Fæ

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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)

@Worm That Turned:

With regard to my plans to edit, the quality of my contributions is demonstrated by the articles I have created listed at User:Fæ, these are not controversial. I would like to be able to continue with that volunteer contribution without infringing the topic ban. I am not interested in engaging in controversial discussions.

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)

Fæ, my concerns are based on history and patterns. I'm not going to be playing the diff game, as I believe your history has shown a long term low level of disruption through your work in these controversial areas, as well as the peaks that you have been blocked / banned for. The peaks are simple enough to point to, but patterns are less so. There are a hundred things you could have said that could have allayed my concerns, but you've chosen not to. That's fine. I'm one individual. Perhaps the community will agree with my point of view. Perhaps not. Either way, we needn't push further here. Worm^TT(talk) 09:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I have failed to understand the outcome you are looking for. I would like to understand it.

I don't see a pattern that would be any sort of problem in my work on Commons and Wikidata correctly handling scientific racism material, which then results in uncontroversial changes on this project.

If the outcome is a voluntary restriction that would be effectively added to the topic ban, as above, I am prepared to do that as I have no intention of creating or seeking controversial discussions. It needs to be written in a way that does not potentially creep into being interpreted as a ban against all discussion, I'm not sure how to do that.

--Fæ (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Fæ, the best outcome, that I would be looking for, is that you would be committing to returning to editing general areas. That you would not be focussed on "righting wrongs" or pushing forward agendas, but instead focussed on the wider project goal of expanding human knowledge. I would like you to focus on that so that your detractors can no longer disagree that you are improving the encyclopedia as a whole.

If that means that you voluntarily remove yourself from controversial topics for a fixed time period, whilst actively editing non-controversial topics, then my greatest concerns would be allayed, and I could tentatively support such a request. As I mention, there are other questions you'd need to answer, and it may be that the wider community is not ready for your return. Worm^TT(talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for being specific. The longer running project of correcting the misuse of scientific racism media does not need me to discuss it on this project, and in fact, I can only think of one case that I raised for review on a noticeboard so I'm not frustrated by avoiding it.

A voluntary one-year restriction to avoid controversial discussion, i.e. discussions which are recognized to be controversial on the English Wikipedia, such as the AE topics, unless you can think of a more 'measurable' definition, may be a way of expressing it. This would mean that I could discuss biographies, GLAM articles, sourcing, content so long as they were not marked as having AE restrictions. If they were covered by AE, then so long as they were not covered by the topic ban, I could still do stuff that does not need discussions, like update references or images, the latter being relevant to making use of our Commons projects like c:User:Fæ/Project list/UK legislation.

I'm not interested in making comments on "cases" at ANI or other noticeboards, but it is obviously useful to raise a request at the right noticeboard, like identifying an existing article for a COIN review but step back from anything that becomes heated or if I'm advised that it looks controversial beyond the AE topics. --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Fæ, Thank you. I appreciate that suggestion there. Would you also be intending to rescind your statement that you wouldn't be editing substantially until the removal of your topic ban? Worm^TT(talk) 10:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was a comment made at the time, not repeated, that I did not expect to become requoted. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

'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)

The link is to a humorous essay rather than a policy. I do not recall claiming to be "diffusing conflict", nor anything similar in recent years. --Fæ (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's a humorous essay with a serious theme, to wit that some users "diffuse" conflict (spread it around) instead of "defusing" it (tamping it down).
• I didn't say that you claimed to diffuse conflict; I made the statement that diffusing conflict is what you often do, that statement prompted by the fact that Zblace mistakenly referred to diffusion instead of defusing – as I said, he accidentally hit the nail on the head.

EEng 15:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(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)

@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)

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. EEng 01:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@Worm That Turned so basically it is personal observations and access to admin tools that would regulate and act on this? I would love if you would not confuse norms, recommendations and regulations. It is dangerous for admin to do so, as it might be also percived as abuse of priviledge, especially when there is not even recommendation, let alone regulation on this. Using the idiom 'is likely to come unstuck' is also simptomatic of how perception of Wikimedia ecosystem is reduced to 'herding' into single idea of normative behaviour, rather than inclusive, diverse and supportive to all that do not do harm. @Fæ is responding to obvious biases and toxic behaviour, for which there is no enough and good response in Wikimedia ecosystem, but at least UCoC is a step in that direction of protection, while 'diffusion' you prefer seems as step back to 'old ways' of rule of priviledge majority. Don't you think so? I would love if you would take this as constructive input for the 2021 and towards 2030 Movement Strategy. OK?--Zblace (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Zblace, this is an unblock request. In fact, no, it's a "preparation for an unblock request". As someone who has worked through an unban request with Fae in the past who is therefore quite aware of their long history, I believe I am in a position to make statements regarding my personal observations. What's more - Wikipedia is not based on firm rules, but instead on community norms - our policy & guideline pages are descriptive, not prescriptive - and actually having an individual who is willing to articulate those norms is important.

I understand your point, but I think you are working on a one-size-fits-all mentality, while I am tailoring my approach and concerns to something I think Fae could address and benefit from it they did follow through. I'd love to carry this conversation on - either at your talk page or mine, however I believe it is a distraction from Fae's unblock appeal, and therefore will not be responding further at this venue. Worm^TT(talk) 09:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned I would agree it is off from main topic, but also not between me and you as I am interested in what is Wikimedia and specifically EN Wikipedia policy. If you can point to where to have that discussion I would not mind we move it there...however, as long as you have Admin status both your silence and your voicing concerns are not of the ordinary user and it should not be mixed up with your 'position' - no? You are for sure able to make those statements in anonymous way and backed by evidence diffs *(so it is less relevant who made them, as long as these are acurate) rather than stiring opinion of 'community' through an authority position. --Zblace (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

To clarify, this thread is to prepare an unblock request, I have accepted, better understand, and do not plan to appeal the active topic ban. --Fæ (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

The Wikimedia Commons link is a somewhat technical discussion about renaming policies where the change meant the filenames no longer matched the source, whether Commons should accept rude, spammy, or propaganda filenames if these are exactly as used in the source, is not clear cut, but that remains a discussion for Commons. I would be happy to re-examine the policies if a discussion is raised on Commons about specific examples and good cases may be able to improve the guidelines.

If you have any evidence relating to my block, I would be happy to examine it. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• For goodness sake, Fæ is a more valuable contributor than most of us can claim to be. Can we please put away all our pretenses and find any solution that works? GMG^talk 00:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  Basically only Fæ can do that, and the self-professed dedication to "social justice" causes – the sort of topic that leads to Fæ getting blocked and banned – is an enormous waving red flag to everyone concerned. Fæ appears to have great difficulty separating "I care most about X, Y, and Z in my real life" and "I'm going to do well editing about X, Y, and Z on Wikipedia". You'll find that a great many editors avoid editing topics they are most passionate about and most involved in professionally, because they know they cannot maintain neutrality, civility, and other norms within those topic areas. Fæ will not commit to doing so, thus is likely never going to be unblocked, and is certainly never going to be un-TBanned from gender topics. All this noise above about policy and evidence is a red herring. We're beyond the policy rule-thumping and proofs-presentation stage; an unblock request is about convincing the community, subjectively, that permitting this editor's return is in the best interests of the project, and that's a very hard sell. There is no question that Fæ is capable of quality editing, but there is a very wide-open question of whether Fæ is capable of doing it without causing more harm than good in the course of simultaneously pursuing a socio-politicitized agenda. The answer most editors are going to come to is "no". Even if they personally agree with the agenda, they know that using WP to push it is not how we do things. Fæ's only hope for unblocking is swearing off all socio-political editing. PS: Only in Death's observation about "so much dirty laundry will be aired it wouldn't be in Fæ's best interest" is correct, but already Fæ is getting overly sore and trying to censor and "ban" people from their talk page, so an actual unblock examination is not going to make Fæ feel any better. One should not invoke a process that is all about hard questions and uncomfortable answers if they don't have the hide-toughness for it. Much better for Fæ to just move on to some other hobby better suited to an activistic bent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This is untrue. I do not have an "agenda" in returning to editing the English Wikipedia.

I have no plan to appeal the topic ban and there is no evidence of any disruption being caused by me on any other topic.

If someone wishes to ask questions in good faith relating to the block, they are free to do so. --Fæ (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)