Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ (2019)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 23;  Oppose = 29;  Neutral = 1 - 44% Result. Unsuccessful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ (2019)

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

For 9 years I have helped with many contributions to Commons and learned much through working collegially with others on open knowledge content projects. There is a wiki CV on my user page which gives some context for my involvement with the wider Wikimedia community. Here are a few Commons highlights:

  • 4.5 million images uploaded from a wide range of sources, including 2,800 of my own photographs
  • 3.8 million edits under Faebot, which has a wide scope but is mostly for maintenance and reporting, and 33,000 under Noaabot, created to maintain our mirror of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration USA weather graphics
  • Discussion and development of Commons policies and in past years advocated for Commons in real life meetings with GLAMs and other institutions, such as Wellcome Images, the British Library, the British Museum and Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums
  • 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. My last sysop request was four years ago, and all RFAs listed here.

The most active area where I need the admin tools is handling deletions and undeletions with automated support, examples include handling non-identical duplicates and BLP overwrites. I doubt I would be especially active in blocking accounts compared to other administrators, though I did use automated tools in interesting ways on en.wp to identify anonymous vandal accounts and (uncontroversially) blocked a large number of them on that project after suitable warnings had been exhausted. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RFAs:

  1. January 2012 (Courtesy blanked. The details remain available in the page history.)
  2. May 2013
  3. September 2013
  4. February 2014
  5. January 2015
  6. September 2015

Votes

I'm in doubt now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and to an extent what we see here is an unsuccessful attempt at good hand (commons), bad hand (en). Even if contained, one does not excuse the other. Ceoil (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While by list below does indeed demonstrate that "obviously nothing changed", your claim that oppose voting in this RFA is "their only Commons edit in years" is easily demonstrably false. Wittylama (129 edits and 5 uploads in 2019), Ceoil (129 edits and 43 uploads in 2019), The Land (13 edits and 3 uploads in 2019, including the discussion on the "-NC proposal" detailed in the list below). Indeed all the oppose votes so far have been from people with other edits and uploads this year. These are Commoners too. Tuvalkin, we're here to discuss Fae's suitability for adminship and not anybody else. Making disparaging (and false) comments about edit counts is simply a personal attack. If you want to defend your friend's suitability, you could start by explaining how Fae turning their DR on plush toys into allegations of threats, stalking and harassment does not fully demonstrate the sort of "drama magnet" we don't need as an admin. -- Colin (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: unfortunately it has been drawn to my attention that this RfA has been posted about off-wiki as of 5th October. This may help explain the odd pattern you have noticed. Claims such as destroying other editors, are peculiar. It would be super if folks could dial down the rhetoric, I am not a political candidate nor a criminal. This request for sysop tools is to serve the community better and for the benefit of our joint cause of open knowledge. Nothing more. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "odd pattern". Every one of the oppose votes so far is by a Commoner who edits and uploads here. I'm sorry the list below contains a lot of hostile rhetoric, but those words in italics are yours. I'm afraid you sound a bit like Boris Johnson asking for parliament to "dial down the rhetoric", when he is himself the source of much of it. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally participate in Commons RFAs, but when I do see one which could result in the community making a very bad decision, I do feel a duty to come and help prevent that from happening. The Land (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original thread was about your repeated remarks back in 2018 and these words were taken as an allegation by another editor at the time, diff. I do not have access to the uploads, but they are asserted to have included head and shoulder portraits as well as male nudity. Rather than cherry picking, the original statement was deliberately mild, with a general comment that was actually responding to and closing down the uploader's original comment which used these words while demonstrating that the Commons community takes these issues seriously, not intended as an attack on yourself by myself. I apologise for writing this in a way that I agree can be misinterpreted. Unfortunately the uploader ceased contributing to Commons immediately after this case.
"Though Fitzroy is getting a bit ranty here, there is a good point being made that a little kindness goes a long way. Clearly you are an anti-pron cruisader, if you want to continue raising deletion requests on images with nudity, do so without personally insulting or degrading the photographer or models. Any comments which appear to be promoting bigotry or harassment will and should be taken seriously.". With regard to the words "anti-pron cruisader", this still appears to not be an exaggeration, as has been the stated single purpose of your account "Fighting a never-ending battle against copyright vios and smut." since you created it in 2018.
With regard to my use of sysop tools, you would be free to carry on your anti-smut campaign in line with Common's open policies with regard to reasonable discussion of content and project scope. As with others, I encourage you to pursue case books for evidence to change policy if that is your end goal, rather than mass cut & pasting comments like "worthless" in DRs that feature nudity. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Colin. Masum Reza📞 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Christian Ferrer, Taivo, Hedwig in Washington and Érico. Strakhov (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think Fae is a net positive for both Commons and the Wikimedia community and we are all better off that they are here, but I can't overlook the concerns raised by Colin, T Cells, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Colin. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I think it's worth a try. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I've previously supported Fae becoming an administrator here on Commons, but I'm not able to do so at this time. I do agree with Gamaliel that Fae is undoubtedly a net positive for Commons and the wider Wikimedia movement, but the concerns of Colin and others do concern me. I think, and I know this is a most ineloquent way of saying this, Fae as a sysop may be less of a net positive, or become a net negative for the project. Nick (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ankry (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The drama history says it all. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - While I have had civil and cordial interaction with Fae in person at face to face events, a request for adminship must ultimately be about one's suitability for the roles and responsibilities of adminship in this socio-technical space. The dynamic as described by Colin and others here are serious, verifiable and unfortunately disqualifying. I hope Fae can reflect on this and continue on as a productive and collegial member of the community. -- Fuzheado (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Commons is changing. Probably for the better. On the flip side of the coin – the less active, strong-willed and rigorous sysops we have, the longer admin backlog is. Sealle (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Colin and Elcobbola. I'll disclose up front that I am less than active on Commons nowadays; frankly, I lost my passion to admin due to users like Fae who constantly cause drama, or find themselves surrounded by it. Being around that drama gets tiring real quick.. ~riley (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support I have seen some improvements from Fae, but the issues which Colin brought up are rather serious and need to be addressed. I hope that Fae will take the concerns raised seriously and reflect on them. I understand where the opposers are coming from, and they brought up valid points. I don't doubt Fae's ability to use the tools, but the conflicts here may influence his decisions and judgement when performing controversial actions. Nevertheless, I'm willing to give him a chance. Jianhui67 T★C 11:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There is a massive history here that I'm not fully familiar with. (and never will be) I feel I can't make a properly informed vote because of that. I would happily support giving Fæ the mop for 3 months or 6 months to evaluate, but this is not an option. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Being an administrator is not a simple task, it is more than knowing how to use the tools. I believe that you have exemplary knowledge of copyright and are familiar with procedures. I would like to know how you handle conflicts, hence I would appreciate it if you could answer the following questions. If one questions your actions (deletions, blocks etc), how would you respond to them? What do you think is the best way to resolve conflicts? Jianhui67 T★C 17:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using the tools is quite a separate role from being a contributor. Use of sysop tools is always accountable, which is a condition of being able to use them. Where there are conflicts and questions, or simply liminal (or "edge") cases in terms of procedure and guidelines, I would have no issue with stepping back and letting a fellow administrator reach their own conclusion, or start a consensus discussion as we see often happen with more tricky actions at the Administrator's noticeboard as a natural form of governance. The tools are not there to be used to "win" arguments, nor even to create policy.
    A parallel might be what happens with larger upload projects, when we find have found a pattern of copyright issues from the source. In the case of the 100,000 images from the Wellcome, based on questions being raised by other contributors, I created a DR for around 2,000 files which were problematic and could be handled as a batch process as they were all posters from the 1980s where copyright release could not be verified, despite having a suitable license at the source. Similarly where another user has been systematically checking through a batch I encourage the use of housekeeping categories to simplify the deletions, trusting their judgement rather than expecting to second guess their decisions, simply because I happen to be the uploader, e.g. diff. We fully recognize that this project only functions through consensus and a collegial approach. --Fæ (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Along similar lines as Jianhui67's question above: could you provide links to a few recent examples where you have de-escalated or defused a conflict between yourself and another user or users? – BMacZero (🗩) 03:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been looking through my talk page archives over the last year, and little has jumped out of me being in any direct dispute rather than expressing a view in much larger debates. This is because though people have come to my talk page with issues, my response has been to analyse the facts, in some cases parking them for long term analysis, but then coming back with either solutions or explanations. Cases highlighted by others in this RfA look rather more complex and longer histories than two party conflicts, though I would be happy to examine one from the past year if you feel it is worth exploring how this shines a light on my future use of sysop tools. Cases that may be worth looking at that might better demonstrate my perspective on sysop actions are:
    1. the blocks of Slowking4. As a long term target of Slowking4's type of criticism, I was interested in the sysop actions taken in March and April 2019, I furnished discussions with neutral summary "Relevant diffs" diffs of evidence and then when the 3 month block was changed to indefinite a week later, helped with a timeline. My comments were limited to policy interpretation and what could be demonstrated with the evidence, in this case the facts and policies was more in favor of reducing sanctions, and I avoided introducing any of my personal interactions.
    2. User_talk:Fæ#Poor_duplicates_from_trainpix.org is an example about mass deletions which I am not sure has reached a conclusion. Though I have recommended using {{Duplicate}} rather than DRs the DNAU tag is going to keep the note on my talk page until December, as there may be better ways of handling the issue, and there may be things that have happened that my brief analysis missed, including a good way of listing the relevant duplicates.
    --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If candidate wants to help with Commons maintenance, this could be done on thoughtful review of files batches selected for upload. Necessity of this clearly demonstrated on candidate's talk page. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In past years the approach to batch upload projects was quite different to that taken now. I have not mass uploaded from Flickr for a couple of years because of these issues. Where reasonable to do so, I mass nominate files for deletion myself, such as via the use of image hashes for non-identical duplicate detections and I frequently encourage those doing housekeeping to use the deletion categories, as a work-around to not being able to delete files myself. My talk page is busy with images from Category:Photographs of Japan by 盈棻 吳 because of current housekeeping, but in fact this was a pretty small upload project of around 1,000 photographs which despite browsing the stream, I did not realise that the food photographs included so many examples of food packaging. As you can see in the parent category, there is a lot of educational value in terms of Japanese culture and locations for most of the photographs we host. I accept the criticism and please accept that a lot of housekeeping work has been done. This upload was from 2017, and my current projects are done differently because we have learned from mistakes, like the issues of uploading thousands of files where even a number as low as 5% or 2% being copyright problems can be a big maintenance headache, no matter how well intentioned. --Fæ (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      If past batches were not as critically reviewed as current, please "pay" maintenance "debt". Adding structured data (at least depicts statement) is other possible positive outcome of such review. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We seem to agree. My projects have long records of collegiate maintenance and mass fixes of different types. The years of upload projects listed at User:Fæ/Project list, are recognized as setting the standard for high quality uploads with the lowest error rates. I pay attention to feedback on my user talk page, and act on suggestions where possible and reasonable, as anyone can read there. In my current uploads adding depicts like, say, "Blechnum montanum T.C.Chambers and P.A.Farrant" or "photo", based on the available metadata, would seem unhelpful. However that discussion might be better in relation to the project, like the thread about it on the village pump, rather than in a discussion about how well I might handle sysop tools. --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's good practice to leave a day between replies in many discussions, which gives folks time to think about the evidence supporting what they are asserting as fact, or indeed to realise that they might be mistaken. Some of our discussions on Commons about policy take months, depending on the evidence available.
Critiquing oppose votes in this RfA would not be helpful. If anyone wants to ask a question based on evidence of my actions that can be put in a diff, I am happy to respond to the evidence, in the same way that you can see I respond to issues raised on my talk page. --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, Fæ: first you attempted to hide your initial response, now you're flatly refusing to answer the question posted above ("why do you think so many people have voted against you, both now and in your previously unsuccessful nominations?"). Clearly, Arbcom wasn't exaggerating when they stated that you had attempted to deceive the community. Very little seems to have changed since 2012. At the very least, a prospective administrator should be honest, open to criticism and willing to answer questions. Perhaps that's too much to ask these days. AshFriday (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to ask about my activities on this project that may illuminate my use of sysop tools that's fine. Critiquing the oppose votes in this RfA, rather than sticking to answering actual questions with verifiable evidence, would not help anyone. My work on this project fully demonstrates that I am willing to answer questions and be accountable. I also am keen on good open governance, including holding the WMF to account against our published shared values, and a fair approach for those who are sanctioned on this project, such as the Slowking4 case. This does not always win friends, but using the sysop tools correctly to ensure that our community agreed policies are not frustrated is not supposed to be done to win friends either. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question has been answered. The answer again, in different words which may help. People can read the votes and any reasons given against votes. Where someone is prepared to supply evidence and wants to ask a question that is relevant to an RfA, I will answer those questions. Going through a list of oppose votes and critiquing those votes or opinions, would clearly be read as either an attempt to attack oppose voters who have themselves not asked me any question, or end up being a weirdly rambling confession by using guesswork as to what questions they could have asked.
I am sorry that you are clearly unhappy with my attempts to respond to you, but it is not reasonable to keep on insisting that I must answer questions about what might be in the heads of other people. Doing so is not an expectation of COM:Administrators, in fact it would run against it.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it should be enough. Everbody (who is still following the drama here ...) should be able to make his own conclusions about what is (or not) written here. --Mirer (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my reply. My apologies, it was my incorrect presumption that in asking the question you knew about the 2012 Arbcom case. The case had nothing to do with my use of sysop tools, but my responses while being targeted with an extended campaign of homophobic harassment both on-wiki and off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 One (1) final comment, regarding the ArbCom case. As this is a request for adminship I think that the circumstances around their English Wikipedia adminship are relevant as it showcases their conduct with these same tools. I don’t mind their sockpuppetry and de-sysop. But what concerns me was “Fæ has rendered himself unquestionable and unaccountable regarding his conduct because he responds in an extremely rude manner that personally attacks those who question him.”, this is not something that I can recognise in Fæ today, but it makes me more wary. If Alexis Jazz’ “General Maintainers” I don’t think that any user would’ve been more deserving of it than Fæ. But thanks for striking your comment, I genuinely believe that Wikimedia Commons has no contributor more valuable than Fæ, I hope that if they will start “Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ (2020)” that it will pass with no oppose votes. But I can’t say that reading that specific sentence from the ArbCom case doesn't make me doubt. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There were three parties named in the case. I was banned from the English Wikipedia as you can read in the case if you wish, my appeal against it was successful. The harassment included threats against me and my family that resulted in a police investigation into the harassment. As for the two other parties to the case, Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs) was banned and remains banned from that project, for their creation of an off-wiki "attack site" targeting me with disgusting homophobic abuse, and Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) was "admonished" for their actions against me, and vanished from all projects in 2013.
Being the target of coordinated homophobic abuse is taken more seriously in 2019 than it was back in 2011/2012, with English Wikipedia's Arbcom and the WMF having improved their understanding about it. --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fae, I'm going to quote myself from one of your previous RFAs, because, sadly it seems still as pertinent now as it was then: "I still see too much of a tendency, even here on this page, for you to blame your unacceptable deflection on this "all-pervasive" harassment theme, and honestly, it worries me that you still seem to be a "drama magnet", which could hinder your effectiveness as an admin. Inasmuch as you'd like us to drop the past, you need to do so too, and straight out say "Yes, I attempted to deflect lots of perfectly valid criticism by falsely blaming it on harassment, and I'm sorry - that was wrong of me..." Well... you don't need to - but I'll wager you'd be surprised at how much credibility that would instantly give you. I know I'd be impressed. My perception is that you'll wikilawyer and deflect until you're backed into a corner, then back down as little as you think you can politically get away with. I find that distasteful, and true openness goes a long way. Sorry if you find that harsh, but there'd be little point in my being less than frank, given the "advice" I'm peddling..." Six years on this seems as relevant today, with quite possibly a similar outcome. I'm not sure if Einstein really said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result", but for some reason that "quote" came into my mind as I was composing this. -- Begoon 10:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to examine evidence. This RFA is about my access to sysop tools on Commons. Could you provide a diff that illuminates your point? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. It's deja vu all over again... That was your response then too. You even set me some handy parameters about how far back I was allowed to go, and where the diffs needed to be taken from. My quote above is in this section because it directly relates to the deflection you displayed in answering the questions in this section just above - now, as then... No, I don't need to provide diffs, firstly because I'm not here to persuade anyone but you that a different approach would be more likely to succeed, and you already know what you've done - I don't intend to vote either. Secondly, Colin has provided enough relevant, recent diffs on this page to clearly illustrate that the problems still exist. I won't take up any more of your time, but I do seriously urge you to properly consider what I've said, rather than feigning confusion or lack of understanding of my message. Good luck. -- Begoon 10:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deflection here, I guess I am trying to please an audience with contradictory expectations. I struck my reply and gave a more specific one, when it was made clear that the questioner did not know that a case existed.
With regard to an "all-pervasive" harassment theme, I did not raise the topic of harassment in this RfA. I remain unsure what the best way is to respond when being criticised on this page for avoiding discussion of a 2012 case about harassment, and at the same time be criticised for responding to questions about it. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question How would you have dealt with Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco? It's obvious what the "right" answer is, so what I'm curious about is your motivation. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My general motivation is to default to keep for edge cases on scope, and to ensure that we can verify copyright for all hosted files in a way that minimizes potential risks for our reusers; that's a slightly complex statement, but it's important that Commons not only aims to comply with legal requirements but understands the difference between realistic interpretation and extreme hypotheticals where no case law or documented precedent exists and is unlikely to ever exist.
    Briefly reading this DR about a Flickr source, I would presume that any uploads from that stream need careful assessment and based on already deleted content probably should be blocked as a mass upload source. Our community has had several debates about access to mass upload tools, and examples like this usefully demonstrate why sources which are "amateur", in the sense that it is not a trained curator judging the meaningfulness of copyright releases, probably should be more restricted than they currently are. At the end of the day, there are only 8 images hosted from that stream today, which looks like a perfectly good outcome however even some of those remaining raise questions on examination, such as this which it is not clear to me why the photograph has no EXIF data, was not credited to the photographer at source, and performance rights appear to be waived, or why File:Our national war songs by Henry Clay Work.jpg still has the wrong CC license when it is clearly PD and the current high resolution version was actually uploaded from the LOC, or why File:Third (6762235949).jpg is hosted when there is no explanation of how the photographer named in the infobox and the EXIF data either released their work to the theatre or agreed for the Flickrstream to release on this CC license when the EXIF just looks like all rights reserved. Our conclusion probably should be that we have too few experienced administrators to invest time assessing photographs like this, when we probably would be wiser to block the stream and default to deletion, until clarifications are lodged with OTRS or publicly confirmed on the Flickr profile. So, as the closing admin I may have asked whether there were specific instances to exempt from deletion, like the clearly PD thumbnails, deleted the rest and added the Flickrstream to the blocked list. I think this is what Jcb did. By the way there are some great photographs in the stream, like the one of Nick Offerman, and it would be nice to see those released in a way that is verified and 100% robust against future challenges. --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr, wow? I thought the "right" answer was obvious, yet you got it wrong somehow..? Kudos for the honesty, though. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed something about the DR, maybe I skimmed over the discussion too quickly. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't afford that as an admin. You did find the time to write many words, perhaps in the future try spending some of that time reading. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I spent around 20 minutes examining the DR and checking the Flickr account source, I was wrote up my findings as I went along. There was no red flag that would lead me to doubt Jcb's closure. I agree that 20 minutes may not be enough to work out why others might now think the DR outcome was wrong. If you know it is wrong, then please do use COM:UNDEL to put forward the evidence and based on the evidence I would be open to changing my opinion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Colin

Nobody ever opens their RFA saying "I couldn't give a bean about the backlog, I just want the block buttons on my page and I'm itching to use them on the many foes I have amassed in my time here". Every potential admin claims they will mostly deal with deletions or help the backlog and not get involved in blocking people. It's like saying: "Please ignore my personality shortcomings and user-interaction issues. Just judge me on objective stuff like copyright and in-scope claims." In the end, all admins end up blocking people and threatening to block people, and end up at AN because of it.

It isn't clear to me why Fae needs to action the deletions of files their tools have identified automatically. Surely it is more reasonable to have another pair of eyes to peer-review the results of their automatic tools and independently take responsibility for deletion. There is a distinct lack of recent participation by Fae in deletion discussions not concerning images Fae personally uploaded, or not concerning plush toys. This surely would be a first step for any potential admin wanting to get involved in that matter, and enables us to form a view on their competence.

In the previous admin requests, the areas of concern were not inexperience or lack of knowledge about copyright. They were issues related to behaviour, temperament and personality. Many simply did not trust Fae. I see no attempt in the RFA to highlight how these concerns have been addressed and resolved.

Instead we just see the same boasts about upload and edit counts. The high level of uploads and automated edits are not imo relevant at all to adminship. We have barnstars if we want to thank Fae for that. What matters once admins start deleting stuff people spent time photographing and uploading, and when they start blocking and threatening with blocks, is personality and careful interaction with others. In particular, the ability to resolve disputes and defuse conflict, rather than be the source of disputes or pour petrol upon conflict bonfires. -- Colin (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of recent events of concern compiled by Colin

Here are some events which cause me concern.

  • In January this year Jcb blocked Jdforrester over the blanking of a proposal by Alexis Jazz. The issue was complex and the block overturned, but Fae needlessly escalated this into claims of some great abuse of power by WMF. "This action was highly inappropriate, there should be consequences. No WMF employee should /ever/ suppress or control community discussion using their official staff account unless this is an office action", "we should consider removing their sysop privileges", "Using an official account to intimidate and suppress open discussion, and then arrogantly defending doing it", "It is an abuse of trust", "Jdforrester acted arrogantly, misusing his big hobnailed boots of power. Some time out on the naughty step, to think about how he serves this community will do him the world of good.". Jdforrester remains an admin. The whole thing was blown out of proportion and there was a complete lack of any attempt by those involved to discuss and resolve misunderstandings prior to the block. Given Commons long history of WMF antagonism, we don't need another admin who has an itchy block finger wrt WMF accounts.
  • In March this year Fae nominated for deletion photographs from Wikimania 2017 that contained plush toys. Rather than dumping a list of all such toys for review, I would expect an admin to filter out those images where de minimis permits us to retain them. Approx half the 70+ images nominated were kept. During the discussion Fae got increasingly irritated by some of the keep votes (some of which were coming over from Wikipedia). This provoked the following insult:
"in baby speak that middle aged Wikipedians seem to need at open knowledge conferences:
Please help me. My mummy works hard making toys for other children. She has seen her toys being used by Wikimedia to promote their projects and we cry together because nobody cares about giving her credit for her work and we cannot afford to pay a lawyer. Please nice Wikipedians, read the label my mummy stitches on her toys, and give my mummy credit for her work so that future children can enjoy her cute toys."
Admins should deal with DR professionally and not let the ignorance or perceived childishness of some wind them up to the point where they start writing mocking insults. Later, Slowking commented that Fae might not be so welcome at future meetups "because dumping on those who do, might get you unloved". Fae, now at boiling point, attacks slowking for "a rather personal and threatening sounding attack" on Fae. Fae repeats this "this appears threatening and personal, a comment you would expect to come from someone stalking you", "The wording appears deliberately chosen to make me feel unsafe to ever physically attend a Wikimedia funded event", "This is not an overreaction, this a factual reading of your text above, and the words you are choosing fit every conventional definition of harassment." So a DR on plush toys becomes a nuclear-war allegation of stalking and harassment.
  • In May this year Fae participated in a deletion discussion not involving their own images or plush toys. This concerned some images which Wikipedia got upset about since NorthFace was planting photos containing their merchandise + logo into articles. Fae's initial comment was "This is a known upload campaign. In this context there is little serious doubt that North Face have released the photographs they own the rights to". Fae went on to rebuff many incorrectly-argued delete votes from Wikipedians and post a warning at the top of the discussion. Fae later became sceptical and voted delete but if instead of battling Wikipedians and defending Commons policies, Fae had initially critically examined the photos, Fae might have been quicker to come to the same conclusion as Elcobbola. As a former OTRS Fae should have known that such images require OTRS approval. This level of competence wrt DR is not encouraging.
  • In June this year Fae took it upon themselves to investigate the uploads of a Wikipedian who "imported issues to Commons". Fae claimed their photos "appear to be blatant copyright violations" and "the EXIF data appears to my eyes to have been deliberately hacked to make the files look like own works". It turns out the author had explanations for the EXIF data and their claim to have taken the photos is upheld. The photos remain on Commons, as do the personal attacks by Fae. When creating a DR (or ad hoc on AN) admins need to walk a careful line between AGF and outright personal attacks on Commons users. I would expect an admin to first begin a discussion with the Commons user to ask them to explain the EXIF issues and carefully to enquire about the photo's origins.

Two events this year on Wikipedia also demonstrate Fae's "high sensitivity combined with high confrontation" approach:

  • Earlier this year Wikipedia Signpost published a "humour" article that mocked gender neutral pronouns. It was clearly offensive and never should have been published, and many people said so. But Fae went nuclear on this and personally attacked the authors. At the deletion discussion Fae created, Fae claimed the authors "clearly intended to marginalizes and disparages transgender, nonbinary or genderqueer readers and Wikipedians" and published "deliberately transphobic rhetoric". This goes beyond disagreeing with the text and whether it should have been published and whether it should be blanked or deleted. It is openly claiming a malicious motive for writing and publishing, which is hard to justify without evidence of a history of such writings or admitted motive or statement of beliefs by the authors. One of the authors does have a history of being pedantic and insensitive wrt grammar issues. This escalated to the point where Fae discovered both authors had a relationship with WMF and Fae wrote to WMF to ask for both these relationships to be terminated (example). Later, Fae retracted these personal attacks and apologised here.
  • Later on Wikipedia Fae got involved in article disputes concerning transgender and TERF. This reached a point in August this year where Fae's previous topic ban "from human sexuality, broadly construed" was reinstated by an overwhelming majority of votes. One comment by Masem was pertient: "Fæ's behavior can be called over-zealous to a point where they are seeing potential threats to transgenders (a subject they are clearly passionate about) under every rock." We have seen this before on Commons, where the perceived lack of gay male nudes on the front page, or the rejection of one such image at FPC is blown up into personal attacks and allegations against a community group and individuals.

-- Colin (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is mostly why I'm uncomfortable voting unconditional support. Personally I remember Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dekemahuis te Franeker voor gedeeltelijke afbraak.png and many similar actions where Fæ was structurally removing {{PD-old-assumed}}, in some cases replacing it with a worse license. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I understand the example from a year ago. The outcome matches the nomination, the license could not be verified, and there seems no issue with using PD-EU-no author disclosure as a means to continue hosting the file as was my suggestion. As for the topic of the assumed templates, I have not touched them since around that time, as the debate was unlikely to lead to any constructive changes to guidelines. As per my response above, this type of technical discussion around copyright is separate from correct application of sysop tools, which must follow the documented consensus even as we might discuss changing what that is. --Fæ (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The file was proven to be over 120 years old in the DR (see the bit about aliens), so PD-old-assumed was verified. The thing was part of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 71#Sabotage of community decision. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The terminus ante quem was discussed and is anything up to 1902 based on the evidence supplied by others. The point being that raising the DR is itself not an issue, we often raise DRs to ensure that validation works out and resolve better licenses, and the case is not a good example for PD-old-assumed as there are less vague or questionable license statements to host the file which have been nicely applied. As mentioned, this was way back in October 2018, so I have forgotten the details and may be missing something about this case, but if the question is what I would do given the ability to delete files like this, I would not delete the image, as I would follow consensus agreed guidelines, or help with the creation of a case book of new evidence to change guidelines if the current guidelines are hard to understand how to apply. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an addendum to Colin's List: back in January 2018, Fæ voted to keep a photograph which was subsequently deleted as potential underaged pornography:
The same file was declared out-of-scope by universal consensus in a follow-up DR. This is yet another reason why Fæ should never be granted administrative status; apparently, they can't even recognize a clearly out-of-scope and potentially illegal image when they see one. AshFriday (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of fairness: It doesn't look like anyone, including yourself, mentioned the potentially underage aspect at the initial DR. That being said Fae's comments there were needlessly confrontational and personal, not about the actual image in question at all, which is the sort of attitude, always seeking the road of highest drama, that is undesirable in an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I rather naively assumed that nominating it as out-of-scope would be enough to get it removed. I sometimes doubt that Fæ even spared it a second glance before voting "keep", they were apparently too busy trying to put me in my place. Fortunately, at least one administrator had the good sense to delete it on sight, as both the law and common sense dictates. AshFriday (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AshFriday: I've had enough. It is clearly not mandatory to answer all RfA questions. Fæ may not be a suitable admin candidate at the moment based on the comments above. But continue pestering them to answer your question is not acceptable. You are forcing Fæ to answer your question(s) when you've already opposed their RFA. Don't you think that's hypocritical? You are one of the people here, who is causing drama. Masum Reza📞 01:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masum Reza: please note that this is an addendum to Colin's list; I've asked no questions here, simply pointed out another reason why Fæ is unsuitable for any administrative position. I'm certainly not capable of "forcing" Fæ to do anything. If you decide to reply, please remember that I am not the subject of this RFA, and that Fæ opened their self to criticism by their own free will when they posted their nomination. AshFriday (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ_(2019)&oldid=370198270"