Commons:Administrators

This page explains the role of administrators (sometimes called admins or sysops) on Wikimedia Commons. Note that details of the role, and the way in which administrators are appointed, may differ from other sites.

If you want to request administrator help, please post at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.

There are currently 271 administrators on Commons.

An admin wielding the mop, a common symbol of administrators. See also: The good admin.

What is an administrator?

Administrators as of May 2013 [+/−]

Listing by language Listing by date

Number of Admins: 271 1Veertje, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 32X, de, en-2, hsb-1, ru-1 99of9, en (bureaucrat) á, fi, en-2, sv-2 A.Savin, ru, de-4, en-2 Adrignola, en AFBorchert, de, en-3 Ahonc, uk, ru-4, en-2, de-1 Aka, de, en-3 Ala z, pl, en-2, ru-1 ALE!, de, en-3, es-3, fr-1, it-1 Alhen, es, en-2 Alison, en, ga-3, fr-2, gd-1 Alno, fr, en-3, es-2, pt-1 Alpertron, es, en-3 Amada44, de, en-3, fr-1 Angr, en, de-4, fr-2, ga-2, la-2, cy-1 AnRo0002, de, en-2, fr-2, es-1 Anthere, fr, en-3 Aude, en, ar-3 Avenue, en, de-1, fr-1, it-1 Avraham, en, he-2 (oversighter, steward) AVRS, ru, en-2, eo-2 Axpde, de, en-4, es-1, fr-1, it-1, nl-1 AzaToth, sv, en-4 Badseed, el, en-3, it-1 Bapti, fr, en-3, de-2 Barcex, es, en-2, fr-1 Bastique, en, fr-3, es-2, la-2, ga-1 Bdk, de, en-2 Bencmq, zh, en-3 (steward) Benoit Rochon fr, en-4 Beria, pt, en-2, es-2 Bidgee, en Billinghurst, en (steward) Blackcat, it, en-3, fr Blacklake, ru, en-2 Blurpeace, en, es-1 Butko, ru, uk-2, en-1 Cambalachero, es, en-3 Captain-tucker, en Cecil, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, fi-1 (bureaucrat) Chatama, ja, en-1 Chris 73, de, en-3, ja-1 ChrisiPK, de, en-3, fr-1 ChristianBier, de, en-3 Ciell, nl, en-2, de-1 Cirt, en, es-2 Common Good, en CommonsDelinkerHelper (bot) Cookie, es, en-2 Courcelles, en, es-2, fr-2 Coyau, fr, en-1 DaB., de, en-1 Dantadd, it, pt, en-3, es-3, fr-3, gl-3, ca-2, ro-1, el-1 Darwinius, pt, en-3, es-2, fr-2, gl-2, ca-1, it-1, oc-1 Davepape, en David Levy, en Dcoetzee, en, fr-2, et-1, af-0 Denniss, de, en-2, fr-1 Dereckson, fr, en-3, de-1, nl-1 Didym, de, en-2, fr-2 D-Kuru, de, en-2, it-1 Dschwen, de, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat) Edgar181, en, de-1, fr-1, es-1 Effeietsanders, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1, la-1 Ejdzej, pl, en-2 Elcobbola en, de Elitre, it, en-3, fr-2 Elya, de, en-3, uk-2, ru-1 EPO, da, en-3, de-1 Érico Júnior Wouters, pt, en-2, es-2 Esby, fr, en-3, de-1 EugeneZelenko, ru, be, en-2, bg-1, pl-1 (bureaucrat) EVula, en Ezarate, es-3, en-1 Fanghong, zh, en-2, fr-1 Fastily, en, fr-2, zh-2 Flominator, de, als, en-3 Foroa, vls, nl, en-3, fr-2 Funfood, de, en-2, bar-1 FunkMonk, da, en-4, no-3, fo-2, sv-2, de-1, es-1 Geagea, he, ka-3, en-3, ru-1 Geni, en George Chernilevsky, ru, uk-3, de-2, en-2, bg-1, la-1, be-1, fr-1 GeorgHH, de, en-1 Gestumblindi, als, de, en-3 Gmaxwell, en (checkuser) Gnangarra, en Golbez, en, ja-2 Greudin, fr, en-2, de-1 grin, hu, en-3, de-1 Gruznov, ru, en-1, fr-1 guillom, fr, en-3, de-1 Heb, da, en-2 Hekerui, de, en-4 Herbythyme, en, fr-2, es-1, it-1 (checkuser) Hesperian, en High Contrast, de, en-3, fr-1 HJ Mitchell, en Howcheng, en, ja-2 Hystrix, de, en-1 H-stt, de, en-4, fr-1 INeverCry, en, es-1, ru-1 Infrogmation, en, es-1 JDavid, pl, en-2, de-1 J Milburn, en Jafeluv, fi, en-4, fr-3, de-2, ru-2 Jameslwoodward, en, fr-1 (checkuser) January, en Jaqen, it, en-2 Jarekt, pl, en Jastrow, fr, en-3, de-1, it-1 Jcornelius, de, lt-2, la-2, en-2, pt-2, fr-1 Jdforrester, en Jean-Frédéric, fr, en-4, es-1 JeremyA, en JGHowes, en, fr-2, de-1 Jmabel, en, es-3, ro-2, de-1, ca-1, it-1, pt-1, fr-1 Joergens.mi, de, en-3 John Vandenberg, en Juliancolton, en (bureaucrat) Julo, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1 JuTa, de, en-2, fr-1 Jusjih, zh, en-3, fr-1 (bureaucrat, steward) Kaldari, en Kallerna, fi, en-3, sv-2, de-1 Kanonkas, no, en-4, nn-3, da-2, sv-2, de-1 (bureaucrat) Killiondude, en, es-3, ru-1 King of Hearts, en, zh-4, es-3 Klemen Kocjancic, sl, en-3, de-2, hr-1, bs-1 Krd, de, en-3 Krinkle, nl, en-3, de-2 Krzysiu, pl, en-2, szl-2 KTo288, en, zh-4 Kved, es, en-3 Kwj2772, ko, en-2 Kyro, fr, de-3, en-2 Leit, de, en-3, fr-1 Léna, fr, en-3, es-1 Letartean, fr, en-3 Leyo, gsw, de, en-3, fr-3, es-1, la-1 Lobo, es, ca-2, en-2 Logan, en, es-3 Lokal Profil, sv, en-4, pt-2, fr-1 LtPowers, en, es-1 Ludmiła Pilecka, pl, en-2, ru-1 Ludo29, fr, en-2 Lupo, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, it-1 Luxo, gsw, de-4, en-1, fr-1 Lymantria, nl, de-2, en-2, fy-2, fr-1, zea-1 Magister Mathematicae, es, en-4, pt-1 (checkuser) Magnus Manske, de, en-2 Magog the Ogre, en, es-2 Maire, pl, en-4, es-2, fr-2, de-2, ru-1 MarcoAurelio, es, en-2, fr-2 (steward) Marcus Cyron, de, en-1 Mardetanha fa, az, en-3, tr-2, ar-1 (checkuser, steward) Martin H., de, en-2 (checkuser) Masur, pl, en-3, de-1 Matanya, en, he (steward) Materialscientist, en-4, ru-4, nl-3, fr-1, es-1 Matt314, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, zh-1 Mathonius, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 (steward) Mattbuck, en, fr-1, la-1 Maxim, ru, en-3, fr-2 MBisanz, en (steward) McZusatz, de, en-3, es-1, la-1 swg-1 Mentifisto, en, mt, it-2 (steward) MGA73, da, en-3, de-2, sv-1, no-1 MichaelMaggs, en, fr-1 Micheletb, fr, en-3, it-1, es-1 Micki, sr, bs-4, hr-3, en-2 Mitchazenia, en, es-2 Miya, ja, en-2 Mmxx, fa, en-3 Mono, en Moogsi, en, la-2, fr-1, grc-1 Morgankevinj, en, es-1, la-1 Mormegil, cs, en-2, de-1 Morning Sunshine, vi, en-3 M0tty, fr, en-1 MPF, en, da-2, de-1, fr-1 Multichill, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1 Mys 721tx, zh, en-3 Nagy, de, en-3, fr-2, es-1, sv-1 Neozoon, de, en-4, nl-4, fr-2 Nilfanion, en, fr-1 NordNordWest, de, en-3 notafish, fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2 O, zh, en-4, zh-wuu-2, zh-hu-3, yue-1 fr-1 odder, pl, en-3, de-2 (oversighter) Okki, fr, en-2 Otourly, fr, en-2, it-1 PeterSymonds, en, de-1 (steward) Pharos, en, fr-1 Philosopher, en, es-1, zh-1 PierreSelim, fr, en-3, es-1 Pitke, fi, en-4, sv-2 Platonides, es, en-2, fr-1 Podzemnik, cs, en-2 Polarlys, de, en-2, fr-1, no-1 Powerek38, pl, en-4, fr-2, es-1, de-1 Pruneau, fr, en-4, de-1 PumpkinSky, en, de-2 Putnik, ru, en-2 ~Pyb, fr, en-2 Pymouss, fr, en-3, de-2, it-2, he-1 Ragesoss, en, de-1, fr-1 Ra'ike, de, en-2 Rama, fr, en-3, de-2, la-2, es-1, it-1, ja-1 (oversighter) Rastrojo, es, en-3, fr-2, eo-1 Raul654, en, es-1 Raymond, de, en-3, nl-1 (oversighter) Rd232, en, de, es-2, fr-1 Rehman, en, si-1 Reinhard Kraasch, de, en-3 Rillke, de, en-2, fr-1 Rimshot, de, en-4, fr-2, it-1 Romaine, nl, en-3, de-2, af-1, fr-1 Ronhjones, en, fr-1 Rosenzweig, de, en-3, fr-1, la-1 Royalbroil, en, es-1 Rubin16, ru, tt, en-3 Rüdiger Wölk, de, en-2 Russavia, en, ru-3 (bureaucrat) Sanandros, als, de, en-3, fr-1 Sandstein, als, de, en-4, fr-3, it-1 SatuSuro, en, id-1 Sfu, pl, en-2 Shizhao, zh, en-1, ru-1 (steward) Siebrand, nl, en-3, fr-1, de-1 Skeezix1000, en, fr-2 Spiritia, bg, en-3, ru-2, mk-2, de-1 Sreejithk2000, ml, en-3, hi-3, ta-1, kn-1 Steinsplitter, tir, de-4, it-3, en-1 Steven Walling, en Stifle, en, ga, fr-2, de-1 Sven Manguard, en Tabercil, en Tarawneh, en, ar, de-1 Techman224, en TheDJ, nl, en-3, de-1, fr-1 Thuresson, sv, en-3, no-2 Tiptoety, en (checkuser, oversighter) Tom, en, es-1 Trijnstel, nl, en-4, de-1, fr-1 (checkuser, steward) Trixt, it, en-2, fr-1 tsca, pl, en, da Túrelio, de, en-3, es-1 VIGNERON, fr, de-2, en-2, zh-1 Waldir, pt, en-3 Whym, ja, en-2 Wikitanvir, bn, en-3, as-2, bpy-1 (steward) WJBscribe, en, fr-3, de-1 Wknight94, en Wpedzich, pl, en-4, de-2 (steward) Wsiegmund, en, fr-1, es-1 Wutsje, fy, nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1 Wuzur, de, en-3 wvk, de, en-4, fa-3, fr-2 Yann, fr, en-3, hi-2, gu-1 Yarl, pl, en-2, de-1, ru-1 Yuval Y, he, en-3 Zirland, cs, pl-3, en-3, sk-2, eo-2 Zolo, fr, en-4, de-2, zh-2 Zscout370, en, ja-3 Zyephyrus, fr, en-3, la-3, el-2 Zzyzx11, en, es-1, fr-1 KrinkleBot, Bot account; temporary adminship for testing, see also Commons:Bots/Requests/KrinkleBot (2). Brion VIBBER, Temporary adminship: "Temporary enable to look into UW campaign setup". No exact expiry date. The system currently recognizes 271 administrators. If that is not the last number in the list above, there is an error in the list.

Technical

Administrators are users with the technical ability on Wikimedia Commons to:

• delete and undelete images and other uploaded files, and to view and restore deleted versions
• delete and undelete pages, and to view and restore deleted revisions
• protect and unprotect pages, and to edit admin-protected pages
• block and unblock users, individual IP addresses and IP address ranges
• edit the MediaWiki namespace
• rename files

These are collectively known as the admin tools.

Community role

Administrators are experienced and trusted members of the Commons community who have taken on additional maintenance work and have been entrusted with the admin tools by public consensus/vote. Different admins have different areas of interest and expertise, but typical admin tasks include determining and closing deletion requests, deleting copyright violations, undeleting files where necessary, protecting Commons against vandalism, and working on templates and other protected pages. Of course, some of these tasks can be done by non-admins as well.

Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate respect community consensus.

Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor. Of course, some admins are influential, but that derives not from their position as such but from the personal trust they have gained from the community.

How do I become an administrator?

First, consider whether becoming an administrator is the best way for you to contribute to the project. Experience shows that outstanding contributors of content often reduce their contributions because of the maintenance overhead after they become admins, and this is what we want least. So please contribute your best skills and understand that there are many ways of getting community credit besides being an admin. Admin status on Commons is not an honour for outstanding content contributors, but just provides an additional set of tools for people who show that they want to clean up.

Consider whether you actually need the admin tools for the work you would like to do. The community does not hand out the tools to those who do not need or who are not likely to make use of them. So, if you need the tools only for a limited period, or in order to clean up your own contributions, please simply ask an existing admin to help you out.

Admins are expected to remain reasonably active here, and if after appointment you cease to use the tools for an extended period you will automatically lose them under our de-admin policy. You should expect as an admin to make yourself available on Commons to a reasonable extent (a userpage that asks people to leave messages for you on some other project is not considered acceptable practice for an admin).

More information about the administrators' community roles can be found at Commons:Guide to adminship.

We do not have any hard and fast rules setting out the minimum period you should have been active on Commons in order to apply for adminship, nor any minimum number of edits. However, the requirement that you be an experienced and trusted member of the Commons community typically means that prior to applying you should have had sufficient breadth and depth of experience here to be able to demonstrate that. If you are an admin or an experienced user on another project, by all means mention that, but bear in mind that off-Commons experience is on its own not normally enough.

Although not mandatory, it is often a good idea to talk to existing admins to get feedback about your experience and approach. You may be able to get another admin to nominate you, although self-nominations are also allowed.

When you request adminship, the community will consider your ability to fill the admin role. Individual Commons contributors may have varying expectations of candidates, and you may wish to review some archived applications to get a sense of what people are looking for. As a practical matter, users often want to see a reasonable level of involvement in admin-type activities such as deletion requests, accurately tagging images as copyright violations, new user patrolling, and so on. Users often want to be satisfied that you are an integral member of the Commons community and will look at the way you interact with others, on user talk pages and elsewhere.

The public discussion and vote

Adminship nominations remain open for at least seven days, for votes and comments, unless withdrawn early as unsuccessful. The period starts when you posted your nomination (if a self-nom) or when you posted your acceptance (if somebody else nominated you). At the end of that period the nomination will be closed by a bureaucrat who will either grant or decline promotion. The nomination may be left open for more than seven days, or a longer period specified, should a bureaucrat consider that desirable.

As a guideline, promotion normally requires at least 75% in favour, with a minimum of 8 support votes. Votes from unregistered users are not numerically counted, although such users may still offer their opinions on the candidate. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.

If the nomination is successful, the closing bureaucrat will grant the applicant admin rights.

The request for adminship

When you are ready, make sure you have a userpage, enable email in your preferences, then apply, or ask your nominator to apply, back on the main Commons:Administrators page.

Suggestions for administrators

Please read Commons:Guide to adminship.

Removal of administrator rights

Under the de-admin policy, administrator rights may be revoked due to inactivity or misuse of sysop tools.

Apply to become an administrator

First, go to Commons:Administrators/Howto and read the information there. Then come back here and make your request in the section below.

• After clicking on the appropriate button and creating the subpage, copy the link to the subpage, e.g. "Commons:Administrators/Requests/Username", edit Commons:Administrators/Requests and paste it in at the top of the section, then put it in double curly brackets (e.g. {{Commons:Administrators/Requests/Username}} ) to transclude it.

• If someone else nominated you, please accept the nomination by stating "I accept" or something similar, and signing below the nomination itself. The subpage will still need to be transcluded by you or your nominator.

Use the box below, replacing Username with your username:

Voting

Any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. It is preferable if you give reasons both for  Support votes or  Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

Promotion normally requires at least 75% in favour, with a minimum of 8 support votes. Votes from unregistered users are not counted. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers.

 Neutral comments are not counted in the vote totals for the purposes of calculating pass/fail percentages. However such comments are part of the discussion, may persuade others, and contribute to the closing bureaucrat's understanding of community consensus.

Purge the cache Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.

Requests for adminship

watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Alan

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 16:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to introduce User:Alan to the community for RfA. Alan has been active on Commons since November 2012 and has almost 7,400 edits. Since he has joined Commons, he has made an impression on me personally; I see him doing a lot of maintenance work including patrolling new files and DR/speedying problematic files, renaming files, licence reviews, participating in DR's etc. Alan and the community would benefit with him having the tools. russavia (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alan

I'd like to thank russavia and Steinsplitter for this opportunity. Also, I'd like to mention that I used to edit under my former username, User:Alan.lorenzo, and that I currently am an administrator and bureaucrat on Spanish Wikivoyage and OTRS member. --Alan ^(talk) 17:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support as nominator russavia (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support OTRS member, trusted user, excellent candidate.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. --Ralgis (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - We are in need of more active administrators, especially those speaking Spanish. Feel free using your language skills to improve the experience of Commons for people only speaking Spanish. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And Euskara too. russavia (talk)
•  Support. I can not see any arguments against. --McZusatz (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. Very active and polite user. --Millars (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Do not expect problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Jcb (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. INeverCry 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, looks good. Trijnstel_talk 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support--Inefable001 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support a×p_de^Hello! 12:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support a good one --High Contrast (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Lymantria (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose - sorry, but "since November 2012" is for me at a difficult project like Commons not enough. Not enough time to learn all the things you need to know. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Discussions in various questions below display intelligence and a willingness to talk things through. Also, an admin with experience on WikiVoyage will surely be worthwhile! -Pete F (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Ezarateesteban 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Can be trusted with the tools. I do not see how 6 months of experience are too little. Regards, Vogone (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral 6 months are too little. But the contributions look good. --Didym (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support The user's contribution history, thorough responses to questions asked here, and comportment in this RFA all indicate that he would be more of an asset to Commons with the sysop tools. Happy to add my support here. Begoon - talk 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --UAwiki (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Despite russavia already mentioned some use cases, please write down in your own words a rough estimation here for what you will use your admin tools primarily. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rillke. I think it would be chiefly active "with tools" in DR, deletion categories and AN. And I will continue with the same thing that now. And of course: Where I'm needed :P --Alan ^(talk) 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• How would you respond if File:Fairphone.jpg was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "seems to be CC-BY-NC-SA [1]"? --99of9 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. Per commons:multi-licensing. Fairphone is a project of Waag Society and is the owner of rights. Alan ^(talk) 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done Ok, I didn't find that one. It's helpful if the source link points to a page with the correct license. I've corrected the unported to nl. --99of9 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The source was correct. Look under the photo. (CC) FairPhone 2012 links to CC webpage (by/3.0/nl).
        • Ok, I see - I was confused by the changing image, but did try hovering over the CC logo which is unlinked. --99of9 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you for changing unported to nl, my mistake. --Alan ^(talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• How would you respond if File:Reyes católicos Wax Museum.JPG was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative, apparently fails FoP-Spain" --99of9 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Per COM:DW. "Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself.". This is a replica of a picture (it seems of Goya??) in PD. --Alan ^(talk) 13:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, I assumed from the filename it was a photo of some wax figurines. I'll add another question (next) which is like that. So in this case it should be {{PD-art}} but you don't know the source painting? --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, is a exact replica using wax. Sincerly, put the name in a label, but I do not remember the exact name, sorry. --Alan ^(talk) 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
        • So you're arguing that wax figurines are exact replicas of public domain human bodies, and thus do not have sufficient originality to warrant copyright? Don't you think that the artist gets to choose the pose/expression/clothing/colours in an creative artistic process (as for most sculptures of people)? --99of9 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
          • If we understand that the wax figures aren't replicas, in application of the Spanish Royal Decree-Law 1/1996 art.21 (21. Transformación), all spanish wax-art photos should be deleted. --Alan ^(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes. I'm pretty sure they should be treated like other portrait sculptures. I've set up a DR for this one. (My view of "replica" is when you take a fixed shape object and make another fixed shape object the same apart from overall scale.) --99of9 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
              • I seems perfect. Let's see what opines the comunity respect to this matter. The museums always provoked differences of opinion. --Alan ^(talk) 17:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• How would you respond if File:David Bisbal - Wax Museum.JPG was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative, apparently fails FoP-Spain" --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I forgot this. See above. --Alan ^(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• How would you respond if File:Urkiola_Sanctuary.jpg was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative, apparently fails FoP-Spain" --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • the image is to show the stained glass (In PD per antique, the wall is inevitable. I think that applies COM:DM. --Alan ^(talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry I don't buy that. The photographer could have walked forward by about 10 meters if he wanted a picture of the glasswork. If anything DM would be the other way around (glass DM in the context of the wall). --99of9 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • No. There is a ribbon that prohibits approaching. One solution, cut the image. --Alan ^(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, that would be fine if it's still useful so small. --99of9 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Image cropped and updated. New resolution is "decent" with 409 × 440 px. Alan ^(talk) 17:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
            •  Done thanks. --99of9 (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Please have a look at File:Cartel de guía de viajes aprobada.svg. The code generated for attribution for re-using this file is:

Por Alan.lorenzo Este archivo se derivó de: UK_traffic_sign_2205.svg City_silhouette.svg Yes_check.svg (Trabajo propio) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)].

What does cc-by-sa (Creative Commons Genérica de Atribución/Compartir-Igual 3.0) demand from re-users? -- Rillke^(q?) 12:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• City_silhouette.svg have BY-SA 3.0 (ShareAlike) and because of this, must use the same license. Others let choose and BY-SA is supported. --Alan ^(talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is true. And CC-By-SA also requires atribución. So the authors of the original work (there is only one the exceeds COM:TOO in this graphic, so I listed him) should be listed (even though they were just one click away) so that they're included in the attribution line. Good luck with your RfA. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fæ

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 11:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: Please keep the tone and comments in this discussion respectful and civil toward both the candidate and other commenters.

I would like to put myself forward for admin tools. Over the last 3 years I have made significant contributions to Commons:

• 70,000+ images uploaded from a wide range of sources, including over 2,000 of my own photographs. A summary can be found on my user page.
• 680,000+ edits [2]
• ~1.4 million edits by Faebot.[3] Much of these have been part of my project to add place categories to uploads from Geograph, this being a comprehensive photographic record of the whole of Britain. Other projects have included identification of problematic mobile phone uploads by examining EXIF data, automatic categorization of identical duplicates using the Commons API for when upload tools have failed to do this for themselves, and a number of varied special requests raised on Commons:Bots/Work_requests that I found interesting to handle.
• Discussion and development of Commons policies and the presentation and promotion of Commons in 'real life' with GLAMs and other institutions over the last couple of years, such as the British Library, the Wellcome Trust and Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums.
• I am a founder of the GLAMtoolset project and represent the UK on the Steering Group. This is a large inter-chapter funded project in partnership with Europeana, to make available an easy to use set of Commons mass upload tools for GLAM professionals to apply to their institutional media collections and archives.

Though it would always be useful to have a "GLAM-knowledgeable" admin available to help out, more important would 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 (and lobbying) on how to avoid copyfraud and the use of simple policies for copyright and attribution.

Declarations:

1. I am a founder of the proposed thematic organization Wikimedia LGBT. meta:LGBT
2. I am a trustee of the charity Wikimedia UK. wmuk:Board

--Fæ (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Oppose Too much GAMING commons community policy. Fails to read discussions prior to closing discussions. Penyulap ☏ 11:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I am confident the tools would be helpful to him and he won't misuse them. --McZusatz (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose – Fæ neglects to mention past accounts and sockpuppets and neglects to mention past enwiki ban in his nomination statement. Would you trust a sysop who hides facts from you? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry. I supported another user here today because I felt they were suited to the stressful position of admin, but a look through the (vast) available history of the candidate (and his aliases/prior accounts) here and at my home wiki en.wp does not give me confidence that is the case here. I also feel the candidate often tends towards the letter rather than the spirit of policy in order to achieve an aim, and this is not a philosophy I'm comfortable with. Begoon - talk 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Alan ^(talk) 14:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted botoperator, I only know Fae as a reliable user and opponent in RD. :) I think Fae would make a good admin. Let's give it a try! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad character (humiliating and insulting comments in discussions to insult opponents in discussions), biased (which is against NPOV as shouldn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias). JKadavoor Jee 16:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Corrected per the command by Túrelio (He asked; not requested to correct this accordingly). My vote is based on Commons:Guide to adminship and Commons:Staying mellow; I'm not aware of any previous or EN:Wiki related issues that discussed below. I expect more matured and controlled behaviour from admins. (I didn't understand what A. Savin meant by some oppose voters do not seem really representative for the Commons community. Do we have separate classes of memberships like Blacks and Whites? JKadavoor Jee 10:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Oppose for many reasons. But to be honest, he is better than a lot of the admin we have now. That isn't saying much, though. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral I don't have reasons to oppose, but I don't feel comfortable supporting. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Didym (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support In hope of short, true and meaningful statements and the tools primarily used for GLAM work. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see any good reason not to support this nomination (and I think the comment immediately above is deplorable). Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not comfortable with this due to recent enwiki ban. --Rschen7754 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - I don't normally follow RfAs and my Commons experience isn't that extensive, but I'm voting here in response to the canvassing by those who are opposed to Fae for political/cultural reasons. Many of the oppose votes here, like my support, are extensions of the still-ongoing, years-old conflict about Commons censorship, which was the major underlying motivation for the appalling en.wiki ArbCom case. I know that Fae is a prolific contributor who has done work few others would have the patience for - and he was an admin on en.wiki so good that even in months of spewing politically motivated vitriol no single one of his detractors ever came up with a claim that he had misused his admin tools in any way (look at where I made this point, unrefuted, in the ArbCom pages if you don't believe me). Politically, Fae's position - that Commons should not be censored - is nothing unusual here or among Wikipedians as a whole, but it is very inconvenient to those whose mission in life is to change that. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that Fæ's free speech track record is dismal. Fæ sought to blacklist forums that he disapproved of. Fæ sought to restrict Penyulap's freedom to express his thoughts. Wnt, I don't believe that you fully comprehend Fæ's position on freedom of speech and censorship. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wnt, here is a link to the ArbCom case involving Fæ. Commons is incidental to the case and "censorship" is simply not a part of it. Please do not mislead people with your imaginings. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - per Hedwig, let's give it a try. In case of abuse it's possible to remove admin flag. Also, some oppose comments do not seem really representative for the Commons community to me. --A.Savin 21:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We're all contributors to Commons. Of the six opposers, I believe that five of them aren't Wikipediocracy users. I never seen Penyulap, Begoon, Jkadavoor, or Rschen7754 participate in any discussion on Wikipediocracy, and Ottava Rima isn't welcomed on Wikipediocracy. Fearmongers and conspiracy theorists such as Wnt and others are exaggerating an issue that's pretty non-existent. Like Jewish people, Wikipediocracy users are a tiny minority that's constantly accused of controlling everything. I don't believe that it's fair to describe !voters as not being a true part of the community. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In regards to "let's give it a try. In case of abuse it's possible to remove admin flag." I don't believe the RfA process is intended to be a simple trial and error process, rather, qualities such as basic moral autonomy should be examined, it's less work for the community that way. Penyulap ☏ 00:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per A. Savin who has just hit the nail on the head! russavia (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Don't know yet, so  Neutral. Trijnstel_talk 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Per Hedwig, A.Savin and Russavia. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral - for now. I have some concerns, especially re. the previous sock accounts, but I've seen some good work on Commons too, recently. Need to think on this some - Alison ^❤ 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Vast contribution record. Fae declares above that he is a trustee of WMUK; his recent pushing for proper transparency and governance at WMUK convince me that he will make a strong contribution to the future of commons as as admin. TheOverflow (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Vast contribution record." Most of that is script based editing that can be done by bots, but is instead done by a lot of admin who have been criticized of using the scripts to hide some edits that are not agreed upon by the larger community. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It was pointed out by Russavia that many people without Commons contribs are voting. The above user is supporting with his second contrib. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

TheOverflow has been a Wikimedia contributor since May 2012. I don't believe that we should discount !votes. Everyone should be free to express their opinion, and we shouldn't ignore anyone's opinion. If he or she is familiar with Fæ and WMUK, then his or her insight should be valued. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me make my third 'contribution' by saying I am a commons user, not a contributor, and I often observe, what happens behind the scenes. This RFA as motivated me to participate in the discussion, and I feel my observations are relevent. So, please consider my view, even if you discard my !vote. TheOverflow (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Fae definitely does good and useful work here, but some of my encounters with him have left a rather bad impression, unfortunately. Here he derails a village pump thread about identifiable minors by claiming that, should the suggested change be enforced, Commons would need to a) de-admin every admin under 18, and b) hire paid staff to enforce the new policy. I'll leave it up to you to decide how silly those claims are, given the initial suggestion. And at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brief Skinny Lad (5989161662).jpg, he heavily implied that the deletion request (or some of the deletion votes) were solely based on homophobia ("Anyway, I'd better get back to my uber-gay Christmas décor.", "Of course, no homoerotic content there to excite anyone."), which I found particularly distasteful. --Conti|✉ 06:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think he can work on better without any admin rights. Too often involved in COM:ANU skirmishes. --High Contrast (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Huge volume of edits, and tools will be useful to him. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Cool dude who knows his stuff, but I honestly don't think he's cut out to handle the strains of adminship. Sorry -FASTILY 00:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Experienced, dedicated contributor. INeverCry 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but the ban on Wikipedia is a bit too concerning for me to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As a reminder, I am not banned on the English Wikipedia, or blocked or banned on any other project. I have not returned to editing the English Wikipedia, this may confuse some people. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

collapse mostly off-topic now that Kevin has clarified. Stick to the topic at hand please.

See that makes this bit right here so hard to understand. Can I ask what are you like at back-pedalling ? Penyulap ☏ 06:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Do you understand the difference between was and is or is this too hard? A view on en:User talk:Fæ may help. --Túrelio (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Turelio, that was a little too hostile. It is common for people to continue to use a ban to justify an oppose even if the ban is over. Rarely do people support admin when an individual was merely blocked until at least 6 months have passed. A ban is sometimes never overlooked. The ban dealt with policy that directly affects Commons (copyright), and this is concerning to a lot of people. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) True, except that Penyulap was not justifying their oppose. S/he attempted to argue/ridicule/trap Fae's answer to someone else. When you do that without getting your easily checked facts straight, you should expect some egg on your face. --99of9 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC) The problem with your statement is that nether Penyulap or Kevin stated that the ban was currently active. They mentioned "the ban." There was a ban. It was a rather major ban. It is a pertinent ban. The responses to try and discredit it do the support no favor and were hostile and not within Commons policy. "Egg on face"? No, not even close, and it is kinda incivil for you to make the statement because it is a standard battleground "me vs you" statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Though the English Wikipedia Arbcom has no particular authority on Commons, it would be helpful if you could link to findings of fact or eventual remedies where copyright was an issue rather than leaving this as an open implication. My understanding of the case was that though people made multiple allegations relating to copyright theft and other crimes, the intense and detailed investigation conducted (that included my contributions to Commons), reached a conclusion was that there were no findings relevant for these allegations and these had no bearing on the ban relating to "Wikipedia's norms and policies". --Fæ (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "Finding of Facts" are only used if there is something to be acted upon and necessary. The question of the map, for instance, was what sunk your previous RfA and was central to you being dragged into ArbCom on en.wiki. You can't say that copyright wasn't an issue. You can profess to be innocent of copyright infringement. Sure. But you can't say that it wasn't an accusation lodged against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Correct, there was nothing to be acted on with regard to these allegations, because there was insufficient evidence to take action. Copyright was not "central" to being "dragged" to Arbcom, as anyone who reads MBisanz's original case statement can tell, as it is not mentioned. It is factually incorrect that this "sank" my last RFA, the last RFA was not closed, I withdrew the RFA shortly after receiving a threat as part of an off-wiki campaign which my partner and me were distressed by. --Fæ (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC) (Ec with OR) I confirm that's correct 99of9, it looked like politician's double-speak to me, Kevin mentioned something about a ban, and Fæ gave what looked for all the world like a denial, I don't care if someone is banned on en.wiki, or every other wiki for that matter, proof is I quite like Michael, who says along the lines of ( struck I was banned by a bunch of idiots (or whatever) inserted "That's just what Fæ and ArbCom believe"). I like and prefer that 100 times more than what looks to me like something intended to mislead. I don't mind, and am happy to look past other people's opinions to make up my own, and just as I said in the very first vote here, the first sentence, it's the gaming that I object to. The spirit is the most important thing. 99of9, your coment is very ambiguous, this response is for only one of it's possible meanings, if my response doesn't make sense, please rephrase a bit so i can respond to the other meaning. Penyulap ☏ 15:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I don't believe that you recall our conversation correctly. I didn't describe ArbCom as a "bunch of idiot". ArbCom possesses great people such as Newyorkbrad. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC) @Ottava_Rima and Penyulap: It's probably best if you two were to allow Ktr101 to respond to Fæ's response on his or her own. If Ktr101 was mistaken, he or she can say so and clarify for us. If Ktr101 was indeed referring to the past ban and not a current ban, then he or she can tell Fæ what he or she actually meant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC) @99of9: It seems Commons admin panel is the last refuge of all banned, blocked and warned members of our sister wikis. Do we need to strengthen our admin community with people who have ability to throw eggs to the faces of poor contributors? JKadavoor Jee 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to his past ban, as it was far too recent for me to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Support . Geagea (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm too little involved in this community to have a strong opinion on this matter. Regards, Vogone (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Will make a capable and competent admin. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 01:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Aside from the issues underlying the en-wiki ban and the lack of candor relating to his use of multiple accounts, Fæ's comments here just the day before this discussion began [4], uncivilly proclaiming that blocking one of his en-wiki critics would be "a bonus to the community," also demonstrates that the candidate is unsuitable to hold a position of trust. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per "Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others". He doesn't seem to have stopped. Salvio giuliano (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Does a lot of good work, and hopefully will continue to do good work, but aside from the nose to the grind wheel stuff, is pathologically drawn to creating controversy and conflit.--10:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs)

Comments

• have you ever used sock-puppets outside of LEGIT sock-puppets such as robots Fæ ? Penyulap ☏ 11:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No. A long time ago I used some accounts for privacy reasons, this is perfectly acceptable within the policy you appear to be referencing. For the last 3 years I have only used User:Fæ and User:Faebot on Wikimedia Commons. --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • OK good enuf for me. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Privacy is no problem, just how many privacy accounts are you talking about ? Penyulap ☏ 15:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Two privacy accounts, making trivial numbers of contributions to Wikimedia Commons (as in fewer than 10 files uploaded) and retired more than 3 years ago. Fæ (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
        • That sounds ok. So what is your attitude to people double-voting (or more) in admin elections, under what conditions is it OK with you ? Penyulap ☏ 19:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't see how that question is relevant. I don't believe that Fæ was involved in vote-stacking. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Sorry to be confusing, I don't mean Fæ's alternative accounts, I mean his recent very strong support for burying all discussion of double voting in an admin election which had only just been uncovered. Seems there is a time limit, that if you get away with rigging elections for long enough before it's discovered, then that's all just fine and discussion should be stifled, I'd like to know if that's a good summary then or now. I'd like to know just how much of a complete blind eye two-tiered justice system we want on commons. Penyulap ☏ 22:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
              • If I suspected such a thing was occurring, I would raise it for investigation with our Bureaucrats who have the burden of responsibility for ensuring that the process for creating and removing administrators is properly managed. The particular case had privacy issues that dated from 8 years previous to the discussion you took part in. When someone admits to having made a serious mistake but points out a privacy issue, I would much prefer to leave it for proper full investigation by Bureaucrats or Oversight depending on the nature of the mistake/problem; it seems common sense and basic human respect to treat privacy matters conservatively, particularly for an admitted mistake made years ago. If you have any remaining concerns for the case you refer to, considering that the accused account retired due to the discussion and their concern and distress related to a potential invasion of their private life, you may want to raise the matter again on COM:BN rather than here or elsewhere. I had no personal connection to the account in question, in fact I cannot recall if we had interacted in any significant way before the date of the discussion on AN/U, certainly I have not interacted with them since they retired from Commons. --Fæ (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
                • I can see you are quite fast in finding an excuse to close community discussion, enabling the admin, who has not been de-sysopped, to at any time resume their tools upon making a request. The 'privacy issue' you speak of is, and correct me if I am wrong, that after they were caught, they claimed it was a family member, so if someone was caught out for making 12 votes 8 years ago, but after they are caught they suddenly remember they have 12 cousins, that's good enough a reason to censor all further community discussion, derail the de-sysop process, over concern for 'privacy', do you think that would be a fair balance between privacy concerns and proper functioning of the bureaucracy ?

The person has not been de-sysopped, the community is now divided between those who feel that the sysop was being hounded long after the fact and those who feel it is not appropriate to double vote in elections on principle alone, the process has been derailed, how do you count the cost to the community against the cost to the admin ? Penyulap ☏ 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Here you go -FASTILY 04:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

well that clears a few things up, and spells out the chilling effect Alison mentions. Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"the community is now divided", on examination seems to be a parody of the discussion. COM:BN is the right place to ask for a Bureaucrat to investigate further, or take action. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

well I don't know what discussion you're looking at, but I do know you're sadly mistaken if you think rigged elections are a laughing matter to all sections of this community. The discussion was re-opened and re-closed at a guess a dozen times, and there are discussions devoted to the closure of that discussion itself. There is a difference between resolving differences and simply censoring, bullying, suppressing, and ignoring people. That is the difference which makes or breaks a volunteer community.

I've reminded you more than once you should listen to other people if you want them to listen to you, and that is pretty much the reason that this RfA is going to fail, (yes, let me be the first to break the news, it's going to fail) because you have to listen, rather than ignore other people, even those you disagree with. The community IS divided over the rigged elections and there is a huge difference between 'victory' and 'harmony'. Penyulap ☏ 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Info A link to this RfA, posted by Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs), appeared on Wikipediocracy, a site devoted to the criticism of Wikipedia. odder (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't believe that information should be hidden. Sharing news and information for discussion on a forum isn't a crime. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Noting for general reference that Michaeldsuarez is banned from the English Wikipedia [5] after the Arbitration Committee found that he had carried out off-wiki harassment against Fae,[6] which he attempted to justify in very similar terms to what he has said above.[7] This should be borne in mind when reading his comments. Prioryman (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict.) So ? everyone's been banned from en.wiki by arbcom haven't they ? Michael, Fæ, Jimbo and me. Oh, except for Jimbo and me. If Michael can't talk because he was banned by arbcom on en.wiki then why should Fæ be a sysop when he's been banned by arbcom on en.wiki ? doesn't make sense to me, I say 'who cares' lets just stick to what is here. Fæ is welcome to have an RfA and Michael is welcome to comment. Penyulap ☏ 20:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure why you think Fae is banned when in fact he is not. He's in a very different position to Michaeldsuarez, who is not only currently banned, but was banned for harassing Fae. You would think that Michael would have learned by now that he needs to stay far away from anything to do with Fae. Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
          • (Edit conflict.) I must be mistaken, you see I looked at his en.wiki userpage, and it was kind of blank, well, compared to mine it is anyhow, so I looked in the history and the last few edits are all about arbcom bans and stuff, point is, none of it matters. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I didn't harass Fæ. That's just what Fæ and ArbCom believe. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
            • well I guess that is an open way to put it, and it seems I was correct about my guess. Still, I think both of you are good contributors here. Just that I think Fae doesn't have the moral direction other admins I support do, and his responses here aren't helping. Generally I like to predict what information people would like to know and give it to them before they ask, or straight away. Fae makes some admirable admissions, but leaves out so very much which is clearly relevant that it makes this whole RfA feel more like a cross-examination of a hostile witness. I like the way you put it Michael, that you're banned by people who are out of their minds, cause then we know. Simple. Hmm, I wonder what other new things will come out as the week progresses. sigh. Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that information should not be hidden (actually, I opposed Michaeldsuarez' ban just as I opposed Fae's). It is apparent that those interested in having a Commons that is not owned and operated by Wikipediocracy will need to reach out and "CANVASS" in the future. One admitted strategy of Commons' opponents, as mentioned on w:User talk:Jimbo Wales right now, is to try to worm their own people into adminship in a sort of stealth jihad to take over the site. Since they keep their own forum and are lining up their rank and file to vote in things like this, they are having a disproportionate impact. The only way to counter this is if the regular Commons contributors who believe in wide-ranging, uncensored holdings make the decision to organize and get out the vote themselves for their RfAs in the future. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I only approached two users with offers of nominating them for sysop: WhatamIdoing and Stefan4. Neither of them are Wikipediocracy users, I first approached WhatamIdoing in November (long before Jimbo made his suggestion), and Stefan4 is a recipient of of the "Hot sex barnstar". Wnt, stop trying to scare people. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) I'm a Commons admin of some five years now, as well as being a moderator and one of the original founders of Wikipediocracy. These positions are by no means mutually exclusive. It sounds to me like you're suggesting people should not be open about such things, lest they be accused of all sorts of bad things. This will just lead to people going underground, and not openly able to speak on other sites as they see fit - a chilling effect, if you will. I'm definitely against that, which is why I'm standing up to be counted here - Alison ^❤ 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Come off it, Alison. We all know - and you better than most - that Wikipediocracy is Troll Central. You also know perfectly well that Michaeldsuarez is under a ban for harassing Fae off-wiki. Put the two together, and it's perfectly obvious that he is continuing the feud that was supposed to have been ended by his ban. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Are people forgetting that the off-commons mentions of RfA works both for and against a candidate ? I can see support for Fae stating 'I'm voting here in response to the canvassing'. Penyulap ☏ 21:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on now, stop being rational and analytical... It's much more fun to pretend there is a "stealth jihad" to "infiltrate" sleepers into the Commons administrative corps on account of Jimmy Wales recently suggesting that was the way to clean the festering Commons stable. Of course, that's silliness, the way that house will be eventually cleaned is through WMF intervention and a black-hooded executioner's axe... Someday, someday... Carrite (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I believe I am the only person who had commented in the section above who actually got here from WO and I did not vote. What I did is point out that the hefty contribution figures given by Fæ are misleading. See this instance where he made nearly 5,000 edits, mostly image uploads, within the course of two days, or this one where he makes 5,000 minor changes over the course of a single day and that is just what fits on the page as there were more of those edits that day if you look at contribution history before and after that page. Such edits are happening over time periods that make it highly unlikely these are anything but automated edits with the exception of a very small morsel. It is something he has been doing a while such as back in December when he made thousands of edits over the course of days adding categories for uploads by x user with very minor copy-edits in between. He made less than 15,000 edits prior to the arbitration case on en-wiki and less than 3,000 to Commons space, most of the latter also in the past year. That is not to suggest these recent contributions are not significant or constructive, but scraping image databases and minor copy-edits or categorization demonstrate little about his ability to be an admin and appear to have been a response to developments on a different project geared at puffing up his credentials.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are not a regular editor here, so let me break this down for you, and give you some insight on how Commons works:

• This edit is problematic why? You do realise that we are a repository of freely licenced media and to be a repository, you need to have the media. So uploading files is what we do, and we encourage all editors (new and established) to do this.
• This seems to be replacing a template used in images with a more suitable one. If a better information template can be used to provide better information to our reusers, then great.
• This and this were adding categories to an editors uploads, to make it easier for the community to deal with an issue it had at the time. I believe this was done at my request from memory. I also asked Fae to do exactly the same to my uploads, but only because I wanted to keep track of files I've uploaded over years. This is collaborative editing, which is what we are here for.
• His edit count is irrelevant in the over scheme of things, but given that he was banned from enwp, and still stayed dedicated to our projects by way of contributing here is fantastic, and should not be frowned upon.
• Other examples of how Fae has so-called inflated his edit include Category:Images from norden.org uploaded by Fæ and Category:Files from Imagicity.com (processing) -- both high valued streams that I personally asked him to upload -- not because I thought he needed to inflate his edit count, but because they are high valued streams that we need on this project -- one full of Scandinavian politicians photos that I told editors on the various WP that we have access to -- the other being the stream of an expat academic in Vanuatu who has captured that island nation and its people beautifully.

I hope you can understand why when someone with 93 edits since 2007 comes to this project (8 of them connected to this very RfA) and basically tries to bring unproven and somewhat outrageous insinuations into the equation, I sincerely hope you don't mind it when we tell you exactly why this isn't being "The Devil's Advocate" but something else completely, as I have done above. russavia (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not disputing whether those contributions were helpful or not, but whether they indicate anything of value regarding his desire for adminship. It does seem as if he has just been trying to pad his résumé since that case on en-wiki.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't use Wikipediocracy for canvassing. I use Wikipediocracy in order to inform people (informing is not the same as creating !voters) and to provide an alternative forum for people who can't speak out on Commons (i.e. banned people) to let their thoughts and feelings be known. I don't use Wikipediocracy as a pool to draw !voters. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Overflow voted in support on his second edit. I think that the support is more curious than the oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

TheOverflow has been a Wikimedia contributor since May 2012. I don't believe that we should discount !votes. Everyone should be free to express their opinion, and we shouldn't ignore anyone's opinion. If he or she is familiar with Fæ and WMUK, then his or her insight should be valued. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel this is quite interesting, User talk:Jkadavoor#Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ2. Seems to raise the question, are people allowed to speak openly and honestly about their feelings in an admin request, Fæ, what do you think, do you feel that the oppose vote should be seen as a personal attack ? should people be free to say what they think without feeling hounded, or that they need to watch everything they say, lest admins appear upon their talkpage using threatening lanugage, what kind of an environment would you like on commons ? Penyulap ☏ 06:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

An allegation of "Bad character" is damning and requires unambiguous evidence. Túrelio states this "is an ad-hominem argument, a personal attack", I suggest you ask them to clarify that point. As the allegation is against my character, any view I provide you with on this would be called partisan.

I would like Commons to be a mellow and non-hostile environment. Part of the role of administrators is to work constructively towards this goal. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fighting fire with petrol doesn't seem the way to go. That editor seems quite gentle and polite from the contributions they make, so a confrontational approach is not called for and will be counter-productive. Personally, if someone calls me an idiot, I'm usually first to agree, and then if I care, I might ask in a friendly manner why they think so, or what is the most idiotic part of my repertoire of stupidity. That approach gets better results than going to war. But that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we can all agree I'm an idiot, right ? Penyulap ☏ 10:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question If you are appointed as an admin, and User:Pieter Kuiper is at some point unblocked by the community:

• How will you react?
  • I will stay clear of him.
• How will you relate to him?
  • I would not. I would leave any problem resolution to others.
• How will you respond if he nominates 10 of your files for deletion with rationales that he and some other members of the community think reasonable?
  • Pieter has raised many perfectly good policy based deletion requests on my uploads and when he is unblocked, I am happy to leave the outcome of requests to the community.
• How will you determine the difference between legitimate discussion and harassment?
  • As I would avoid any interaction, I would leave it to the community to decide.
• What will you do if you feel he is harassing you?
  • Seek independent advice or raise for alternative views in a neutral forum. --Fæ (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

--99of9 (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Fæ, you said earlier that you have confined yourself to two accounts for the past three years but prior to that you had used alternate accounts (which you call privacy accounts). You state that there were "two privacy accounts, making trivial numbers of contributions to Wikimedia Commons". I realise that you may not have used these accounts for years, but can you take some time and confirm that there were only two alternate accounts? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm for the community that there were only 2 accounts actively used here on Commons as so-called privacy accounts. russavia (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. How are you able to answer this question on the candidate's behalf? He's been asked to confirm that he only used 2 different alternate accounts (which he refers to as "privacy" accounts), which, to my simple mind, is a question he can only answer himself. You can tell us what you are aware of, for which I'm sure we are grateful, but the question asked is another thing entirely, surely? Begoon - talk

Russavia, I don't want to see this RfA devolve into the mess like Fæ's first one, but a reassurance from you is worthless. I believe Fæ's statement to be provably false, but without being able to ask about specific accounts, it is difficult to challenge it. With Fæ's permission, I would like to ask about specific accounts, which he can then comment on whether or not they are his - does that seem reasonable? Since Fæ pretends not to interact with me, you are welcome to answer for him in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok, sorry if I committed some sort of faux-pas - I didn't realise there was some kind of proxy conversation likely to occur here - ignorant of that part of the history. This kind of multiple account thing always gets very confusing for me - seems to make open discussion difficult. I'll butt out now, with apologies for my earlier confusion. Still interested in the general answers to the question though, given the history I have seen. Begoon - talk 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle, I have advised Fae to stay well clear of you, and I advise you to do the same with Fae. I have stepped in as someone who has his privacy in mind. I have answered your questions based upon the information that I was aware of, and also upon information which Fae provided to myself and the English Wikipedia Arbcom (not that they have any authority on this project). The information he has provided is found at en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Use_of_multiple_accounts; which finished a year mind you and this RfA is not an extension of your battlegrounds there.

To make it easier for people to understand this spreadsheet lays out all of the accounts, with the exception of the 2 privacy accounts. Fae compiled the list, I provided the annotations. Whether those privacy accounts are named elsewhere is not my concern as an admin/bureaucrat on this project, but they should not be named on this project out of decency to Fae and his privacy . I know what the two privacy accounts are, and I have also shared this information with another bureaucrat, and it's my opinion that they were legitimate use of the accounts under the circumstances; although their use may have presented some problems. There are other admins who are also aware of them by their own methods, but whether they pipe in that's up to them.

It's up to you whether you wish to proceed with this line of questioning, but I will not be confirming nor denying those accounts for you, at least not on Fae's behalf. This RfA is about moving forward; Fae knows he may have erred in the past, but he has clearly turned over a new leaf. russavia (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, I think I understand. Sorry if I'm still getting it wrong, but that's a very confusing set of instructions/explanations/imperatives you give above. DC shouldn't pursue the question. Should I? Or would that be advised against in your position as Bureaucarat/Admin? It all seems so complicated for such a simple question. What does "although their use may have presented some problems" mean?

I'm really not trying to beat a dead horse here, but it sounded like such a simple question to elicit such a complex, obtuse answer, and reminiscent of the historical lack of openness from en.wp associated with the candidate which initially gave me the red flags causing me to oppose. Can you just help me understand why all this cloak and dagger stuff needs to exist here? Begoon - talk 19:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Because of long-term harassment, hounding, and lack of respect for editorial privacy (both on and off project). It's as simple as that really. russavia (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Ok, well I won't press any more, since it is becoming too confusing, and it appears the candidate does not intend to address the question, which is, of course his right. I won't say that doesn't disappoint me, though. Perhaps a less confusing and stressful approach would have been for Fae to just make it clear himself that he felt enough questions had been answered on the matter, and he didn't intend to respond further, as I noticed one of the other current candidates did politely and diplomatically in their RFA. That seemed an acceptable, drama free way to handle things, but hindsight is 20/20, I guess. Thanks for your time trying to be the man in the middle, anyway. Begoon - talk 10:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, the accounts that were listed in the ArbCom case is not a complete list, as Fæ will attest. Fæ was banned from the Engligh-language WP as a result of that ArbCom case. One of the conditions of Fæ's unblocking earlier this year was that he disclose all alternate accounts to ArbCom, which they have confirmed that he has done, although they ArbCom did not provide that list to the community or disclose how many alternate accounts Fæ listed. Although they have no standing here, perhaps one of the Arbs would be willing to confirm that with the sole exceptions of Fæ and Fæbot, only two other accounts from the complete list of Fæ's known accounts have edits on Commons? Would that be acceptable to Fæ? And, to you, of course? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have said all that I will say on the matter DC. Continue this line of questioning directly with the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee; it's a matter for them, not for us. We don't dwell on ancient history here, and I am well aware of the ongoing harassment of Fae, and the continued threats of harassment being made offsite, so I suggest you take it to English Wikipedia where this is actually relevant and more inline with what they allow. russavia (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the English-language WP. It is a question about whether someone who is asking for advanced privileges here is, frankly, lying about their use of alternate accounts. That is something that I think the Commons community would want resolved. I have offered a way to settle this question that will not compromise Fæ's privacy by revealing the names of the alternate accounts. If Fæ has been truthful about their past account use, he has nothing to lose by doing this and has an opportunity to make me look foolish by putting a conclusive end to my questions. This is not "harassment", but the type of basic diligence that I would expect on any project. Considering some of the people who have been given admin and bureaucrat rights, I think it would be in Commons best interests to look more closely at candidates. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not slander other users. If you have evidence, present it, otherwise keep the innuendo to yourself. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Accusing others of slanders is a legal threat that is normally met with an indefinite block. I will give you an hour to strike it and apologize before I ask for your immediate ban until the threat can be deemed no longer pertinent. After all, and you have done the same towards others using the same terms. Hypocrisy and incivility isn't acceptable conduct on Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As you well know, I meant slander in terms of "accusations without evidence" rather than any legal sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I assumed as such, but you were unwilling to assume the same for others and you pushed for NLT here with such a strict interpretation before. It just isn't fair for an admin to do such then perform the same action when it suits them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mattbuck, with respect to Fæ's privacy, I will not name his alternate accounts without his permission. This prevents me from presenting my evidence, as you put it. I have suggested an alternative way for Fæ to confirm his use of alternate accounts without disclosing them. There is nothing slanderous about my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is really rather Ted Cruz-esque. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If I can clarify, and I believe I wouldn't be alone in my own thinking, when I ask someone about alternative accounts as I often do, I don't want, and don't actually care, if they name those accounts. What I am looking for is a clear outline of the activities of those accounts, a narrative to explain the anomalies in the regular contributions for an editor. If Delicious carbuncle has seen something unusual, then a simple frank narrative which encompasses everything that Dc has seen would, I think, satisfy Dc. At least it would satisfy me if I was concerned. The discussion doesn't need to go so far into hostile territories, not for me, and I think some others may feel the same way. Penyulap ☏ 18:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Break

 Question You have uploaded into Commons from public-domain-photos.com a lot of photos, which depict signs. You have categorized them only as Category:Signs. For example, see three files in this category, which have name "Alligator ...".

1. Why did not you add more categories?

   The source site is organized into reasonable folders and I used these to choose the most relevant initial category for the upload. With a large upload, I can either have a backlog category, like Category:Royal Naval photographer (check needed) (used by WikiProject Military History), or use the generic/higher level category as a place for the wider community to help with categorizing photos. In the majority of cases, other volunteers have more experience in choosing the best sub-categories and have been involved in their development. To my memory there was one request to move photos from this upload from a generic category to a backlog (here), this worked well, but there is no accepted best practice community wide to use temporary categories rather than generic categories. A related question on this upload was raised at User_talk:Fæ/2013#Pics_from_public-domain-image.com. I would be happy to follow any consensus view on how best to handle these sorts of initial categorizations for larger quantities of uploads.

2. Why did not you add place? For example, I am not sure, do these places situate in USA or not?

   I'm afraid there was no consistent data at the source site. Some sub-sets were from recognizable official sources, in particular there were a number from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, however even these cannot be guaranteed to have all been taken in the USA.

3. You did not upload these files using Faebot, but using Fæ account. Maybe this is worth explaining. Taivo (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

   Approved bot accounts always have a well defined scope and the bot operator should take care to stick to these boundaries, otherwise the bot-flag might be accidentally hiding changes or uploads that ought to be more visible to the community. Faebot's scope is limited to media related to GLAM projects and Geograph uploads, so for this manual upload that was supported by some scripting, Faebot would have been the less accountable way of preserving this public domain material.

Thanks for raising the question, it highlights the issue that Commons would benefit from a better community consensus on best practices for batch uploads, particularly appropriate and transparent use of bot accounts, use of backlog categories, categorization against the uploader and use of templates with included (effectively hidden) categories. --Fæ (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 Question Do you think this complies with Commons:Administrators#Community_role (COM:MELLOW)? --McZusatz (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct my recent mistake in failing to live up to the aims of the Staying mellow essay. I would like to apologise to Tarc for letting the several years of history behind his comment get me rattled and move me to make a non-constructive comment. As I replied above to 99of9's question, the correct process should be that I seek independent advice or find a neutral forum to raise any question about what I perceive as harassment.

In this case, Tarc proposed on Jimmy Wales' en.wp user talk page that the {{The Hot sex barnstar}} should be re-created featuring my underpants and soon afterwards took part in the associated deletion discussion, which up until that point I had avoided. If Tarc still wishes to create an alternative using one of my available images such as File:AussieBum Undies in ice blue.jpg, then he is welcome to do so, and I will leave it to the community to decide if this is useful, or intended as some sort of personally targeted provocation. Instead, I would recommend a logo could be made from a derivative of my upload of the high quality and artistic photograph File:Naked to the world.jpg, which conveys classic homo-eroticism and sexuality without being as vulgar or potentially offensive in use as the existing template. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

SarahStierch

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 17:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to present to the community User:SarahStierch. Sarah is known to many in the community; whilst I don't know her personally, I am familiar with her work and believe she would be a great candidate for Commons adminship. Sarah is an old-timer at GLAM-Wiki activities; she facilitated the massive donation by Commons:Walters Art Museum; she was Wikipedian in Residence of the Smithsonian Institution Archives of American Art and Smithsonian Institution Archives (both of whom have shared images with Commons). She also co-founded en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Art (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsavespublicart/). So she is well qualified in terms of contributions to this project. In future Sarah will be participating in WLM US 2013 and is a trusted user with Upload Wizard rights.

Sarah is also an active OTRS member, and would definitely find the tools useful for OTRS work; with our semi-permanent backlogs she currently has to call upon other admins for undeletions and the like. She also holds image reviewer, OTRS member, file mover, rollbacker rights. I have no doubt that both Sarah and this community would benefit from her having the admin tools. russavia (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SarahStierch

Hi everyone. This is flattering, thanks Russavia for assuming good faith in my work and trusting me with this opportunity. I accept this nomination and I hope that the community will as well. I totally agree that this would be a *big* relief for me for my OTRS work, which is where I often am doing things Commons related - permissions, photo submissions, etc. It would be awesome to be able to have the mop so I could work quietly and efficently without having to beg people to undelete content (or wait for someone to handle a ticket with a note stating that I need help with that). I also have interest in helping with deletion. We have so many nominations, and so many that need to be swiftly and efficently handled. I'd be really happy to be involved in that. And I'd get to engage in a mission I care so deeply for - free knowledge and free open data - in an even more in depth way. Thanks for your consideration every one. Sarah (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support as nominator russavia (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support this OTRS member, trusted user, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - it's strange, some days ago two RfA were unsuccessfull, because "for OTRS you don't need Admintools/it's better not also have Admintools". Yes for her GLAM work. But please without gender politics here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Sure thing. I believe Sarah has clearly shown her dedication to Wikimedia Commons, and that she can be trusted with the extra-buttons. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Sarah makes a net positive contribution to every project she works on. She's sensible, reasonable and will use the tools to benefit Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. INeverCry 17:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, excellent candidate. Trijnstel_talk 19:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I like the "I don't know, I know less now" answers. Hopefully after being an admin for a bit, Sarah will become even more unsure. I'm voting as one of those "male Commonsists", but a massively gay one; if that makes any difference (perhaps waiving the gay card enough times might make it a non-issue ). As for the deleted Flickr account problem, I agree that is a problem - we should probably make more non-Admins licence reviewers, and be more open to staying sympathetic for cases of licence remorse. --Fæ (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, of course. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support; delighted to see the name on the watchlist. Tom Morris says exactly what I would have done. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support a×p_de^Hello! 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Alan ^(talk) 21:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I enjoy working with Sarah, and find she brings a strong work ethic, informed and interesting opinions, and a willingness to work things out. All of which are good qualities in an administrator. -Pete F (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Very qualified. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Rschen7754 00:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I am not a big fan of two ppl. having two accounts on the same project. But I feel comfortable with Sarah having adminship. Working on the OTRS Team certainly makes a very good impression as well. So, give her the big mop with the fancy buttons! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment Hey Hedwig! I'm actually one person with two accounts :) I am open about it, as you can see on both userpages. I have to admit: Missvain is my last bit of my "original" username I have. I changed my username a few years back on Wikipedia and now the Commons "Missvain" is the last remnant I have. So I'm a bit...sentimental. I surely won't be using "her" for anything out of the ordinary. Most of my work is done on this account, as evident on my contribs. Thanks for the support regardless. xoxoxoxo Missvain (aka Sarah (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC))

•  Support, thumbs up. De728631 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Glad I saw this, and happy to support. Sarah seems to have a cool head when addressing contentious issues. She will need that here. Begoon - talk 04:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Alison ^❤ 04:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - overqualified :) Kaldari (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - --Andreas JN466 06:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - per russavia and Fæ. Stanistani (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Great news! — Scott • talk 07:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Will be an excellent addition to the admin team here. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose odder (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why? — Scott • talk 10:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Why not? You don't ask Andreas for voting positive without a comment, why you ask here? Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Saying that someone isn't suitable to become an admin is a pretty serious statement, especially coming from an established admin, and even more especially in the face of overwhelming support for this candidate. It's also not the same thing as voting support without a reason. Doing that is a statement that says "I concur with the nominator", and doesn't require further explanation. If odder genuinely believes that it would be bad for Commons to choose Sarah to be an administrator, then the onus is upon him to explain why. — Scott • talk 10:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
        • You do realize that in an election or a vote nobody is obliged to justify their choice? What you are doing here could well be taken to be a form of harassment. Please don't. --Rosenzweig τ 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
          • If you were chronically unfamiliar with both the English language and the way that normal human beings communicate with each other, then yes, I'm sure it could. — Scott • talk 11:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Per [8]. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support — She's not one already? Great contributor, GLAM maven, OTRS handler. We need vigorous folks in the community of editors. Fuzheado (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted user. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted user, open minded, and capable of handling discussion on complex matters. She will be a great addition to the team. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Courcelles 03:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support One of the best candidates I've seen. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Valuable addition to the team! Welcome aboard the Commons AdminShip, Sarah. :) Rehman 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Lymantria (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Seems to be a competent user. --High Contrast (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Most definitely! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Rosenzweig τ 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? --Didym (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 02:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you guys please wait with casting more votes until Sarah agrees for this nomination? Thanks. odder (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Question On April 29, you wrote an e-mail to the gendergap mailing list, in which you wrote the following:

I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument – being made by male Commonists – trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.

• Do you mind explaining the background of this e–mail and those arguments being made by male Commonists? (As a sidenote, does the gender of editors who wrote that really make any difference?) Links to some exemplary DR nominations for those nudity and women's images would be appreciated. odder (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I haven't looked at any DR's related that type of content in a year at least now. It was a while ago. There were a few (presumed male) editors who really seemed to be triggered by me having interest in curating sexual content on Commons. It was something I went pretty crazy about a while back, so I don't even know what DR's triggered that conversation - and emotion wise I'd rather not revisit them. I've curbed that habit, that's for sure (now I just nominate things as I stumble across them, generally, and I'm not on witch hunts).

There is actually some psychological complexities to having men explain to a woman that she might not be able to "get a job" due to her behavior, so it was quite a hard experience for me to go through, and remains something I haven't forgotten. It has nothing to do with Commons, again, it's a psychological issuse that generally women have to deal with - having male colleagues or freinds tell you "you are too aggressive and vulgar, so you better be more well mannered or you'll never get hired," is something extremely painful to be told. It was really depressing for me. So yes, gender does make a difference. I know we'd like to think we live in a genderless world, but, we don't at this time. I thought I was doing important work, and shining light on something, and it turned out that people weren't happy with it. Again, anyone can look at my contributions for the past year or so. My contributions and interests have changed quite a lot (though I am a staunch advocate for certain policy change, I don't really have the interest in leading said changes at thist time). This is the reason I've been extremely nervous about going through adminship :( Sarah (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and just a side note: a lot of the conversations that took place about my "possible role as an admin," never happened on wiki. Sarah (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question What are the policy changes that you'd advocate for? (This question is partially related to the discussion ongoing on the said mailing list, which to me seems to be something less than the general Commons-bashing that is so popular among some circles.) odder (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see better policies - or more spelled out policies (and perhaps this has more to do with the Board in some ways) in regards to identifiable persons in private versus public. And again, this is where the board and the perhaps WMF legal can come in. It's a lot to unpack, and my feelings about things can evolve (i.e. my feelings have changed about an image filter - which I used to support, and I may still support a gadget, but not a permanent installation of one...the whole "Obama and gay marriage," thing :) ). I'm also pretty concerned about content being uploaded from Flickr where the Flickr accounts end up getting deleted. That is worrisome for me. That is all I can really think of right now. Sarah (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Sarah, as you know I have participated a little bit on the gendergap mailing list in the last couple of weeks to try and bring some perspective to issues. Just the other day I posted this and this to the group in relation to the WMF board resolution and this generalised statement showing that things on Commons isn't as simple as one would think. Would you agree that the WMF board resolution as written is problematic in that it is trying to say something but instead skirts the issue it is trying to address and essentially it is possibly destructive resolution if it were to be implemented as written? russavia (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually stopped reading those threads as I've had other things I've had to focus on in my life and volunteer work. If the conversation has become that extensive and that "emotional" for many of the participants, then there are clearly some problems with the resolution. I'm sure we could break down every board resolution and say there are problems with them. But, like any part of the collaborative contribution world, every participant can read words differently and take policies to mean one thing. There is room to improve. I'd have to unpack it more and deliberate more to make a solid suggestion on how. Sarah (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In terms of my own thoughts it isn't so much "emotional" but more a bigger picture assessment. I do like your answer here :) russavia (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question I also posted to the list these thoughts on how to approach DR's on this project. What are your thoughts on this? russavia (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your response to Slim Virgin. Sarah (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And I like your answer here too, the agreeing with me part just sealed that lol russavia (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Would you agree that there is a place for "sexuality" content on this project, so long as it is inline with our current policies and procedures. Take Category:Files from Sasha Kargaltsev Flickr stream as an example; many of these photos are in the so-called "ghetto" on Flickr, but that is because of their TOS, not because there is anything wrong with nudity. We don't have "safe search", "image filters", etc on this site, but if we did those images would be in a "ghetto" here. Would you agree that the photos from that stream are not problematic given that the photographer is published (both in galleries, books and film) and all necessary consent would be established, and they are within the scope of "homo-eroticism" and also general queer topics. If you agree with that, would you be of the same opinion if they were of females? russavia (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a place for sexuality on all Wikimedia projects - whether it's Wikipedia or Wikisource, as long as it is in scope (educational value), with an added plus if they are of good quality. Wow, I've actually never seen Kargaltsev's work. There are a lot of cool, high quality photos there (but I used to work in fashion for 10 years as make up artist, and did plenty of make up in my day for artists like him and beyond). Commons is a special place that doesn't have the same "search" level, as you noted, as Flickr or Google. That's okay. Maybe someday we will have a safe search - I'm open minded to discussing that idea. Anyway, I do agree that those images aren't problematic, but, if I was to ask Kargaltsev to send me the model release form for any of those people, I'd expect to see one in my email box or risk me to question the ethics of said photographer and the "safety" of the subject. But, I worked with thousands of photographers in my day, some you'd maybe know, to some you don't, and we always had model release forms. I don't care about peoples sexuality, let alone gender. Anyone close enough to me knows my own personal feelings, and my own personal state regarding my own gender and sexuality. Men, women, trans, queer, CIS, everyone can be a victim of slimey photographers putting their naked selves on the internet, and everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. Sarah (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good answer that gives editors an insight into what you think on these issues and should alleviate concerns that some editors may have. russavia (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question Would you mind telling us (links are not necessary) what kind of existing Commons pictures (files) make you puke, and how does this influence your decisions in, say, DR nominations? odder (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have severe motion sickness, so any images or videos that show extensive blurriness, or "roller coaster" style filming will make me physically sick, and of course anything that poor of quality should generally be deleted, unless it's intentional to show bumpiness, roller coasters, acid trips, or whatever. :) Not much makes me too sick though. I've seen it all (often times in real life) and I think the only thing that makes me totally sick to my stomach is the anus scene from Pink Flamingo's. So I probably won't be hanging out in any goatse category if we have one anytime soon. Oh, that, and Human Caterpillars. Whatever floats your boat, but, those are categories I'm good to stay away from! :) Sarah (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 Question How about penises, vaginas, naked males and lesbian sexual intercourse? odder (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea of a "hot sex" barnstar is pretty poor taste. I think a "human sexuality photography barnstar" would be a much better option, with a better barnstar design. Its the discussion that makes me "joke" about "puking" than anything else. I don't have to sit here and express my pro-sex stance in my personal life on a website like Commons. Trust me, good quality sexuality and good times don't make me puke (well, unless a human caterpillar or goatse are involved). I was merely joking about puking. Should I put a /jokes about puking action in my deletion comment? LOL :) Sarah (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And putting me in a corner and trying to shock me into "prudeness" probably isn't the coolest way to go through an RfA process. I'm feeling a little cornered about sexuality at this point in this discussion. No one wants to ask me about my work with GLAMs or Wiki Loves Monuments? Or how I could maybe do some projects to get more women engaged in Commons? Or how I can clean out an OTRS category with the right access to tools in a matter of hours? Or how I release 95% (5% being specific people photos) of my own photos under open licenses and upload them to Commons? Or how I'd love to see the French freed of their FOP shackles? Oh well :) I wonder how many other Commonists running for RfA get asked this many questions about sexuality. Sarah (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And how is activity in all those areas (except OTRS perhaps) even related to this RfA? People are active in GLAM, WLM and other projects and release 95% of their photos under a free licence without being admins, it's not like adminship is some sort of a reward. I'm not sure about other RfAs, but as far as I understand, you're being asked those questions due to your involvement in the gendergap mailing list — which, as you surely know, deals with sexuality-related topics all the time. If you're feeling cornered about having a discussion like this one, then there is very little I can do about it. odder (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point! And yup, just merely being associated with the gender gap list can open a whole can of worms :) Thanks for the questions! Sarah (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"then there is very little I can do about it." You could just drop the topic. That is a really easy and obvious way. You just choose not to. Not wanting to do something and being unable to do something are very different. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Question What's your opinion of the Grandfathered old files guideline? Reasonable or dangerous? Kaldari (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as this is considered: "If there are other reasons to doubt the authorship or permission of the author, attempts should be made to communicate with the named author, to better establish the situation (and preferably obtain COM:OTRS evidence). The precautionary principle still applies – if real doubt remains, the file may be deleted in a deletion request. An example of a grandfathered old file (GOF) which was deleted and then undeleted based on this principle can be viewed here." then I'm OK with it. Sarah (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• How would you respond if File:Our Savage Manteo.jpg was nominated for deletion with the rationale: "derivative"? --99of9 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The image of that Indigenous person utilized on the plague is public domain, as it was drawn by John White. I did some research and I don't see that the symbol at the bottom left is for the America's 400th Anniversary Committee. We'd probably have to inquire with the State of North Carolina to discover more about the status of that symbol. I'd trust the community to help with the research if its needed. I won't get bent out of shape. I'd rather be safe than sorry! Sarah (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I failed to respond to the derivative rationale. The illustration is derived from a public domain artwork by John White, so it fails any derivative copyright case, from what I know. Sarah (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the author to the description. What about the text? --99of9 (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue. We'd have to inquire with the State. I don't know who wrote or anything about it. Sarah (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Who is the author and copyright holder of the photograph File:Bear_Cubs_by_Laura_Swing_Kemeys_(1907)_SOS!_Control_IAS_76006639_b.jpg, and did they release it under the license you have listed? Is the file page compliant with their license? --99of9 (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

After some digging... the program they were part of has a handbook which insisted that (page 36) participants waive their photographic and data rights and place them in the public domain. --99of9 (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Turns out my response about the text was transposed here into this part, where you asked about that artwork by Laura Swing Kemeys. I posted a response about the text above, the John White/North Carolina piece and it posted here, so you can see I moved it up to respond there regarding the text from that North Carolina national historic landmark plaque. Anyway, I worked at the Smithsonian, and I worked with people involved in the Save Outdoor Sculptures project. As you discovered for yourself - yes, those images were released under PD - they are created by volunteers under a federal agreement thus making them public domain. I co-founded Wikipedia Public Art, and a large portion of my Master's work focuses around public art work and licensing, and image created of them. So yes, I'm quite confident in the public artwork images I have uploaded over the years - trust me! :) Sarah (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And of course, it depends on the artwork. But, I don't really feel like getting into the details on the artwork, the licensing, copyright, 1976 and before, etc :) I think I've had enough questions asked of me. I think even more than I had asked of me when I ran for admin on ENWP. LOL. Sarah (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll make a comment rather than a question then. This means the all the file pages from SOS currently have the wrong license (CC-BY-2.0 rather than PD) (or if I were to be more dramatic about it, I could call it en:Copyfraud). I presume as the responsible uploader who now wants to set an admin-example to the community, that you will fix the file pages. --99of9 (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 Question I presented for deletion some photos from en:Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/YJB_Talent. This article proposal has failed a request for creating an article in april. All photos got deleted. Then I presented for deletion some photos from en:Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anatol_Kagan_House_at_Mount_Eliza. This article proposal has also failed a request for creating an article. Sfefan objected in Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Tom jaunay. (But note, that one of photos in this article got deleted anyway.)

Who acted correctly and who acted wrongly? He who deleted YJB Talent photos? He who deleted one Kagan house photo? Taivo (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Jcb (rights restoration)

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 21:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jcb should be an admin again. They've been busy OTRSing and I want them to stop pestering me to undelete stuff! They lost adminship in November 2011 following issues regarding closing DRs without comment. I feel the tools would be useful to them, and that given the last fracas there are unlikely to be any more DR issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

See also Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb.

See also Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2) for de-adminship request. odder (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jcb

If the community decides they want to accept me as an admin again, I would be happy to receive the tools. It's true they would be useful for me at the moment, especially while processing OTRS tickets.

I think the main cause for what happened in 2011 is that I tried to do way more work than I could reasonably handle. That caused me to deliver bad quality on DR closures (mainly lack of explanation where needed) and made it difficult to receive critism. I'm sorry for that and I will do what I can to avoid making those mistakes again.

If you have any feedback/critism/question/whatever about something I did, please feel free to leave a comment at my talk page. I always read everything posted there. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support (as nominator). -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - I believe in Jcb. --Sreejith K (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I will miss Could somebody restore these files... We received permission. --Alan ^(talk) 22:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I think Jcb's statement above addresses the key issues that caused his de-adminship. --99of9 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support From everything I've read above, this sounds like a model example of how to respond when de-sysopped. OTRS is a great place to develop skills in handling requests in a sensible and communicative manner. (I don't think I have any direct experience to go on.) -Pete F (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Érico Wouters ^msg 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Agree with assessment, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Deserves another chance. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I hope you'll return to DR work. INeverCry 03:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Jcb, the behaviour that triggered your de-adminship went far beyond what you acknowledged above, and since you don't seem to have fully acknowledged your disruptive behaviour, I think it is very likely you never really understood what you were doing wrong. Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. It's been one and a half years, and Jcb's statement goes a long way addressing the concerns that led to the desysopping. Jafeluv (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Geagea (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support as per King of Hearts. --A.Savin 09:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Neutral I'm all for giving a second chance, so I am not opposing, but I can't quite convince myself to support resysopping as the current re-nom statement does not do a good job on recognizing past problems, or explain why these will not re-occur. My example DRs below were slippery, so I will not judge Jcb to harshly for not picking up on the deeper policy issues. Hopefully no admin would close DRs this difficult without more serious thought and a better explanation of policy, rather than being overly swayed with the votes (which in both these cases were extensively canvassed off-wiki and I would prefer this to be noted in any closure). In my view, Jcb's statement "a clear consensus in favour of deletion, so that will be the only possible conclusion" is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of the responsibility to implement policy when reviewing a complex DR. I'll consider changing my vote before closure if the re-nom statement is revised, though this may not be necessary for the outcome that Jcb is hoping for. --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You can't be serious, Fae. With such an overwhelming support for deletion, and especially due to lack of consent, the only possible closure of that particular DR is to delete those pictures. This is what I'm intending to do after the week passes. odder (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting anything for the particular DR, the principle however, is that admins have a duty to implement policy. There may be a DR where 10 votes all say to keep and just 1 to delete, but if this would lead to Commons hosting a copyvio, the correct closure would be to delete. When there is a visible record of off-wiki canvassing (or possibly off-wiki harassment that may put members of our community in fear of off-wiki retribution for even openly expressing a counter-view) admins should take particular care in considering policy, rather than an apparent "consensus". No, I'm not joking as you well know. --Fæ (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • And yet, whatever happens off-wiki should not have any influence on decisions that are being made on the basis of project policies; when there is no evidence of consent for pictures taken in a private environment — especially in case of nude pictures — the policy dictates their deletion. odder (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
        • If you carefully read my last statement, you will find us in agreement. The problem is understanding the meaning of "a clear consensus" when this has been manipulated by off-wiki canvassing. I fully agree that off-wiki material should not influence on-wiki decisions; when a apparent consensus has evidence of manipulation, this principle should apply and an admin closing a DR must take the responsibility to implement this principle. I suggest a longer discussion, if you want it, is held somewhere like AN rather than taking this request on a tangent. --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I think Jcb just meant to say, "this DR is obvious," and didn't really intend to make a blanket statement. I don't think we need to worry about Jcb not using his judgment; in fact, his desysoping was due to overuse of that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed to a support to demonstrate the power of the second-chance, and probably some peer pressure influence, after the longer discussion here, and a related commitment on IRC yesterday "if I get the tools, I will avoid DRs in which I not very sure", which I have no doubt that Russavia will keep an eye on. --Fæ (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. For having the guts to say sorry. And for all (good) hard work he did; I bet he could do much more. Plus, for such a long-time volunteer, it is very unlikely that he would do any harm intentionally. Rehman 15:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Given his commitment below, I can support this. russavia (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Russavia, sorry, but I think your short list of Jcb's lapses is seriously incomplete. I suggest Jcb routinely behaved in a highly misleading manner in 2011, and, as I commented below I suggest Jcb is being misleading here, in this current discussion today. If he can't or won't be candid here, where he is claiming he has turned over a new leaf, what confidence can any ordinary contributor who was at the receiving end of his counter-policy use of administrator authority have that he won't continue to abuse his authority, as if nothing had changed? Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • We are all entitled to our opinions. I don't think I commented at the de-adminship, but I was actually in favour of it -- even now we see some remnants of problems. However, I am taking Jcb at their word with their responses to my questions, and if there are serious relapses I would expect the community to be swift in action, and I think he would be expecting that too. russavia (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. --Túrelio (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Do not want to vote down, but still very bad memories.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support off course Ezarateesteban 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, very active and helpful user. Trijnstel_talk 19:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per above. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have seen cleanup of bad DR closings long after Jcb made them (example) and they were not the result of bad communication but lack of understanding. How do we know more difficult cases would be handled better now? I can't judge from inaccessible OTRS handlings. I have not read of Jcb's commitment to go through all of his/her past closings to fix errors - which should come before new DR closings. Hekerui (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support We are chronically short of active Admins. Jcb can help reduce that shortage. I am an incurable optimist about people, so I would like to think that the last year and a half have had an effect, but if he offends again, that can be fixed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support JCB certainly deserves a second chance, and did a lot of good work in his prior adminship as well (apart from the criticism, which I do understand). Lymantria (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - another experienced admin would be a big help. Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - As per statement by Jcb. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral if successful ... better to have a backlog than an error, though we also need to accept and learn from errors, not crucify  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#inappropriate canvassing against about re-admin of Jcb
   Neutral - sorry, against or about, obviously I missunderstood something. a×p_de^Hello! 10:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please can you further explain this vote? You haven't yet commented in that thread, and the thread is not about something the candidate did, but instead about something that one of his opposers did. --99of9 (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Vote changed, see above ... a×p_de^Hello! 10:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks for the clarification. --99of9 (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Neutral In 2011 I was strongly in favor of his de-adminship. To be honest, I rarely have such a bad memory of a user because I witnessed and experienced many problems with him (non-constructive attitude, despise, many mistakes, etc.). Nevertheless I also have to admit I don't know enough about what he's done and how he eventually evolved and behaved since that de-adminship. Therefore, even if I am always ready to give a second chance to people, I just don't have enough informations to decide anything about the present Jcb and I don't want to judge him from what he's done in the past. Thus I prefer a neutral vote for the moment, that I may change in a support vote if I see that Jcb had thought about his past behaviour and admitted that some of his attitudes were not appropriate for the project. Of course I may also change my vote to an oppose vote if, on the contrary, I realize that Jcb has learnt nothing from what happened in 2011. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support User appears to have learned from the past mistakes that led to the desysop, no reason to doubt their sincerity when stating they will not repeat them. Correctly interpreting the consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Austin photoguy50 is also a plus, as there is no possible outcome other than deletion there. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support with reservations. Although I have never had dealings with this former admin we are short on them. If they misbehave again then we can review the tools again. Being admin as well as OTRS will save time and efforts.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• OK There has been no point in removing his rights in that de-admin-request once before, so give him his rights as admin back. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose noo, very bad impression in the past; credit goes to user:saibo who had the nerves to correct some of his mistakes; better few admins than admins who suck --Isderion (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose No good admin work. I see no need to reinstall the admin rights. --High Contrast (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy close and give the tools back. If we close this quickly then we can use this speedy close in any discussion to take the tools away again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose My concerns about past closures are not "lack of explanation where needed," but ignorance of copyright and/or failure to make closures based on argument merit, rather than vote counting. As contributions to Commons namespace (e.g., deletion requests) have been minimal since 2011 (and many have been OTRS notes), I do not see a demonstrated improvement. I'm not familiar with the attitude/communication issues, so I'm not considering those; I'd simply like to see several months of competent, reasoned comments related to copyright. Эlcobbola _talk 16:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright is a tricky one for any admin. Kept, deleted, and limbo are three that I doubt many can get their heads around. When in doubt admin should not close copyright ones like these without reading all the points brought up. This is a fourth that I just had authenticated by the same agent that wished deletion through WMF email. I own one with no copyright notice at all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Yann (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Amada44  ^{talk to me} 10:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Don't oppose re-adminship, since it seems it would reduce other admins' workloads, and don't have the time to research properly to feel comfortable supporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 12:36, May 17, 2013‎ (UTC)
•  Support. Looking at comments here and recent contributions, it appears that Jcb has learned from past errors and I am willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt. Note: I probably would not have become aware of this discussion were it not for a notice left on my talkpage pointing me to it. WJBscribe (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support The candidate appears to have learned from any errors he made, and displays a refreshing openness in response to the strenuous questioning. His contribution history looks good, and experience is a given, so, to borrow a cliche, why not? Begoon - talk 01:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Hi Jcb. I refreshed my memory of what happened in 2011 and I voted for a de-sysop back then, as I was concerned that you had demonstrated some problems with making personal comments about other editors in DRs, and I thought you might have a particular issue with dealing with sexual content on Commons in an impartial way. Two years is a long time, and the examples I picked up on were unlikely to be your everyday behaviour, so I'm happy to think of those discussions as tucked away in the archives. Could you demonstrate where you have more recently dealt better with conflict but were still passionate about the issues? In addition, I would appreciate your thoughts on how you would summarise and close these two quite different and difficult DRs on sexual content:
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Austin photoguy50
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Hot sex barnstar

  --Fæ (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It's difficult to show a recent conflict situation, because most regarding Wiki are in OTRS (so confidential). Last weeks I responded to several angry emails and I have been able to achieve understanding by most of the mailers, staying calm and polite while explaining the situation. (e.g. people who saw their article nominated for deletion). In real life I've had to deal with a lot of conflicts in the past two years. Most of the time I wasn't one of the opponents, but I was helping to calm down the situation. Being the leader of a development aid organization, I spend every summer in a poor country with a group of young people to help building necessary buildings like schools. If you put a group together for 3 weeks, 24 hours a day, in an uncomfortable environment while working hard, it's inevitable that you will have conflicts in the team from time to time. But it's very important to resolve them as soon as possible, because there is no way to separate the opponents for the rest of the summer and an ongoing conflict will endanger the mission.
  • About the DRs you mentioned: The first one has a clear consensus in favour of deletion, so that will be the only possible conclusion. Lack of consent by the depicted women is the main issue here. I strongly agree with that concern. Another, weaker but still valid, issue is that they are out of scope. I also agree with that deletion reason. None of the files seems to be useful for any educational purpose within a Wikimedia project. The second DR seems to have a big majority in favour of keeping. Personnally I really don't care whether such a template exists or not. Nobody in the DR mentions any urgent reason for deletion (e.g. copyvio), so I would follow the majority and keep-close the DR, because the majority of the responders like to keep it and there is no forcing reason to delete. Jcb (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Just a note that the barnstar discussion has a number of improbable conditionals, plenty of sarcasm, proponents of the deterioration of Commons, etc. Non-native English speakers may want to be cautious about closure. --99of9 (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

      Indeed, a brave admin might find policy reasons to want to close either of these "difficult" DRs as the reverse of the apparent consensus. --Fæ (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Jcb, you invited interested parties to leave their questions on your talk page -- not here. But, don't you have a long history of erasing questions your don't want to address from your talk page, so they are not recorded in your talk page archive? [9], [10], [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] During your deadminship discussion you pointed to your talk page archive, claiming it showed you did not have a long history of ingoring good faith questions -- when you had misleadingly manually removed civil, good faith questions so they wouldn't be present in your archive? So I will ask my questions and make my comments here.

• Jcb, weren't you an unforgiveable bully to regular contrinbutors, when you were an administrator? Isn't this one of the serious problems with your administratorship you have not acknowledged here?
  • To interject re: the line above -- the use of the word "unforgivable" makes this a pretty unhelpful comment. A central task of a nomination like this is to determine whether or not something can/should be forgiven; presupposing an answer one way or the other makes the question impossible to answer in a fruitful way. -Pete F (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Jcb, didn't you engage in deceptive, misleading practices, that give the strong appearance you did not want to be held accountable for your actions? Since you haven't acknowledged these deceptive, misleading practices, aren't you still giving the strong appearance you can't or won't be held accountable for your actions?

• In the previous discussion I described the problems posed by supervolunteers -- and how supervolunteers can be crippling for a project, because a large fraction of them start to act like their extraordinary commitment of time entitles them to act as if the regular rules no longer apply to them. Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship)#The dangers of volunteers who want to_do more than their share I feel very strongly that Jcb proved himself to be a super-volunteer, and this this is the root explanation of his deeply troubling use of his administrator authority to retaliate against good faith contributors.

• Towards the end of the deadminship discussion I wrote:

In my opinion we remain accountable for our actions, essentially forever. In my opinion, we can expect good faith contributors to extend to us an amnesty for past mistakes -- when we have fully demonstrated we recognize those past mistakes. This crucial demonstration that you understand the concerns expressed about your behavior is largely absent here. I don't think we can assume you do understand those elements of your problematic behavior you have not addressed. Since you haven't made an effort to show you understood our concerns I think we really have no choice but to assume you will continue in all the problematic behaviors you have not acknowledged were mistakes, if you are allowed to retain full or partial administrator authority. No one expects you, or any other contributor here, to be perfect, to never make mistakes. But, a corollary of our policies and conventions on civil and collegial communication, is that we have to tell our fellow contributors when we realize we have made a mistake. When we don't they have to assume we haven't clued in, and that we will continue to repeat the same mistakes, over and over again. Even though your talk page bears a promise that you will consider the possibility you may have made a mistake your record shows you an ongoing failure to acknowledge mistakes.

You still haven't made a meaningful effort to acknowledge the problematic behaviours you engaged in -- not even close. So I suggest none of us should trust you won't engage in exactly the same problematic behaviour all over again. Geo Swan (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why everyone who voiced an opinion in the original deadminship discussuion should have a neutral heads-up about this discussion left on their talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A few comments on your list of talkpage reverts:

• The list looks longer than it is, because you double-posted three of them, so in fact you provided 13 diffs instead of 16.
• In this revert I removed an automated notification, but you forgot to mention that ten minutes earlier Marac reverted the action that caused the notification.
• In one of the cases a complete discussion was moved to my talkpage and I moved it back, leaving a link to the original location.
• this revert (and I saw one other example of this issue in your list) was done because the comment had landed at the wrong place. I should have moved it to the bottom of the page instead, which I will do in future cases.

I disagree with your point of view about the danger of what you call a 'super-volunteer'. I know quite a lot of valuable small organizations that simply wouldn't be able to exist without one or to people really going for it. Jcb (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jcb, could you please mention some of the principles you consider (or will consider) when making a decision about whether or not to delete a message from your user talk page? In what cases do you feel it is justified, and in what cases should the temptation be resisted? -Pete F (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletions at my talk page have been exceptional. I think Geo Swan found most of them, compared to over 600kb stored in my archive. If I receive an automated notification because one of my uploads got tagged by mistake (like placing {no license} where a valid license was present), I may remove that notification after dealing with the tag. But in general comments will stay. Reverts like this won't happen again, I will move the comment to the bottom of the page instead. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I think there are plenty of circumstances where removing unwelcome comments is perfectly reasonable. It might be necessary for somebody in a position of trust to exercise more discretion in that kind of deletion, but I'm surprised that you would commit to preserving comments in nearly all cases. Anyway, thanks for the answer. -Pete F (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jcb, I apologize to you and other participants here for including three duplicates in the list of 16 misleading exisions to your talk page. I overstruck the duplicates above. However I am extremely disturbed by how you misleadingly characterized the remaining exisions, as if they were routine.

I seems to me that in characterizing the remainder as routine you have been highly misleading. It seems to me you are showing that basically nothing has changed since 2011, and that you are prepared to be highly misleading in your attempts to evade responsibility for your actions.

Several of the comments you excised were from User:Saibo -- someone I don't know: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. But even if, for the sake of argument, Saibo was considered a troll by some, his or her comments here were civil, and correct. You acknowledged above that you were wrong to close DRs without explanation, so his or her civil reminders that you were doing so was not "spam" and it was not "trolling". He or she was in the right to remind you or your responsibilities, and you were wrong to characterize them as trolling or spam back in 2011, and it is highly misleading of you to imply their excision was the routine kind of excision anyone would do. Rather it was an early and civil heads-up of one of the main issues that cost you your administratorship.

Three of the comments are similar civil and policy based concerns that did not merit excision: [30], [31], [32].

Three of the comments you excised were from me: [33], [34], [35], I too was addressing valid policy based concerns, and I believe my comments merited a civil and substantive reply. Your excision of them in 2011 strongly suggested to me that you were unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the actions you took as an administrator. I am afraid you still don't seem prepared to acknowledge that you gave the strong appearance of misusing your administrator authority to delete material I needed for work I was doing not out of a policy based concern but instead solely because my civil good faith question and concerns had pissed you off.

I don't think anything has really changed. Here we are, at your attempt to get your administratorship restored, and it seems to me you are still prepared to try to mislead people over the nature of these excisions. Geo Swan (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Question Jcb, one of the main concerns that people had was the lack of quality in your closes and a lack of communication with editors who had questions in relation to those closes. With a simple yes or no answer, do you acknowledge that they were amongst the issues that led to your de-adminship? I asked you this question on IRC and you acknowledged in the affirmitive, and mentioned you basically stated as such in your request. Given this, do you commit yourself to the following: 1) not to attend to DRs in a "robo-admin" way; 2) providing clear rationales for all closes (even if "as per nom" for simple, obvious DRs) to demonstrate that the DR has been read entirely; and 3) respond to all queries from editors whom query any closes (in a COM:MELLOW way). If you can commit to that here, I would both support you and hold you to it. russavia (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this was an important issue in 2011. I see the importance of your three points and I commit to it. Jcb (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Russavia, sorry, I think your list Jcb's lapses was incomplete. Over and above failing to leave closing explanations in DRs, over and above not answering good faith queries, Jcb engaged in misleading behaviour. As I noted above removing civil good faith comments from his talk page was highly misleading. As I noted above, trying to tell those participating in this discussion that his previous obfuscation of good faith policy based concern as routine maintenance strongly suggest to me at least, that he doesn't understand what is wrong with decpetively trying to evade responsibility for his actions.

Jcb used to disrespectfully fail to provide substantive answers to good faith contributors who had questions about his DRs on his talk page. And then, when discussions were initiated as to whether those files should be restored, he would sometimes weigh in -- but in a way that seemed to me to be misleading and indicative of a woeful unwillingness to be held responsible for his actions. He would weigh in to these discussions as if he were an uninvolved third party. He would leave these rather vague comments as if he was supporting the decision of the closing administrator. These vague supportive comments from an uninvolved third party fell far short of the specific, substantive comments the closing administrator should make. Some closing administrators don't weigh in during the undeletion discussions, trusting that the closing comments they left at the DR, and the explanation they supplied at their talk page, after the DR, were sufficient. But for closing administrators like Jcb, who didn't explain at the DR, or at their talk page, it seems to me that comments that look like he was trying to masquerade as an uninvolved third party while not as bad as employing sockpuppets were misleading in the same way as employing sockpuppets.

Rightly or wrongly Jcb lost the general community's trust that he was closing DRs related to human sexuality in an neutral, objective manner. He should have realized, months before his de-adminship discussion, that the could no longer close DRs related to human sexuality, and should confine himself to weighing in those discussions with a substantive policy based comment. Continuing to close these DRs, when his closures were so often challenged and so often reverted, showed bad judgement and disrespect for the community.

Jcb went beyond merely not measuring up to WP:MELLOW, he mocked newbies. That is terrible because it was abusive, and it was terrible because we need experienced contributors to set an example. We particularly need administrators to set a good example as newbies deserve to be able to trust that the example they should follow.

In my particular case he went beyond failing to respond in a civil, substantive way to my civil, good faith concerns. About a week or ten days after our first interaction he chose to delete material I was relying on in a DR with a pitifully flimsy justification for deletion. It was extremely inconvenient for me. It was extremely inconvenient for me over the course of 150 hours of my volunteer time. It was extremely inconvenient for me almost two months. I gave him several opportunities to quietly revert his actions. He blew me off and acted like I was a vandal.

Some of Jcb's supporters implied I was making a mountain out of a molehill to be so concerned over a single DR. But it was a DR that caused me to grit my teeth in frustration over his intransigence over 150 hours I worked on uploading the files related to that DR. I was reminded of his instransigence almost every day for almost two months. I have acknowledged that there may be some other reason for his maddening unwillingness to either explain his deletion, or to revert his deletion. But the longer he was instransigent the harder it has been to resist concluding the sole explanation for the deletion was malice, that he never imagine he had a valid justification for this deletion, but he thought he could get away deleting material I was relying on to retaliate against me for asking him tough questions he couldn't answer. I believe my questions and comments in 2011 were all substantive, and were all civil, and any resentment he felt was wildly misplaced.

Note, you won't find even an iota of acknowledgment on Jcb's part that he never had any justification for the delete conclusion of that DR.

All participants on the WMF projects are supposed to be civil and collegial at all times. I am used to encountering fellow contributors who fall short of that standard. The best thing to do is to try one's best and not respond in kind to uncivil contributors. I do my best to remain civil when other contributors aren't civil. But there is a level playing field there. I think it is essential that the community in general, and the corp of administrators, close ranks and rein in administrators who give the appearance of bullying. At this point I don't really care if Jcb has an explanation that would convince people he didn't close that DR as delete out of malice. His two years of unwillingness to explain the closure or acknowledge it was a mistake, made it look like he was acting out of malice. Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Geo Swan, if you have a genuine point to make, I think you have failed by making your own badgering the dominant theme here. I have no history with this user, but the only person who gives the appearance of badly needing to work on their collaborative skills on this RFA is…you. -Pete F (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think my record of interaction with Jcb, while he was an administrator, was a model of how to voice a policy based concern, and I think if you think I am "badgering" him now you might consider bearing in mind the possibility you don't understand how he has behaved in the past. Other administrators may see him as a generally cooperative team member, while ordinary contributors, who were at the receiving end of his behaviours can have a completely opposite impression. Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why all the contributors who participated in the de-admin discussions shouldn't receive a neutral heads-up of this discussion?

I repeat, is there any reason why all the contributors who participated in the de-admin discussions shouldn't receive a neutral heads-up of this discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No. If you want to do so, and might phrase something neutral, then knock yourself out with posting heads-ups. At the moment there have been reasonable and direct questions pitched about concerns, so there should be no last minute surprises. --Fæ (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose a message like the following:

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges. I think you are entitled to be informed that it has been proposed that his administrator privileges be restored. While there were various suggestions at the de-admin discussion that he be allowed conditional access to administrator privileges, the proposal at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is for Jcb to have unconditional access to the administrator privileges restored. Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

At a first attempt 61 people weighted in -- User:Cecil User:Jcb User:Saibo User:Mattbuck User:Geo Swan User:AzaToth User:Hekerui User:ANGELUS User:Léna User:Wsiegmund User:Trijnstel User:Blue Marble User:Fæ User:Blue Marble User:Herbythyme User:Ymblanter User:S Larctia User:Rd232 User:Pieter Kuiper User:Pill User:Beria User:AFBorchert User:CT Cooper User:Ajraddatz User:Fry1989 User:Geagea User:ABF User:Lymantria User:Yikrazuul User:Ezarate User:Neozoon User:A.Savin User:VR-Land User:Yann User:Jafeluv User:Olivier Bommel User:Kaldari User:Missvain User:Dcoetzee User:Amada44 User:Courcelles User:Niabot User:WizardOfOz User:Nevit User:Fastily User:TwoWings User:Wknight94 User:Pymouss User:SarekOfVulcan User:WJBscribe -User:Schwäbin User:PierreSelim User:Jastrow User:NVO User:Adrignola User:MoiraMoira User:Túrelio User:Skeezix1000 User:Jameslwoodward User:EugeneZelenko

Ten people who voiced an opinion here also voiced an opinion at the de-admin discussion.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• The "various suggestions" sentence is unnecessary and selectively chosen to support your agenda, please leave it out. I also think that replacing "I think you are entitled to be informed" by "This note is to inform" will make it more neutral. --99of9 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about:

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges. This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored. Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th. Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Sorry for the slow reply. I was asleep. The new version is ok, except you got the nominator wrong. --99of9 (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is. This is clearly canvassing. As soon as I became aware of this action, I have opened a discussion on COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It was suggested to Jcb in his de-adminship coming back so this RfA is no surprise and the canvassing not required. Whoever wants to prevent that Jcb is granted administrative tools could have used a browser extension that regularly looks up whether a certain string appears at Commons:Administrators/Requests. I wonder that even retired users received this "heads up". -- Rillke^(q?) 08:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't the term canvassing usually reserved for selectively informing only those you think will agree with you of a discussion?

As for special browser extensions ... who the heck knows how to do that? Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

re 1) In my understanding, any sort of "drumming". But I think this discussion should continue (eventually) at COM:AN, not here. --Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Requests for CheckUser

watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Requests for Oversight rights

watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Archives

You can find requests for adminship archives at Commons:Administrators/Archive.

See also

• Commons:User access levels