Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(2015)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 41;  Oppose = 31;  Neutral = 3 – 57% Result: Unsuccessful. odder (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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

For the last 5 years I have helped with many contributions to Commons and learned much through cooperating with others on this project. A summary of contribution projects is on my user page, here are a few highlights:

  • 1,200,000 images uploaded from a wide range of good sources, including 2,500 of my own photographs, see Wikimedia blog.
  • Maintenance edits and regular reports use Faebot, with Noaabot for a long term weather maps project. Live reports used by administrators which help to find copyright and other serious problems include BLP overwrites, SignificantReverts and Flickrstreams of concern.
  • Long term active promotion of Commons in 'real life', especially with museums and major institutions over the last couple of years, such as the British Library and the Wellcome Trust.
  • Steering group member of the GLAMwiki Toolset Project, giving Commons an easy to use set of Commons mass upload tools for GLAM professionals.
  • Founder of Wikimedia LGBT, including the 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. My account history has been discussed in detail in past RFAs, see list.

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

  • patrolling uploads, including revising experiments in 2013 to automatically mark blatant copyright violations
  • identifying duplicates or other advanced housekeeping tasks such as deletions from automated searches of likely page scan blanks
  • creating a better file history splitting process, discussed in theory and parked until we can test out workflows

My work with the admin tools on another project included identifying anonymous vandal accounts and (uncontroversially) blocking a large number of them after suitable warnings had been exhausted. Should notifying and eventually blocking accounts become a backlog issue on Commons, then building on experience in this area might be a good use of the admin tools.

Since my last RFA nine months ago, I have added a further 450,000 images to Commons and contributed in policy and user conduct discussions. The last RFA raised the issue of being a "drama magnet" and I have kept that firmly in mind in the last year by quietly side-stepping inflaming drama in heated discussions, while continuing to convey my viewpoint based on hard evidence. Throughout this year, I do not believe I have started any discussion which became contentious, though I have proposed project guidelines and policy changes which were successful, such as a change to scope. With regard to a concern raised that having sysop access might cause me "personal distress", I was an admin on another project for two years, and I have helped out by moderating highly contentious policy areas on Wikipedia this year, such as the creation of "When to use gay or homosexual" and "Same-sex marriage as a standard neutral term"; these activities did not cause me distress, in fact achieving a consensus has been entirely satisfying.

-- (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

That's all true too - but I'm supporting, because I think he's probably really nice, if you can ignore all that and get under the skin. I'm sure he won't let me down, or any of you. When did that ever happen? Have faith. Begoon - talk 19:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He probably is very nice, and is a dedicated co-editor who has made a huge contribution to the project and is valued. But I dont think adminship is right here. Plus, your trolling. Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said, Abd — especially in the light of two recent cases, and an on-going one. -- Tuválkin 01:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a backward sort of vote (to use your terminology) -- you admit Commons has no mechanism to guide administrators and then support one who quite clearly has some major shortcomings. I suppose he could be a fine administrator, though the odds are slim. Do you expect such a mechanism to spring into life in order to guide Fae? There are plenty examples in real life where people are elected or appointed or given positions of power where we expect them to be decent, honest fair, wise and hard-working, and where we are disappointed. Those failures in life don't cause us to say "Let's elect any old hard-working person and we'll deal with their defects as they manifest themselves when they beat up a prisoner, or carelessly prescribe the wrong dose of drugs, or take the country into an illegal war". We hope for better and try to choose better and rightly so, even if we are disappointed at times.
Commons has no dispute resolution mechanisms to deal with problem users (beyond the admin noticeboard) and even lacks policy on this area (deferring often to Wikipedia to fill in policy holes). It certainly is dysfunctional wrt dealing with admins who turn out bad -- requiring them to clearly abuse their "power" rather than merely being dishonest or a bully, say. It is one thing to expect to have to guide a new admin in areas of copyright law or naming policy that they may be unfamiliar with (to pick random examples) but quite another to choose someone the community does not trust to be fair and honest in his dealings with other users. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So ... create the mechanisms. It's not all that difficult if the problem is acknowledged. en.Wikipedia quickly settled on a black and white response, keep or desysop. How about restrictions on use of tools? How about probation? How about mentorship, where a sysop has a supervising sysop? How about quick suspension where a sysop is asked, formally, to cease all use of tools (which can be total or specific), with, then normal dispute resolution process being used that could decide one of many options, from desysop at an extreme, to restrictions (compliance with which would be "voluntary," but violation of which could lead to summary desysop -- and, yes, this can be done, Stewards would need to see a clear policy following crystal clear standards, so that assessing violation is not subjective, that's all), to confirmation of the sysop, i.e., that nothing deserved restriction. Instead, for years, we flap our hands uselessly, oh "it's broken," but we do nothing to fix it. The problem is not "bad sysops." The problem is us. I'll stand with my vote. Fae could be an excellent sysop. He's got some issues, but I see plenty of sysops with "issues." Fae, if you are not confirmed here, which looks fairly likely, nevertheless, don't give up. Join those who are working for reform of the system, so that the system stops creating abuse and conflict. Meanwhile, enjoy your freedom. "Sysop" is a shit job. (That is not a criticism of sysops, but of the job, which can involve many hours of boring work, thankless, dealing with disagreeable people, etc. We can fix that, too.) --Abd (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Votes below are affected by the talk pages requests; so can't be considered as coming from a neutral sample of the community. Just marking this point for the consideration of the closing crat. Jee 01:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support --Butko (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Notafly (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Millions of contributions and a good job in Commons and the english Wikipedia is just few things that this experienced user has been done to the project. And regardless the problems caused, the adminship will be very helpful. So, please keep a good behaviour, rememmer that the community trust you. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain and suggesting speedy close as this thread is canvassed by the nominator himself. I'm not questioning the intentions of the OP; but it is terribly wrong. Jee 13:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Nothing wrong for me with Fae, but the different arguments make me hesitate. Pmau (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral A user (very) commited to the project who knows well the policies. I think (s)he's someone we can trust for deleting files and managing admin-stuff. I'm not fully aware of all this Russavia's drama but, IMO, we must wipe the slate clean. And, after all, if he fails and the experiment goes wrong... the adminship is revokable. In order to have good admins, we need to give a try to people who are not admins yet. It's that simple. I'd say {{support}}, but since I've been suggested to make a statement here I prefer staying "neutral". Strakhov (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Strakhov. With regard to the handful of late neutral "heads-up" notes. This is an attempt to get a wider perspective. This RFA has been negatively canvassed off-wiki, some of the sarcastic comments above are a direct result of that negative canvassing. For those unaware, every single past RFA of mine has been negatively canvassed (to put it mildly). -- (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @, could you please explain how you selected the recipients of your "heads-up" notes? WJBscribe (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Accounts that were highlighted as significant active contributors to categorizing upload projects that I have worked on. There was no bias for those that I have talked directly with, or ever met, and as mentioned by a participant here, happen to include those that have raised issues with my volunteer work. -- (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the phrasing a "handful of late neutral 'heads-up' notes" as, frankly, dishonest. The "canvassed off-wiki" cmt equally so. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Kürschner (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support People learn from their mistakes. It is good to give someone another chance. Especially when that person wants to be an admin not for prestige, but in order to be able to do more. Wieralee (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Allforrous (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is about adminship, not sainthood. Fæ does a lot of useful work here, and even though he & I don't always agree, I would expect he could do yet more if he had the admin tools, and I don't foresee him abusing those tools. That is what this should be about, not whether he is your favorite participant in the Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per above, as long as drama isn't created as a result --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I wanted to abstain but canvassing? Sorry but there is no huger nogo than that.. Natuur12 (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if there was a canvassing policy on Commons. As mentioned all RFAs have been significantly affected by negative canvassing. There is no good reason why the RFA candidate should be expected to pretend that canvassing is not happening. -- (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence to back up this strong accusation? Natuur12 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an accusation, this is intended as a statement of fact. You need only read what some of the participants in this !vote have publicly written off-wiki about their actions here, and what was written while my past RFAs were running.
    Using an offwiki site to canvass for a Commons RFA is not against any of our current policies, though I suspect if it were me doing it then it would be thought to be a bad thing. These off-wiki canvassed votes will be counted by a closing 'crat. The only way we might balance this direct manipulation of our processes would be to promote the !vote more widely to community members. I'm not against putting a neutral notice on the VP and extending this RFA for a week to see if it has any effect either way. -- (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I was still on the fence about this candidate until I saw the canvassing of several editors on my watchlist this morning[1]. I agree about the amount of useful work done by Fæ. It saddens me that so much talent often finds the need for the turn to the dramatic. Even recognizing the many good contributions by this candidate I cannot in good faith vote support this RfA after the canvassing. The fact that other stuff exists or claims that other RfA's have been affected by canvassing is out of the scope of this discussion where the only thing which matters is the behavior and contributions of this candidate at this time. While we do not expect our admins to be saints, it would not be responsible to elect an admin with a track record for drama and negativity, either. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have some positive suggestions for how better to counter negative canvassing, I would appreciate them being laid out. Feel free to raise the matter on AN as it may be a good area for policy improvement. There is no doubt after we have seen the last 4 years of having every Fae RFA canvassed off-wiki in a systematic and threatening way by the same people, it is unlikely to change next year or the years after. -- (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "If you have some positive suggestions for how better to counter negative canvassing, I would appreciate them being laid out." - Yes; you can use on-wiki boards like VP, AN, Community portals, list mails, etc. They are all targeted to radom samples; so will not affect the principle of "simple random sample". Here use some script/logic to choose the sample and so it can be a biased sample. So your argument "there was no bias for those" is wrong; they are biased; the voting pattern reveals it. Jee 16:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still time. I'll think about a neutral notice on the VP shortly then. As said, we have no guidelines, so being bold in this RFA might be useful as a precedent to discuss. -- (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Commons need people like Fæ.--MZaplotnik (edits) 16:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Fae's contributions are an immense benefit to this project. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Einstein2 (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Helmy oved 17:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Regardless of whether Fae is controversial as a Wikimedia Commons participant, Fae is an ideal candidate for executing the admin duties. Fae can be trusted to use the admin tools wisely, appropriately, and in accord with Wikimedia Commons rules. In my opinion, the people who are opposed to Fae's adminship do so under the premise that Wikimedia Commons admins are organizational representatives of the Wikimedia Commons public image. If that is the case, it should not be. On English Wikipedia admins are called janitors because they do dirty work, and janitors ought not be imagined to be brand representatives. These are separate functions, and Wikimedia Commons would do well to quit expecting admins to have the credentials and personal life of a soulless corporate executive. If there is community desire for some Wikimedia contributors to model as representatives of the community then invest this desire in bureaucrats or some role that is not associated with the ability to do janitorial cleanup, which is in demand and would be undoubtedly be done well by someone like Fae.
Fae has personal opinions about the gay rights movement. Many gays rights activists are rowdy, provocative, and outspoken, and if Fae is any of these things, then some of those behaviors should be tolerated in the spirit of accepting the culture of the LGBT movement. I do not favor discrimination in Wikimedia Commons on the basis of politics, especially when judging reliability for roles which should not depend on a person's politics. Write more policy which indicates that admins are not public representatives, then there would be less concern about what unwritten behavioral expectations there are for admins.
I have worked with Fae in medical and LGBT topics where he has assisted with institutional media donations. In person, Fae is one of a handful of Wikipedians in the world who has the social skills to meet with organizational representatives in person and to convince them to make large media donations to Wikimedia Commons. He is irreplaceable in this role and I want to see him free and supported to negotiate for more of what he wishes to request from organizations that would donate media to the Wikimedia community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit history I should be flattered when a person's single interest in this project from one year to the next is me. -- (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disingenuous - The Land has a long a wide involvement in wikimedia, and Commons, for better or worse, is still a part of the family. Its direction and ruling class effects us all. Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I hadn't been planning to contribute until I saw Fae asking people to do so on Twitter. The Land (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that you were watching me with such interest, though I was aware of your unpleasant Facebook posts about me. Frankly, I find it unsettling. -- (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, your tweet about this RFA (which is public, though I wouldn't normally have seen it as I don't follow you on Twitter) was retweeted by someone who I follow on Twitter; it really is that simple The Land (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support usebe persistent, hard working and dedicated to commons, Going through this request for adminship process 6 times shows a willingness to improve himself Oxyman (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. From my limited and recent interaction with Fae, I don't have any concerns about potential abuse of the admin tools, and he certainly has good uses for them. BMacZero (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Edjoerv (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Sorry Fae, on a personal level I like you, and you'll probably find me somewhat in your favour in that I think your participation on Commons should be the deciding factor in this RfA and not WMUK infighting or history from enwiki. Nonetheless, I can't shake the feeling that you bring significantly more heat than light to noticeboard threads and other contentious discussions. You're quick to see conspiracies where there aren't any and to accuse others of political or ulterior motives, and your siding with Russavia makes me deeply uncomfortable. What he finally did to convince the WMF to drop the hammer I don't know, but I know the guy was responsible for a sustained campaign of trolling and harassment against editors whom he disliked and that he thought nothing of disrupting Commons and other projects in pursuit of whatever his objectives were. Sure, most of it was juvenile, but these were not isolated incidents—this took place over months and years; that alone is reason ample reason to show someone the door and that a prospective administrator is willing to advocate on behalf of such a person disturbs me. Nobody is indispensable, and an administrator needs to be able to put the needs of the project above personal loyalties or any individual editor. This is based mostly on 'gut instinct' but Colin has done a good job of researching diffs below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Controversies are well in the past and Fae has made a huge contribution to Commons over the last year. Contrary to what Colin believes, avoiding conflict and keeping your nose clean is precisely the sort of mature behaviour that we need admins to display. --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RexxS, yes you are right, but the fear is a revert to form post promotion. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. The number of request for adminship makes me think that it is just for the flag and not actually to pursue the good work. Btw, this edit is definitely the type of demagogy and conflict-starting that a real admin would avoid. --Scoopfinder(d) 23:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Also note that Fae is actively canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral why the productive uploader on this project would want to be a do nothing admin, i don't know. using admin tools would be a waste of Fae-time; and look at all the commons-drama. i would suggest training a Fae army of GWtool meat-puppets to flood the zone. you could probably charge good money to use GWtoolset, since there is no support, and the demand is unending. commons is about to be inundated with a tidal wave of medical journals and the commons=dramaz of personal destruction continues. how long is it until all the admins get burnt out and leave? can't be too soon. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose /Ch1902 (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

More details on my oppose of this RFA

  • This is now Fae's sixth RFA. The first was deleted. Here are second, third, fourth and fifth. Required reading.
  • On Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 53#Legal action resulting from photographs by Haraldbischoff Fae suggested we delete all photos uploaded by a user and block him on the basis of his supposed off-wiki actions and rumours of such posted off-wiki. Many of the comments in that post showed poor judgment and placed much weight on unsubstantiated claims. As Martin K noted, such action could be seriously damaging to our reputation, and I feel demonstrates a lack of understanding of professional image-creator's feelings towards breaches of copyright.
  • Fae continues to spread rumours that Russavia's block was political/personal and claim this view is recognised by "most of the community". Once one steps away from the admin noticeboards / IRC channels, and engage with more than the handful of pro-Russavia users, the reality is different. Further example is Fae arguing that "Russavia was never banned", when in fact is was banned (albeit by WMF) -- we don't need admins who fly off the handle and start arguments about contentious topics when they are in the wrong themselves. Fae's continues to defend Russavia, despite Russavia's recent use of a sockpuppet account name to intimidate INC, and Russavia's recent posts on community noticeboards that were so offensive towards users here they were admin-deleted.
  • For someone who keeps banging on about "maintaining a collegiate environment", Fae demonstrates "high sensitivity combined with high confrontation" (one of the few comments I agree with User:Abd about). See Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 4#Dschwen's behaviour and note that this post was due to the word "bully" and compare that with the nasty hot-tempered language I quote from Fae in my post at 15:04.
  • Fae is quite happy to accuse others of "gaming the system and trolling" (for, it seems, simply changing a pair of = in a section heading) yet later will claim he "find[s] use of the word 'troll' unhelpful and always insulting, at least on a public forum. It seems fair to presume that those using word are going out of their way to create a hostile environment".
  • I am glad that Fae is making an effort to be less of a drama magnet, though not entirely successfully as seen from the above posts. But I have never seen him apologise for past behaviour, or even recognise he has misbehaved. In particular, were situations where he (and later Russavia) attacked me (and others) on multiple occasions for supposedly having an anti-LGBT bias, but failed to demonstrate anything other than his incompetence with statistics. I am therefore quite concerned that he is simply biting his tongue in order to get the admin bit. And then, when there is no need to moderate one's writing or actions, I fear the Fae we all know too well will simply reappear.
  • I see nothing to be gained from Fae having admin powers and plenty for him continuing as is. Fae does make a substantial contribution to our image-base and can be helpful on our forums and wrt running bots.

-- Colin (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Your previous requests for administratorship are all failed. What have you learned from that? Taivo (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taivo,
a couple of months ago I discussed my draft RFA with WereSpielChequers. He has spent a lot of time helping with improving the English Wikipedia's RFA process and suggested I address past RFAs in my nomination, which I briefly tried doing in the last paragraph. I hope this makes it clear that, yes I have a long and embarrassing history as a drama magnet, both on and off wiki. After being in the press in 2012, with attempts at that time to create a scandal (honestly I'm too old for it to be all that interesting), I suspect this kept a few drama mongers on my back, so for the past four years not a month goes by without more off-wiki posts trolling and making fun of me. I only went back to look at the last two RFAs, issues raised further back just seem less and less relevant as the years pass and reading them brings back sad memories. This is the second year where I have not been a member of the UK chapter, so though this was an issue raised in both the last two, it's been irrelevant for my Commons volunteer work for a long time now.
If anything, all that past history including being subject to homophobic abuse in 2011/12, banned on the English Wikipedia in 2012 after a long and complex Arbcom case, and as a result getting caught up in the bigger politics of Wikimedia leading me to resign as WMUK chair and chair of the Chapters Association, gives me a fair and compassionate understanding of why some people go on a downward spiral, and how as a community we should do better at giving people a path to put aside past infractions, even socking or petty vandalism, but then judge a valuable contributor by who they are today and the value they can offer to our shared mission as a collegiate volunteer. On Wikipedia it's known as the Standard offer. Maybe some people feel that though I have never been banned or blocked due to my behaviour on Commons, my mistakes are big enough to take a few years to work out rather than six months, and obviously some feel that some below par examples of my behaviour this year are still sufficiently worrying for me not to be trusted with admin rights, however there ought to be a moment when enough time has passed, and after a period of good contributions I can move on and be treated as reformed and judged to the same standard as any other RFA candidate, without requiring that I first have a clean start and a new account name. I had hoped that the end of summer would be a good time to try again, and even if this RFA is now doomed, I would encourage those voting me down to give example diffs to help me with evidence from the past year that I can learn from, especially if I am going to try another RFA at some point.
Russavia has been raised, I was hoping to avoid this big tangent, however I suspect this is behind some of the critical comments about my judgement. It is probably worth me pointing out that I have on several occasions explained that I have never supported or defended Russavia's trolling of Jimmy Wales or anyone else. I did enjoy working with Russavia on our Avionics project, and this remains a highly valuable large collection of transport photography, something I remain proud of helping to achieve and had fun creating. In my private messages to Russavia over the last few years (we have never met or talked in video conference), I always encouraged him to find an alternative to being unnecessarily abrasive, especially when he seemed determined to try poking the bear when he was blocked by English Wikipedia's Arbcom and yet at the time I never thought that was a lost cause, did not understand why he worked against his own interests and I knew from our work together what a great asset to the project he can be and how much he enjoyed taking part. It is unfortunate that it appears that neither elected community representatives, nor Russavia, will get to examine the evidence or complaints that resulted in globally locking his account. I still hope that the WMF will revisit their approach to governance and transparency, as I worry that several established Wikimedians have been subject to highly unpleasant and increasingly sophisticated Joe Job attacks, including myself, and so any evidence would benefit from review and a chance at alternative explanation.
If there is a legally satisfactory way that people elected to represent the community can be given the evidence that Russavia has attacked and harassed Wikimedians to a criminal level (or whatever serious events the evidence is about), I would cut off my personal communication and support whatever remedy is recommended to ensure we can maintain a non-hostile environment on our projects. -- (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are some encouraging words in this response. Not least of which was that I fully expected the opinions of those opposed to your adminship would be distorted and reframed to appear unacceptable. But no, there does appear to be a genuine attempt to understand and accurately describe other's feelings and viewpoints. I am disappointed that the most you can criticise of your past behaviour on this site is that you've been a drama magnet. I'm not expected some huge "Woe is me for I am a sinner" monologue on an RFA, but encourage you to find ways to personally mend bridges with those who oppose your adminship. Russavia crossed a line from which there is no going back both in the specific issue that got him WMF global banned, and in his subsequent behaviour towards the community here and his complete disrespect for his ban. But I agree with you that one should not hold grudges towards a reformed character and there's no fundamental reason why you shouldn't expect a support vote from me in future (though I continue to be puzzled why you would want this "shit job", as Adb calls it, and go through this annual torture in order to try to achieve it). If you are interested in discussing the sticking points that remain and dealing with them, then contact me on my talk page and I will try my best to be constructive. -- Colin (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears my offer to talk and make amends has not been taken by Fae. And Fae's request that opposers provide diffs from which he could learn has also not been taken. Indeed many have chosen to oppose without comment. While Fae is interested in achieving sufficient respectability to pass his next RFA, it seems he isn't really interested in trying to get along better with those he has fallen out with [merely, perhaps, to avoid them]. And we can also assume such people don't appear motivated for guiding Fae towards adminship in future. It seems very unlikely that a future RFA will be successful, and I suggest Fae withdraws this one dismisses any idea of opening another. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, your deductions here about me are incorrect. I have chosen to not approach you for your advice in the last day on administration policy, based on reading many discussions you have pursued over the past 2 years that make me believe this would not be a sensible thing to try. I have and do consult with others who are Commons administrators in good standing for their advice, this just happens in private correspondence. I would appreciate it if you avoided polarising discussion, and tried to make a more kindly approach with a presumption of good faith. Thanks -- (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt your last comment, this is typical Fae. Whatever he's accusing someone else of, that's what he's doing. Fae, the reason for the highly polarised votes on this RFA is you and you alone; you cannot blame anyone else. And your assumption that engaging with me on resolving the reasons I (and others) have opposed your candidacy would not be "sensible" perhaps indicates your lack of assumption of good faith towards my offer. An awful lot of people have voted oppose in the strongest terms: what are you doing to change their vote next time? It won't change simply by bot-uploading images nor by simply trying to keep your nose clean. You need to deal with the issues each of those people have with your potential adminship. -- Colin (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the recent level of canvassing by the self-nominator, and its result above, deeply troubling, and a good indication of how the nominator would operate if elected. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notices asking for wider views are not canvassing for support as these do not ask for a particular vote. The Village Pump notice is neutral and was in response to Jkadavoor's proposal above diff. My Twitter post said "Last chance to add your aye or nay to my Commons request for admin", not "vote for me". Ignoring the views added in the last 24 hours would be to dismiss some impressive Wikimedia Commons content contributors, one need only check edit and upload counts to assess that fact. I value and appreciate their opinion here.
The question of guidance on neutrality for RFA notices, and a revisiting of whether Commons should recognize off-wiki canvassing as a problem, can be raised more generally on COM:AN once this RFA is closed, as separately suggested with Ellin Beltz diff. -- (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking for this "off-wiki canvassing" website and found a forum discussing Fae and his RFA. It isn't a website I normally read. The discussion was generally negative but involved merely a handful of individuals. I only identified two members of that discussion who declared a wiki account and voted above (but there may be others I didn't spot) and both of them supported Fae (though one appeared to do so because he thought Fae being an admin would give them more lolz). In contrast, Fae has pinged about 55 self-selected Commons users for their vote, and notified all his Twitter followers (who presumably are inclined favourably towards him -- but who knows, I'm too old for Twitter). -- Colin (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]