Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators‎ | Requests

Revision as of 14:34, 30 December 2011 by Rd232 (talk | contribs) (Fæ: clarifying – previously corrected claim should not be repeated without being corrected again)
Withdrawn by user and so closedHerby talk thyme 09:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Contents

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to put myself forward for admin tools. Over the last year I have committed to Commons projects, mostly in my role as a volunteer leading the GLAM UK programme, my work as an OTRS volunteer (for which having tools would mean a wider scope of the types of ticket I would pick up) and also my work as a trusted user (using my own scraping tool to help check and empty the Flickr backlog queue of dubious uploads every now and then). I run Faebot, though I recently paused in using my iMacro scripts as I would like to move to more standard batch upload tools for larger upload projects. In 2012 I will be part of a number of Commons projects and partnerships, including my continuing involvement in the future batch upload tool and some very high quality uploads with our UK GLAM partners; though it would always be useful to have a GLAM-knowledgeable admin available to help out, more important will be my experience of helping with all types of admin tasks on Commons to inform these projects as well as continuing the support I already give to the institutions on how to encourage Wikimedians to join in with making these projects a success, as well as promoting the use of simple policies for copyright and attribution. (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Votes

{{s}} It is rare that there is a “no brainer” here these days but this is one of those – thanks for helping – appreciated —Herby talk thyme 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Goes to show how wrong I can be at times… —Herby talk thyme 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
{{Support}} Why not? –FASTILY (TALK) 07:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Striking !vote for now. I’ll re-evaluate later. –FASTILY (TALK) 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support İyi bir hizmetli olabileceğini düşünyorum. –►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 10:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    I’ll try my best. (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportYmblanter (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportPolarlys (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportPoco a poco (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am in good company with this vote and for good reason.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose his responses on deletion requests show a lack of understanding of our policies and cannot be trusted with the tools. He also takes a hypocritical view on deletions – he felt that his own self requested deletions that were not requested on Commons were okay but that a DR by someone else requesting their own pictures deleted should not be allowed. Admin are held to a high standard of conduct, and this makes it seem like he will abuse the tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The claims about my opinions in someone’s requested deletion never happened as far as I am aware. — (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • You claimed I was harassing you by using your request for an image to be deleted as an example that we allow user requested deletions here. Such a claim and the hypocrisy are exactly what is not needed in an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Yup, I concur. It did happen, in fact it interrupted a fine argument OR and myself were having! —Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ottava. Self-interested deletions (and deletion of the record of deletions) are totally against the values of transparency and openness that some people in the Wikipedia world still believe passionately in. Wikipedia is not censored! Peter Damian (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ottava. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. He ran for admin on en-Wiki and did not disclose his previous background, saying it made no difference, but afterwards many people felt that it would have. I would have respected him more if he shared it and still probably given him the benefit of the doubt.TCO (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I disclosed a clean start up front and sought advice from Arbcom as part of my successful RfA. I remain the only admin on Wikipedia to have openly disclosed a clean start. — (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless, there were several people that said they would have felt differently than Arbcom (or an individual arbitrator?) Still, kudos for passing with disclosed clean start. I just feel more comfortable holding off on the tool additions, for now. Hang in there, however this goes down and keep your poise. And kudos for the content.TCO (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ottava. RMHED (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This was this user’s first edit since 2009. Rd232 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Previous background as referenced by other !voters above. His emphasis on what he’s done in the past rather than what he intends to do in the future as an admin. And finally I don’t feel I can trust someone who deliberately either hides his past misdemeanours or makes light of them. I don’t think he’ll be neutral with the tools and more importantly neutral in his interactions with other editors. —Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I refer to the existing plans for 2012, I thought that seemed enough in terms of plans for the future. As for the “background” referred to, there is a lot of speculation and rumour there rather than fact. — (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The existing plans you referred to don’t really need an admin’s bit to achieve. And as for the speculations and rumours, well there’s an awful lot of deletions going on your behalf too. The fact that there are so many “speculations and rumours” about you, well isn’t this going to cause you (and eventually the project) problems that could make your work as an admin difficult, if not impossible? As for your clean start, well that’s got to be a fallacy, no-one ever gets a clean start in the wikiverse, there are too many people here with long memories. Personally I don’t feel the photos you had deleted were a problem, but the fact you had them deleted is. Also the timing of your clean start is also, in my view, problematic. So sorry, although I don’t know you from Adam, but from what I’ve seen here and there in the last hour makes me feel that I couldn’t trust you as an admin. —Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Anthøny 00:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This was User:AGK‘s first edit since February 2011. Rd232 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ottava and TCO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    That was Epbr123’s third edit on Commons in 2011, following only 7 edits in 2010. –mattbuck (Talk) 02:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Does it matter how a person picks and chooses his/her edits? —Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – From what I’ve seen, Fae seems to be a good person to have onboard, and I’m always happy to get more admins. –mattbuck (Talk) 02:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fae was not altogether frank in replying to Saibo below. Further his !voting in deletion discussions show the same sort of features that led to an RFC/U on his old account on Wikipedia. I do acknowledge his good work for WMUK in organising various GLAM events but the misleading answer he gave to Saibo does not strike me as appropriate for someone seeking to be an admin or holding a position as a Trustee in a Wikimedia-related charity–Peter cohen (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    I gave the most appropriate response as Peter Damian/Edward Buckner’s block yesterday seems the most likely reason for him appearing immediately afterwards here. Your interpretation seems speculative with regards to events before my clean start, unless you have a special insight that I am not aware of. Please keep in mind this discussion is about a request for administration, your opinions with regard to my position as a trustee of a charity are off topic here. — (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    The issues I was thinking of were BLP issues and an obsession with including non-notable pornagraphic/sexual content in an encyclopedia. To deal with the latter first, I asked you below about your votes in six deletion discussions. All were related to sexual topics. In each of them you voted keep. In each of them the admin closed the discussions as delete. In some of the discussions you made claims that the content was “educational”. You seem to be following a similar line of thought against policy about the importance of sexual content as was raised in complaints about your old accounts at Wikipedia.
    On the issue of BLP, I now see that while BLP-issues were discussed in the RFC/U, they did not include discussion of the category of users of gay bath-houses Wikipedia:List of gay bathhouse regulars. This was the specific issue that I was thinking of. Because of this mistake, my comment above is somewhat misdirected and I apologise for that. However, it is still true that a concern about your editing pattern under your old accounts at Wikipedia is that you created a category that might cause BLP issues either because people may falsely added to the category or because clients of the service might regard it as an invasion of their privacy if such information was made available on a site like Wikipedia. The RFC/U does discuss the Wikipedia:List of male performers in gay porn films and how a number of articles were linked from the list about people who had the same name as the porn stars but were not the same people. You were accused of interfering with attempts to fix this and other attempts to fix BLP issues. If we turn to the list of six articles I give below, one concerns a picture of alleged prostitutes in the Reeperbahn. You originally simply voted to keep. You later agreed to rename the file when the BLP issue was pointed out. But this is still not good enough, because, first, the source link would still have pointed to a Flickr page that labels them as prostitutes and, second, the file would still be linked to from pages elsewhere such as that on the Reeperbahn that copied the original description from Commons referring to them as prostitutes. Therefore there remained two BLP problems with the file, that links from it still labelled these women as prostitutes without a reliable source confirming that this was the case and that, whether or not the description of them as such was accurate, it remains a gross invasion of their privacy to have them so described. Although you did change the description on the file here you did not consider that it was your duty as an administrator on the English Wikipedia to follow the link to the article on the Reeperbahn in the English Wikipedia to see how they were described there given that common sense would dictate that the description there could well be modelled on that here. Therefore the problem in your usage of your old Wikipedia account with regards to a cavalier attitude towards BLP issues persists in your recent conduct here.–Peter cohen (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    With regard to your analysis of accounts claimed to be before my clean start, and presumably edits made 2 years or more ago, please see the reply to Michaeldsuarez below. With regard to the list of Deletion Requests (I note this list appears identical to a list previously posted at Wikipedia Review) I shall reply to that point below, probably tomorrow. Thanks — (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    The fact that the list first appeared on WR is neither here nor there. If you look at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/12#Deletion of image you will see that I mention that a certain picture had appeared on WR and that it was being used for attack purposes. I would not have been able to argue against OR’s claim that the picture was not being used to attack the subject of the picture unless I had read WR. I use my knowledge of what is going on in WR as I deem appropriate. In the context of that VP thread, I considered it appropriate to bring the attack to the attention of those reading the thread. In the case of your RfA, I again feel that the knowledge I have gained through reading WR is of relevance and unfortunately reflects badly on you.
    Now, as far as the list is concerned, I think that you were on the losing side of a number of recent deletion discussions is highly relevant to your RfA. I did copy and paste the list but explained in my vote above that I felt that they display symptoms of a long-term pattern of behaviour on your behalf which dates back to before the creation of your current account. I have explained why above.
    Given many here are not familiar with English Wikipedia policy, I shall quote here a clause italicised in the heading of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Clean start which contains an important exception to the clean start and the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities. The policy does not apply to Commons but, as I link past and present behaviours and activities, I consider that I am acting within its spirit.–Peter cohen (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    Above user’s sixth edit to Commons in the past year. –mattbuck (Talk) 02:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    If you look at [1] you will see that my interest in Wikimedia projects as a whole has recently been re-ignited after a relatively quiet period of over a year. Mattbuck’s attempt to cast aspersions on my !vote because of my inavtivity here in the first ten months of the year when I only made one post should be disregarded. My activity here has increased in the last two months inline with the increase on Wikipedia. I am an editor in good standing in all Wikimedia projects where I have participated with a clean block log. I am therefore entitled to participate here. it should also be noted that I criticised Peter Damien and Ottava Rima in the Village Pump thread about the out-of-process deletion of the image that Ashley had previously loaded. Therefore the implication in Matt’s post that I am a meatpuppet of their’s is invalid.–Peter cohen (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for a number of reasons. The rationale you state above doesn’t really indicate any clear need for the sysop bit in order to carry out most of these tasks. You can encourage new Wikimedians and work promoting copyright policies without being an admin, for example. Having said that, it would be potentially useful from an OTRS perspective in reviewing deleted images. I am also concerned with issues that some of the others have brought up regarding your activities on enwiki. There is the issue of duplicity regarding arbitrary deletion of images as mentioned above. Also, I’m rather unimpressed with your snarky comments towards SarahStierch at DR here and I don’t think an attitude like that is sometime I’d like to see in an admin. Also, to Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) – those edits weren’t oversighted but RevDel’d. Admins can still see them (I checked). Having said that, I’m not sure I understand why, as the public logs really don’t’ indicate a valid reason given the edits – Alison 03:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I have a great difficulties believing that a user who justifies keeping an image of a penis with a comment like this:“In general I find the argument that we have enough penises already highly dubious; I believe if we compare with Trafalgar Square, we can find more images of the unique Nelson’s Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet.” should be getting the tools.–Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mbz1 and Alison. I would expect more circumspection and discrimination in assessing realistic educational usefulness. —JN466 04:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My opinion is that Fae’s contributions have been constructive and many of the opposers here (but not all) are here simply to pursue a campaign of criticizing and exposing Fae’s activities, of which I have found no significant issue. fetchcomms 04:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It’s not the activities that people are worried about, it’s the deletion, after the event, of any reference to those activities. If they are not a problem, then why delete reference to them? And again, why the automatic deletion of question on the WMUK site that are nothing to do with any such activities, but rather questions about the honesty and integrity of actions made as a director of a Wikimedia charity? In the real world, we do not automatically punish those who scrutinise the actions of the great and the good, and who are concerned about public benefit, utility and all those good things. We have laws preventing the victimisation of those who raise such concerns, and who ask probing questions. We do not call them trolls or accuse them of harassment. The irony is that this is all happening within a movement that is committed to freedom of information, free speech, and is generally against cabals, back room meetings, smoke and mirrors and all that sort of thing which I detest. We need to make a stand at some point, and this is it. Fae stands for everything that the Wikimedia movement should be against. Peter Damian (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue to complain about WMUK’s integrity—isn’t there some charity oversight committee in the UK to file complaints to? (At least, in the U.S. you can complain to individual states’ attorneys general.) I don’t think Fae’s actions on Commons are totally unjustified, though I think that actions such as the blocking of Bali ultimate and the subsequent revdels were improper, and I’m judging him from his contributions to this site. fetchcomms 16:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not complaining about WMUK’s integrity. I am complaining about the integrity of “Fae”. Surely that was obvious. Peter Damian (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You brought up “the automatic deletion of question on the WMUK site that are nothing to do with any such activities, but rather questions about the honesty and integrity of actions made as a director of a Wikimedia charity”. If you have a problem with the actions he made as director of a charity then surely you should be complaining to the charity people. If you have a problem with the actions he made as Wikimedia Commons contributor then you don’t need to add irrelevant mumbo-jumbo about smoke and mirrors and free speech. There’s no such thing as free speech on Wikipedia—you, of all people, should know that by now. fetchcomms 05:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per the discussion below in relation to deleted images, I am afraid that Fae obfuscates realities, and this is not a thing that admins should be doing. Wikipedia history is irrelevant here (although concerning), but I see that Fae is bringing some of these behaviours to Commons, and admins should avoid doing such things. russavia (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeYikrazuul (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per this – not sufficiently willing to communicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, any journalist is free to contact me or my chapter through regular channels (such as the easy to find contact us page for WM-UK which includes contact emails and phone numbers) or contact me directly via email using their real name and contact details. Using an anonymous account to spam speculation as to my personal life, speculate as to my clean start, attempt to link me with pornography and then use that same account to then declare yourself a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor is not a good starting point for honest communication. — (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    I tried to communicate with your ‘chapter’ through regular channels, then was told I must communicate through your wiki. Then one of your directors deleted my questions and blocked me, probably because canvassed by you. The ideals of transparency and openness which are a core part of the Wiki movement are clearly alien to you. Frankly, you are a very dishonest person. Peter Damian (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    Peter Damian, this is off topic, however to avoid further claims of obfuscation, it is clear that you can still write on your :wmuk user page, despite your allegation on the same page of possible fraud by the charity trustees, you can also email and write to our CEO (or our lawyers as you have already done). The suggestion of using the wiki was to encourage better open community engagement, you were not cut off from other channels of communication. Spamming the same question to multiple trustees, other wiki pages and by email at the same time does not help you get quicker answers to questions. The fact that you appear to take advantage of the trustees and staff being on Christmas holidays to raise your questions and then though this is carefully explained to you, are still unprepared to wait until the 3rd of January (when the board is considering your questions, as can be seen on the published agenda and as you have already been informed) does not really support your view that you are unable to communicate with the chapter or that there is no transparency. In comparison, your repeated use of sockpuppet accounts to circumvent Wikimedia project bans or blocks and writing under various anonymous names hardly seems honest and transparent as a basis for communication. I note that the name you are using here is not the same as the name when writing to the chapter lawyers. — (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    Again, I didn’t say ‘possible fraud’ I said ‘possible misrepresentation’. The page I was told to write to was deleted, as you very well know. And I was told specifically by Bamkin not to email me, and to use just the one (subsequently deleted page). And why was I banned for raising concerns about misrepresentation (NOT fraud, those are your words). As for sockpuppetry, I have ALWAYS been open and honest about the sequential use of accounts, and have NEVER used multiple accounts to game a dispute. On the name I use here, that is my account name. Everyone knows who I am. By contrast, you are able to deny what you are accused of because people know they will be blocked if they connect you with your previous accounts, which you do not acknowledge, unlike me. Your dishonesty sickens me, and I repeat: you are absolutely not to be trusted. Peter Damian (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    I suggest you raise the question of deleted pages on your :wmuk user talk page, this remains highly off topic here. I am aware of discussion threads being moved on the basis that they were off-topic but not about any dialogue being deleted. Considering you have raised the same questions in so many places, I doubt they will be forgotten at the planned chapter board meeting next week. — (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    You voted to deadmin Jcb because he would have “stopped listening”, but you are the one who is out of touch with the Foundation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This user’s contributions to DR’s (as highlighted by Alison) do not make me comfortable handing over the mop at this time. Courcelles (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportRosenzweig τ 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No answer to my question “Where are or were you admin before?” below. And too much relevant information is not disclosed here (also see the history of this page which shows the alteration of others comments without any indication of this) and it is not mentioned that a non-disclosure happens because of this and that. I also suggest to read User_talk:Romaine#Your_block_of_User:Bali_ultimate_and_rev_deletion_of_their_comments. However, thanks for your OTRS work. —Saibo (Δ) 22:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • “admin before?” question now answered, sorry for overlooking it, this has been a rather busy discussion in the last 24 hours and it is easy to miss questions. — (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My apologies to the ‘crats for adding another complication (I’m an ex-admin/CU, and haven’t been involved here for a couple years), but back in the day we used to ask only if a person could be trusted to use the tools for the exclusive benefit of the project overall, and I don’t think this guy can be trusted in that sense. Keep it simple, keep it safe. —SB_Johnny talk 00:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    This was this user’s first edit in 2011. Rd232 (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because its raise the number of people returning to Commons just to comment, because its been raised off site and because so many of those turning up here to vote are blocked elsewhere. When sooo much voice is given to these people I’m happy for such problematic editors to be concerned, every user is judged on their activity here not on en:wp nor in WMUK nor thru Wikipadia review. Every RFA is the decision of the Commons community thats all that counts. Gnangarra 11:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Sysops should be transparent and open to heavy scrutiny. Fæ’s refusal to disclose past accounts and desire for a “clean slate / start” shows that Fæ wishes to avoid scrutiny. Would you trust a real-life politician or police officer who decided to erase or rewrite his or her past? —Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the egregious transparency issues. It’s a shame really. Most of the opposition to Ashley comes from WR and is motivated by homophobia and bigotry. It’d be nice to support but in this case they’ve accidentally hit the nail on the head. He cannot be trusted to use the tools in the best interests of the project. Lovetinkle (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    User has no prior edits in 2011 except to create their user page, in March. Rd232 (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    I wondered when the ‘h’ word would come up. This is one of my pet peeves. Everytime I’ve characterised this issue (including in my upcoming submission to UK charity commission) I have studiously and carefully avoided the word ‘gay’ or its cognates. The problem is promoting links to commercial pornography websites. I have a problem with ‘commercial’, and I have a problem with ‘pornography’ of any kind, where under-age users are concerned. Yet there is a certain minority that uses ‘homophobia’ or ‘harassment’ as get-out-of-jail free card for avoiding any kind of scrutiny or public accountability. The problem with Fae’s previous account was nothing to do with sex or homophobia or whatever. It was: malicious BLPs, misrepresentation of sources, linking to commercial sites, tag-teaming. What have these grave sins to do with homophobia? I deeply resent these accusations. Peter Damian (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Well of course you’ve been wondering about it Peter. No matter how carefully you, Ottava, Alison, RHMED, Barbour, SBJohnny and the other right-wing activists over at WR craft your words the nastiness leaks through. You’re opposing Ashley because he’s gay. You don’t like him. His uploads make you feel icky. Whatever. As it I mentioned above it just happens you’ve revealed a real flaw in his candidacy but save us the wide-eyed innocence. Y’all would have opposed his candidacy even if he was as pure as the Risen Lord. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Please redact that offensive personal attack. In my country, and probably yours, accusations of homophobia are illegal. As well as being immoral. Please retract now. Peter Damian (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    I will redact, retract and strike though nothing. My comments stand, Oh Great Speaker of Truth. Your hide is little short of astounding. You have no hesitation in maligning your ill-chosen targets, but when the favour is repaid you squeal in such satisfying tone. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ALovetinkle – Obvious troll is obvious. —Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    Peter Damian, I object to these accusations about speculative past accounts. Arbcom has details of my history before clean start and made a statement in support of my Wikipedia RFA. If I had a history of activity such as malicious BLPs and tag-teaming then they would never have supported me. With regard to the other matter, you may have avoided explicitly using homophobic language which I thank you for, though you made unsourced speculations as to my sexual practices and you cannot deny that a fair number of comments likely to be read as dubious have been made by others than yourself about me on Wikipedia Review; such as questioning how many cocks you have to suck to become a Wikipedia Admin and giving full names of people, other than my husband, in order to speculate that I may have had sex with them. Following those posts up with claims that the discussion threads are in no way homophobic does not stop the comments being read by the public as being problematic. I am rather proud to live in a country that respects my civil partnership, so being gay is for me a matter of public record. You may feel that such language on Wikipedia Review is mild and it should be written off as a joke, but it does not sit well with our Wikimedia community where we are serious about providing a civil and welcoming space for all types of people to contribute to the preservation of knowledge. By the way, I in no way condone the trolling or the accusations made. Thanks — (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    You are right this is a problem with Wikipedia Review, which is why some of us are thinking of moving to a separate gay-friendly site. But I have looked through all my posts on one of the threads and cannot find any statement of mine I find problematic. On the malicious BLPs, that was a finding of an RfC, so essentially you are denying the identity with the account in question. Back to square one. It is not acceptble, it is really really not acceptable, to evade scrutiny by squeaking ‘harassment’ or ‘homophobia’ or whatever. That has happened too many times before. As for the ‘Arbcom decision’, I know the arbitrator in question reasonably well and will ask him about this. Peter Damian (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    All people have to do is pop across to WR to see what’s going on. Read through the threads. Ashley is the current undesirable of the month. They cluck and tut and “oh-my-gosh!” at the careless (and rather banal) pictures he’s uploaded of himself and his kind, prattling on about the immorality of it all. Take careful note of how an operator like Alison goes about her work. Letting the bigots of more uneven temperament set the terms before she settles in behind them with seeming reluctance. As I’ve said above Ashley isn’t suited to Adminship here (his nomination in light of his circumstances attests to that), but the bulk of his opposers in this discussion are not after him about his suitability. They just don’t like who he is. Don’t believe me? WR is that-a-way –>. Lovetinkle (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Alison is probably far more of a defender of gay rights and liberal politics than anyone on Commons, especially in this page. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, and merely having a man naked does not imply anything about homosexuality. However, it is rather homophobic and strange to claim that homosexuality = naked male porn as if you are claiming that all homosexuals are unable to do anything but post nude pictures of themselves. Such bigotry is really unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Probably. When it comes to the perverse practices of the repressed homosexual, there’s no greater authority than you <[personal info redacted, per user request]>. So happily I defer to you in this, your domain of expertise. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    Peter Damian, thank you for reviewing your edits on Wikipedia Review and for admitting that Wikipedia Review is not gay friendly. You might have missed your unsourced references about my sexual practices, such as “The CC shouldn’t be swayed (in principle) by the bondage thing”, more general comments such as “I was replying to someone’s comment that if you kiss ass on Wikipedia, then the WMF (or an affiliate thereof) gives you a paying job. That is not true of Fae, who kissed ass to get a trusteeship.” or in reference to WM-UK and all UK Wikimedians, “Guys, you are in the real world now, not on a shitty website that you control. My tax money is now going to help your crappy project. I am raising some serious issues as a responsible UK taxpayer and citizen, and not as a member of your crappy community.” I agree these sorts of comments will probably be written off as healthy banter, such as anyone investigating the background of your various official complaints about my competence or that of the UK chapter. — (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alison and the shamefully redacted Bali ultimate.  pablohablo. 21:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    This user has no prior edits in 2011, except for an image upload in May. Rd232 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    The redaction was primarily necessary because Bali insisted on bringing up (again – vendetta much?) Fae’s old English Wikipedia account, which under en:WP:CLEANSTART terms remains not-too-widely-disseminated information (despite Bali’s efforts). The clean start was accepted by trusted users such as to permit Fae to pass RFA, so whatever sins one might imagine the old account to have committed, they should be considered in the past. Bottom line, if English Wikipedia’s issues with Fae were not enough to prevent adminship being gained, then offwiki discussion (whether you call it canvassing or not) should not be permitted to torpedo Commons adminship. If there are genuine concerns about future behaviour, based on current or recent actions or statements, that is relevant. Issues from 2 years ago (the RFCU on the old account was 18 months ago, the disputed edits six months before that), not so much. Rd232 (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    You are in the minority when trying to justify the redaction, and your defense is against Commons policy and behavior. Just an FYI, you can be desysopped for the above and other abuses lately. You better reconsider what you are doing as it can be seen as attempts at intimidation and bullying in support of Fae, a user who is close to getting banned for mass abuse and some really nasty manipulation of admin in a way that violated multiple policies. Your posts above are absolutely abusive because there are supporters of Fae that have no edit histories here and you selectively ignored that. Commons doesn’t tolerate such conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    My understanding of the process for a user ban is that when it is under discussion then the user must be informed. This has not happened and I know nothing of being close to a ban for mass abuse. Ottava Rima, could you provide a link to support your claim? Thanks — (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    I am not putting up your ban proposal until after this closes so you can’t claim that the ban proposal was canvassing against your adminship. And there has been tons of evidence already provided that not only did you have one admin delete an image, you convinced another admin to make an abusive rev del and tried to convince an oversighter to abusively oversight the comments while knowing that all of this would be inappropriate. Manipulating admin is really, really bad disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Could you supply links for these specific allegations of manipulating 2 administrators and an oversighter? Their names would be helpful here, as they may want to make their own statements in response to your serious allegations about their incompetence in using the tools as my possible incompetence at using them in the future. Thanks — (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Romaine is the admin you manipulated into making a rev del against policy and Tiptoety was an oversighter you tried to manipulate into making an inappropriate oversight. The admin was the one you had speedy delete an image. I have already talked to two of them about what you tried doing to them, and they are good friends of mine so I don’t take kindly to your inappropriate behavior and manipulation of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for those details. Can you point to the discussions where Romaine and Tiptoety confirm they have been manipulated into using the tools inappropriately by me rather than using them on their own independent cognisance, or as they are good friends of yours, perhaps you can ask them to leave a brief statement to that effect here? — (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    Evidence from multiple Oversighters and trusted users have stated that there is absolutely nothing to justify your request for a rev del, so you are either claiming that not only are you ignorant of the policies here and that Romaine has no clue about them, or that you convinced a competent admin to make a really bad decision. Which is it? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    “Evidence from multiple Oversighters and trusted users have stated that …” stated where? Rd232 (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    See Romaine’s talk page, Tiptoety’s talk page, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    I don’t know about “etc”, but I don’t see what on those pages justifies your claim. Tiptoety, for example, was talking about oversight, not revdel. Rd232 (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    Suppression involves the whole blanket removing it from public view. An Oversighters tend to rev del in most cases unless a matter absolutely has to be completely purged from the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    “your defense is against Commons policy” – what policy? As in many areas, policy on Commons is nothing like as clear as it is on English Wikipedia. In this case, neither en:WP:REVDEL nor en:WP:Oversight have Commons equivalents. So what foundation does your confident declaration have? I agree, it is a very tricky cross-wiki policy/practice case and I was initially very unhappy with the revdel and block. But after reviewing all the issues in some detail (> 1 hr, as I observed below, from a position of zero prior knowledge and therefore I would hope bias…), with the benefit of admin rights to see exactly what was deleted, I think it is the right thing to do. I would not myself describe what happened here and before as harassment (too complex a case to declare that), but I would not be shocked if someone tried to make the case that it was. As for the number of edits users have – see my response on the same issue elsewhere. In short, AGF: I looked at one user after responding to them, and noted what I found. Other users’ votes should be similarly annotated, if the users have been similarly inactive until this RFA. Rd232 (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    “what policy” Making accusations against others and singling out one side when there is a clear sock puppet with almost no previous edits who voted support makes it clear that you are acting extremely inappropriately which is against the policy by being disruptive. If you want to make a statement about single purpose accounts, you can’t focus on only one side like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

    As pointed out elsewhere, the “clear sock puppet … who voted support”, which you identified elsewhere as Lovetinkle, actually voted Oppose. Rd232 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I work with user:Fæ before and he seemed to posses qualities of a good administrator. I am surprised he was not one. I found the discussion above very hard to follow, but nothing I have read changed my mind. —Jarekt (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Absolutely not. From what I have read here, there are many good points that the opposers bring up, to the point that it would be seriously concerning to see you get the tools. Sorry Fæ, but I cannot support you at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – I don’t think there is the level of trust needed for Fae to be an admin at this time. Killiondude (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too many reservations a×pdeHello! 07:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just the type of admin wikipedia needs more of. Please to be making yourself THE news story for wikipedia in January… 98SA447 (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC) user indef blocked a×pdeHello! 08:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    The first edit was made today–Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    And now blocked for the time of indefinite–Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment BTW – babel would be appreciated Commons being multilingual. —Herby talk thyme 19:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please enable Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary in Special:Preferences. —EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • All those opposes looks a lot like canvassing imo. All users after Ottava didn’t edit for a long time. Especially RMHED (his first edit in two years!). Trijnstel (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • And this is really ridiculous. Bali ultimate didn’t even editted here before. :/ Please stop with this now! Trijnstel (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question It appears that an oppose !vote from User:Bali ultimate has been not only removed, but oversighted as well (and the user has been indefinitely blocked). It is not clear to me why they have been blocked and I do not recall the exact wording of their oppose !vote, but at the risk of being blocked myself for inadvertently repeating the wrong thing, Fæ is open about being Wikimedia UK Trustee Ashley Van Haefton. Ottava Rima has already mentioned the issue of out-of-process deletions of images uploaded by Van Haefton’s previous accounts. So far as I can tell, Bali ultimate was blocked for accurately describing the content of one of those images. This is not grounds for either oversighting the comments or blocking the user. I think that both the block and the oversighting of the !vote need to be reviewed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Hello Delicious carbuncle. For your question to have full appropriate context, have you got anything to add with regard to the suspected canvassing mentioned above or your long term special interest in me? Thanks — (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I think that I supplied the context – a user expressed their opinion with regard to your candidacy, they were blocked and their !vote oversighted. I assume you are making reference to disagreements that I had with your previous en.wiki account, but I would prefer that instead of making veiled accusations against me that you simply come out and say whatever it is that you have to say. You will recall that I have little patience for your games. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Did you canvass off-wiki for !votes for this RfA? — (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
          • As if all the deletions and blocks around here weren’t canvassed off-wiki by you. Hypocrite.67.168.135.107 08:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
            • That is not true, the canvassing against me for this RfA is easy to spot considering the dormant, new and rarely used accounts that appeared out of the woodwork at the same moment, that other contributors would take action is hardly surprising and is not evidence that I have superpowers over Wikimedia Commons. When this RfA is closed, the effect of canvassing will be taken into account. — (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
              • It sounds to me like there’s an awful lot of bad faith wrapped up in that assessment Fae, and to try to wave off the opposition to your adminship in this way is just lame (and a time-honoured method of those losing the vote) and just may be a possible indicator how petty you could be as an admin. —Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
                • I was responding to a specific claim that I had been canvassing. I would think it obvious that canvassing has been going on here, just not by me. — (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • It’s still a ‘sour grapes’ methodology to try to discount the comments of your detractors in this way, most of whom have given salient reasons for their opposition. I just wish the same could be said for the majority of your supporters. My take on the matter is that the RfA has indeed been discussed off-wiki in venues such as WR, though I don’t believe that it has occurred as a deliberate act of canvassing. Although I don’t feel duty bound to reveal where I heard about the debate, but I shall say so anyway. I saw it mentioned on COM:AN, as I suspect quite a few here did. I don’t see the post there as canvassing in any way, shape or form. —Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Delicious carbuncle: from reviewing the deleted revisions and block reasons (I haven’t spoken to anyone), the revdel was because Bali ultimate had linked Fae with his previous English Wikipedia account, which under en:WP:CLEANSTART terms has been kept (fairly – some leaks, not that hard to find) private information. Since Bali has (judging by what I’ve read this evening) a longstanding vendetta against Fae relating to English Wikipedia content disputes, and was actually involved in the incident that prompted the clean start, the judgement that this was unacceptable, in view of the clean start being accepted by the English Wikipedia community (evidence: the successful RFA, with review of the prior account by several trusted users), is reasonable. Rd232 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It’s not often I’m in agreement with DC, but I’m in total agreement with his above comments. There seems to be much going on here behind the scenes to prevent total transparency. Admin Romaine (talk · contribs) seems to have been working overtime in the deletions and oversighting business. —Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Could someone (Peter himself or Fæ?) explain the comment by Peter Damian “Self-interested deletions (and deletion of the record of deletions) are totally against the values of transparency”. What and where happened this? I mean – no on Commons (as you are no admin here). Where then? Where are or were you admin before? To be sure: I do not request personal details. It is obvious that something is fishy here – in whatever direction. —Saibo (Δ) 01:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Peter Damian (or Edward Buckner as he also refers to himself on :wmuk) is probably referring to his allegations which resulted in his block (not given by me) yesterday, see wmuk:User_talk:Peter_Damian. As you point out, this has nothing to do with Commons. — (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually Peter is referring to the deletion discussed in this thread where an image that Fae uploaded withone of his previous ids was deleted. User:Dcoetzee appears to have been misled into thinking that the user who made the original upload had left Wikipedia, when in fact he has been continuously active both there and here under his new id. Also Dcoetzee seems to be under the impression that Fae left his old account on Wikipedia following personal attacks. In fact he was the subject of an RFC/U. Carbuncle and Bali were among his leading critics there. The voting pattern in the examples I list below seem to match up with their criticisms of him there. So it is hardly surprising they have voted against him.–Peter cohen (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes as Peter C. correctly says I was referring to the original deletion discussion and the attempts at wiki.en to stifle any discussion of the issue. But there is no harm in adding the fact that I was blocked on Wiki.uk simply for asking questions and expressing concern about some serious issues (nothing to do with the image deletions, by the way), and not making allegations of any sort. Fae clearly canvassed for this block, as well as deleting questions from his talk page with the comment ‘soapboxing’. In my mind he stands for the culture here and on wiki of suppressing discussion under false pretext (‘harassment’, ‘trolling’). He represents censorship, disregard for freedom of information. In short, everything the wiki movement stands for. He is absolutely not to be trusted. Peter Damian (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • With regard to being a Commons admin previously, no I have never been a Commons admin. — (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It may not have been clear in my original question but I would like to know if you were or are (sul tool works again now – so you can skip the “are” part of the question – admin in: enwiki, ukwikimedia, outreachwiki) admin in other wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, meta, …?).
        Your response to my question referring to the wmuk talk page of Peter D. seem not really honest (or trying to point in the wrong direction? I am not really finding the right words here) in the light of what Peter D himself said here in the meantime. —Saibo (Δ) 00:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Ashley, could you please explain your !votes in the following deletion discussion?

  1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:My_Cock.jpg
  2. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Freeballsagger.jpg
  3. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Prostitutes_in_the_street_of_Reeperbahn.jpg
  4. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hanes_Underwear.JPG
  5. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Smokah_Shit.jpg
  6. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ejaculate577.JPG

You seem to have been on the losing side on all of these.–Peter cohen (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m not really sure that the above list of DRs is strictly relevant, other than the last one that is. Fae: “Sorry, I don’t find it in the least bit funny that the (apparently North American) “anti-pornography” paranoia and “moral” stance that some try to promote on Wikimedia projects has resulted in previous purges of potentially educational and cultural images from Commons on completely biased and arbitrary grounds.” Whilst I congratulate Fae on his refreshing open-mindedness I have to say that the duplicity shown by the dichotomy of the last half of that quote and the requested deletions of his own pictures is disappointing and not good evidence that he would make a trustworthy admin. —Fred the Oyster (talk)

It is relevant when he is applying to be an admin and appears to have a different understanding of policy from that held by existing admins.–Peter cohen (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment If all the “personal information” that User:Bali ultimate posted has since been posted by someone else, as appears to be the case, why is he still blocked? All that’s been removed, in effect, is the reasoning behind his his oppose vote. His talk page editing was also disabled, so there is no way for him to request an unblock.67.168.135.107 03:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • comment on the comment – this sort of block without representation is against everything the movement should stand for (even if, sadly, the reality is different). Peter Damian (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Hello anon IP account 67.168.135.107. You have been blocked for a year on Wikipedia as a known banned user [2]. Would you like to confirm who you are and why you have been on a long term campaign of harassment against me on more than one Wikimedia project? — (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I have been blocked for a year on another Wikimedia website by a paid employee of your Wikimedia UK, is that correct?[3][4]67.168.135.107 08:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Linking to evidence of your personal harassment of other contributors hardly helps your argument. Considering your ban above, by writing here are you bypassing a current ban or block on Wikimedia Commons? — (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I have been blocked for a year on another Wikimedia website by a paid employee of your Wikimedia UK, is that correct?67.168.135.107 09:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
          • This has nothing to do with this RFA, but as I have been accused of obfuscating I will reply briefly. As can be read on the chapter website, Richard Symonds works as an office manager for the WM-UK chapter. He reports to the CEO. His role as an admin on Wikipedia has nothing to do with his office manager job and he is never asked to use his admin tools on Wikipedia as part of his job for the chapter. Consequently the answer is that you were blocked by an unpaid volunteer Wikipedia admin who happens to have a day job for the chapter. Symonds does not report to me and I do not tell him what to do. You can write to Jon Davies (CEO) with any complaint you might have, though this would require you to write under a real name.
          • I have answered your question, please do me the courtesy of answering mine. Are you bypassing a current ban or block on Wikimedia Commons? — (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
            • His role as an admin on Wikipedia … Shouldn’t ceasars wife be beyond suspicion? John lilburne (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For OTRS-work, one does not need to be an admin here as Fæ said himself when Jcb was deadminned. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Should the Commons-Community decide or the one from En.wp? I suggest closing this request without any result as it is flooded by canvassed users never voted here before. — RE rillke questions? 12:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    Or, better, just disregard their votes.–Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    Does it matter where they come from if they are bringing factual and truthful insights into the character of Fae? After all it is in the interest of the Commons community that we gain admins who are worthy of the job. Personally, I feel that the more information we have the better, on the proviso that information is true and correct of course. To be honest so far I haven’t seen anything that hasn’t been true, or at least I think so, Okay so some of it has gained emphasis that perhaps it shouldn’t have had, but I sure we voters can figure that out for ourselves. —Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fæ has asked me “Did you canvass off-wiki for !votes for this RfA?” and another user above makes reference to “canvassed users”. For the record, I did not canvass on- or off-wiki for votes, nor have I emailed anyone to solicit their votes. There is a discussion about this request on Wikipedia Review, which may explain why some users who do not ordinarily watch these requests are aware of Fæ’s request. I invite regular Commons contributors to read it and decide for themselves whether or not it constitutes “canvassing”. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    There is information in that thread on WR that makes me uncomfortable about Fae being a straightforward editor, let alone an admin. His past history on en.wp with name changes, tag-teaming, really bad (Turkish baths) decisions with regard to BLP matters and gay porn PoV pushing is hardly the makings of a trustworthy admin. Especially the last two I listed given the (ever increasing) amount of male porn available on Commons and images of living people. —Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, I agree there is plenty on Wikipedia Review to be concerned about. It still looks like off-wiki canvassing to me. Various anonymous accounts and users banned from Wikimedia projects (some such accounts have been seen to contribute to this page) have used Wikipedia Review to make serious unfounded allegations about me, including promotion of child pornography and fraud. The speculation as to my sex life and those of others who are thought to be connected with me is blatantly malicious and intended to harass. It would be a sad day for Commons if processes such as RfA were allowed to become trial by Wikipedia Review, particularly if unfounded and defamatory allegations are repeated or linked to here. — (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    The one thing I personally don’t care about is your, or anyone else’s for that matter, sex life or sexual proclivities. If what you like is legal (regardless of how deviant it may appear to be) then I don’t feel it is relevant to this discussion one little bit. Of the things I’ve read I have no problem with at all and most certainly hasn’t affected my viewpoint one iota. What concerns me more is your history on en.wp and what you’ve done under different account names. The demonstrate to me that your decision making processes are a little skewed to say the least. Also the photo deletion issue. I remember some of them and I could care less about their content, what has me concerned is the deletions and how they were carried out. That smacks of under the table dealings and demonstrates to me that you can’t guarantee transparency in what you do. With regard to the WR thread the charity aspect is of little interest to me. The only aspect I’m concerned with is whatever relates to your character and decision making skills. —Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    Fæ, you are making extremely serious charges here (“promotion of child pornography” and “fraud”. I am more familiar with how things are done on en.wiki than here, but I would expect that unless you can substantiate those charges, you should be blocked for gross personal attacks. They are certainly not in the thread I linked earlier today (the one which you claim is canvassing, despite no one suggesting that anyone vote, let alone vote a certain way). Please link to the specific comments wherein these accusations are made. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    I have no intention of driving traffic to the website, however here are some relevant sample quotes of the allegations made which will be easy for you to track down by date:

    • Sample of fraud allegations: Thread A, 24th November, “It’s interesting how WMUK abjectedly lied in its application, by claiming that it had any control or influence over editorial policy or practice, when in fact it has none at all.”, 2 December, “Another example you might could use to show that the Wikimedia UK’s charity status application was fraudulent is to highlight the abuse inflicted last year on the Christopher Monckton article…”, 20th December, “Yup, they conned the charity commission. Their charitable status needs to be rescinded.”
    • Sample of promotion of child pornography allegations: Thread B, 26 Nov, “And of course I love the idea that a WMUK director was promoting outbound links to gay porn sites, one of which has a section on ‘**very young-looking males** sprawled on a sofa masturbating’..”, 5 Dec, “You need to be pointing out his naked youth photos, the fact that he’ll be working with minors, or at least in a position to interact with them online from a position of trust.”, (previous thread) 22 Dec, “It is highly relevant if a group that is tasked with educating children is headed up by someone with a interest in naked children and the uploading of porn to a sister project.”
    • I recognise only one of the quotes as mine, namely the one beginning ‘I love the idea that …’. I did not use the expression ‘promoting child pornography’. I said the author was promoting links to sites which contained dubious material. I did not use the expression ‘child pornography’. I said that the the section of the site claims to have pictures of ‘**very young-looking males** sprawled on a sofa masturbating’. ‘Young looking males’ is different from ‘children’. Please note I did not look at any of the pictures. The site claims that, that is all. I can send links to the site on request. I will not post them here. Peter Damian (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    You appear to be attempting to connect my username here with specific allegations made about you. I don’t believe any of the comments you quote are mine. I ask that you make it clear who made the comments and strike your gratuitous linking of those comments to my username. I suggest that none of the comments come even close to accusing you personally of fraud or of promoting child pornography. Unless you have something more concrete to offer, this appears to be rather similar to the vague claims you made of fearing for your personal safety when you “vanished” your previous account and began using your current account. At this point, I’m going to ask that you strike the earlier remarks or I will ask for you to be blocked. It was bad enough that you made the original accusations, but making it seem as if I were the author of those comments is simply compounding the personal attack. You really should know better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    As a courtesy I have anonymized the names of those starting the above threads. As Delicious carbuncle points out (and I made clear in my original statement), the quotes are from various contributors, only some of whom have contributed to comments in this RfA. To clarify, the fraud related allegations are against the WM-UK chapter trustees of which I am one. — (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Fæ, since you’re active, can you answer the questions immediately below about your previous accounts?67.168.135.107 08:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Hello anon IP account 67.168.135.107. You have been blocked for a year on Wikipedia as a known banned user [5]. This does not encourage me to answer your questions here, however if you explain who you are, I will reconsider. — (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Translation: in addition to the undocumented username changes, you socked commons as User:Speedoguy.67.168.135.107 08:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you for making those changes, Fæ. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    No problem. I am happy to reconsider the phrasing “promotion of child pornography allegations” if you can suggest something more accurate. Certainly by my reading, the allegations appear to include putting children at risk and having an “interest” in naked children, though most of my initial thoughts on how to summarize this would seem more extreme. — (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    You say “Certainly by my reading, the allegations appear to include putting children at risk and having an “interest” in naked children”. I never said this. You are misrepresenting sources by lumping together statements made by different authors as though they were all by me. I do not recognise the statements “You need to be pointing out his naked youth photos, the fact that he’ll be working with minors, or at least in a position to interact with them online from a position of trust.”, or “It is highly relevant if a group that is tasked with educating children is headed up by someone with a interest in naked children and the uploading of porn to a sister project.” as mine. Indeed, I checked carefully through the threads you mention and they are both by someone else. So could you please change what you have written in a way that distances me from such allegations. I merely claimed you were making the outbound links, which is true, and I can supply diffs if anyone asks. Peter Damian (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    I believe I have said twice in this thread that these were from various contributors, not Peter Damian. I have not made any claim that these are Peter Damian’s comments whether or not they were in reply to a post that Peter Damian created. To avoid any further ambiguity or misinterpretation, I am happy to confirm that Peter Damian or the same person acting under other known account names, did not make all of these comments and I have not reposted the names of contributors as not all of them are here to respond. I have included these quotes in response to Delicious carbuncle’s concern that no evidence had been supplied here of such allegations being made on Wikipedia Review. If anyone wishes to see who did post these comments, this information is currently available at that website, where I suggest it remains. — (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    You are probably complaining about my comments. The issue that I addressed there is that any parent would probably not be too keen on their 14 or 15 year old daughter being up in their bedroom chatting online with Hugh Hefner, or Richard Desmond. That they would be even less keen if instead of those two, the person their daughter was actually chatting to was part of a community of which saw no problems with acknowledged 13 year olds editing porn articles, where that same community is unwilling to provide a method of limiting access to porn by children. That said parent would be even more concerned to know that the person in communication with their child not only posted porn images for the communities perusal, but once also had a sexualized image of a young teen on their userpage. The question for the charity commission is where the charity concerned doesn’t recognise that having said person acting as a trustee of an educational charity that works with young people, isn’t likely to bring the charity into disrepute. Hope that helps clarify the comments, and that we can still be friends. John lilburne (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Hello John lilburne, I see you have come here from Delicious carbuncle’s Wikipedia review thread “Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin?”, as you left a comment there at 9.09am today saying you were going to post here and that you thought I sounded “peeved”. Considering you have made 60 contributions to Wikimedia Commons since creating your account in Feb 2009 (excluding this discussion), any other route for finding this discussion apart from Wikipedia Review seems unlikely, though you are welcome to correct my assumption if unfounded. The Wikipedia Review thread appears to be off-wiki canvassing and resulting actions by some contributors as tag teaming in order to manipulate the consensus of this RfA, particularly as the !votes of editors above are under active discussion and analysis on that same thread. With regard to your speculation as to my accounts before my clean start, this is answered below. With regard to your other comments, I suggest you try the Village Pump which is quite active on these matters. Thanks — (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    Fæ, the discussion on WR is not a canvassing or not more a canvassing than post about your RfA or whatever it calls here on AN. Neither at AN nor at WR readers were asked to oppose your nomination. Neither at AN nor at WR opinions of the readers about your candidacy were known in advance. Boss threads created more exposure to you and the nomination, but neither was canvassing. —Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

    The thread created by Delicious carbuncle opens with “I guess Ashley wants to delete the rest of his embarrassing uploads without the fuss of having to ask an admin…”. An explicit statement of “please oppose this nomination” was hardly required when a statement making a clear presumption that I would misuse Admin tools is the (unchallenged) starting point. The fact that the thread is now being used to discuss the people who have expressed a support opinion here and analyse possible outcomes is clearly manipulative. — (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    Though I do have a penchant for watching train wrecks, you will note that I am not participating in this vote. Thus I am not part of any off-wiki canvassing for votes, nor have I seen any such. My comment in this thread is to clear up any misunderstandings following to your quoting of me above. As for the village pump – meh! The wikipedia community is incapable of even beginning to addressing real world concerns that exist outside of its insular projects. John lilburne (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: Were you previously knows as Ashleyvh (presumably Ashley van Haeften), Teahot, or Ash? Can you please disclose your previous account(s)? —Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Hello Michaeldsuarez, I see you have also come here from Delicious carbuncle’s Wikipedia Review thread “Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin?”, where your second post to that thread yesterday at 9.05pm included “Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, “Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey”?”. I appreciate you were making a joke, however the thread on WR still appears to be off-wiki canvassing and consequent actions by some contributors as tag teaming in order to manipulate the consensus of this RfA, particularly as the !votes of editors above are under active discussion and analysis on the same thread and you have personally made so few edits to Wikimedia Commons in the past. With regard to your speculation as to my accounts before my clean start, this was fully discussed during my Wikipedia RfA before which I had lengthy advice by Arbcom on how to apply en:WP:Clean start and followed their advice throughout. — (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Disclosing a clean start instead of disclosing former accounts does little to secure my confidence in you. That thread is a discussion of your RfA, not an attempt to canvass voters. The WR is all about spreading knowledge and awareness of Wikimedia, its users, and their flaws. As a member of WMUK’s board of trustees, you are a notable topic of discussion. People have the right to know about events occurring on Wikimedia projects; they shouldn’t be kept secret. Knowledge of events shouldn’t be suppressed. In addition, I believe that it’s ludicrous for someone as far up the ladder as you (which is also far up enough to testify in front members of Parliament) to censor their past and to attempt to convince voters to look the over way. Due to your position, I’ll hold you up to the highest of standards. —Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fæ, were you also Speedoguy?67.168.135.107 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Hello anon IP 67.168.135.107, I believe you are attempting to circumvent an active ban on Wikimedia Commons by posting here and anyone who examines your contribution history can see your worrying track record. You have failed to answer questions about who you are several times, however you are still welcome to explain, if you would like me to respond to your question. (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Although you are quite entitle to refuse to answer, you aren’t entitled to ask who this person is, that comes under the heading of outing someone, and as you well know that’s a no, no. —Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks for pointing that out Fred, I have struck my speculation as to the status of the user contributing from this IP on Wikimedia Commons, though it can be seen that this IP is currently blocked for 1 year for being used by a banned user on Wikipedia. I apologise to 67.168.135.107 for my unwarranted speculation here. — (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • (I do not expect an answer on this question:) Why didn’t you disclose the “clean start” (which seems to be a enwp term) and your WM-UK chapter trustee role as you had done in your RfA in enwp at 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)? I regard this as relevant information. You are not somebody who has joined Commons at 2010-03-29 – you are here longer which isn’t told us by your account’s data. Cheers —Saibo (Δ) 16:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I am happy to answer your question Saibo. My request at the top of this page included a link to the GLAM task force which highlights that I am on the WMUK board. I agree that it was an oversight or mistake on my part not to make this clearer in the text, however I consider being an unpaid volunteer trustee on a chapter board to be neutral when it comes to an RfA, though my content work which I do mention is relevant. In retrospect, I agree that it would have been sensible to explain my clean start here, it was not my intention to mislead anyone, and I was not prepared for this RfA to be lightening conductor for Wikipedia Review contributors with so much grief to share about the UK chapter becoming a charity. I did not include my clean start history as I do not believe this is required or even common practice for past admin nominations on Commons. If I am mistaken I am fully prepared to withdraw my request based on my misunderstanding of policy for how RfAs are supposed to be conducted. In general I would expect any prospective admin to be judged on their contributions here rather than speculation about past accounts after a clean start. in my case I have a history of 20+ months to support my request along with a significant contribution history under both my main account and my Faebot account. Thanks — (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • As Wikimedia frequently messes things up here I am interested in such involvements at Wikimedia (sister organizations). I am not sure to which extent this is of interest to others here. Thanks for your mention of “unpaid” – good to know.
        As said before, I do not request a disclosure of your previous accounts if their actions were not relevant to the adminship here – just a mention of I had other accounts before would have been nice. However, according to the info which is spread at several places here the previous account’s actions were not uncontroversial. So I would have wished that you had mentioned this (possible without username disclosure), just to make people aware that Fæ is no “innocent” (transitional use) useraccount. I am tempted to change my oppose to a weak oppose – but it won’t count much anyway. Cheers —Saibo (Δ) 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Having spent over an hour reviewing the background of this user, and the various chunks of mud flying around, I’ve yet to find anything that really sticks. (I may have missed something, in attempting to sort wheat from chaff, given the amount of chaff coming from certain sources…) I exclude the issues which precede the “clean start” on English Wikipedia, since several people at the time of the RFA there reviewed that clean start, and a cursory look at the user’s admin record reveals only the minor blips one should expect (we’re all human). That leaves, perhaps, as really relevant for Commons adminship, the question of possibly exceptional deletion of the user’s own uploads of themselves on privacy grounds. This can be vaguely justified under Commons:Deletion policy#Privacy, but it’s a bit unsatisfactory since “violation of privacy policy” doesn’t apply. Fae, (i) do you agree that this is the policy basis for those deletions (ii) do you agree that this is somewhat unsatisfactory, and that users not so embedded in the Wikimedia community as you are might not get the same treatment (iii) would you be willing to propose an amendment to the policy to ensure that any user in a similar situation would receive the same treatment? Rd232 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • If you look at everything after the ‘clean start’ you will find it all exemplary, agreed. The problem is whether the ‘clean start’ was clean, i.e. whether you trust the Arbcom imprimatur or not. This issue goes to the heart of the governance system for the whole project. It is wider than just ‘Fae’. I speak as one who has been blocked many times for questioning this system of governance. Peter Damian (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, FWIW, I reviewed the background myself, and found little of substance. See my comment here. Having been on the receiving end of Arbcom capriciousness (in a mild way), I can certainly say it doesn’t always get it right. But in general, I think you have to trust the system in principle, whilst keeping a healthy scepticism in any given instance of its application and always keeping an open mind on possible reforms. What’s the alternative? Rd232 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • While Ashley showed understandable concerns for his own privacy once certain pictures he uploaded to Commons started being used on WR and elsewhere, I am still awaiting a comment of his explaining his stance on the privacy of the alleged prostitutes I have mentioned above.–Peter cohen (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement

I would like to withdraw this RfA, an action recommended to me by a highly experienced Wikimedia Commons contributor in response to the threat against me and my civil partner today. The inability of Wikimedia Commons processes to handle the multiple unsupported claims against me in a timely fashion, some by long term Commons accounts, is disturbing. I have never commented on speculative claims about accounts before my clean start and I have never made any comment or recommendation as to the deletion process to be followed for the man in suspension photograph which at various times has been claimed to be of me or taken by me. Any deletion was entirely the fully independent choice of the administrator involved, any questions should be raised with them. The discussion on this page and in other places has been blatantly manipulated by a tag-team coordinated via Wikipedia Review and this RfA has become trial by Wikipedia Review. I recommend careful scrutiny of the key accounts involved in those Wikipedia Review posts and their tag-team contribution patterns which harass, distort the facts and manipulate Wikimedia Commons consensus process. Just because allegations have been posted off-wiki or multiple times on-wiki does not turn them into “facts”, as a community we should be strongly evidence based and as others have pointed out here, speculation and rumour is not evidence.

For an RfA we should be discussing relevant contributions on Wikimedia Commons, this has not been the focus of discussion here where instead I have been put on trial for being a trustee that helped to turn the UK chapter into a registered charity and asked to account for Wikipedia edits made over 2 years ago before my clean start by accounts speculated to be mine, which I have never made any comment about. — (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Vote annotation

Because of the number of users entering this discussion with few or no recent edits (following the flagging of this discussion offwiki), such users have had their votes annotated to note this. This annotation does not in itself affect the validity of the votes; it is merely to assist other users in understanding the flow of the discussion, and potentially ease the task of the closing bureaucrat. Users are reminded that Commons:Bureaucrats states Bureaucrats are trusted with a measure of discretion in all cases, and discussions/votes are never closed simply on the basis of a vote count. Bureaucrats may give more weight to well-argued opinions than unargued votes, and they may discount or partly discount votes and opinions of users who have made only a few contributions to Commons. Rd232 (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for marking all of the votes, both support and oppose, from individuals with little activity. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s