User talk:Fæ/2019

ArbCom request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Fæ and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre. There is no allegation to respond to. There is no evidence to examine. There has been no attempt to use any conventional dispute resolution. I have not been contacted off wiki.

Presumably there is no case to answer.

By the way, still waiting for the specific evidence of the pointy allegations by yourself of You're pushing an agenda, Fæ, and have been doing for years. It would be interesting to walk through, say, the last 2 or 3 years of evidence, along with a statement of what precisely that "agenda" is. Unless, of course, there is no evidence and this boils down to you having a problem with certain types of people. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: In light of your recent comment and experience of policies, you may wish to be aware of this apparently directly related case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fæ. I'm one of the clerks of the arbitration committee. As stated at the top of WP:A/R/C, statements (including replies to other users) are meant to be limited to 500 words. By my count, yours is currently nearly 1,500 words. Could you please either refactor your statement to at least roughly fit the word limit, or request an extension to the limit by emailing the clerks' mailing list at clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org with an explanation of why an extension is needed in this case. Thanks, GoldenRing (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll send an email. --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

The request for arbitration Fæ has been declined by the committee and archived. If the issues presented in the case have not yet been resolved, the involved parties are encouraged to pursue other means of dispute resolution. Bradv🍁 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for giving a shit. I sometimes forget how fucking blind this project is. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 19:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Leugen9001 at 23:32, 2 December 2024 UTC [refresh] (Talk) (he/him) 20:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for taking this to arbitration. I was not aware of all the facts and I am an inexperienced editor. I have updated my statement on the page to say I now believe it should not go to arbitration. Leugen9001 at 20:22, Sunday, March 3, 2019 (UTC) (Talk) (he/him) 20:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Fæ (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification regarding ArbCom

It appears that User:Guy Macon has an unresolved accusation, so I have shifted back to not supporting procedural rescind. At this point I am too inexperienced to know what to support. Leugen9001 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation or denial by Fæ of the parts of [1] that I did not personally confirm would be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you retract your claims that are gossip and speculation please? An Arbcom request is not a place for reproducing whatever negative hearsay that can be dug up. The other parties can speak for themselves. --Fæ (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer the question. Did you email or otherwise contact the university? Did you email or otherwise contact wikiedu.org? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I have already made public statements about this. Check my text in the Arbcom request and my email to Wikimedia-l. The comments you make affect Barbara, and it should be up to them to complain if they wish. You should remove your speculation or reposted hearsay. --Fæ (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Apology again

Sorry for dragging you into this whole mess. I understand that the topic is a very important one for you and for the Wikipedia community in general. If there is a real issue, somebody who actually was significantly involved should have been the one to post to ArbCom. I will respect whatever ArbCom says. Leugen9001 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Small correction...

...regarding your statement at ArbCom: Guy Macon is not an admin. (JzG -- "Guy" -- is an admin). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Please stop casting aspersions about other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:

Hi, thanks for reaching out. Could you explain what you are talking about, and provide the evidence, so I can respond or apologize for any mistakes?

Clearly the warning you have given me would be pointless without the correct context.

Thanks!

Ps. I appreciate it's the weekend, certainly I have other commitments. No hurry to get back to me. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No. You have read and responded to multiple comments on this by multiple editors on multiple pages, and thus cannot possibly not be aware of what the issue is. I get that you disagree with those comments and with the user warning above, but I do not believe that you are unaware of this issue. I have no desire to repeat what others have expressed better than I could possibly express, and to be honest I am a bit afraid that, despite trying really hard to limit my comments to what I believe to be censorship, canvassing, and casting aspersions, I will be the next target of this witch hunt. Your behavior scares and intimidates me, I find your "joke" about old straight white men[2] to be deeply offensive, and it took a lot of courage on my part to publicly disagree with you and risk being harassed and bullied by a mob of like-minded editors for doing so. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, without evidence I am unsure how to take your warning. Many "factoids" have been posted in several places, some are demonstrably untrue by responding with a single diff. It is entirely possible that what you have interpreted as casting aspersions is based on some of these false assertions. I am sorry you feel scared, no member of a minority group should feel harassed or marginalized. Feel free to email me in confidence if you feel unsafe writing publicly. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Since Fæ is playing WP:IDHT games and attempting to WP:SANCTIONGAME out of scrutiny and responsibility for disruptive behavior in this topic area, over at WP:ANI, by claiming no one raised the issue on their talk page (and/or that I did not do so personally), I am formally doing so. This also means that the ANI grind (especially mired right now) can be bypassed next time: a repeat civility violation, canvassing, or other such disruption over gender matters can be taken straight to WP:AE for a swift block and/or topic-ban reinstatement. It's going to stop one way or another. I'm not 100% certain this DS alert is even required for that, since Fæ was previously subjected to sanctions in the same topic area; but, better to be certain. I've seen AE refuse to act too often due to lack of a DS alert.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Could someone other than the complainant, please explain how the DS applies to my talk page?

Presumably this now superseeds the ANI discussion as it appears to make it impossible for me to comment further on that noticeboard. To my eyes, at this point, the intention appears to remove my rights to comment on the case, or the Signpost essay, or the MfD, by arbitrarily using this Arbcom related process as a threat without needing to justify blocking my account.

It looks like bullying. It looks like direct harassment by misusing an Arbcom process as revenge against a deletion nominator of an unfunny "Pronouns" essay that multiple other Wikipedia long term contributors have called "transphobic".

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Who told you that a DS alert supersedes an ANI discussion or makes it impossible for you to comment on ANI? That's not how it works. If and when (and not before) someone asks Arbcom to act and they accept the case, any ANI case on the same topic is closed, with the option of reopening it after Arbcom makes a decision. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, do you withdraw your comment above of "your behavior scares and intimidates me", possibly because you meant it as some sort of joke?

If you stand by your comment, I am afraid that you are not an appropriate person to answer my question, nor is it safe for me to discuss any detailed question because of my genuine concern of disruptive allegations of harassment.

I have highlighted a critical point above, and request that an uninvolved administrator provides some advice on what this means, how it limits my actions and whether it is a correct use of process. An administrator that has said that they are scared of me, is too involved in this case to be suitable to provide personal advice. --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me be clear. First, It was not a joke or an attempt to prove a point. It was an honest expression of what I am feeling. One that you appear to be using as an excuse to avoid having a calm and reasoned discussion on your talk page. Second, you will not see any "allegations of harassment" from me unless you actually harass me in ways that are clearly and specifically defined on the Wikipedia:Harassment page. I have seen no such harassment, and I do not expect to. that's logic speaking. Feelings are not always based upon logic. Thirdly, I have learned my lesson and will never again be stupid enough to open myself up and discuss my feelings with you. I do "robot who only talks about facts and logic" just fine. Finally, I have a long history of giving carefully worded explanations of various Wikipedia policies and guidelines to people who are in disputes with me. I even wrote a very well received essay doing exactly that. It is at WP:1AM.

Please don't be that person who repeatedly asks those who disagree with them to talk it over on your web page, only to find a reason to not talk when someone takes you up on your offer. It just shows those who assummed that talking to you on your talk page is a waste of time that they were right. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Reaching out

@Guy Macon: I'm finding the Arbcom request stressful to look at, so I'm cutting down on how often I check in with it, the last thing I want to do is blow a fuse worrying about it.

Saying that, I wanted to recognize your most recent comment there, giving some context for why you stated above that you felt scared of me. I did not understand you at all, this is so far away from what I am all about, that I did not have the ability to work out why you might have a problem with me. I am sorry if my own passion for ensuring respectful treatment of genderqueer and nonbinary people might look like I am on a campaign. I have personal reasons to want to ensure that harmful and misleading representation of queer minorities are not propagated as acceptable or normal, especially where vulnerable young adults might read them, and either think these views are acceptable, or believe that there is something wrong or bad about who they are.

It has not ever been my intention to suppress or make civil and respectful discussion about these issues impossible. The emails I exchanged with the authors of the problematic article did help us understand each other's views rather better. Had we attempted that early on, perhaps even before the MfD was created, or were it possible, before the Signpost article was released, then I suspect nobody would have known there had been a problem.

Rather than taking actions that start off as an argument, had you approached me on IRC, this talk page or by email, saying that you would like to talk through what I was up to, I suspect we could have both saved a lot of time and stress dealing with allegations, misinterpretations, and counter-allegations on different pages.

If there continue to be issues, honestly, if you write to me by email or ask for a private messaging chat on IRC, hand on heart it will absolutely stay confidential, and I suspect we would reach a common understanding or at least a better one by finding where our viewpoints are different and where actually, after all the verbiage, we agree about the basics. Without the risks we have on-wiki of people wilfully creating drama out of it, there's much more chance of being productive, agreeing on some action or agreeing to just sit back and rethink. If nothing else an initial exchange of ideas in private, might lead us to set up some on-wiki mediation or a wider discussion, without anyone feeling threatened.

Cross my heart, I would never write to anybody's employer, or track them down off-wiki to hound them elsewhere, just because they wrote something I disagreed with on Wikipedia. I never have done anything like that, and I do not understand why anyone would want to. Compared to actually changing someone's mind, it seems stupid, this is just an Encyclopaedia, nobody should get that worked up that they hurt others elsewhere. So, I guess, if this was the point you were making, I get it and I agree with you. --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct pronouns?

You seem to be referring to Barbara (WVS) as "they" in some places in your post to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct_dispute_involving_gendered_pronouns ("they are fully aware... Their forthcoming formal apology... pursuing them with sanctions... force them...") and "she" in others ("get her fired... she has apparently... she gave me... she clearly does not..."). Which considering the subject of the case, you know... According to a new gadget I just installed, while viewing her user page, Barbara seems to identify as female, which would usually imply "she". This could, of course, be wrong, but there is at least something to be said for consistency. --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

RFAR declined

A request for arbitration in which you were involved has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that the dramaboard stuff is over, I'll be clear that I have no intentions of pursuing any of this stuff further. I argued fairly forcefully in the RfArb, since one should present a strong case, just in case it's actually accepted, and I don't fault you for doing similar. I look forward to a glorious lack of conflict with you henceforth. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sunday 10th March

Hi Fæ , LucyCrompton-Reid is going to the London wiki meet up tomorrow. She seems to be an expert on feminism and may have useful things to teach us. The Colonel seems to be attending, so stimulating conversation should be guaranteed. There could be interesting & topical discussions to be had.

I know you're not a great fan of Weatherspoons due to the Martin connection, but there's a rather charming gay bar just across the road, run by some Romanians. I always pop in there on the way to any champagne socialism over at Grey's Inn, they are very friendly even to boring CIS hetros like me. Maybe a quick cocktail after would wash away any bad taste from the Pendels? I thought of emailing you this, but I guess you might say no, and then I'd no longer be able to say I've never had any off wiki contact with you so it would be lose lose. (It's been tactically useful for me to say this at the past when I've put in a good word for you, obviously Im thinking of events much further back in the past than the recent request.) Im in two minds as to whether to go tomorrow as I've a lot going on, but I'll go if you go baby! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, it could have been an interesting chat. I am travelling, and at least during Uni semesters, time at weekends gets booked months ahead. Keep it in mind though, at some point I'll probably get to a wikimeet or present again at a conference. I should really cobble together a presentation about practical tips learned from my batch uploads, though I suspect that would end up being a 2020 event, if the prospect of the ever more ghastly experience of travelling post-Brexit does not put me off.

My little projects are getting more distant from Wikimedia, or stuff that nobody will ever know happened. Right now, with limited access through an old laptop, I have been fiddling with a pi zero as a smart security camera, refreshing an old script I have not run for years to sniff contribution patterns (someone probably has a tool for this, but I like having old style unix text diffs), playing with how a regular script crash might have forced restarts, ponding whether something media related with a certain API is worth experimenting with, learning some basic Spanish, and must spend some time doing something tedious but urgent with a Drupal migration. None of that should interfere with making dinner and going for a nice social walk. I guess recent unpleasantness of a type that makes my gut ache, has the benefit of making these other fin de semana hobbies feel a much more appealing way to spend my time. --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for news of any presentations. Sorry to hear the recent unpleasantness had such an effect. I would have not needed telling a while back, all the horror since 2016 has been rather de-sensitising. At least it's over now and you can relax with said hobbies. I wonder if you do similar work in your day job, and if so, if you use the latest tech rather than keeping it old school. It can be necessary to crunch data on quite a scale if one wishes to contend with similar efforts from our friends on the other side of the political spectrum. I'm looking into that next week. In case you'll also be at the cloud expo over at the Excel, do say hello if you recognise me (from my user page pic). viajes seguros FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Fæ. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 22:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Imperfect world

Hi Fae. A number of editors seem to want to do you in. I have tried to calm them, and tried to direct them to appropriate dispute resolution, and one that would protect your privacy. Unfortunately, it looks like ArbCom is tossing your fate to a discussion that may be held on a noticeboard. I don't like that.

What would really help, I think, is if you stated clearly that you will refrain from publicizing deletion discussions off wiki in the future. All our range of sanctions are designed to prevent trouble. If you recognize where the risk of trouble comes from, and say that you won't run that risk, and then your actions align with your words, then there will be no trouble and no sanctions.

There is nothing wrong with using something like Twitter to say, "Here's an underdeveloped article. Let's work on improving it." I did this myself recently for Ella Grasso on the anniversary of her death. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What I was trying to avoid was having someone maliciously go through the media on my Twitter stream. Fortunately I have yet to find any with metadata embedded. I certainly do not want home addresses of me and my family published and made sport of based on the archive.org versions.

You may wish to go through the archived twitter stream, at least over the last 6 months or year might be a relevant period, and make an independent statement about any tweets that genuinely look like canvassing beyond the repost I made about Phelps, which itself was a response to a post by another Twitter user who has literally a magnitude more followers than my account. Looking through the last couple of months, I only find general posts about Wikipedia, like promoting use of the LGBT studies noticeboard. I'm not saying that none of my posts might be the subject of a legitimate complaint, and I'll happily own up to those that are and discuss how we should do this better, however right now, I'm just not seeing any evidence in the archives of a pattern of canvassing that could even result in my Twitter account being relevant as an example case to improve guidelines.

Publishing the archive.org version of my Twitter stream on Wikipedia is highly problematic, there is a risk that some of my tweets from years ago can incidentally out Wikipedia contributors against their wishes, especially those that went to real life events. --Fæ (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's what you do. Go to Archive.org and ask them to remove that page. I believe they will honor your request. I'll be glad to delete my edit containing the link if it makes you uncomfortable, but your best move is to eliminate it at the source. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, I thought IA resisted that. I have no issue with individual tweets being quoted on Wikipedia, where they are relevant to this case. Publishing the whole stream becomes an obvious problem. --Fæ (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. For the sake of transparency who don't you copy those one or two tweets about the AfD discussion and post them somewhere in your userspace along with your annotations about what you were thinking. That way anybody who wants to discuss them to point to your page and won't need to dig around the rest of your life. I think your tweets were borderline canvassing, not so bad as to require a sanction. A quick talking to would be enough. Obviously you've got a few haters who are hyper critical of your activity. I want them to calm down too because they are for the most part good editors, concerned about the quality of our articles. I really hate it when good people are fighting with each other. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting my tweet archive downloaded, which might be useful to pin down the timeline and any relevant tweets people want to examine. --Fæ (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: "I really hate it when good people are fighting with each other" - best thing I've read so far about this storm in a teacup. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Phelps tweet has been copied already. Doing a text search through my near 4,000 tweet zip archive for any mentions of Wikipedia deletions, that anyone might see as relevant:

1. 04 Feb 2019 "Clarice Phelps is a #STEM advocate, and part of the team that discovered Tennessine, #element 117 // Notable enough for you to want to read about her? The @Wikipedia article is up for deletion"
2. 04 Feb 2019 Retweet of a post with a link to the Phelps AfD by JessWade, previously quoted on-wiki by others, so no harm in me mentioning it exists here...
3. 09 Nov 2017 "@Wikipedia @HeatherUnruh And after 4 days it's up for deletion. Anyone else active @WikiWomenInRed or #1day1woman want to help out with improvements or better sources?" (AfD)
4. 27 June 2011 "A new Wikipedia article being just one line long is *not* a suitable rationale for raising an AFD (frowny face)." (AfD)

I am surprised, because that's all I get. Effectively one dubious non-neutrally phrased tweet over eight years of Tweets has landed me in an Arbcom case with nasty allegations of pushing an "agenda" and being part of a GenderGap conspiracy. Sorry everyone, my bad, I should not have made that Tweet without expecting to get blocked or banned.

Okay, are there any changes to guidelines needed here as to what might be acceptable for Wikipedians with Twitter accounts to post on Twitter? How do we balance any guidelines on this with the desire to ensure that Wikipedians feel they can express themselves freely off-wiki, even being allowed to be critical of things like deletion votes, or from here on will we advise people they should be critical anonymously or risk getting banned from Wikipedia for even one Tweet which can be read as canvassing? --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I opened: Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Proposal: social media - which might be an interesting discussion. Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

So you are not retracting the numerous false allegations and denials you made in your statements, despite what I showed you via diffs etc? I wasn't out to get you, Fae, I was doing what I was advised to do. That you came out in full attack mode, and got everything wrong, is regrettable but not my fault.

As for the rest of what you say, Jehochman and Arbcom saw three screencaps, the earliest of which was a fairly petty example and the last of which was doubling down after plenty of people had already queried what you were up to. In addition, there is the retweet you mention and the other examples above which may or may not include an item I saw that is pointless showing because the link isn't going to work while your tweets are locked. I don't think I can post the caps but you can ask them.

Had you stopped at two, I would have let it slide in the hope you would have learned from it. In fact, letting it slide with the two was "sort of" what was suggested to me in one of the threads that you linked (on Bish's page). - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not made any allegations without verifiable evidence. Please show me the same respect.

You have alleged during a discussion that appears to be opposition research, that I have some sort of dark past with GenderGap, mentioned trolling, and speculated I am probably involved with something suspect today. This is fictional bad faith rubbish. Please cease making allegations about anyone like this when you have no evidence, and consider striking those you have made. If there continues to be a pattern focused on wild theories about people you think are GenderGap participants, it seems highly likely that my vague suggestion of extending your existing interaction ban would be written up.

You have alleged that I have an "Agenda". Please state precisely what you mean, and provide the evidence of it. To me in particular, an allegation that I have an "Agenda" waives a red flag and it appears a deliberate ploy to get a reaction. If you are concerned about privacy then feel free to email any evidence to me so I can review it. My email is available as a link in the navigation bar of this page. From your brief description of screen captures, your evidence is little more than the tweets I have stated above with dates. If there is something I have missed, I am entirely prepared to be held to account for my mistakes.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Is English your first language? I'm struggling to understand how you reach those conclusions given my response in the case thread and you seem now to be doubling down with attacks, not just regarding the tweeting. This is going to end up at ANI if it carries on. I certainly have no intention of emailing you: I don't use Twitter, Facebook etc for a reason and I'm choosy about who has my email address. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Come on Sitush, there's no need for sarcasm - you're better than that. I wish someone had said "I really hate it when good people are fighting with each other" - oh, wait... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest we agree to avoid each other. Without evidence, I have nothing tangible to change my views about the mistake you believe I have made, or the allegations you have already published. It is up to you whether you pursue others in the future using this pattern of unverifiable GenderGap related allegations. Glad to see you take your own privacy seriously. I am not going to answer your question about my first language, I presume that is just another entirely unnecessarily unpleasant thing you felt you needed to say about me. --Fæ (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My comment regarding language was not intended as sarcasm. I am aware of your name in the real world and there is a reasonable, if somewhat stereotyped, chance that English is indeed not your first language. Plus, I could not and still cannot comprehend how you drew the conclusions that you did based on what you had obviously read. And I still do not understand why, if you are so scared about things, you keep putting your head above the parapet. I can understand someone wanting to stand up for what they feel is right etc and I know that people do unimaginable things in dire situations - winners of the Victora Cross, people taking things to the extreme of religious martyrdom etc - but Wikipedia is not a great place for going to those sort of life-threatening/life-changing lengths. If you're scared of potential outcomes from doing things here, just don't do them. Neither Wikipedia (nor Twitter) will ever be "safe spaces": the concept is a utopia to which we can only aspire to move closer, so you'll still be at risk from some whackadoodle or another. It was because of genuine fear that actually did involve a threat to life that I backed off something on here some time ago. I wasn't crying wolf (police and WMF etc were involved) and did realise removing myself from the situation was the solution.

I see below that you have invited another person to email you privately regarding some concern, as you did with me. Jimbo tried the same thing on me a few years ago because it was a good way for him to get a dispute out of the public eye - I refused with him as I did with you, although I have no idea of your motive. Whether or not that is a good strategy, it certainly is not appropriate for you to misrepresent the outcome of a recent ArbCom request, as you have done today at ANI. And saying that (paraphrase) "If I have got anything wrong then I will fix it/apologise", as you have done in relation to both those recent discussions, is not really much use if (a) the horse has bolted and/or (b) you have gained a reputation for using the construct as a device to stick the boot in and then retract if things go a little skew-wiff from your perspective. We all get things wrong but I think McCandlish's point at ANI is that you do not seem to be learning from your mistakes (I didn't see the article and don't particularly care because it isn't relevant to the report). - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I see we have a classic Wikipedia moral panic: the barbarians are at our doors! Cut all our children's throats before they can be abused by godless foreigners! Good luck, Nemo 17:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: With regard to the suggestion of never publishing a link to an AfD, as the evidence appears to be that I have done this 3 times over 8 years, and one of those was an article for a wildfire, I doubt I ever will anyway. Why would I bother linking to any Wikipedia article again, exactly what would be in it for me apart from risking becoming a target of abuse? I have come close to simply deleting my Twitter account, the main thing stopping me was the people that would queue up to complain that deleting my account would be a malicious act of some sort. What we are left with here is the feeling that something is seriously wrong with the way that the community works. I see nobody doing anything about changing that. All I see resulting from this aggravation is that people who become notable for running great inclusive projects to improve Wikipedia, two having been mentioned in this case, will be slightly more jaded, and have yet another reason to gloomily think in private that the Wikipedia community will never be a positive safe space for the minority groups we are aiming to encourage, and that attempting to change things for the better, means you have to start off being a teflon coated hero.

There's no upside to this case, only losers. --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A fun thing I picked up from this brouhaha was the following from the Wikipage on restricted editors you linked to: "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors." Count Iblis (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Move to RSN

Hi Fae,

I'm sorry about moving the discussion to RSN lately with your comments in it. I didn't thinmk that would be a problem for anyone; obviously, I thought wrong. A revert would have been fine since you disapproved, and it's still okay. Or I can move it back to the original page, if you want. Let me know what you'd like to do. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not much point in making more of a fuss. Thanks for the apology. --Fæ (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a party

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Creepy Sexist

Imply this again and I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I HAVE NEVER CALLED ANYONE A SEXIST. THESE ARE YOUR WORDS, YOUR DESCRIPTION NOT MINE.

Go away please. If you are following me on Twitter or anywhere else off wiki, please stop. I do not like being the subject of hostile research. --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WanderingWanda (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about pronouns

Hi Fæ, I noticed that the Wikimedia UK article refers to you with male pronouns. Is this an oversight, or a matter of separate on- and off-wiki identities? Cheers, gnu57 14:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There has been a notice at the top of my user page for several years. This starts with "If you wish to contact me about any non-Wikipedia matters such as in relation to the GLAMwiki Tools project, please email me using this email form, rather than leaving a message on my user page or on a Wikipedia noticeboard." It's not ambiguous. --Fæ (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Review of closure that appears to invent new policy out of nowhere". Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all your wonderful Wiki work!!! Srsval (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Death threat

A few minutes ago the following was posted on my Commons user talk page: There are only two genders. "Singular they" is incorrect English. Fascist freaks like you should literally all be rounded up and shot.

The timing makes me believe that this is someone watching the Wikipedia discussions related to the Women in Red project and the recent policy discussion for interpreting NPA.

If anyone that follows my talk page can think of any information that may help positively identify the puppet master for User:Oisehuck, User:Idylsara, or other accounts that have made death threats directed at me in the last couple of months and made offensive claims about non-binary gender, I would appreciate a confidential email or you can contact m:Meta:Trust and Safety without talking to me if you prefer. The WMF T&S team has some evidence of previous cases as unfortunately this is not the first time.

Thanks in advance for any help or evidence you can provide. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Noticed this on my watchlist - I'm sorry. Take care, you. <3 -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 16:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I would hope that the CU people can do something, though I suppose some jackass posting things like that might not be using their regular IP address. Then again, someone who suggests rounding people up and shooting them in the same breath as calling someone else a fascist isn't exactly high-IQ society material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your concern for me

You recently expressed personal concern for me on an article talk page[3]. You've previously done so in other inappropriate spaces (intended for discussion of content not users), and I've responded repeatedly to ask that you bring your personal concern to a more appropriate place.[4][5][6][7] Would you like to discuss this matter here? A145 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing insinuation

Re your comments in Articles for deletion/Get the L Out and Reliable sources/Noticeboard#UncommonGroundMedia.
This is a formal request that you cease insinuating that I have engaged in canvassing: 1 and 2. Your politely constructed comments do not mask the implication of wrongdoing you have made. I am not obligated to provide an answer to your questions. Stop your unacceptable behavior towards me. This is the one and only instance where I communicate directly with you about this on a talk page. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Targeted harassment of Wikipedians, and canvassing votes, are worth asking questions about. We should not be scared to ask. We should not be scared to put our names against votes. We should not be scared to contribute to Wikipedia on transgender topics because of off wiki trolling or repeated on wiki transphobic threats of violence.

It would be super if you agreed with these principles. --Fæ (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Marcella Di Folco

Hello, Fæ,

Thanks for creating Marcella Di Folco! I edit here too, under the username FULBERT and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This article seems an important contribution to Wikipedia, and it is suggested that the article be expanded and additional sources provided.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FULBERT}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

FULBERT (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• @FULBERT: The Di Folco article is very much a stub. If at your event there is an Italian speaker around, it would be useful for them to compare the extensive Italian article and see if more of that content and sources might be usefully carried over. I very much rely on Google translate, and am naturally cautious about using translated material that I may not full understand, plus I'm clueless about the Italian politics mentioned in the article, so all that needs a reality check. --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why the filmography for this article would need such specific sourcing compared to the norm. Is there any specific concern about some specific item of it? It's easy to find it under her previous name https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0223794/ in countless places. Nemo 13:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no strong views about it. If a filmography can be pinned on one reference that's fine. The article is more encyclopaedically interesting for what Di Folco was known for after her transition, but she was clearly highly notable under both names and use of her deadname in order to remain accurate is unavoidable. --Fæ (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WJBscribe Arbitration Case Request

Hi Fæ, I'm SQL and I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks. At the direction of the committee I've removed your statement referencing WP:WikiProject Women in Red as the case request is focused on the reversal of office actions. Please note this has been done as a clerk action and these statements should not be re-added nor my action reversed without prior approval of an Arbitration Committee Clerk or an Arbitrator. For the Arbitration Committee -SQL^{Query me!} 01:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

For any talk page watchers, my comment was equivalent to meh, why raise this here?

--Fæ (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Cece Telfer

Hi, Fæ. You've asked for protection of Cece Telfer. I merely blocked the most active IP, because with them out of the way, the last vandalism was on June 9 — not a good reason to semi. But the article obviously tempts idiots to change personal pronouns, if no worse, so on second thoughts I've added pending changes as well. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC).

Seems sensible, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Chess

No, it was just a procedural deletion (removing contributions made by someone who was evading a ban), done without prejudice against the article being re-created. Go ahead. DS (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Tifanny Abreu) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Tifanny Abreu.

User:Lapablo while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lapablo}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lapablo (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WLP

Them or me (or both)? ;p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sweetie, you are perfect just the way you are. --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

'Cause if "gurl, bye" was inappropriate, next time I'll go with "bye, Felicia". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi Fae. Could I get your advice? Do you think I should bring my complaints about Fram's past behavior to arbitration so that there could be either and open or private hearing? Feel free to respond by email if you prefer. Jehochman ^Talk 17:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: as others have probably suggested, a suitably conservative course of action would be to email arbcom whatever evidence you have. They may add to the current case or if the evidence is of a type that could cause harm by being discussed, may choose to investigate in camera, or may assess the evidence and decide that there is more benefit to be had by publishing. Arbcom has always had the tools to do this, it is sometimes regrettable that parties want to have their dispute in public.

Naturally, this does not change the public discourse about the best use of WMF Office actions in the future, including an approach that can appear to those not employed by the WMF as being a reasonable form of natural justice.

For myself, I sort of regret not staying silent for longer. It is a mistake to pipe up just because the peanut gallery is picking you out as a target that day. Maybe next time I'll ponder for a couple of days longer. --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman:/(talk page stalker) (I hope you two don't mind me interrupting) To me, if the evidence is fully on-wiki, then I do not see why a 'bystander' who happened to stumble on what appears serious harassment could not bring such a case publicly to ArbCom. Since we do not know who brought the case to WMF (it may have been a third party) there is no 'outing' here - the person who brought the case is still anonymous), and the situation is not necessarily different from when you would have encountered these edits 3 weeks ago.

I think this is what WMF should have done. If all information is public, then it will surface (if Jehochman can find it, then so can I. The hunt is now on - if you wait it may be first used in a bad way by a not so careful editor). So hide it in plain sight. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sensitive to the fact that a target of abuse might not want a public arbitration case. It could be harmful to them. I have asked ArbCom whether to file publicly or in private via email. I think a case would go a long way towards healing the community. Public would be best because it would show everybody what was wrong. It would be instructive, not retributive. Fae suggested starting private. I am not sure what to do yet. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: While I agree that starting hidden is maybe better, I am very afraid of others who will be able to find the info. If this is in the open in front of ArbCom, they, the clerks, the community and even WMF can help protect the 'victims'. Otherwise, if someone abuses the information that they manage to uncover it becomes another unhealthy episode for the 'victim' (I hate this word) and no-one to defend them publicly without it becoming clear. Damn, WMF really fucked this up big time (100% attack/100% aggression :-) ). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A case is a must (even while I am not an ArbCom fan). But it should be focussed towards a) making a statement that the community can handle this when properly played, and b) should result in ArbCom controlled RfCs where actions and procedures are being put down and a new policy is written (I know ... the latter by the community).

P.S. ArbCom has to act fast. Maybe start an empty request, pushing arbs to respond within x hours, and asking the clerks to clerk very strictly. And P.P.S. maybe you should send the 'victims' a heads up via email. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Arbcom request has already been accepted. Any evidence by email can be reviewed as part of that case. I doubt there is any harm in mentioning in the case that evidence was passed on by email, and that folks can ask Arbcom to publish anything they feel would not cause more harm than good. It's what they are there for, one hopes. --Fæ (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If I see it correctly, that case is now not about Fram. It is currently a moot case about the aftermath. I think that a lot of people would wantto rephrase their reponse (I would). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's my plan. I want to ask for a public case, but will not name any of the "targets" of harassment. (I prefer the word "target" more than "victim".) The targets will have the option of consenting to be named and to have the evidence about the harassment that targeted them be public. If a target wants to remain low profile, they will not be named, and any diffs relating to them will be presented by email only. Does this sound like a fair way to proceed? I do not want to talk about the targets publicly without their consent. Fae, you may have a better feeling about this than I do. Does this seem fair? Jehochman ^Talk 20:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, just checking to see whether you might be late to the party. You're not alluding to THIS as being the unspeakable harassment? That was actually the first "incident" that was speculated as the possible trigger, before Fram revealed the substance of the emails he got from Trust&Safety, which pointed the mob elsewhere. wbm1058 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, definitely not that incident. I’m looking at a large number of diffs commencing several years ago. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: you are just invoking a second Streisand effect situation. Other people are able to find them and name them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm just about done caring about this. ArbCom hasn't responded with any guidance, so I'm considering to spend my time doing something more productive. Sooner or later people will figure things out for themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 03:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Streisand effect may get worse. Nothing can be done about that. I just filed RFAR. Jehochman ^Talk 05:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's academic, but if emailing evidence to Arbcom I would pursue the case by email, unless Arbcom agreed that parts of it can be safely published.

I would draw a parallel, both when I was an admin on this project and later when I worked out how to do some fairly smart database searches, I decided against routinely publishing evidence on-wiki unless it was a blatant instance of on-going misuse. This is doubly true when the evidence is "old", though I have sometimes kept a private note so it is easy to pick up again if the person involved misbehaves in a similar way. Luckily I tend to forget the names of accounts fairly quickly, so I'm not looking at everyone with bad faith spectacles on, expecting the worst. --Fæ (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you be willing to give me a hand?

Hi - I'm writing an article about a ruined church in Scotland (I know, I need to get out more). Whenever I write articles like this I tend to use images sourced to geograph.co.uk - there is already an image on Commons that I'm planning to use, but there's another image of a particular feature that I'd like to include that isn't on Commons (as far as I can tell). I'm coming to you because you were the last non-bot account to edit the image - I'm afraid that I don't have a lot of experience of uploading images, and I'm eager to ensure that I keep the formatting of the upload in-line with existing geograph.co.uk images on Commons. Can you tell me what I need to do to upload it properly? Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer GirthSummit _(blether) 20:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: The best thing is to try uploading images using the standard wizard, just making sure you get the license right. Other information, including templates can be corrected later.

However, the image you linked appears to have been uploaded to Commons in 2011, see File:Deskford Kirk - geograph.org.uk - 483491.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah - you're right, that's the one, I must have goofed up somehow when I searched for it. Double thanks then (for the advice and for actually finding it) - much appreciated. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In case you're interested - thanks again! GirthSummit _(blether) 14:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

T&S

I think it is time they were contacted if you feel, that this situation is not being revolved fairly. Continuing with the ANI is clearly not going to go anywhere.Slatersteven (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) +1. I continue to be incredibly upset and dissapointed with just how much WP's community condones hate. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 21:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions

From recent activity it appears that you are looking for any reason to get Giano sanctioned. You are going to his talk page to inspect his content and choosing to have a dispute with him. You should be careful that these things sometimes boomerang. If you want to file a report with T&S you are free to do so, and/or you are also welcome to file an appeal with ArbCom if you feel that the AN/I thread doesn't satisfy your concerns by the time it closes. I recommend you proceed sequentially rather than in parallel with these remedies. You are also welcome to come back to my talk page with any lingering concerns. That might be a good first step. I would like to help you have a happy experience on Wikipedia, but obviously I need to respect the rights and concerns of other users too. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pharos: could you help me mediate this situation? Many thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the neutral ANI notification, I have never been in a dialogue with Giano. Please support your allegation of us being in "dispute" with a diff. I have no idea why you are wanting to take the irregular actions you have already taken, but they are not the normal way to handle misuse of this project. If we have a history you will have to remind me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

How did you end up on Giano’s talk page? Why did you go there in the first place? Did he do something to cause you to go there? As for “dispute” you filed a complaint about his behavior at AN/I. That’s a dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A report on ANI is not a dispute. I am not in a dispute with Giano, I have never had a dispute with Giano, Giano's talk page was not on my watchlist. The thread on ANI explained how analyzing canvassing highlighted these transphobic remarks. --Fæ (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A report on AN/I is a dispute. We have to come to agreement on that fact. If you complain about somebody else and ask for them to be sanctioned, or warned, you are having a dispute with them. If you merely went to Giano's talk page and told him what he did that bothered you and ask him to undo it, that would not be a dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to ask any LGBT+ person to confront someone making abusive anti-LGBT+ "jokes" directly. If I did, I would now be accused of causing an argument. ANI is supposed to be a reasonable way to report abusive behaviour. You are creating a Catch 22 by stating we must confront abusers before allowing us to report abuse. --Fæ (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, it is not strictly necessary to confront the other editor. It's an option if you feel comfortable doing so, but if you don't that's quite alright to skip that step. Jehochman ^Talk 22:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A second question is that a LGBTQ task force encountered "significant homophobic vandalism and abuse on Commons and elsewhere" and was investigating, which led somebody to look at Giano's talk page. Do you have any evidence to tie Giano to the "significant homophobic vandalism and abuse on Commons and elsewhere"? This is of interest to me greatly, because if there is such evidence, something needs to be done about it. Jehochman ^Talk 22:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No. If there were, it would have been reported to global stewards, not ANI. By the way, this was a Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group issue, not a task force. --Fæ (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I misremembered. Also, I am sorry you had to see the offensive joke and I am sorry about the homophobic vandalism. If that ever happens you can ask me for help for issues on this wiki. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy editing. Contact me any time if you need administrator assistance. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Do not cry wolf

Hello. If you talk about another editor you are opening the gate for them to dispute your comment. What Sitush just posted here was not hounding. Please do not cry wolf. If you don’t want them here, you can ask the editor to leave your talk page and place their reply on the same page where you made your comment. If you mention somebody you may have to endure a single talk page reply from them, but then you can redirect them. I hope this tactic helps you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I was a perfectly successful administrator on this project for 2 years and both created and developed some of our community agreed dispute resolution guidelines. Pointing to your own 2008 user essay as if I must read it, rather than policies is both poor practice for a sysop, and unfortunately reads in this context as patronizing. I know the difference between valid criticism, following someone about, and how people form a peanut gallery that can drive their targets off the project. If you really want to roll up your sleeves, go check the history of who demonstrates a pattern of following whom to snipe in discussions.

As you proposed only days ago, I know how to ask for your assistance if it is needed. In the meantime you may want to unwatch this page rather than being tempted to draw inferences, based on partial understanding of my background and interactions since first contributing to this project in 2005.

Thanks for the advice. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Per your request I will I watch this page. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, presumably you meant "unwatch" so pinging this response @Jehochman: intended for your information only. For the record, a brief look at the interplay between accounts shows your advice Sitush here, which reads as very much as a plan to "get" me which then appears to have directly resulted in the Arbcom case raised against me here, which was unanimously declined by Arbcom.

I had entirely forgotten, or perhaps never paid attention to your personal involvement. Your "interest" in me in the last week, including very pointed questions along with your claims that I must have been in a "dispute" with Giano to raise a request on ANI, fits this pattern.

I asked above If we have a history you will have to remind me and you never replied to that. Your subsequent actions protecting Giano's interests, while wearing your sysop hat and giving every appearance of being independent were not appropriate, as you were sufficiently involved with this history of poorly advising and encouraging Sitush to take action against me, for that at least to be declared, and for you to avoid taking any action that might imply you would use sysop tools either on my account or in a related incident.

If you are involved in further user talk page discussions about me, as a trusted administrator I expect you to follow simple courtesy and ethical behaviour of ensuring that I am pinged.

Given this evidence, which I find highly disturbing, found with only a brief search through contribution history, so there may well be more relationships I have not analysed and don't wish to spend my volunteer time on, you are cordially disinvited from writing on this talk page. I have zero intention of ever involving you in an administrative capacity with incidents that involve homophobic or transphobic "jokes" or more serious LGBT+ related incidents. If you believe that a sysop should investigate my account, please consider yourself sufficiently involved to always ask another administrator. If at some future point this may be relevant, please do nudge my memory as to this background, I am likely to forget account names and this incident.

Thanks for your understanding. --Fæ (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Unwatch isn’t a word so autocorrect turned it into “I watch”. It’s a holiday and I have guests so I am not going down this rabbit hole today. Maybe I’ll look again tomorrow. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t want to cause you stress so please come to my talk page if you have any further questions for me. As for the above, (1) an admin attempting to prevent disruption by mediating a dispute does not become involved and (2) I have never plotted to sanction you or anybody else. My hope is that every editor adopts good editing practices and never needs to be sanctioned. Even if an editor is called to arbitration there’s always a chance to avoid sanctions by recognizing problems and endeavoring to correct them. Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This response is worrying. Encouraging Sitush to take action against me on Bishonen's talk page, while choosing to neither notify me or even ping me on the discussion is not "mediation". Painting yourself as an ally, side stepping my request that you confirm any past history with my account, and offering to involve yourself in my editing here, after your very unusual actions to keep Giano from being properly accountable for their transphobic joke appears nothing but deliberate deception and manipulative behaviour. Self defensive nonsense, without for one moment showing any ability to be self-reflective about the authority you wield by being trusted by the community with sysop tools.

Per diff, you are cordially disinvited from writing on this talk page, please do not return and stop finding excuses to insert yourself into my affairs. I have zero intention of ever involving you in an administrative capacity with any LGBT+ related incidents. --Fæ (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Gay artisans

As you are the only person I know of, on Wikipedia's LGBT scene: Can you tell me if there is a list of gay architects, artists and interior designers of the first half of the 20th century? I have searched under what I think would be the obvious category titles, but without success. I need some information for a page I am writing, and also to check out the references. For instance a book published in 1941 describing a designer as "camp" or "effeminate" does not necessarily mean they are gay. Likewise the same book saying "the design of the bedroom floor was a delight for amorous gay bachelors" probably means they were just happy heterosexuals pursuing girls. I know I have seen gay categories, I just can't find the ones I want. I do hope you can help. Giano (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I am reflecting on the discussion at ANI where many of our Wikipedia colleagues found your "joke" to be unacceptable as it "crossed the line" to being transphobic hostility, hand in hand with other comments you have made deriding non-binary gender because you find it hard to distinguish between "animals and humans". In this very recent and hard to forget context, it would be sensible to see a public retraction, before requests for assistance to Wikipedians interested and experienced in LGBT+ topics are made for their expert knowledge, without it having the appearance of trolling.

Up to you. --Fæ (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it. When I get to the tricky part of the page, I’m sure some helpful soul will help out if I go wrong. Giano (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Sabrina Calvo

Hello, Fæ,

Thanks for creating Sabrina Calvo! I edit here too, under the username Doomsdayer520 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Thank you for your new article on Sabrina Calvo. I recommend expanding the text with material from any professional reviews or feature articles Calvo has received.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert Notice at ARCA

	Notice of Your Notice
	Fae, thank you for participating in my DS Alert proposal at ARCA. Your immediate understanding of It did not go unnoticed. The resulting motion has been carried and enacted. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 14:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic TERF. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Three deletions of the same material in less than 24 hrs on Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case

You have three times deleted the same material contributed by other editors. If you do not self-revert, you will be reported.[8][9][10]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. XavierItzm (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Tag teaming unreliable sources into a controversial article is not a case of 3RR, it is a case of you choosing to breach WP:BLP, which is a higher policy requirement. The sources are being discussed on the article's talk page, and you are apparently deliberately choosing to not discuss the fact that these are unreliable sources, and in some cases well known anti-trans lobbying websites. Your aim here appears to be disruption, not to create an encyclopaedia article.

WP:3RR exists, raise a case there if you want to rant about this further.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

TERF category

I think it should be renamed to something like Category:anti-transgender in feminism, to avoid a term seen as pejorative by those to whom it is generally applied. This may be quixotic though, as some would point out that racists don't like being called racist either. However, fomr the point of view of BLP, I think it would be worth a try. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A few years ago I stopped touching any discussions about moving or deleting categories on Commons, and I think the same good reason to avoid jumping into these rabbit holes is just as valid here. --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Fae and JzG, the term is gender-critical feminism. It's not that they're critical of transgender people per se. They are critical of gender, period, and anyone invoking it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not really the whole truth. Plenty of anti-trans lobbyists want to be called "gender critical", that does not stop TERF being accurate and GC less accurate. There is no evidence that all TERF writers reject gender roles, it's not even necessarily true for RFs who are not TE. --Fæ (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Economist described TERF as a slur in 2018 and asked that it not be used in its series on transgender issues: "In the interests of fostering open debate we have set ground rules, both for essays and reader comments: use the pronouns people want you to use, and avoid all slurs, including TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), which may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh, The Economist has a long history of anti-trans op-eds. It publishes the concept of "trans activists" being a mass ideology and appears hostile to any form of GRA, I cannot recall ever reading a pro-trans article in the Economist. Try finding a more neutral source to underpin your viewpoint. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly? we can make the argument go away largely by renaming the category. In text, it is already handled by attribution. But I don't care enough about the category, as an issue, to go much further on this. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This was my starting point. We could debate this for 12 months easily, if we did not have anything better to do. --Fæ (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am trying to stay removed from this and the BLPN discussion (users may be wanting to bring the matter before ArbCom). However, I shall say that the thread may need some focussing. Someone should make a few specific proposals (eg "Rename the category?", "Open a broader debate about deprecating the TERF label in-text?", etc.) for participants to consider. I do not think an admin will be able to take a reading of consensus at the BLPN thread if things are not consolidated. AGK ■ 09:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not think this debate about a specific word would be a useful or helpful Arbcom case, even while at the same time I do think Arbcom can and should do more about taking on the role that WMF T&S has fallen in to, just because a better, less challenging, less bureaucratic, harassment reporting mechanism does not exist. Several experienced editors have been knocking back discussion to a question of reliable sources. The problem being the plethora of established anti-trans writers/pundits that are constantly quoted in what we normally call reliable sources, compared to the paucity of trans women that are available to counter the (sometimes literally stupid) arguments about "transgenderism", "transgender ideology" and the breathtakingly hostile claims about "lesbian rape" and "child abuse". What I hope contributors can do better at, is avoiding these types of irrational case-related arguments being imported to Wikipedia, rather than understanding the underlying definitions and academically and peer reviewed recognized fact.

As has been mentioned in another place, Arbcom is really about disputes between parties. Considering the potentially personal, even painful, nature of this topic for parties, it would be better to avoid inflaming a dispute, just for the convenience of talking about policy which can be done respectfully with cool heads. --Fæ (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hostile tone

Account later blocked as a sockpuppet

Fae, your hostile tone is becoming difficult to tolerate. If your feelings about transgender related issues are so strong that you cannot remain impartial, maybe you should take a step away from these topics? I don't want to make enemies, but your behavior has been very hostile and disruptive ever since I joined mere days ago. You routinely dismiss reliable sources based on your conception that their authors or publishers are "transphobic," usually expressed with a lot of vitriol on your end, while failing to provide any for some statements you want represented as fact on Wikipedia. You're apparently a long-standing editor, so I would think that you know better than this? Rhino (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC) It's not controversial in any way to say that a rabidly transphobic op-ed, that deliberately misgenders trans women, that attacks LGBT+ community as "enablers" and repeats the stupid unprovable trope about a "trans ideology", is transphobic by definition. I have no view about the particular click-bait publishers, they are just cashing in on it. No doubt if racist abuse was more popular than transphobic abuse, they would be cashing in on that. From year to year, I doubt that they care very much about whether they end up publishing pro-trans or anti-trans articles. You are confusing statements of fact with "tone". You are probably not used to reading these bizarre publications honestly called out for what they actually contain, and actually stand for. --Fæ (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

3RR violation

I realize I applied 1RR (per your request), but this does not give you an extra one revert beyond three reverts in 24 hours. (one, two, three, four). Please take the opportunity to self-revert. El_C 21:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• @El C:, I was mis-thinking 3RR, as I had just added the material in question, so this was one revert. I see now that it is any revert. Thanks for pointing it out. By the way, how can we see that 1RR applies? --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I've added Template:Editnotices/Page/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case to the article, so any time you edit the page, it should appear. El_C 21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have automatically ignored it, that's a really bad habit! I'll add a note to the talk page, others may want to give feedback on the protection. --Fæ (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI Report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

As a result of a community discussion at WP:ANI, your topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed, has been reinstated. For the sake of clarity, this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hi, could you clarify whether this applies to the Arbcom clarification request which is about the misuse of anti-transgender language when it has literally nothing to do with article content or improvement, nor the two articles which were the only diffs raised in the thread about bullying that morphed into vote on ANI?

I am also interpreting this TBan as not being a ban against creating or adding to biographies. As listed on my user page I have focused on women's biographies in the last couple of years, and the fact that a person has a gender does not mean these articles are about "human sexuality", nor are any of the articles I have created a matter of dispute (of any kind). Naturally I would respect the TBan and refuse to engage, if there were a dispute that was specifically about "human sexuality" even where the article has nothing to do with this topic per se. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You may work on biographies that have nothing to do with human sexuality or gender identity. Please be aware that the topic ban will be broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

To address your first point, Fæ, I think you have already said all that you should in that clarification request. Any further input there is likely to be interpreted as a violation of the topic ban, and would in any case invoke the law of holes. My advice to you as one experienced Wikipedian to another would be to remove it from your watchlist and let it play out as it will, regardless of any ban. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

your opinion please...

On Talk:Shakira_Barrera I defended noting that many RS commented on the sexuality of the most well-known character she plays, when another contributor dismissed that coverage as UNDUE. If you have time would you mind taking a look at my comments, and my comparison with how TV and Movies portrayed heroic Presidential African-American Presidents years before the USA elected one?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

GamerGate clarification request archived

Hi Fæ, the Clarification request: GamerGate (September 2019) arbitration clarification or amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram diff

Hello Fæ,

I do not think that you violated your topic ban since there was a glaring issue in that diff that had nothing to do with the area you are restricted from. Plus your comment did not allude to any of that other stuff. I hope that you realize that you were in somewhat dangerous territory when posting that diff, and posted it only to bring forward a legitimate issue in the RfA. Other administrators may disagree, but I have no major concerns at this time. Be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This example of being challenged by using the Tban as widely as this is an issue for me making any future contribution to the project. I am unlikely to do any significant editing until I can successfully appeal, and don't plan on making an attempt at that for six months.

Thanks for your feedback. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Great Wiki work!

Srsval (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kbrown (WMF): The survey will log my IP address and this raw data apparently may be shared with various unnamed organizations, including sharing with unnamed people in "Affiliates" with no process to ensure removal/deletion of data even should the Affiliate become unrecognized, and these organizations apparently are not themselves publicly disclosed or subject to public scrutiny of their use of the data.

Considering the nature of the discussion and the related intense trolling and abuse that some Wikipedians were subject to, why would Wikipedians allowing this to happen be a good idea, rather than technologically simply avoid surveys like this with any unclear downstream risks?

No, I am not happy filling out surveys with weird privacy policies and apparently deliberately non-publicly regulated reuse of "raw data". The history of the WMF shows that were I to ask in a year's time "who is holding my survey data now and for what purpose?", I would be highly likely to be ignored. --Fæ (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Be well

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	I know we have usually been on the wrong sides of the fence, and I have noticed your hostility toward me, but I have never disliked you Fae, and I have never intended you any harm. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)