Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:36, 16 March 2011

Fæ

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (70/0/0); Scheduled to end 22:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Fæ (talk · contribs) – Fæ is a highly active and experienced contributor (for those who like stats: 50,000 edits over 12 months) in a variety of areas in which having the tools would benefit the project. I highlight the following reasons why Fæ should be given the tools:

• Fæ is an OTRS volunteer and has been since August 2010. The fact of being an OTRS volunteer already demonstrates a high degree of trustworthiness. But also, having the administrative tools will help Fæ to carry out important OTRS-related functions, like dealing with copyright and BLP violations that get reported via email.
• Fæ has a demonstrated commitment to, and proficiency in, content work, with three good articles and one featured article.
• Fæ's one featured article, Hoxne Hoard, demonstrates exactly the qualities the project needs in an administrator. The article passed FA as the result of an organised collaboration between multiple editors on- and off-wiki. It's one thing to write an FA yourself; it's another thing entirely to demonstrate the people skills, teamwork and leadership needed to get a large collaboration across the line. I'd also suggest having a look at WP:GLAM/BM and WP:GLAM/BL for Fæ's ongoing collaborative work in GLAM projects.
• Fæ is very competent in deletion policy and practice. Fæ makes well-reasoned nominations (eg Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Francis Xavier Montmorency and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Irena Lipienė) and arguments.
• Fæ is a proficient vandal fighter.
• Fæ deals with complaints well - one of the most important parts of being an admin. A review of Fæ's talk page articles reveals that editors do disagree with Fæ from time to time: but the disagreements and complaints are dealt with courteously and constructively. Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. For reasons of disclosure it should be noted that after an RFC/U which caused me to refocus and improve my Misplaced Pages editing I took the option of a clean start, though I have never been blocked. Prior to this nomination I spoke privately with one of the critical contributors to the discussion, who knows both account names and we have resolved our concerns. I will recuse myself of admin requests related to editors who gave an opinion in that discussion. This is the first time I have had an RFA nomination. Fæ (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Fæ took the time to talk with one of his prior critics (not me,fwiw), letting them know both old and new account names. Fæ has also informed Arbcom of the prior account name.
I have looked over the contributions of old and new account names, and can also confirm that Fæ has refocused, in many ways. John Vandenberg 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: My focus over the last 6 months in helping with GLAM related collaborations means that I am more likely to be one of the go-to-guys for related admin needs around these areas when I am uninvolved (this may include helping during an edit-a-thon or workshops). I have experience raising notices at RPP, UND, AIV, UAA and SPI and, at a minimum after working through NAS, if I am considered competent for the admin task I may offer to help when help is needed with backlogs or where specific issues arise. I would tend to be conservative around deletions and would be likely to only take on cases where I am fully confident of correctly and unambiguously interpreting policy. As can be seen from my contributions I tend to move about rather than sticking to one process (6 weeks of a backlog purge on OTRS, a couple of months clearing out unsourced BLP queues, a month of welcoming new users (that one resulted in a peak in my edit history and skewed my balance of contributions to userspace), various periods of patrol on IGLOO which highlights a variety of problems or hanging out on the IRC help channel for random requests) and would hope to focus on areas that would gain the most immediate benefit from involvement and where I can commit to giving sufficient time in reading policy, guidelines, past cases and then ask for help and feedback if there are things I am unsure of. I already use a number of browser-based scripts to help with routine tasks (such as checking the licences of uploaded Flickr images or formatting a citation based on a GNewspaper image, see User:Fæ/Geek) and may eventually create non-controversial scripts to help with some admin backlog work.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: My involvement in the GLAM/BM, GLAM/BL and GLAM/DER collaborations along with their associated articles (for example Hoxne Hoard (FA), British Library Philatelic Collections (GA) and Vindolanda tablets (GA)) have been my best contributions (and eaten most of my recent wiki-time) with the benefits of working as a team and a chance to meet with curators and museum staff who have devoted their lives to making knowledge freely available to the public (an aspiration that will sound familiar to any committed Wikipedian). More gnomicly, my OTRS work has resulted in some important images and text being verified and made available and sometimes undeleted for articles (often outside my normal sphere of interest, such as all photos owned by the Iowa House of Representatives and an etched metal plate negative thought to be a youthful Abraham Lincoln). I have enjoyed giving friendly personal help for a wide variety of people and in the process have learned a lot about the practical interpretation of international copyright whilst remaining a strict layman on the subject and staying open to sometimes finding out that what I thought was intuitively right and fair, turns out to have a legal case stating the exact opposite.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I can think of no conflicts over the last few months, only polite discussion (if persistent from time to time) and sometimes abuse from vandals (being called things like idiot, fat assed street walker or murderer seem more bizarre rather than stressful). Going further back to October last year the discussion here sticks in my mind as a debate about something insignificant that went on too long (making it an embarrassment for all parties, including me) where I felt that a citation for a photo I had uploaded helped article verifiability and others thought it was not needed consequently deleting the citation repeatedly. I felt strongly that standard policy was unambiguously in support of my opinion but instead of arguing with an evolving local consensus I preferred to take the article off my watch list and walk away to avoid becoming disruptive when this might have been a case of IAR anyway. Looking at the article now, I am delighted to see it has recently achieved GA status with most of my original contributions intact and the photo I uploaded is still the lead image, though the claim of the image caption remains unsupported by a citation. The lesson learned was that if the discussion is stuck then walk away early rather than when it gets embarrassing; there are plenty of other articles needing attention and I can always come back to check up on progress in a few months time (if I still remember what the disagreement was about by then). Though I do not seek conflict situations, I have experience of helping with conflict resolution and Talk:Israel Shamir and Talk:Enthiran are both illustrative examples of articles where I have been heavily involved in resolving conflict and received a bit of flak in the process (the latter example started some deletion discussions which resulted with a new copyright essay on lists being proposed by Moonriddengirl).

General comments

• Links for Fæ: Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Fæ can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have redirected Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Fae to here, seems like a good idea. —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support—awesome editor, per below :). Airplaneman ✈ 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Support - Clearly a devoted user, shows strong signs of having clue, can't find any reason to oppose. —SW—  22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose for giving me the impression that he was an admin and thereby preventing me from offering to nominate him. People these days. Otherwise, absolute support for being a fantastic user and an excellent human being plus, if he fucks up, I know his favourite watering hole and when he plans to be there Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Strong Support(edit conflict) All interactions with Fae have been positive. I don't have any issues with Fae becoming an administrator, I believe he would perform the task quite well. Alpha Quadrant 23:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Strong Support - (edit conflict) Great contributor, would do the job to the best of his ability. He has my complete support and trust —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:03am • 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Support I thought Fae already was an admin! Sumsum2010·T·C
7. Yeah I also though Fæ was an admin. :) —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Support I've met Fae a couple of times now in real life and think he has the right combination of commitment, temperament and clue. ϢereSpielChequers 23:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. An easy decision. Both because of the esteem in which I hold the nominator and because everywhere I've seen the candidate, I've never had any qualms. A very clueful editor who would put thee tools to good use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. I've seen Fæ all over the place, doing all sorts of great work - I have no concerns at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Support Conscientious editor who works in many different areas. Looks to be a well-rounded candidate. The Interior (Talk) 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Your not already an admin? Inka 23:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Strong support, excellent interactions/judgement at AIV and thick-skinned as well. A quick review of edits outside of anti-vandalism indicate that this is a well-rounded candidate. No concerns. Kuru (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
14. Support I have good experience with this person! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
15. Fæ looks like a good editor to me. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Eminently sensible and productive editor whose promotion will substantially reduce the workload for the rest of the admin corps.  -- Lear's Fool 01:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
17. Support I can't see why not. Tofutwitch11 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
18. as nom. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
19. Support. A browse through the Fæ's contribution history shows nothing but positive work. 28bytes (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
20. Support An exceptional vandal-fighter and a moderately well-rounded candidate otherwise. I really like the transparency shown in the nomination acceptance statement.--Hokeman (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
21. Support. Tiderolls 02:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
22. Support Clearly trustworthy (yay OTRS) and a more than competent editor (Hoxne Hoard is a great article). An asset for sure. Steven Walling 02:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
23. If this fails, I'll quit. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
24. Support Sensible and patient. Acroterion _(talk) 03:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - Per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
26. Support per above. I thought you were already an administrator! Logan _Talk 04:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
27. Support. Broadly experienced. Good demeanor. John Vandenberg 04:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
28. Support per the commentary already offered by several editors whose opinions I hold in high regard. Strikerforce (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
29. Stephen 04:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
30. Support Of course. First Light (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
31. Support Excellent editor, great attitude, good common sense. --John KB (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
32. Support Chaosdruid (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Very good work at new pages, also per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Manuel Castellanos López. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
34. Support Been impressed in the past with the candidate staying cool under conflict, thoughtful and constructive work in content/Talk and AfD discussions. And yes, I honestly thought you were already an admin. --joe decker 06:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
35. Support excellent candidate. Johnbod (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
36. Support All around excellent candidate. Bonus points for me being petrified of Fetchcomms' threat. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
37. Support. Hard-working, intelligent, trustworthy. Net benefit as admin. -- œ 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
38. Support. Fæ has all the right skills and experience. Axl ¤ 09:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
39. Support I did know Fæ wasn't an admin, and as soon as I had come out of New Admin School was planning to see if I could find some reason (other than Fæ not consenting) for not nominating him. I've never seen any problem in the time this account's been around (having had plenty of chance to see him at work). Calm, knowledgeable, polite, good content work - and nominated by someone whose opinion carries more weight than mine would. Peridon (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
40. Support. Hardworking, not a drama-phile, can be trusted with the tools, and I haven't seen any cause for concern in a random sample of edits. I like the GLAM work; this seems to be an area where we can really get top-quality sources and build high-quality coverage across swathes of wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
41. Although you might want to consider redirecting User:Fae to your userpage. It is a slight irritation typing in unicode, after all. —Dark 10:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
42. Support Have seen him around the place and seems like he should get a mop! 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookie (talk • contribs)
43. Pile-on support. Trusted, level-headed and competent. Salvio 12:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
44. Yet another Support. No one can be this appropriate for the admin tools, I thought. I'll look into his history. So I looked. And looked. And looked. Quite simply... support. Worm 12:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
45. Support Good candidate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
46. Support No issues seen. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
47. Support Fæ is friendly, helpful, thoughtful, has good wiki-knowledge, is prepared - indeed keen - to admit to mistakes and learn from them (not that xe makes many), and shows superb judgement. Chzz  ►  13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
48. No duh... - Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
49. Support Extremely helpful to newbies, has helped me a lot, great content contributor on both en-wiki and on Commons, low tolerance for drama, and keeps the vandals at bay (reverting vandalism on my user page and RPPing it, for instance). Trustworthy and wouldn't abuse the mop. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
50. AGK 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
51. Strong support He deserves the tools. WayneSlam 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
52. Support TNXMan 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
53. Support Absolutely. Swarm 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
54. Syn 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
55. Strong support – Absolutely. —mc10 (t/c) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
56. Support I kinda thought you were already an admin, have only seen good things and your answer to Q3 about walking away when things get tedious is something I like to see. I have every faity you'll use the tools well. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
57. Support. I've worked with Fæ at Suicide of Tyler Clementi, where I clearly remember another editor hurling abuse at Fæ, who handled it exactly the right way. The candidate has my trust. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
58. Strong Support - Great candidate and awesome editor. Gabesta449 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
59. Support Nice username by the way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
60. Support absolute unequivocal support.--Jezebel'sPonyo 21:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
61. Based solely on the contributions I support. However I find the company of some supporters not the kind I wish to be in. In addition I'm afraid I distrust John Vandenberg a great deal (sorry to be personal - but he has signed the official "ARBCOM SEAL OF APPROVAL"), so his opinion, in commentary of the undisclosed previous account (rightly undisclosed and I ask for no information on it), prevents me from being quite so enthusiastic as others above. Good luck with the admin bits. Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

    My comment in regards to the disclosure is in a personal capacity only. The fact that ArbCom knows of the prior account is simply that; there is no seal of approval that accompanies this. This is the reason why it is more important that one of the prior critics (an extremely long term and trusted community member) has also been informed of the prior account - that way there is no dependence on ArbCom to continually monitor Fae to ensure compliance to their commitment (above) to recuse in regards to the other prior critics. John Vandenberg 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

62. Support - most excellent! Orphan Wiki 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
63. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
64. Support Great contributions and a patient, friendly attitude to others. Will be the kind of admin diffuses tension, acts as a role model and draws new users to the project. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
65. Support. Definitely. The Land (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
66. Support - Fæ is a good editor, and I feel he'll make a fine admin. ~ Matthewrbowker 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
67. Support Seems to do good work...Modernist (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
68. Support - Racepacket (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
69. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
70. Strong Support - Would make a great admin. Krashlandon 01:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral