Fæ

Unblock request

@Spartaz and Cullen328: In response to User_talk:Fæ/2020#Blocked, I understand that the TBan includes "transgender topics and issues" and "human sexuality, broadly construed". This is not a ban against editing biographies, and as this is based on the prior Arbcom restrictions, is not intended to include historical articles about artefacts such as the article I created for Assyrian statue (BM 124963) or historical articles about women rights political activists, as they are not about human sexuality or non-"human sexuality" sections about living people such as Linda Wright, another article I created some time ago and these articles ought to be maintained.

Hopefully, this TBan can be lifted sometime before my project retirement, considering I am active in LGBTQ open knowledge and editathons elsewhere.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fæ, please read Wikipedia:Appealing a block and submit a properly formatted appeal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how Linda Wright is in any way covered by a topic ban that includes "transgender topics and issues" and "human sexuality, broadly construed". Assyrian statue (BM 124963) is full of content that involves human sexuality and is covered by the topic ban. If Fæ is requesting a lifting of restrictions that are covered by the topic ban, Fæ should discuss the reasons why those restrictions were placed and present an argument for why they are no longer needed. And, of course, Fæ should use the proper format. There are administrators who scan those unblock requests and purposely respond to those involving editors and pages they have zero previous involvement in. This Is A Good Thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fæ's appealing the indef block, not the T-ban, so is making an argument that Linda Wright is an example of T-ban-unrelated editing they could do. Then mistakenly also making this argument about an article on an artefact that is clear actually covered by the T-ban.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. What I meant to convey is that Fæ making the argument about an article on an artifact that is clear actually covered by the T-ban shows that Fæ does not understand (or, more likely, is not willing to accept) the scope of the T-Ban. The disruption that let to the T-Ban was severe. Fæ should stay completely away for anything close to the topic instead of Fæ standing on the line that Fæ is not allowed to cross with Fæ's toes hanging over the line. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: The format of this thread is in line with the note by Spartaz on 28 November last year, If I am not active at that time you can put up an unblock request. I have seen no indication that Spartaz is inactive. Refer to User_talk:Fæ/2020#Blocked. --Fæ (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m not inactive but I also need to read up before posing some questions to explore your understanding about what is allowed. I’m sure you will appreciate that there is a lot going on but I’ll get to it when I can. By the way your description of the t ban does not match the clarification that Cullen offered you in 2019 so I’d suggest you might want to use the time between now and my posing my questions to reflect some more on what you can and cannot do. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, no rush. --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The facts that 1) Fæ somehow doesn't think their T-ban covers ancient erotica, and 2) Fæ appears to consider their off-site focus on being "active in LGBTQ" as central for their on-site appeal rationale, both indicate an unawareness of why they were T-banned and what the scope of that T-ban is. This is precisely the WP:NOTGETTINGIT problem that led to this block being indefinite instead of short-term. What we have here is a clear indicator of a desire to resume the same sorts of editing and subject focus that led to the T-ban and block. This is all a strong contra-indication for unblocking. The WP:VESTED / WP:YANI fallacy is also at work here; WP does not need Fæ in particular for the maintenance of any particular pages, so the Linda Wright article isn't much of a rationale for Fæ's return, especially given the request dwelling on a subject area in which this user has been long-term disruptive.

The scope of the original T-ban is irrelevant in relation to the block. The indef is intended to cover all articles; that's what a block is: it removes an editor's ability to affect the project's content at all. It was not a mistake to be corrected, an accidental oversight, but was an administrative decision taken after community examination, indicating that Fæ's often topic-focused disruption patterns, which tend to escape those bounds and turn into broader WP:DRAMA, outweigh whatever benefit Fæ may bring to the project otherwise. Fæ's tautological argument that the block prevents them from editing where they want tells us nothing about why WP would be net better off with Fæ unblocked.

Next, Fæ's idea that WP should "consider... that [Fæ is] active in LGBTQ open knowledge and editathons elsewhere" as a rationale that "this TBan [should] be lifted sometime before [Fæ's] project retirement" is fallacious for multiple reasons, most obviously appeal to emotion, to authority, and to consequences about Fæ's alleged off-site reputation in the topic area. It's also false analogy between WP standards and those of other online sites/communities. Fæ is trying to front-load a T-ban appeal here. Bringing it up in this way is actually another T-ban violation, since it is not in fact pertinent to the unblock request in any way so does not qualify for WP:BANEX: it's a misuse of unblock process to inject self-promotional statements about Fæ's off-site activities in the socio-political topic area from which the user has been T-banned on Wikipedia, when the proper purpose of the unblock request is to demonstrate a commitment to avoiding that topic and disruption in it. If you were T-banned from playing with matches and blocked for playing with matches anyway, it really doesn't make sense to try to demonstrate your love of and skill at playing with matches as why you should be unblocked.

A more sensible unblock request would have indicated Fæ's clear understanding that, broadly construed, sexuality and gender are subjects that the editor has found trouble with on Wikipedia, and so will be studiously avoiding them, without testing boundaries or grey areas, in favor of working on an array of entirely unrelated subjects like etymology and herpetology and saxophones and goat breeds and whatever. And it would've been written without trying to stake out a position as an active LGBTQ+ online community figure. Instead, this request has wandered repeatedly into the T-ban area, testing boundaries in the very drafting of it, and is clearly about both "saving face" in this topic area, and about getting back into bio editing, including of LGBTQ+ subjects as long as "'human sexuality' sections" are avoided (but WP doesn't really have such sections, so this is a false concession). Given that any bio on an LGBTQ+ subject is likely to include information on that aspect of their life from the lead on down, it will not be possible for Fæ to substantively edit any such page under their T-ban.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fæ's unblock request popped up on my watchlist a few days ago, and I thought I'd do a little digging to see the recent contribution they have made to the encyclopedia. I was quite disappointed in what I found. Since being topic banned by Cullen328 in August 2019, they have made approximately 150 edits (put in context to their ~84,000 en.wp contributions, or their >10 million global edits) - well, it's quite clear that Fæ is disillusioned with the English Wikipedia project, which is a pity. Indeed, in one of their edits, they explain they will not do significant editing until the TBan is lifted.
  I have come to the conclusion, however, in looking through Fæ's past 150 edits - that the TBan has simply traded in one activism for another. There has been a strong focus on scientific racism in the 150 edits and while I do not disagree that the issue needs to be tackled, Fæ's history on Wikipedia does not fill me with confidence that they should be the one who tackles it. It certainly speaks volumes that they have jumped from on controversial topic to another.
  Outside of the scientfic racism, I see the intent to derail last year's Arbitration Committee Elections, specifically the candidacy of SMcCandlish, leading to this block. Otherwise, they participated in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2 and made sure to discuss WMF attempts to go green. None of these three are particularly concerning for an editor who is active in our project, but when you put together everything I am describing, you account for the majority of Fæ's contribution in a year and a half.
  I am concerned, and I hope Fæ will be able to address this concern, that Fæ appears to be on the encyclopedia to primarily get involved in controversy, be it internal controversy or editing controversial topics. Their statements above do nothing to allay my concerns, suggesting they wish to focus on non-controversial items which either fall inside their topic ban (thereby generating controversy) or focusing on the controversial aspects (cf. apparently linking Linda Wright to "women rights political activists") Worm^TT(talk) 10:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't even notice that last part, and it does seem to be wandering toward gender stuff, then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This was part of handling long-term sockpuppetry on Wikimedia Commons, the vast majority of which had nothing to do with the English Wikipedia and the resulting deletions on Commons are not controversial for the English Wikipedia. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I just wanted to mention that I have found Fæ very helpful in the past when I dealt with this user about uploading thousands of sanitation-related photos from an open-access Flickr account that I co-managed to Wikimedia Commons. It was great to work with him/her on this images upload project to Wikimedia Commons and I was very grateful for their help. In fact, I came to their user page to see what Fæ is up to as I have another request for a batch upload of 150 images now. Will send a message to Fæ about that now separately. Hope those other conflicts can be resolved amicably so that Fæ continues to contribute to the English Wikipedia! EMsmile (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Alas, Fæ has made it abundantly clear[1] that if Fæ is not allowed to edit in the areas of transgender topics and human sexuality broadly construed Fæ will not work on open-access photos or anything else. The Wikipedia community is extremely unlikely to agree to this. Until Fæ changes Fæ's mind on this, I am afraid that you will have to seek assistance elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth, thanks for your comment, and your commitment to good causes. I'll be able to take a look in the next week or two. As the images are CC-BY, there are no copyright concerns and they are of obvious educational value. --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful, thanks! I am in e-mail contact with the person behind that website and she can probably supply the photos in whichever format is most amenable to a batch upload. EMsmile (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Good to hear Fae, Best wishes Victuallers (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As it's now approaching 2 months and no question has been asked, I'll consider this thread closed and raise a normal unblock request. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"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)