for the second paragraph of bullshit, well anyone can look at the link I gave, and decide for themselves whether it is a "liminal" case. I'll repeat it here:
"File:Car toy.jpg -- Keep - Appears a reasonably faithful mass produced reproduction of a standard car design. As such it is itself a derivative work. --Fæ (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)"
Is there anything defensible about that deletion vote? -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kelvin and Aren.jpg This is the image that Colin is talking about. It was nominated for FPC here. It is clearly obvious that the image needs to be shown for people to comment on the nomination. Colin objected that he could get into trouble by his employer for viewing such an image; and seemed to disregard comments that he should be working instead of doing things on Wikimedia Commons, or elsewhere. Again, there has been no objection by Colin prior to this FP nomination as it pertains to nude females. Colin, you seriously need to drop the moralising as it pertains to other editors. russavia (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[wrt to the image + caption posted here] Wow Russavia, I thought Fae was a master at trolling discussions with off-topic attacks on people but clearly he's just a beginner. You win the gold star and likely a prize for beating Fae to provoke a "Discussion closed" template. This is Fae's RFA you know, not mine, and what I do with my time and when is absolutely none of your concern. And you're a serious challenger to exceed Fae's statistical incompetence when it comes to LGBT bias. Just how many full-frontal female nude photographs at FPC am I supposed to have been exposed to prior to this one? Perhaps you can post them all here for our education? Can you come up with a statistically relevant number that might actually indicate the pattern of bias you are implying? This isn't moralising, Russavia, it's about being aware of other people and of the world outside one's own. Something I'd expect an admin to have some ability with. -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's moralising you are engaging in. This is evident by the entire nature of your "two naked men "with their freakin' dicks out" comment. You obviously have a problem with seeing "two naked men "with their freakin' dicks out". Others don't. Where's the respect from you towards the opinions and views of others? The fact, there is none. But you are right, this is Fae's RFA, not yours, but I just had to give some context to your whole "two naked men "with their freakin' dicks out" comments; which mind you has nothing to do anything that comes under the purview of an administrator on Commons. russavia (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather discuss Fae than you but on this matter you are two peas in a pod. Neither of you are in any way capable of appreciating another's POV and accurately describing it. Btw the "with their freakin' dicks out" is in quotes because it came from a 'crat rather than me and it appears I misquote: "I'd say it is pretty clear that this image would qualify as NSFW because the guy has his freaking dick out for god's sake!" is the correct text and a comment on Fae's poor judgement by a 'crat. I have no problem with LGBT erotic photography at FPC. If it is of a high artistic and technical standard then it may well deserve the FP status. Both you and Fae seem to think I have a problem with that but I do not. It does not serve your argument to accept this. This is absolutely typical of Fae and one reason why he must not be an admin. So this is relevant, whereas little you have posted here is. russavia, you and Fae have claimed I have a bias because I only raised an issue when male genitalia appeared at FPC, and Fae seems to think I have a bias because a notable LGBT Commoner nominated it. So go on, show me the explicit female genitalia at FPC that I have overlooked? Post the images here or offer your apology and retraction? Is only gay erotica allowed on Fae's RFA? There's certainly a dick at Fae's RFA but as yet no cunts. -- Colin (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alas Colin, there are several cunts already at Fae's RfA :) russavia (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that comment is very helpful to your cause. The Land (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is unacceptable behaviour from a group of users who absolutely should know better. Colin, Russavia, The Land if this behaviour doesn't stop right now, I'm prepared to block people until the conclusion of this RfA. The behaviour shown by many users of this project and the wider Wikimedia community falls way below that which is expected of them. Nick (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I apologise for my immoderate language. You are quite right. Yet I find it interesting that an admin should threaten to throw the blocking stick around when a few naughty words (and naughty bits) appear on the page, and yet happily supports Fae. A user who repeatedly makes allegations of anti-LGBT bias that are unfounded. Is that not something worth using your admin bit to put an end to? Or should the community put up with it because of the many bot uploads? I have asked both Fae and Russavia to provide evidence of the bias they claim, and of course there is none. See here and here for just two examples where Fae attacks me and others with these allegations. This behaviour is a core piece of evidence that Fae is unfit to be an admin, yet we not only see admins turn a blind eye but actually support giving this person more power here. And there's no response at all to my deletion example, despite Fae stating that with an example he " can talk to those instances (presumably deletion requests) and review whether I was indeed mistaken". The silence there is telling is it not. -- Colin (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't block Fae for being wrong in a discussion or for perceiving there to be some sort of anti-LGBT bias which might not be present, but if/when it crosses over into wilful, deliberate, pre-meditated disruption, I'm prepared to block any and all parties that are involved (with fair warning, of course). This is the first day of a brand new year, can we please all recharge our levels of good faith, good will and patience, and see if it's not possible to make 2015 a more fruitful, friendly and productive year for all concerned - you, me, Fae, Russavia and others. Nick (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I'm a forgiving sort of person and my memory certainly lets me forget given time. But I'm not naive and I'm not a gambler. Fae is no newbie and an RFA is not an exercise in "assume good faith". It is about asking the community who have experience of this user whether that person's experience, character, past behaviour, knowledge and abilities make him or her suitable for the position. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about behaviour outwith the RfA when it comes to good faith, good will and patience. Re this RfA: there's ample evidence in Fae's contributions to allow users to Support and Oppose without having to enter into the sort of arguments which developed earlier on, or which exist further down the page. Nick (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(the following is a response to comments much further up)

Fae, we've had plenty to do with each other in the last 10 months; largely on email lists or via private email, all of which has made me confident nothing in your behaviour has changed. Your statement that we haven't interacted "on Wikimedia projects" is technically correct, but misleading. Your habit of making such statements is a small sliver of the reason I don't think you're an appropriate person to be an administrator. The Land (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tangent as this has nothing to do with Commons, so I can see little point in furthering your political campaign against me here. As a matter of fact, searching my email at this moment I can find no email from me to you in the last 10 months. I would appreciate it if you could email me an example, as my recollection is that I have done my absolute best to avoid you since your highly unpleasant personal attack against me in the last RFA and certainly since your abusive and defamatory comments about me in secret, in your official role as a trustee to the WMUK board were copied to me retrospectively only after a legally binding request to the charity. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For instance this email, which is part of a well-established pattern of you trolling Wikimedia email lists. The Land (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had you raised any sensible question about my Commons work, I would have been happy to answer fully and frankly. However you are intent on disrupting this project with irrelevant chapter politics. You have raised nothing relevant here related to my capability or competence to be an administrator on this project. Due to your defensive lobbying, secrecy and obfuscation, the UK chapter failed to pay proper attention to serious concerns about its "less than competent" management, using this RFA to create another tedious disruptive personal attack is a foolish and embarrassing way for a chapter trustee to behave. I suggest you reconsider why you are here and whether you enjoy playing politics more than properly fulfilling your role as a (unelected) trustee responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars of Wikimedia movement funds. More important than whether I get to handle admin tools on Commons, most people would think. It is New Years Day, I suggest you make a resolution to take a more positive path if you want to support the open knowledge movement the rest of us are here for. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Land I was hoping my message to MichaelMaggs would have filtered through to people at WMUK; but obviously is has not given Michael's comments above. Seriously, when will you people drop the campaign against Fae? If people in positions of authority at WMUK put as much effort into WMUK as they do in going after Fae, WMUK wouldn't be in the financial shit it is currently in. Yours and Michaels, and others, priorities are all arse about face, and it is now showing for all the community to see. russavia (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I try to put as little effort as possible into anything to do with Fae as I have spent far too much of my time already repairing things he has broken. Indeed, I don't normally comment on Commons RfAs at all. However, I think the consequences of him becoming an admin on this project are poor enough that it would be wrong of me not to stick my neck out and contribute to the discussion. The Land (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Land again, if you spent less time chasing around after Fae and insinuating that he has broken things, you wouldn't be in the position of being the trustee responsible for all but breaking WMUK and for it being in the piss-poor position that it is now in financially. Again, your priorities are all arse about face. russavia (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have little idea of any of the facts, it's probably best if you avoided making statements like that one. The Land (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Land the facts speak for themselves. You are a WMUK trustee, and WMUK is in the financial shit. But hey, I guess Fae is responsible for that too? Typical Chris Keating, blaming everyone else for his mismanagement of WMUK. russavia (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment russavia, you are killing this nomination by attacking every opposer, giving the feeling this candidate is just a "rubber stamp" of you. This is not what we expect from new candidates; they must have a free will, distinct personality, and strong character to express their view point irrespective of their friendship and other conflict of interests. I wish to support Fae even though we disagree in many occasions. He showed good characteristics and very friendly to newcomers; a good point I respect. But this type of blind supports and unhealthy groping to push some POV a friendly circle is one thing I hate most in any communities. :( Jee 14:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jkadavoor, I'm not "attacking every opposer". I have taken issue with the continued nonsense that WMUK people are continuing to engage in here, and also taking issue with Colin's comments which seriously have nothing to do any possible use of admin tools -- he's too hung up on "two naked men "with their freakin' dicks out". You are free to support or oppose as you wish and it has nothing to do with me. But if you were in this position, I would be standing up for you too, and taking issue with people who are more interested in pursuing petty and continued grudges than in what is truly important in this community. russavia (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've little knowledge about the WM UK matters; so no comments. But NSFW is a matter of FPC sub project and we closed it after a healthy discussion, listening both sides. Reopening such topics again and again in a RfA page IMHO will not help the candidates. It is better to keep silence in such occasions. Just my passive observation; prefer to stay abstain now. Jee 14:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the issue was resolved after discussion took place with input from people with varying opinions. There was seriously no need for Colin to continue irrelevant and abrasive discussion of it here at this RFA. That is what disappoints me greatly. Let's allow this subject die a natural death now, I think the point has been made. russavia (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I'll not be responding further on 'NSFW' related questions. Anyone interested knows my viewpoint and joint interests in GLAM and LGBT material which sometimes overlaps with educational or cultural images of the human body, and it bears no relation to how I would act as an administrator. --Fæ (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was never NSFW itself but simply an example of poor judgement, and persistent unfounded accusations of anti-LGBT bias, which your friend Russavia is now clearly guilty of too. No matter, it serves my purpose quite satisfactorily that neither of you are able or willing to defend yourselves on that matter. But Fæ, you promised to look in to and respond to an example of your poor judgement wrt copyright. I would be interested in your defence of the toy car deletion vote you made this summer. Repeated here:
"File:Car toy.jpg -- Keep - Appears a reasonably faithful mass produced reproduction of a standard car design. As such it is itself a derivative work. --Fæ (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)"
The legal position on this wrt the US (where Commons is hosted) is not "liminal", nor has the definition of "derivative work" changed recently, nor has the fact that a work is a "derivative work" changed wrt keep/delete on Commons recently (a derivative work earns its own copyright protection). As admin, you would participate in and close such deletions. Based on this example, that would not seem to be a positive move for Commons. I would appreciate a detailed response on this particular deletion, rather than some evasion or generality. If you don't, I'll have to assume your promise was as untruthful as much of what you wrote above.Colin (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like me to answer the copyright question, I can do that this evening. However I would appreciate if you could start from a position of good faith and ceased calling me a liar, or indeed anything else defamatory, rude or inflammatory. It may help if you reworded the question and put it in a new section, then someone might choose to collapse this thread as tangential. --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above is one of the very reason why I don't think you're fit to be an Administrator. Where has Colin called you a "liar", I'm not seeing it in this RfA and "indeed anything else defamatory, rude or inflammatory", you pull this trick every time to avoid valid criticism of your actions. Nothing has changed from you and it never will. Bidgee (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a question of plain English. Stating "as untruthful as much of what you wrote above" can only be read as a claim that one was telling untruths; an adequate dictionary definition of being a liar. I can not see the point of wikilawyering this further. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between labeling specific actions of a person and labeling the person as a whole. This is an important distinction when you are trying to raise kids ;-). And it is an important distinction we should make to keep discussions from drifting into ad hominem territory. --Dschwen (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fæ, as an admin you will be expected to respond in a mellow fashion regardless of the starting point. One of your problems is you are frequently unable to engage in talk page disagreements or react to criticism without attacking your opponent in various ways. You ignored the first time I asked you to explain this deletion, despite your promise. We can read into that what we will. You will be expected to deal with difficult users and to neutralise issues rather than inflame them. In your response you could have demonstrated your mellow nature and the thick skin needed for adminship. Instead you choose to spend most of your reply finding fault in me. Stick to demonstrating how you would make a fine admin rather than going off on your usual tangents by making this about someone else. This thread is not tangential. Answer the question like we'd expect an admin to answer it. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect any administrator subject to claims of "untruths", or anything similar to the barrage of unpleasantness above, to avoid replying to Columbo-esque "one more question"s and leave it to someone else. I'll take that sensible road here now, rather than fishing further for what might have been a useful copyright question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can see that avoiding interacting with you for the last 10 months was a wise decision for me to make, a good demonstration of taking action to avoid drama, and I hope others can see that too. Best wishes for your Commons work in 2015. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If you feel I still misunderstand this area of copyright, then by all means explain what the issue is and the examples you have in mind and I can talk to those instances (presumably deletion requests) and review whether I was indeed mistaken."' This remains "untrue". Fae, this is your RFA and your competence in understanding basic copyright issues has been called into question. You can't simply cop out because you find interacting with me uncomfortable. We must therefore conclude that you have no clue what a derivative work is and how that pertains to Commons copyright policy. Thank-you for your responses, which provide up-to-date evidence of your unsuitability for the post. -- Colin (talk)
  •  Question Fæ Thanks for your answer to my initial question. I have done some spot checking on your contributions in the Commons main space, and I do in fact get the impression that you have improved over the last year, when it comes to drama. So thumbs up for that. Colin mentioned a few cases above, which gave rise to eyes-rolling and on my part, but they are about a year old, and I am willing to give them only litte weight for the time being. The CU discussion which has been referred to above is recent though and does not reflect well on your personal judgement in my opinion though - it seems disconnected with reality. In my spot checking I stumbled across another recent discussion regarding the Finnish Museum of Photography. The discussion started out with a museum account asking for permission to the GWToolset. Dschwen initiated the discussion, then russavia and you joined the discussion. Image for a minute that you were the Finnish Museum of Photography witnessing that discussion from the outside. What impression would you get of Commons, and how do you see your own role in what impression they would get? Would there have been other or better ways to resolve the disagreement you had with Dschwen about account naming policies? Unfortunately, the Museum is now rethinking their participation. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the request for improved transparency for CU being run has been radically misunderstood. It appears to be read as a bad faith accusation of some sort, this was not my intention, nor was it what I stated at any point. In particular I made absolutely no allegation that CU had been misused, it is unfortunate that has been stated in this RFA, it is untrue. Improving transparency, particularly as I made it clear that no expectation of privacy would be compromised, does not mean that there must have been malfeasance of some sort. I would compare this to how charity trustees routinely publish their expenses (as I did when I was a trustee), this is not because anyone is alleging they are on the fiddle, it just demonstrates a commitment to ensuring transparency.
My response to Dschwen was an error of judgement, I should have taken the policy issue to his talk page or emailed him. Unfortunately his sarcastic comment took me at the worst possible moment in real life, as I mentioned in that discussion. In my defence, I did make a statement and then dropped the matter in order to avoid any more drama, however I am sorry if Dschwen was upset as I know he does excellent work in other areas. I am aware of the museum's perception and have discussed this elsewhere off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer Fæ. I have carefully reread the CU discussion. I get the point that you are not making allegation against anyone there, but requesting more transparency in the CU process. But it appears to me that this is not Commons business. What you are really after is a change in meta policy, where you would like to include that a query can be made if CU has been run on you with report data - possibly leaving out information about which CU did what. I do understand if the Commons CUs feel your request does not fit well with current meta policy.
Wrt to the Finnish Museum of Photography, I am happy to see that you acknowledge that your role in the discussion could have been handled better, and I agree with you on your own proposals as to have it should have been dealt with. I also understand the point that you were in emotional distress due to some events in your private life when the comments were written. My advice to you in such cases is simply to go off-line from Commons. I mean Commons is (I hope) a secondary activity for you which should (in my opinion) have less priority than handling serious events in real life. Real life is always more important than Commons. I can also support the advice given elsewhere to disconnect from the non-mellow and increasingly belittling and aggressive discussions russavia is initiating more and more often here. The cocktail of you two together is most often a bad blend.
Regarding the RFA I will abstain from !voting. I see progress has been done, but I have an eerie feeling that you will too easily get in a situation of personal distress if given the admin role. I do not think it would be of benefit of neither the community nor you. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(5)&oldid=145560658"