Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 15;  Oppose = 22;  Neutral = 0 – 40% Result: Unsuccessful. odder (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 22:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

For nearly 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:

  • 250,000 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. Uploads are counted here though more have been uploaded under other tools such as Faebot.
  • 1,270,000 edits on Wikimedia projects with most of these on Commons.[1]. 2,600,000 further edits under Faebot and 23,000 under Noaabot.[2][3] Most of Faebot's work has been part of my project to add simple location categories to photographs from Geograph, a visual record of the whole of the UK created by enthusiasts. Other projects have included identification of problematic mobile phone uploads by examining EXIF data and piggybacking on Tineye's image matching service, automatic categorization of identical duplicates using the Commons API, 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 to be interesting.
  • 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 steering group member of the GLAMwiki Toolset 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.
  • I am a 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 available [4] with an independent summary of the facts given here.

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

  • I have been developing tools (using Tineye) for automatically scanning and analysing mobile uploads, including marking blatant copyright violations which could be deleted on sight, such as most of those listed at User:Fæ/Mobiledeletions.
  • I have done a lot of work with identifying duplicates, this resulted in many thousands of deleted files which I could have handled myself.
  • For context you can see a track record for DRs I raise at User:Fæ/DRs, though obviously there are many more that I mark using speedy processes or DRs that I comment on.

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. If notifying and eventually blocking accounts becomes a backlog issue on Commons, such as future mobile initiatives attracting problems, then my skills in this area might be a good use of the admin tools. A related analysis on Commons was this report of anon IPs raising DRs.

One last area comes from OTRS. These sorts of admin actions are quite varied, which is why I find them interesting, it is quite a hassle to have to work through others to explain and coordinate admin actions (particularly where privacy matters mean this has to be discussed off-wiki), effectively unnecessary duplication of effort which we could do without considering the low numbers of volunteers who are available and willing to spend time on these sorts of things.

Fæ (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • MichaelMaggs - when you're an administrator and bureaucrat, your opinion carries more weight, you should at least be prepared to discuss and further justify your opinion. It's been incredibly difficult to get your input and opinion on other matters too and I'm very disappointed. Nick (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion has been formed in part by those interactions that have been linked to below by Colin and Darkweasel94. None of them are new to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I do not trust this user. I would think that has changed, however, This user has used puppets in the past and this history is always present in my mind, there are things that for me are simply unforgivable.--Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Per COM:ADMIN, Admins are "trusted members of the Commons community" "prepared to work constructively with others". "Admin status on Commons is not an honour for outstanding content contributors". Fae's outstanding content contributions on Commons are largely batch upload/edit. These are not relevant to adminship. If you want to thank Fae for those contributions, use a barnstar. When Fae deviates from interacting with bots and files and wiki markup, things quickly unravel. Woe betide anyone who comes into disagreement with Fae.
  • Fae overstates issues, adding drama and polarising debate.
  • Fae's judgement wrt sexual matters is poor. He is unable to determine what is "NSFW", for example. Fae is currently topic banned on English Wikipedia from images and BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed.
  • Fae is too ready to find LGBT bias and accuse others.
  • Fae is too ready to take rejection or opposing views as a personal attack.
  • Fae outrageously trolled the Pricasso video deletion.
  • Fae accuses others of the very bad-faith misdeed he is engaging in.
  • Fae's lack of honesty dooms all attempts at a fair discussion on a topic of disagreement.
Some may consider Wikipedia blocks, bans and being "formally invited to permanently stay off [Jimbo's] talk page" as a recommendation for Commons adminship. But such rhetoric doesn't stand scrutiny. Adminship isn't earned by running a bot and uploading thousands of images.
References:
Like Michael, I have no desire to get drawn into a detailed discussion, for reasons that should be pretty obvious once you look at the links supplied. It is very hard to review Fae's contributions as there is so much noise among the interaction with humans. For this reason, I have supplied diffs/links so readers can judge for themselves whether my opinion is fair. -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - I'm sorry, but I have to agree with several of the concerns mentioned above - Jcb (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I supported last time but I now have to agree with much of what MichaelMaggs and Colin have said (although I don't really care about what happened/happens on enwiki). I'm going to add these two links to what Colin has already provided: [8] and Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/12#African_women_icon_-_an_offensive_amateur_cartoon_hosted_on_Commons. Overall, this user does not have the mellow attitude I'd like to see from Commons admins, and that problem has become worse, not better, since his last RfA, hence my change of !vote. darkweasel94 17:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Fae has a history of drama in virtually everything he has been involved in in the Wikimedia movement and has an ability to lose friends alienate people which is almost unparalleled. He has held many positions of responsibility - en.wikipedia admin, Chair and Trustee of Wikimedia UK, Chair of the Wikimedia Chapters Association - none of which have ended well for him or for those who entrusted him with those responsibilities. This is because he is unable to take responsibility for his actions and his response to any criticism of his behaviour is to throw up smokescreens and make counter-accusations in an attempt to evade such responsibility. Plenty of evidence of this has been posted in this and previous RFAs already, and I won't add more, just say that my opinion of him is based on many off-wiki interactions where the same pattern has been present. In short - while his contributions on Commmons are valuable, you should run a mile rather than offer him any position of trust. The Land (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Recent drama blown up in the mailing list shows that no lessons have been learnt. We do not need more drama here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support active, dedicated, never blocked and due to the experience I have with him - previous votes of me were support/neutral/neutral Trijnsteltalk 21:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - One of our most experienced and best knowledgeable users when it comes to copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A very combative and abusive editor on Commons. Needlessly polarizes every substantive debate on Commons. Annoying habit of forum shopping when things aren't going his way. Twists people words to antagonize and/or introduce his LGBT agenda, often harming the very legitimate movement he supports. Constant drama filled behavior and an annoying need to call anyone that opposes him a homophobe. Routine poor judgment: Here he introduces the issue of racism to get an image deleted when a simple COM:SCOPE argument he started with was sufficient. Here and here he appears to be using low level doxing to intimidate an IP editor. I have seen elsewhere he indicates a willingness to reach out to the employer to report what he believes is improper use of corporate resources. I wonder what he would do with admin tools if given the chance. No thanks, Commons can be hostile enough without constant worry that you will be outed by Fae when editing from work. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Colin. Béria L. Rodríguez msg 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I supported previous RfA's, but meanwhile I fail to see particularly mature behaviour in several discussions. Less is sometimes more. I'm very sorry. --A.Savin 23:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm sad to say this, but I don't think that Fæ would make a good admin here right now. He has great technical ability and knowledge, and he always raises very good points in discussions that are well worth listening to. However, he does tend to go too far in those same discussions, and he tends to not listen to other people's viewpoints. He has generated a lot of unnecessary drama in the past, and does continue to do so (although some of this is due to accumulated baggage from the last few years). In time I hope that he can learn the lessons of the past and move on to being more constructive, at which he may well become an excellent candidate for adminship, but I don't feel that he is at that point right now. Fæ, if your nomination here is unsuccessful, then I would encourage you to wait until another user nominates you for adminship rather than self-nominating again. In the meantime I'd very much encourage you to continue your excellent content work here! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for you Mike - you've not edited in 3 days or so, made no other edits today and there's no message on your talk page, could I ask how you were made aware of this RfA, and ask if you were canvassed to support or oppose by anybody ? Thanks, Nick (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Nick the time difference between [9] and [10] is only about 49 hours (although if your settings are set to the right timezone, you might indeed see three days if you compare only the date without time), and similarly long or even longer time gaps occur quite frequently in Mike Peel's contribution history of recent days. Not everybody has time for Commons every day, but they might still be watching Commons:Administrators/Requests. Sorry, but that is the most ridiculous accusation of being canvassed that I've ever seen. darkweasel94 03:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Nick. I came to this page after Fæ linked to it from a WMUK discussion page. I also saw it mentioned on Facebook. I wasn't canvassed to support/oppose, I just thought my viewpoint might be useful here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Mike, much appreciated. It's difficult (for me, anyway) to shake off the feeling there's a line of WMUK people queing up to Oppose Fae's request, but I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, as you're some of the people who know him best. Nick (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since this question might just as well be addressed to me, I hope you don't mind if I answer it too. I don't tend to participate in RFAs on Commons, and also generally tend to steer clear of RFAs for people I know from Wikimedia UK, for several reasons. However, this case is definitely exceptional: several times I have seen Fae step up to positions of responsibility, then cause a great deal of drama in them, the harm from which far outweighs the positive impact of his contributions. While I am a great believer in giving people the benefit of the doubt and second chances, his pattern of behaviour is quite consistent between several different contexts and situations, and he shows no sign of having learned from the previous incidents. So when I heard about this discussion, I thought it would be best to contribute. No-one asked me to support or oppose and, indeed, the person who brought it to my attention hasn't voted. Hope this helps clarify my motivations for contributing. The Land (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Saffron Blaze, Colin, and my own observations. —Mono 02:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It took some time until Fae understood what a Template:PD-USGov-license means. Nevertheless, he is a very good image "transferist". --High Contrast (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Mike's comments above are fair. I wasn't going to contribute, and I won't offer a support or oppose, but I might just pick up where Mike left off. Fae is somebody for whom I used to have the utmost respect. He was a very effective chair of Wikimedia UK, a well-respected admin on enwiki, a very active OTRS agent, and somebody to whom I would turn for advice. His fall from grace, while spectacular, had very little to do with how he acquitted himself in those positions (which was generally beyond reproach); unfortunately for Fae and for this movement, the drama which contributed to this fall seems to have made him extremely bitter, and he now seems to struggle to differentiate friends from enemies and his contributions to discussions are often needlessly inflammatory. That's a great shame, because the points he makes are often very valid and worthy of serious discussion, but are all too often forgotten because of the way he raises them. I hope this will change, because those intelligent, insightful contributions greatly benefited Wikipedia, Commons, WMUK, and the other areas of the movement that Fae devoted his energies to. But for now, I fell compelled to comment just to ask people to form a complete opinion, not a partial one based on Fae's most recent contributions and the opinions of those he has pissed off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think Fæ is a hard working and valued contributor on Commons. Regrettably, I do not trust his personal judgement with the admin tools. It is only a few days ago I read Fæs comments on the recent odder RfB, and I thought, nothing has changed since his last RfA. If it were me, who applied for the fourth time for the tools I would have started my request by referring to the previous ones and clearly address the concerns raised in the previous ones and point to evidence that the criticism had been taken on board and behavior changed accordingly. I suggest Fæ not to do further self-nominations, but wait until another user is willing to nominate him for a new RfA. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As several others have noted Fae is an experienced and dedicated contributor. He is also someone who I have successfully and productively worked with here on Commons (I've also worked well with him on various other parts of the movement including Wikipedia and the UK chapter, but for a Commons RFA I think it reasonable to concentrate on Commons matters.) I don't always agree with Fae, I can remember at least one policy discussion within the movement where we were at polar extremes, but that hasn't stopped us working well together on things like the Geograph categorisation. I appreciate that there are others who have a very different view of him, I'd like to respectfully take this opportunity to make them aware that Fae has a side to him that they may not be aware of, and that in my view he would serve this community well as an admin. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Colin's outline above. There is no way that this disreputable, disruptive and deceptive individual should be given any additional status on this project. — Scott • talk 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - per Colin's statement, and per Slaunger above. Not referencing the previous three RfAs and discussing what's changed since then?!! - Alison ❤ 03:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's nothing personal, but like some of the folks who've !voted above, I don't believe granting you the tools would result in a net benefit to the project. Don't get me wrong though, I believe your content contributions are invaluable, and I encourage you to keep up the excellent work -FASTILY 03:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per AGF. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment on transparency. Transparency is important for an admin account. It is vital to be able to judge whether disputes and interactions are being handled fairly. Fae makes this nearly impossible by the continuous stream of bot (assisted) edits made with his regular account. Jianhui67's vote rationale is invalid: AGF is not a reason to support adminship. If it were, we'd make everyone an admin on new account creation and remove the bit only when they are naughty. We have no reason to need to "assume" anything about Fae. I've no doubt the few people supporting above who have seen only good things personally. The same would have been true last year for me. But they need to seriously examine his account to get the full picture. This is currently not easy to do, as it would be for typical editors. If it were, I believe Fae's interactions with others on the project would have let by now to a block, not promotion. -- Colin (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing so bad about Fae's edits on Commons. What the links for bans and blocks you gave above show only on English Wikipedia. About transparency, IMO en.wp ArbCom pages, userpages has shown this fairly clear. AGF: why not? If no one ever AGF (or Assume Bad Faith all the time), things would get even worse than Polish Wikipedia. IMO if Fae is admin (read the statement above), benefit > harm --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The links are not only on Wikipedia, there are plenty outrageous examples on Commons. Though the idea that en:wp bans are irrelevant or even a "badge of honour" (as someone put it in Fae's previous RfA) is truly weird. Perhaps Polish WP is a bad environment, I have no idea, so maybe this influences your feelings on WP comparisons. -- Colin (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin, I'm not sure what you're saying with the first part of your comment. Are you saying that people who do a large amount of (possibly automated) content work and less frequently also interact with other people are being intransparent and deliberately hiding their interactions? If so, I can't agree with you - I consider such contribution histories a good thing in general. Indeed Special:Contributions could have more filtering options, but it's an equally good or bad tool for all users. darkweasel94 11:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying it is deliberate hiding of edits. I agree the tools could be improved (or perhaps there are options I'm not aware of) but it is next to impossible to review project/user/talk discussions when people user their "human" account for such (semi)automated actions. Other editors have similar contrib difficulties. If it leads to people voting support at RfA for a person who they simply can't examine so are left to "assume good faith" then that is a very bad thing indeed. AGF is a fine policy in general, but it is not an excuse to fail to investigate, to ignore past evidence or to be naive and think someone will magically behave like a saint when given the admin bit. Admin is a position of trust and trust has to be earned. -- Colin (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "AGF" isn't by itself a reason to support an RfA, and I also agree that adminship is a position of trust, not just of "AGF", but I don't think anybody should be criticized, accused of intransparency, or treated in any way worse for merely doing a lot of Cat-a-lot, VFC and similar edits. These are often quite tedious but very useful to the project. Indeed, the problem of "no idea what this person does, but I'll just support" is the reason why we give rationales for our votes - so that other voters can have a more informed opinion than just the one they get from five minutes of Special:Contributions. :) darkweasel94 13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think all of Fae's edits are human. If they are, then he leads a truly tedious life. So I think he could move many of these out of his account contribs. That would help with transparency. As would better tools. My motivation for commenting was the AGF vote, coupled with Michael not providing diffs and claiming someone could examine the contribs -- they can't examine Fae's contribs easily. Which is a genuine problem. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Alison et al, and per my comments in the previous installments in this series. The previous request seems very recent, so much so that it seems a striking lack of judgement to be asking the same question again, so soon, and in basically unchanged circumstances. Staggeringly, the nomination does not even attempt to address the reasons the previous requests failed, or, indeed, mention them at all. Begoon - talk 11:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Did not answer my question. This is quite important question for me. This makes me feel, that Fæ has not learned anything. Bytheway, there is some time to change my vote. Taivo (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Fae had already left this discussion as there is no meaning in answering the questions now. There already too many opposes which need no further clarifications. He didn't answer my question too which was posted on the very first day. But he let me know (through private mail) that spending time to answer questions is not practical now that I fully understand. I advised him to withdraw; but he preferred to see this RFA run its course. (See his comment below.) So don't blame for not answering your question. It is not very relevant now. Jee 16:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Fae doesn't believe this RfA can succeed, and is not willing to engage in good-faith discussion, then an admin/crat should close this now. He is wasting people's time. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will end tomorrow, any way. Jee 16:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I didn't see much merits in the first two bullet points in your profile as a reason for becoming an admin. In fact, it is better a non-admin doing such things; and your valuable "administration time" will be stolen by such works; I afraid. This is a collaborative project; so sharing of jobs and depending others for other purpose is better than holding all hats together.
I like your third point "Discussion and development of Commons policies and the presentation and promotion of Commons in 'real life' ...". We had participated together in many discussions and agreed in many points, like importance of respecting privacy, etc. But what disappointed me is, I felt in many occasions that you are tempted to either stay away or forgetting to stand firmly on your POV, when the topic is involving "some people you can't openly oppose". It is quite natural; but I expect firm stands from an admin (or 'crat). Time will pass, people will come and go; we must stay firmly on our POV unless we learn that we were wrong.
I noticed your silence in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg. Could you explain why you prefer so and could you say what we can do to clear the uncertainty. Or, you think the current uncertainty is good for Commons?
I have opened a discussion at Template_talk:Consent#Full_consent.3F. I think the declaration from a author on behalf of the subject is not enough to consider as consent is granted. I know COM:AGF; but don't think it help on legal matters like this. What do you think? Currently we have a case where the author stated that the intercourse photo depicts him and his wife in a private environment and he tried to even mention her name. But he didn't mention his name. Do you think such works are eligible to host in Commons? If so; what measures we have to take to protect her privacy? Or, whether she doesn't deserve any privacy (for her real name)?
I like your fifth point too "I am a co-founder of Wikimedia LGBT which includes the Commons initiative LGBT Free Media Collective." Glad to see people trying to make an environment for people in difficulties. I saw several times you quarreled with people for you rights to represent you as an open gay. I don't think being part of a special group will make any special consideration in a generic discussion (not related to that topic); but enjoyed such quarrels in a humorous way.
Not voting now; may change my mind after reading your replies to this or other threads (if any). Good luck. Jee 03:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fæ: Considering the number of opposes, I see not much meaning in continue to defend further. So I suggest to withdraw for the time being and come back after a few (6) moths (if you think so). I hope you can and will continue your works without an admin flag. Jee 03:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is good advice, Jee. The community has been asked now for the fourth self-nom. Is that a record? Enough surely for the message to sink in. It isn't about the uploads or the knowledge of copyright issues. It is the person. And that is very unlikely to change in another 6 months. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have corresponded earlier with Jee by email and concluded that I would rather see this RFA run its course.
The succession of views from Wikimedia UK members and trustees over the last 24 hours, disappointingly including Michael Maggs as the current Chairman of Wikimedia UK (I am a past Chairman, as is Chris Keating), has muddied the water with discussion and airing of long past grievances and embedded politics that have nothing to do with Commons, nor any action I have made on this project. It is a pity that some of these comments are defaming my character rather than being based on what I could do as an admin on commons, though no doubt responding to any of these overtly hostile comments with either rebuttal, corrections or confession would just cause more of the same and take this RFA even further off topic. I will take time to reflect on what is being said here and why there is so much interest from the Chapter before considering making any further replies. --Fæ (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on Fae's current suitability to become a Commons admin is based on my recent own knowledge and has nothing to do with "airing of long past grievances and embedded politics". I have read about events that happened years ago, long before I even joined WMUK, but I know very little about them. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that it might be best to look at it less as "so much interest from the Chapter" and more as "so much interest from people who have spent substantial amounts of time with me". One reasonable explanation for why there is involvement from WMUK chapter members is simply that they're in the top N percent of people you interact with, and so (of course) have strong opinions, positive (WSC) and negative (MichaelMaggs) about your suitability. They've seen the most of you ;p. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds, I have successfully avoided any contact with you for what is a period of years now. Considering your unacceptable behaviour at that time in the eyes of your employer, I am surprised that I would need to explain why it is unwise for you to be interjecting here. Go away and keep away. --Fæ (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, you haven't interacted with me for years now. As you'll also note, I haven't voted, because I consider our interactions prior to that point to be highly unpleasant, due to things both my fault and yours. I'll continue not voting, because I don't think it's fair for me to judge you based on, as said, interactions years ago - you may have matured in the meantime. Your comment here, though, is indicative of precisely the attitude I feared you'd retained, and precisely the attitude people like Michael seem to be worried about; I'll let it stand on its own merits, and go back to gardening. Ironholds (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I didn't bother to give the reason for my opinion originally above, which was a mistake. Now I will give my opinion: Fae, er, has drama issues. This is undebatable. But given the sharp need we have for administrators right now, I think what's far more important is an admin who has experience with copyright issues. For the most part, administratorship on Commons is about un-drama-able issues; I'm not worried that Fae would worsen the few problems we do have. Rather, I'm much more worried about the hundreds of copyvios and out of scope images uploaded daily which we never catch. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're short enough on man-hours as it is. If (or when) Fae causes drama (or when it inevitably follows him around), it will, by definition, detract from the already limited time our editors & admins spend on improving this project. Empirically, the costs would seem to outweigh the benefits. -FASTILY 07:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. Far, far too much time has been spent on Fae-related drama already. We should not amplify the inevitable future outbreaks by adding sysop privilege matters to them. — Scott • talk 14:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Your requests for adminship have failed thrice. What have you learned from them/that? Taivo (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ4&oldid=116869948"