![]() | 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. |
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 12:09, 12 July 2024 UTC [ refresh ( Talk) (he/him) 20:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
A request for arbitration in which you were involved has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 18:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
RhinosF1 (chat) (status) (contribs) 22:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Imply this again and I will report you. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:14, 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)
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)
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, gnu 57 14:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Thanks for all your wonderful Wiki work!!! Srsval ( talk) 12:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
Them or me (or both)? ;p --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Happy editing. Contact me any time if you need administrator assistance. Jehochman Talk 00:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Great Wiki work!
Srsval (
talk)
07:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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) |
![]() | 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. |
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 12:09, 12 July 2024 UTC [ refresh ( Talk) (he/him) 20:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
A request for arbitration in which you were involved has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 18:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
RhinosF1 (chat) (status) (contribs) 22:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Imply this again and I will report you. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:14, 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)
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)
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, gnu 57 14:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Thanks for all your wonderful Wiki work!!! Srsval ( talk) 12:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
Them or me (or both)? ;p --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Happy editing. Contact me any time if you need administrator assistance. Jehochman Talk 00:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Great Wiki work!
Srsval (
talk)
07:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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) |