User talk:Fæ

Archives

/2014
/2015
/2016
/2017
/2018
/2019
/2020

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Fæ is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

"Wikipedia:Ad hominem" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Ad hominem. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Wikipedia:Ad hominem until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see I created this redirect in 2012. --Fæ (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock preparation

As it's now been 7 months since the block, and despite waiting the extra time, no questions have been raised. This now feels like a very long time, particularly in the light of the fact that in the original block there was a suggestion to limit to 3 months, I'll investigate how to raise the unblock request so an uninvolved administrator can consider it. Despite being a past admin on this project, I'm aware that norms change over time, so will take care to read the generic advice.

If anyone has questions to raise, it would be very useful to raise them before the unblock request is posted in a couple of days. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, as I explained above, my major concern is that of your focus on controversial topics - I gave figures in the thread. It seems to me that the vast majority of your actions and edits on English Wikipedia were designed to insert yourself into controversial topics, and certainly not with any intent to defuse the situation.

I don't believe you answered that general concern of mine. If you can allay that concern, I'd really appreciate it. Perhaps some sort of commitment to ensure that a supermajority of your edits would not be focussed on controversial topics? Perhaps some indication of areas that you would be looking to edit, or tasks you intend to undertake? Perhaps an undertaking to focus on collaboration, or a personal limit in responding to topics? I know that you have a lot to offer the project, I'm also aware of the amount of time the community must invest when you are editing in these areas. Worm^TT(talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is disruption, then I note the examples you have provided of the topic of scientific racism and the contributions to the discussion about Fram's block which by its nature was controversial, but my contributions of themselves have caused no disruption, complaint, dispute, nor any extra amount of time needed from others as far as I can recall.

My work on issues of scientific racism has been extensive, positive and collegiate (I have set up a Telegram group to coordinate it with other editors in non-English projects and Wikidata), and has resulted in the removal of a lot of deliberately disruptive and offensive content from Wikimedia Commons and resulted in a few long term sockpuppet accounts being blocked. In comparison to my other Commons projects, this has been a tiny proportion of my editing or volunteer time.

Could you provide an example of an edit of mine that illustrates your point that these contributions are an issue and I can consider how this ought to be part of an appropriate unblock request? To be honest it's quite hard for me to think back of what my edits were in 2019, before the pandemic. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, Thank you Fae. I think between this answer and your previous lack of answer, I can see your stance. Personally, I will not be supporting any unblock appeal at this point. I would expect the unblock to go to the community as a whole, given your long history on the project - so for the "generic advice", I would say the following:

Consider very carefully, if this unblock is worth the stress that it likely to put you through. Even this mention of a possible unblock has drawn editors, myself included. I'm sure you're not happy with some of the responses that have been made - an actual unblock request is likely to be more unpleasant for you.
If you do wish to proceed, I think you will need to actually address concerns, rather than dismissing them. In particular Guy Macon's questions, while asked in an inappropriate form, are similar to the sorts of things you'll want to be answering proactively. I'll paraphrase the bits I see as important below, so you needn't read the removed posts.
- Can you explain why you believe you were blocked, and what you would do differently?
- You're currently under a topic ban and have stated you would not edit en.wp substantially until it is lifted. Do you still stand by that, and if so, assuming that the community is not willing to remove the topic ban, what benefit would the community see in removing your indefinite block?

You needn't respond to this post - I'm giving you advice on questions you may want to answer for a successful unblock request. Good luck for the future. Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: The statement was that I was inserting myself into controversial topics and this was a problem. Please could you supply an example and I'll happily examine the facts and respond to that.

I would be happy to embrace a voluntary restriction to avoid any significant editing in disputes about scientific racism or any other topic, if my contributions are a specific issue. Without evidence, I'm unsure how this can meaningfully be part of an unblock request.

Please, can you supply an example diff that I and others can examine? --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Worm That Turned - in regards to your writing: 'designed to insert yourself into controversial topics, and certainly not with any intent to defuse the situation.' I am very curious to learn if there are explicit recommendations or expectations on EN Wikipedia or Wikimedia spaces in general to what is adequate amount of 'insertion' and what 'difusion' activity in edits? I would be curious to learn more as I come from different social, cultural and linguistic background and context and this seems like a very specific thing I might have missed. --Zblace (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'difusion' activity – I'm afraid you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head. For whatever reason, and I'm sure without meaning to do so, Fae has an almost unerring knack for WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT rather than defusing it. E Eng 14:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) It's not always that indef means indefinite: but in this case, it should. The project is better off without your efforts. Thank you for your efforts, such as they were. ——Serial 07:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: "The project is better off without your efforts" is quite the claim. Even ignoring the ad hominem nature of the statement, are you genuinely saying that working to remove debunked bigotry about scientific racism and homophobic / transphobic content is worthless and that being involved in discussions to remove that content is disruptive? I'm not sure the UCoC would agree… — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block discussions are inherently ad hominem -- how could they not be? No one's saying working to remove [etc etc] is worthless; what many people are saying is that the good is far outweighed by the bad and disruptive. E Eng 01:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: please take this page off your watchlist. I found your comment upsetting and it appears to be intended to be deliberately hurtful and disruptive. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zblace, No, there are no explicit recommendations. However, any editor who's focus is primarily on controversial topics - without any grounding of Wikipedia norms in non-controversial topics - is likely to come unstuck. Fae's case is rather unique, given their long history on Wikipedia and should not reflect the general case. Worm^TT(talk) 08:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ is currently under a community imposed restriction as a result of a continuation of the behaviour logged here. There is approx a zero-to-nil chance this will ever be lifted regardless of any successful unblock request. The fundamental problem is that Fæ is routinely deceptive in their description of events. Especially in regards to their own behaviour and editing. Lets take just one claim from the above: "the removal of a lot of deliberately disruptive and offensive content from Wikimedia Commons". Well this may be true, but they also simultaneously argued that is was appropriate for a filename on commons to be listed as "File:ASSHOLE, Bigot, Liar and Pussy grabber..." etc despite Commons (in a rare show of sensibleness) having a clear policy on non-provocative file names. Which pretty much sums up Fæ's universal approach to everything. One rule for positions that Fæ supports, another for their enemies. In short, even taking a brief look at their contributions to commons (there are some deleted obviously inappropriate pictures, that Fæ probably wishes he hadnt advocated keeping, that go well beyond 'offensive'.) and their contributions on the mailing lists etc, I echo Serial Number above. Thanks but goodbye. I will say to any admin or arbcom who seriously considers unblocking Fæ, you are likely going to get an immediate community ban discussion where so much dirty laundry will be aired it wouldnt be in Fæ's best interest. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about Wikimedia Commons are a somewhat technical discussion about renaming policies where the change meant the filenames no longer matched the source. The work I have done in the area of accurate use of historical scientific racism media, responding to the deliberate misuse by a team of sockpuppets of source material and deliberate insertion of anti-educational use of words (like the n-word) that were not justified examining the historical sources, is entirely supported by policies of scope and accuracy. Across Wikipedias this has just meant more accurate filenames being displayed without the use of words that are not in the original historical source. None of those changes has been contested or controversial in any way on any project, it is correcting a cross-wiki problem deliberately created by a sock farm.

If you have any evidence relating to the English Wikipedia which is the scope of my block, I would be happy to examine it. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you will have difficulty with your appeal succeeding unless you address concerns about your editing in controversial topics, especially concerns about your topic ban which still applies. I hope you succeed so you can get a third chance, but you need to be careful to make a well-thought out appeal.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions of what offer would be suitable to make in an unblock request and is there any key evidence of my edits that would be useful to illustrate it? Note that my error that resulted in a block was the first transgression of this topic ban, I understand you are counting previous actions before the topic ban. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]