| Revision as of 01:36, 30 June 2021 view sourceEEng (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors97,813 edits →Unblock preparation: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:55, 30 June 2021 view source Worm That Turned (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators25,701 edits →Unblock preparation: removed collapsed section, as participants seem to be ignoring the collapse.Next edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| :::: {{Ping|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. --] (]) 09:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | :::: {{Ping|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. --] (]) 09:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| {{od}} | {{od}} | ||
| {{collapse top|Lets not get dragged into a sideshow here}} | |||
| ] (]) 16:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)] | |||
| ::<small>Just for the record, I was ''not'' ridiculing anyone using neopronouns. ]] 14:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :: Trying my very best to not step on Fæ's toes as to how they may wish to be addressed: Second-person pronouns ("you", "your", etc) do not carry any implication of gender in the English language. There's no barrier to using them here, and trying so very hard to avoid any use of a prounoun at all comes off as incredibly immature. -- a <sup> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] | ] | ]</span></sup> 14:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: <small>Well, you can imagine that someone preferring tree pronouns might want to be addressed as ''] tree''. ]] 15:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::: {{Ping|EEng}} You're not doing a great job of "not ridiculing anyone using neopronouns". If that was meant as a joke, it was ill-judged and bears a striking resemblance to transphobia by way of taking the piss. I'd suggest you retract that. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ]; please {{]}} me in replies)</small></span> 15:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<small>First of all, I really wish someone would explain why you Brits are so obsessed with urinary function. Second, every liberation movement goes through its arms-angrily-crossed-while-giving-the-stinky-eye ''That's not funny!'' phase, and the sooner that's over the better. Humor is, in fact, most needful in difficult and delicate situations, to break the tension and banish taboos. ]] 18:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::: {{Ping|EEng}} 2 things: (1) Please don't edit my comments, whether to change the font size or otherwise. (2) Humour can often be useful, but only when you can be certain the recipient won't take offence at it. You are beyond ''stretching'' assumptions of good faith here; please desist. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ]; please {{]}} me in replies)</small></span> 21:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*<big>{{tq|don't edit my comments}}{{snd}}You're objecting to ''this'' ? Inside a collapse box? ''REALLY???'' But I'll show you! This time I'm using <code><nowiki><big></nowiki></code>! | |||
| :::::::*Don't get mad, but I've corrected the indenting of your latest post (per ], of course). Can't have people thinking you're talking to yourself. | |||
| :::::::*{{tq|Humour can often be useful, but only when you can be certain the recipient won't take offence at it.}}{{snd}}OK, howzabout you enlighten us with an example of some useful humor that is certain to offend no one. | |||
| :::::::]] 01:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)</big> | |||
| ::{{ping|Guy Macon}} The way you are going out of the way to avoid the use of "they", or even "you", means this reads 100% like transphobic trolling, and it's unacceptable. ] (]) 15:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I hope you realize how immature it looks to go out of your way to avoid using gender neutral pronouns, especially given @]'s closure of the discussion you linked which specifically warned you against using anything other than "they" to refer to Fæ. ] (]) 16:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *Fæ is currently under a ] restriction as a result of a continuation of the behaviour logged . 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 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. ] (]) 18:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | *Fæ is currently under a ] restriction as a result of a continuation of the behaviour logged . 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 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. ] (]) 18:43, 29 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.] (]) 01:30, 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.] (]) 01:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:55, 30 June 2021
 Archives |
|
/2014 /2015 /2016 /2017 /2018 /2019 /2020 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
 | When I do reply it may be from a mobile phone or by email.  Due to routinely using public wifi, my edits will normally be via ToR to avoid browser hijacking. |
 | Fæ is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
"Misplaced Pages:Ad hominem" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:Ad hominem. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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(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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- (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 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)