User talk:Fæ: Difference between revisions

Archives

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

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

When I do reply it may be from a mobile phone or by email. Due to routinely using public wifi, my edits will normally be via ToR to avoid browser hijacking.

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

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]

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]

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. EEng 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]

@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]

(The following purposely avoids pronouns. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Guy Macon and Fæ and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Review of closure that appears to invent new policy out of nowhere for the reasons why. Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#EEng ridiculing a BLP who may use neopronouns. If anyone has advice on how to use the name "Fæ" while still referring to Fæ in the first person, please drop me a note on my talk page)

• Fæ, please explain in Fæ's own words your understanding as to why Fæ was blocked. In particular, has Fæ's thinking on this changed since User talk:Fæ/2020#Blocked?
• Please explain, in detail, what Fæ will do differently if Fæ is unblocked.
• Is it Fæ's understanding that a sucessful block appeal will leave in place Fæ's indefinite topic ban from transgender topics and human sexuality broadly construed?
• Please coment on the difference between a six-month block which expires automatically and an indefinite block with the blocked user encouraged to appeal after at lease six months have gone by. Why does Fæ think the latter was chosen in Fæ's case?
• In [1] (posted before the block, so talking about appealing the topic ban) Fæ indicated that if Fæ is not allowed to edit in the areas of transgender topics and human sexuality broadly construed Fæ will not work on anything else. Is this still Fæ's position?

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I was not ridiculing anyone using neopronouns. EEng 14:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying my very best to not step on Fæ's toes as to how they may wish to be addressed: Second-person pronouns ("you", "your", etc) do not carry any implication of gender in the English language. There's no barrier to using them here, and trying so very hard to avoid any use of a prounoun at all comes off as incredibly immature. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 14:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]