Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin? Options

[carbuncle]

I guess Ashley wants to delete the rest of his embarrassing uploads without the fuss of having to ask an admin...

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

[EricBarbour]

Perhaps this is a good time and place to point out the AN/I report on Fae's activities, from July:

[edit] Admin conduct review requested

Fæ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights)

I'm requesting a review of Fæ's recent poor conduct, and request that steps be taken to prevent more of the same or further escalation. Hopefully that means just a cautionary word from someone uninvolved; I'm not out for blood, just a less hostile editing environment. The poor behavior falls into three categories:

constant personal attacks and comments about editors;
disruptive editing;
inappropriate templating and warning of editors;

Full disclosure: we're presently in a content dispute on a controversial BLP article, and the rhetoric and tempers have risen a bit on all sides, but never to this level; review of my own actions is welcome, especially with regard to Fæ's many unsubstantiated mischaracterizations of my motivations.

Onslaught of unwarranted personal attacks and mischaracterizations:

"...you seem to be on a mission to disrupt ... You have made no positive steps ... Your polemic is tiresome ... your blanking of sourced material without clear explanation ... Your question appears so trivial ... nitpicking here to stop any progress ... look like trolling to me ... forget how to use Google? ... your opinion is starting to look rather irrelevant ... you do realize that nobody put you in charge here don't you? ... repeatedly saying the equivalent of "I don't like it" to everyone else's suggestions ... Nobody died and put you in charge ... Your problem with ownership of this article has been blatantly apparent ... after it was tampered with by Xenophrenic by being misleadingly indented ... your recent contribution to this article appears to introduce nothing but promotional bias to this article and is disruptive ... You appear to be keen to edit war ... your question appears trollish ... it is apparent that you have a problem with ownership of the article ... your continued off-putting and trivial challenges to other potential contributors ... it would help if rather than trolling other editors, you could positively propose text ... you are promoting her books by cherry picking quotations ... persistently introducing bias to Wikipedia articles or disrupting a consensus building process ... worryingly stalker-ish and rather threatening.

Disruptive editing:

After declaring "...I'm not terribly interested in proposing new content...", and, "I have no intention of wasting my time proposing detailed alternative text for this article if it is likely to be endlessly nitpicked over", s/he threatened to correct a perceived "imbalance" in the article through massive deletions. S/he then carried out that threat, making 16 edits over a 30 minute period starting with this one, that deleted considerable content and tagged even more content with various citation-needed tags. S/he then went to related articles and stuck 'PROD' tags on them (here); requested deletion of image files from the article (here). Deleting and tagging is not a problem in itself, when justified, but most of these edits were not justified -- sources were already cited in the article; articles about best selling books don't need to be deleted, etc. Not a single addition of new content, so it all seemed to me to be more pointy than productive. When I asked for an explanation of some of the edits, I was told I wasn't getting an explanation here.

Inappropriate templating/warning of experienced editors for:

Removing templates (here); Tampering with comments (here); Violating 3RR (here); and then when I delete the warning templates, referring to them as "possible harassment", I get yet another admonition to use a "recognized process" rather than edit summaries (here), referring me to the Help Desk(!). Looking for a bit of help to put the brakes on this mess before it becomes serious. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Followed by a long argument. But with no resolution evident.

Posted here just in case some asshole tries to erase it from AN/I archives. It's been done before. (I was just looking into Durova's
and Grawp's activities, and the number of oversights related to each case is staggering. Yes, girls, Wikipedia is censored. A lot.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: