User talk:Fæ/2021

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's clear that sax-related topics would violate the topic ban, but I'm on the fence about whether herpes would come under "human sexuality, broadly construed". EEng 16:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This was part of handling long-term sockpuppetry on Wikimedia Commons, the vast majority of which had nothing to do with the English Wikipedia and the resulting deletions on Commons are not controversial for the English Wikipedia.

For information, Linda Wright has nothing to do with activists of any kind as far as I'm aware.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Ad hominem. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Wikipedia:Ad hominem until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

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

As it's now been 7 months since the block, and despite waiting the extra time, no questions have been raised. This now feels like a very long time, particularly in the light of the fact that in the original block there was a suggestion to limit to 3 months, I'll investigate how to raise the unblock request so an uninvolved administrator can consider it. Despite being a past admin on this project, I'm aware that norms change over time, so will take care to read the generic advice.

If anyone has questions to raise, it would be very useful to raise them before the unblock request is posted in a couple of days. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Fæ, as I explained above, my major concern is that of your focus on controversial topics - I gave figures in the thread. It seems to me that the vast majority of your actions and edits on English Wikipedia were designed to insert yourself into controversial topics, and certainly not with any intent to defuse the situation.

I don't believe you answered that general concern of mine. If you can allay that concern, I'd really appreciate it. Perhaps some sort of commitment to ensure that a supermajority of your edits would not be focussed on controversial topics? Perhaps some indication of areas that you would be looking to edit, or tasks you intend to undertake? Perhaps an undertaking to focus on collaboration, or a personal limit in responding to topics? I know that you have a lot to offer the project, I'm also aware of the amount of time the community must invest when you are editing in these areas. Worm^TT(talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If the concern is disruption, then I note the examples you have provided of the topic of scientific racism and the contributions to the discussion about Fram's block which by its nature was controversial, but my contributions of themselves have caused no disruption, complaint, dispute, nor any extra amount of time needed from others as far as I can recall.

My work on issues of scientific racism has been extensive, positive and collegiate (I have set up a Telegram group to coordinate it with other editors in non-English projects and Wikidata), and has resulted in the removal of a lot of deliberately disruptive and offensive content from Wikimedia Commons and resulted in a few long term sockpuppet accounts being blocked. In comparison to my other Commons projects, this has been a tiny proportion of my editing or volunteer time.

Could you provide an example of an edit of mine that illustrates your point that these contributions are an issue and I can consider how this ought to be part of an appropriate unblock request? To be honest it's quite hard for me to think back of what my edits were in 2019, before the pandemic. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Fæ, Thank you Fae. I think between this answer and your previous lack of answer, I can see your stance. Personally, I will not be supporting any unblock appeal at this point. I would expect the unblock to go to the community as a whole, given your long history on the project - so for the "generic advice", I would say the following:

1. Consider very carefully, if this unblock is worth the stress that it likely to put you through. Even this mention of a possible unblock has drawn editors, myself included. I'm sure you're not happy with some of the responses that have been made - an actual unblock request is likely to be more unpleasant for you.
2. If you do wish to proceed, I think you will need to actually address concerns, rather than dismissing them. In particular Guy Macon's questions, while asked in an inappropriate form, are similar to the sorts of things you'll want to be answering proactively. I'll paraphrase the bits I see as important below, so you needn't read the removed posts.
   • Can you explain why you believe you were blocked, and what you would do differently?
   • You're currently under a topic ban and have stated you would not edit en.wp substantially until it is lifted. Do you still stand by that, and if so, assuming that the community is not willing to remove the topic ban, what benefit would the community see in removing your indefinite block?

You needn't respond to this post - I'm giving you advice on questions you may want to answer for a successful unblock request. Good luck for the future. Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned:

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

The statement was that I was inserting myself into controversial topics and this was a problem. Please could you supply an example and I'll happily examine the facts and respond to that.

I would be happy to embrace a voluntary restriction to avoid any significant editing in disputes about scientific racism or any other topic, if my contributions are a specific issue. Without evidence, I'm unsure how this can meaningfully be part of an unblock request.

Please, can you supply an example diff that I and others can examine? --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

--Fæ (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Worm That Turned - in regards to your writing: 'designed to insert yourself into controversial topics, and certainly not with any intent to defuse the situation.' I am very curious to learn if there are explicit recommendations or expectations on EN Wikipedia or Wikimedia spaces in general to what is adequate amount of 'insertion' and what 'difusion' activity in edits? I would be curious to learn more as I come from different social, cultural and linguistic background and context and this seems like a very specific thing I might have missed. --Zblace (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

'difusion' activity – I'm afraid you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head. For whatever reason, and I'm sure without meaning to do so, Fae has an almost unerring knack for WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT rather than defusing it. EEng 14:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

EEng 15:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(watching) It's not always that indef means indefinite: but in this case, it should. The project is better off without your efforts. Thank you for your efforts, such as they were. ——Serial 07:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: "The project is better off without your efforts" is quite the claim. Even ignoring the ad hominem nature of the statement, are you genuinely saying that working to remove debunked bigotry about scientific racism and homophobic / transphobic content is worthless and that being involved in discussions to remove that content is disruptive? I'm not sure the UCoC would agree… — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Block discussions are inherently ad hominem -- how could they not be? No one's saying working to remove [etc etc] is worthless; what many people are saying is that the good is far outweighed by the bad and disruptive. EEng 01:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: please take this page off your watchlist. I found your comment upsetting and it appears to be intended to be deliberately hurtful and disruptive. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Zblace, No, there are no explicit recommendations. However, any editor who's focus is primarily on controversial topics - without any grounding of Wikipedia norms in non-controversial topics - is likely to come unstuck. Fae's case is rather unique, given their long history on Wikipedia and should not reflect the general case. Worm^TT(talk) 08:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Fæ is currently under a community imposed restriction as a result of a continuation of the behaviour logged here. There is approx a zero-to-nil chance this will ever be lifted regardless of any successful unblock request. The fundamental problem is that Fæ is routinely deceptive in their description of events. Especially in regards to their own behaviour and editing. Lets take just one claim from the above: "the removal of a lot of deliberately disruptive and offensive content from Wikimedia Commons". Well this may be true, but they also simultaneously argued that is was appropriate for a filename on commons to be listed as "File:ASSHOLE, Bigot, Liar and Pussy grabber..." etc despite Commons (in a rare show of sensibleness) having a clear policy on non-provocative file names. Which pretty much sums up Fæ's universal approach to everything. One rule for positions that Fæ supports, another for their enemies. In short, even taking a brief look at their contributions to commons (there are some deleted obviously inappropriate pictures, that Fæ probably wishes he hadnt advocated keeping, that go well beyond 'offensive'.) and their contributions on the mailing lists etc, I echo Serial Number above. Thanks but goodbye. I will say to any admin or arbcom who seriously considers unblocking Fæ, you are likely going to get an immediate community ban discussion where so much dirty laundry will be aired it wouldnt be in Fæ's best interest. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

The work I have done in the area of accurate use of historical scientific racism media, responding to the deliberate misuse by a team of sockpuppets of source material and deliberate insertion of anti-educational use of words (like the n-word) that were not justified examining the historical sources, is entirely supported by policies of scope and accuracy. Across Wikipedias this has just meant more accurate filenames being displayed without the use of words that are not in the original historical source. None of those changes has been contested or controversial in any way on any project, it is correcting a cross-wiki problem deliberately created by a sock farm.

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

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

• I feel like you will have difficulty with your appeal succeeding unless you address concerns about your editing in controversial topics, especially concerns about your topic ban which still applies. I hope you succeed so you can get a third chance, but you need to be careful to make a well-thought out appeal.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions of what offer would be suitable to make in an unblock request and is there any key evidence of my edits that would be useful to illustrate it? Note that my error that resulted in a block was the first transgression of this topic ban, I understand you are counting previous actions before the topic ban. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This is untrue. I do not have an "agenda" in returning to editing the English Wikipedia and there is no "agenda" here for others to agree or disagree to.

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

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

I have returned to the project after a long break and was conscious that one of the things I left undone was a review of my block here and indications of where I saw the path forward. I have reviewed what happened at the time of blocking, events since and the comments since the block. What was intended to be a quick look at Commons turned into a rabbithole of getting sucked into reading the commons vp and com:anu over the ridiculous dispute with a current arb here. I was struck that the key concern expressed here against unblocking - namely the diffusion of drama and tendency to personalise and escalate disagreements by throwing petrol everywhere was playing out in commons in front of my eyes. Clearly nothing has changed about fae’s approach and, I fear, it is unreasonable to expect it to change in future.

Having thought about it long and hard, I have concluded that there is no path forward for fae here that will not eventually lead to unnecessary drama, unnecessary drama unnecessarily escalated and massive disruption to this project as a consequence. I therefore now fully oppose an unblock under any circumstances. The only path left is for either an appeal to the community or to arbcom

Is this unfair on fae? Probably yes, but sometimes we just have to look at the overall good of the project and in my opinion and of many of those commenting, the good of the project does not have fae editing here because of the eventual expectation of unnecessary drama and disruption. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, that since the dissolution of BASC, since this is not based on private data, I do not believe Appeal to Arbcom is a route available to Fae. Worm^TT(talk) 15:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Struck per you comments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

[Accusation withdrawn] — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC) 20:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I defy anyone to read the discussion at commons [2] and find a consensus that this is how the discussion characterised the dispute. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose my brand of stupid (irreverence if you squint) didn't flow that well in that discussion... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Kind of weird Fæ thought I was a burner sock account, seeing as we've had like a million interactions here at en over the years (none too noteworthy, but still). Still, a stressful moment for them to be sure, so I understand and did not take it as a slight. El_C 18:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just preface this by saying that regardless of the avenue of appeal, I am obviously just another user with an opinion in this case and am not speaking as an arbitrator. Regarding the recent dramafest at Commons: While opinions differed over there as to the appropriateness of my remarks, nobody with any sense agreed with Fae's completely specious accusations that I was somehow involved in doxxing them and actively encouraging others to do them physical harm. They reproduced every remark I made in that thread as "evidence" that I was doing this, so it's all there to see. Please do let me know if you can actually find what they say I was doing. Fae's main supporters there were a person banned by arbcom many years ago, whose socks I have helped to block here, and a globally banned troll who runs an attack site that has like 15 threads about how horrible I am. So, a lot of axe-grinding was going there in between the more thoughtful comments from other users. I don't like Fae, one specific person with a toxic personality, who happens to be queer. I would feel the same if they were straighter than a ruler. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Read an old 2019 BLP thread on terfs and wp:label, and you made a very nice and appreciated point about not discouraging trans editors from participating in trans topics. Have a cat!

Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)