User talk:Fæ

Click to start a new talk topic

Please do not remove trolling or vandalism from this page without emailing me for confirmation first. If you wish to contact me about any Wikimedia UK chapter matters, please email me using this email form, rather than leaving a message on my user page or on a Wikipedia noticeboard. Any email indicated as confidential will be limited to discussion with board members and full time staff in line with Charity Commission requirements.

Just quit already

You're gonna burn in this world and the next! Best admin evar ! Ash=Fae=F4g (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This comment fits a coordinated pattern I have seen of personal homophobic harassment directed against me over the last month on Twitter, Wikipedia Review, email, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. I would like those that keep an eye on my user page to take note and reflect on whether the harassment policies we have for the Wikimedia projects are able to act effectively or efficiently when anonymous accounts, low contribution sock puppet accounts and manipulative traveling circuses are used to attack members of our community. Not all such attacks are as obvious as this one. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents, I would have just WP:RBI and this thread wouldn't have existed to manifest that further. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Too many people would not believe that this kind of talk exists if they did not see it. People who are not LGBT supporters do not have this happen to them. This has happened to me also on Wikipedia and it is scary that people would use their short time on this earth to harass other people. Hiding it in an attempt to keep it from manifesting further is what people have done for most of history, and that has proven to be an incomplete solution. I do not know what the whole solution is, but raising awareness of this reality is part of it. If it were an isolated random incident I would say to delete it, but it is not productive to ask the victims of a persistent, pervasive problem to do their best to prevent public disclosure of it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• True, but not applying WP:DENY (part of WP:RBI) is just playing right into their hands, no? Moral of the story, why play the victim card? In the 1969 film "Battle of Britain", an irritated ACM Sir Hugh Dowding said: "I'm not very interested in propaganda. If we're right, they'll give up. If we are wrong, they'll be in London in a week!" --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Where I live if anyone spoke those words publicly or graffiti'd them then then no one would say that Fæ was insulted or a victim of vandalism; they would say that he was threatened and the target of a hate crime. Of course things are different at the keyboard but this behavior is representative of deeper problems on Wikipedia and as Fæ says there ought to be conversation about other protections. A part of the LGBT rights movement as well as other rights movements for face, religion, and other traits facing discrimination dictates calling for wider recognition of the prejudice against people representing minorities. Fæ is not playing a victim card; he is acting in accord with the movement consensus that allies of minority groups should tell others details about targeted attacks so that more people can understand that this is not a problem that any attack recipient has, but rather a problem which the community has to address. If the community does not hear about it then there can be no community response.

The vandals which ought to be ignored are the ones who are likely to go away. Fæ's situation is extraordinary because among other things it includes attacks off Wikipedia. It may not be socially appropriate for him to say that for humility or for not wanting to disturb anyone with his problems, but I confirm that what he is experiencing is hostile for reasons unrelated to his Wikipedia behavior. Even if attacks cannot be stopped he should get community support beyond what Wikipedia policies say should be afforded to those visited by mere vandals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry this is happening to you

What you are going through is simply beyond awful. It's gruesome enough to watch. It really is a slow motion poofter bashing. That said, you are conducting yourself with great dignity. Many have forgotten that you are not really a Wikipedian or an Administrator or anything like that. You are a person. With feelings and all that stuff. Whatever happens, I want you to know that somebody understands that. I really am very sorry. I wish I could do more. --MtD (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The time and thought you've given to Wikipedia proves how much you care about it, I sincerely hope you can disengage your feelings now and watch with a degree of detachment as all this manoeuvering plays out. It's very upsetting because you're a great admin, but it doesn't matter because - as Matty says - your actual life is what counts. Exok (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Hang in there. You definitely do not deserve the personal and horrific comments thrown at you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you for all the hard work you've done.

LauraHale (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ

I am letting you know that a discussion about you and your actions being extremely similar to a possibly past account operated by you under User:Ash has been opened. I am an uninvoved editor who is not participating in this but I thought you'd like to know that your account was created around the time User:Ash quit. Should this former account not belong to you, it is best you comment here immediately as this seems very suspicious. I thought it be best to let you know about this.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 513,185,877) 21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I in fact have just received an invitation to this today, myself. [s]At this point I do not recall where I discussed something to do with you, but am attempting to find this out.[/s] (I have since found out it was from a WP:AN discussion in archive 712, where I merely commented to another user moreso than on the thread itself. CycloneGU (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)]] However, as you never received a notification yourself on initial skimming of your pages (of course you may have removed the notice from your page for all I know), I am letting you know that this has existed for three days now and your visit to the RfC in question would be encouraged. CycloneGU (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish you the best

I am very sorry that you are subjected to attention that must be painful to you. Although I believe that it would be best for Wikipedia if you were to relinquish your administratorship, my belief is not based on your sexual orientation. I hope that you will stay an active editor, and will continue contributing on a wide range of topics including LGBT ones. I deeply regret the personal anguish that I am certain you must be feeling at this time. I appreciate all of the positive things you have done for this worthy project and I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe anyone would write such a note

Fae, is arguably one of the top Wikipedians in the UK. He represents the UK in the Houses of Parliment and talks to major institutions on behalf of the movement. He enjoys the trust of everyone who knows him. There appears to be a group of editors who are creating a witch hunt for the smell of a conspiracy. Fae has many supporters who do not like to lower themselves to debating with these people. We also spend a lot of time editing rather than debating trivia. If we allow good editors and people who fly the flag fot the movement to be driven from our midst then the process is wrong. Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Correct me if I got this wrong, my view of this whole debacle now is that the people who are waging this new campaign against Fæ is against him holding an authoritative position on Wikipedia and to some extent... Wikimedia. If we simply let Fæ step down from his official position, we'll know what other games these detractors are actually up to... or, that their main grievance was exactly what I've stated herein. Again, just my 2 cents. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"If we simply let Fæ step down from his official position," we'll sacrifice the effectiveness of the community and organisation and satisfy those who are on a witch-hunt for whatever reason. Doesn't seem like a good idea. Let's see what the RFC process yields. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• IMO, doesn't look too good. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two specific viewpoints that somewhat clash with each other. The one calling for Fae to hold a reconfirmation RfA seems to be winning out, which is natural since it was created a full day before the other viewpoint. We need to let the entire RfC play out, however, and see what the final decision is on what will be done. I have personally argued that, if anything were to happen, the most that can be done at this point is to argue for a desysop. This is typically based on administrative behaviour, and I recall a WP:AN discussion about Fae leading to this RfC.

Note also I have no prejudice against this user's sexual orientation. That is none of the community's business, frankly. CycloneGU (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed, it is none of the community's concern but keeping quiet about past facts and issues does play into the part of "coming back to haunt" when one least expects it. Not that I doubt Fæ's competence as an Admin but laying one's indignant past stark naked in-front of the cynical mass would have helped win some supporters and gain some good will in that process, it would have been a more sensible thing to do if one is to not expect to carry around hidden baggage, or as some call it... a time-bomb that will go off once triggered. That is indeed unfortunate but I guess one has to live with one's decision in not doing something sometime, no? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about your RfA

I apologize in advance for raising a matter that may be unpleasant. I am asking you this question here on your talk page as it does not depend on the context of the current RFC/U and the concerns raised by others there. You stated in your RfA that you took the option of a clean start after an RFC/U. Your use of the word "after" could reasonably have lead RfA participants to believe that the RFC/U had run its course before you began editing under your current username and stopped using your old account. Such an action would be seen more favorably than a scenario where you stopped editing with your old account while an RFC/U was underway, avoiding scrutiny and possibly causing the RFC/U to fail or to be put on hold.

Was the RFC/U that you mentioned in your RfA in fact completed when you made your clean start, or not?

As I am not asking you to identify any previous account, I consider this a proper question which the policy WP:ADMINACCT obliges you to answer.

Thanks. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, this also forms a viewpoint by ReverendWayne in the discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Fæ, keep up all the good work, and don't let the bastards get you down! I notice that while the bloodhounds have been expending all their time on this ugly campaign of hatred, you have managed to continue with the real work of Wikipedia, quietly and with dignity. You have a phenomenal record of new page patrolling and fighting vandalism, and you have made many invaluable contributions to GLAM outreach; these are the things that you should be judged on, not what you may have done in a previous existence. BabelStone (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I will second this FWIW. I in fact fear what kind of precedent this recent crap could set for WP:CLEANSTART and how this could affect future admin. requests, and such, on the English Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement with regard to Karrine Steffans article

This was my statement by email to John Vandenberg by email on the 21st July 2011: "Steffans was highlighted via IGLOO, due to a 'references removed' tag and ended up on my watch-list back in January [2011] after I reverted the anon IP vandalism and then ignored until April when it was vandalised again. It's not the sort of article I would have noticed otherwise. I completely agree that I allowed myself to go on to get wound up when engaging in discussion and failed properly to follow my own advice of DENY, actions that I certainly regret and missed the opportunity to set an example that would have helped the situation."

Could I reverse the clock, I would leave a conciliatory apology to summarize the reasons for my withdrawal with Aaron Brenneman rather than just ending the discussion. I take this opportunity to make a personal apology to Aaron if he felt the matter was unresolved and he was left unhappy with the outcome. If he has any recommendations for further improvement for my contributions I would welcome them.

As others have observed, the related dispute about sources got heated and it could have been handled better by me. I have made 84,584 edits as Fæ and a further 20,952 by bot over the last 21 months, including a large number of biographies and some contentious ones such as Dan Savage and Yolanda Soares. I hope that these demonstrate that this incident was a rare slip away from exemplary contributions that are fully in line with our shared principles of the Five pillars.

I feel I have learned a lot by devoting so much of my time over the last 2 years to the projects, and would like to have the chance to continue making contributions here to the overall good. I would hope to be able to do that whilst being open about being in a civil partnership and having my full legal name on the public record as a trustee of the Wikimedia UK charity. I recognize that it is a very sad fact of life that being gay and an unpaid charity trustee, undesirable elements might always find anonymous ways to shout "faggot", I may always be sent material lobbying for gays to be put to death, I may have details of my personal life and that of my husband ridiculed and I may continue to have false allegations and personal threats published off-wiki and emailed to organizations I work with. I do not expect gay people and those that contribute to LGBT topics on the Wikimedia projects to be treated in such a vile manner on a regular or routine basis, I hope our collaborative space on the internet can be felt to be a safe environment for all contributors who share the vision of preserving knowledge for the public benefit. I reach out to you to make that possible. Thank you --Fæ (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, don't be daft. No one cares about you being gay. I certainly don't. I think some of your keep decisions in Commons are iffy. You keep too many bloody penises! I think you've made some bad and needlessly provocative choices in the past about what images to display on your user page. I think using a video-streaming porn site as a source in Steffans' BLP was really off, and cruel. Wasn't her predicament much the same as yours? If you owe anyone an apology, it's probably Karrine. Perhaps consider giving adult entertainment topics a wide berth?

I think you have painted an over-optimistic image of Wikipedia's BLP performance to the Parliamentary committee. You've been over-aggressive in your response to criticism, and/or others have been over-protective on your behalf. You've been too quick to shout homophobia when perhaps the criticism wasn't about you being gay, but about a lack of transparency, and perceived special treatment. Admins deleted your uploads when it became an embarrassment, but we don't delete other uploaders's stuff in the same way when they have regrets later on: and we should. Those are all things I would criticise. But you being gay figures nowhere in that landscape. We briefly met a few weeks ago at Sue's talk. Relax. You seemed like a nice, warm, friendly bloke in person, and smart with it. I enjoyed talking to you. And I for one am really sorry if this has been a harrowing and stressful experience for you and your husband. Regards. --JN466 09:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You tell Fae not to be daft, and then you get it completely wrong because Fae does not have the ability to decide what is kept or deleted on Commons. The Community does. And once the Community has reached consensus, an admin takes care of the deletion or keeping; something that Fae does not have the ability to do on Commons. You also make comments in relation to deletion of uploads; you are generalising too much, and you should not be doing that, because without knowing the full facts, you are likely to get it wrong. Which you have. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 04:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had something more to say than "I'm sorry." I really had forgotten how degraded discussions get during what passes for dispute resolution. I certainly have had episodes of sub-optimal performance, the K.S. discussion was one for you. But I said then and keep saying that it was out of character for you. I looked then and I looked again now, and I'd go so far as to say wildly out of character.

I've also looked back at my ANI comments of 18 July 2011, and feel like the only thing I'd change would be to add "so let's cut the guy some slack" as the end of the sentence "It's also worth noting that Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fæ wasn't that long ago."

I can try to give myself some small comfort in thinking that this was going to bubble up anyway, regardless of my improper certification. But (even though I think it would have) that's a pretty cowardly way for me to try to back away from my mistake. All I was trying to do was say "I've looked, and there does not appear to be a problem here." But I should have looked harder at what was happening past the end of my nose.

I appreciate you giving me the chance to say this.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of an image from an 18th century book?

Hello Fæ, Pesky and I have been working on The Meermin slave mutiny, and I've found what looks to be a very useful image for the ship in an 18th century book. The trouble is, the book doesn't appear to be online, and neither Pesky nor I are in a position to have physical access ourselves. Chzz (talk · contribs) has suggested contacting you, to see if a copy can be obtained for use in the article, perhaps from the British Library. The book is Groenewegen, Gerrit (1789; re-printed ?1969), Verzameling van vier en tachtig stuks Hollandsche schepen, and the image looks to be number 8, entitled "Driemast Hoeker Zeylende voor de wind" - as far as I can tell! The image is reproduced in Collins, T. (2001), "From Hoekers to Hookers: A Survey of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography on the Origins of the Galway Hooker", Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society, vol. 53, p. 71, but the quality is - um - appalling! Thanks for your time, either way. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be a few weeks before I'm at the BL again (possibly March), I'll add it to my list for the next time I'm there to see if it is okay to scan. The reprint copies I see in the BL catalogue are from 1967 [1] so this may depend on whether a staff member interprets the book as being within copyright rather than the particular image. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you so much for taking this on board– obviously March is soon enough, and, understood about "interpretation of copyright": it should be ok, but yes, that's in the hands of fate! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I might well be able to do it much sooner than that. I'll let you know. Prioryman (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you ever imagine...

Did you ever imagine that after my being your chief critic and the lead of the opposition to your RfA, that I would be your chief defender and lead of your defense in your RfC? Now, I don't know how you've been as an admin over the past year---People are speaking on your behalf and no meaningful evidence of abuse has been presented---so I'm assuming you've done an adequate job. But I do find the dichotomy of the two times we've interacted to be interesting.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was clear in my RFA that a discussion challenging and improving the clean start policy would be a good idea. I don't really see it as a dichotomy, I always respected the alternative point of view and was happy to have it expressed in my RFA and would have accepted that at the time as a reason for rejection. I now deeply regret sticking to my values by openly declaring a clean start as part of my RFA. Sadly, I would find it hard to advise any prospective admin to be so scrupulously honest in the future, particularly if they might take an active voluntary role in the work of the chapters. I would be surprised if Arbcom would now give the same advice they gave me before accepting an admin nomination. As for my use of the admin tools, anyone who takes time to examine my work in detail will find the tools used carefully and consistently, taking advice when needed. Considering the intense scrutiny my contributions would have had over the last week as part of the hunt for evidence of any "evil doing", I am confident that has already been demonstrated. --Fæ (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom did not advise you. Arbcom didnt know about you until 6 March 2011 and the RFA was already live on 14 March 2011‎. Arbcom's only response was to acknowledge receipt of your email. The RFA was live before they could possibly have properly analysed the cleanstart.

I did advise you. I privately told you that "You should also assume, at all times, that all of your previous accounts and anon edits will at some point be outed." and I gave you one of many examples of how you could be outed. So far I havent see any evidence that you're a bad admin. However you have not understood that cleanstart depends on you not connecting your new account with your old account, as you have been adding to the collection of data which connects Fae to your old account. You need to accept that it was your actions since the RFA which have been at odds with your desire to keep Fae separate from your old account. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

John, this is a little disturbing, in and of itself. The representation during the RfA was that you at least had vetted Fae somewaat... now we are finding out that you didn't know him until after the RfA started. I think you fought too vigorously on his behalf during the RfA and allowed him to appeal to ArbCOM a little too strongly. If you had made the above statement during the RfA rather than statements to the effect that we accept your word/integrity, the RfA might have gone different;y. You put yourself out for Fae and really put your reputation on the line for him... which brought a lot of credence to his side. Now it seems as if you are back pedalling.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC) NOTE I hope this is legible, am typing without my glasses, so I can't read a word of what I've written.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I made it very clear that arbcom was not involved in the RFA.[2] I personally did go though the contributions of Fae and Ash to the level I thought was necessary in order for me to support his RFA. I looked at the old RFC, and couldn't see any significant occurrences of BLP sourcing problems in Fae's contributions. I was comfortable supporting him being granted sysop based on him having fundamentally changed his motivations for contributing to Wikipedia. Lar also looked, but he has become less engaged in Wikipedia so I doubt he has been monitoring. So far there has only been one similar problem by Fae (that anyone has found), and he has now acknowledged publicly that it was an error on his part. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry John, my first email to you was on the 8th January 2011 (I left a YGM note on your Wikipedia user page for it on 4:47 pm, 12 January 2011) in which I asked you "Perhaps you might be able to lend a hand with confirming (or indeed not confirming) whether my edit history prior to my clean start as User:Fæ poses any issue with RfA?". I also stated "If you do offer to investigate my prior account I would be happy to follow your advice on how to handle RfA or defer the idea. I previously contacted NewYorkBrad at the beginning of December about the same issue and he offered to look into it but has not replied to a follow-up email and so I have to assume he's been too tied up to get back to it." You responded to that email on 27 January 2011 and I explained my past account to you on 28 January 2011. There should also be a record of the email from PhilKnight on 5 March 2011. In your email to me on 5 March 2011 you stated that you had looked into in since January and reviewed the case in detail during the past day, which I read as you looking into my case and my past account as far back as January 2011, though perhaps I misunderstand you? Please check your records. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, would you please write a response to the RfC, if you haven't already, then answer any questions the respondents there would ask you, either on the main or talk page? Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When the fundamental criteria of "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed" is met, then I will consider adding a response. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you are hoping the RfC gets deleted instead of trying to forthrightly deal with the allegations it presents? Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not what I said. Sorry, I can see no benefit in entering into a dialogue with anyone who is taking an active part in Delicious carbuncle's multiple Wikipedia Review discussions about me that amount to nothing less than off-wiki canvassing. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, attacking Delicious carbuncle's credibility is called ad hominem, and it is a logical fallacy. I'm asking you to address the issues that he has brought up, and others at the RfC have agreed deserve an explanation. Please respond to the allegations with your side of the story, then please answer any follow-up questions. Cla68 (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont know what you are contesting. You did approach NYB and I prior to that, but neither of us had time to look at it. You didnt inform Arbcom until 5 March, and PhilKnight merely acknowledged your email to arbcom-l. I did start to look at your account history properly on March 5-6 and decided to assist in a personal capacity by recommending that you go and talk to Lar. In our one-on-one discussion I told you that Arbcom would not be involved more than to simply log the new and old account, without any analysis done. I made sure to inform the community of this as well. I'm just making it clear that Arbcom didnt opine. I did. I'm OK with what I did, as I tried to not lie to the community, but I'm listening to the community too. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick John. I obviously am making undue assumptions about what forms the record for Arbcom or how Arbcom processes work. I had thought that my emails discussing and reviewing my possible RFA to NYB and yourself before 5 March 2011 counted as contacting and discussing my RFA with Arbcom members. If you count these as off the record personal emails that's fine, but I believe that this distinction was not pointed out to me until now.

I appreciate your comment about the community and I would fully support any process for consensus building. At the same time Russavia's comments about what happened last month when an apparent travelling circus coordinated through Wikipedia Review successfully de-railed my Wikimedia Commons RFA should be taken into account to ensure any process is a fair representation of the community view. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that this little exchange between the two of you occurred here on WP, because Fae definitely lead the RfA voting community to believe that ArbCOM was informed and the impression during the RfA was that you guys had reviewed the case. This dialog does indicate that while the facts of ArbCOM's involvement/signoff on Fae's RfA may have been mischaracterized, it doesn't appear that Fae did so intentionally.

John, without you, Fae's RfA would have failed, but you put yourself on the line as having reviewed him and signed off on his edits. Your support carried more than just a personal weight. People accepted that you, as an ArbCOM Member, had vetted the candidate throughly---a view you accentuated when you said that we had to trust you.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)