User talk:Fæ/2015

2015 already

Hi Fæ. Just wishing you all the best for 2015. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate, best wishes for you and yours in the coming year.

BTW, as you probably remain interested in bot work, you may be interested to know I'll be raising a bot related amendment request to Arbcom in a day or two. There is a draft here. Your suggestions or indeed a statement when I raise the request would be welcome. --Fæ (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Motion proposed

Hi Fæ, just a quick FYI that a motion has been proposed on the amendment request you filed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it forward. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request closed

In response to the amendment request you filed the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Fæ case is amended to add Remedy 2.1 as follows: "Notwithstanding remedy 2, Fæ is permitted to operate bot accounts, edits from which are only to be made in accordance with Bot Approvals Group approved tasks, or an authorised trial of one."

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I plan on following up with BAG in a few days. --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 3 --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom request for bot edits vs topic ban

I suspect everything will be fine, but don't want BAG running in to a collision with ARBCOM, asked for a clarification here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_F.C3.A6.2FR2.1_Bot_Edits. This serves as your "notice", I suggest you just link your other user statement to the BRFA that already has a reasonable statement on it. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, it's been a year-do you think there is traction to appeal your topic ban and not even have this be an issue? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I had an off the record chat about the original case and the facts of who actually did what, with WTT at Wikimania and I felt quite depressed about it afterwards. Partly why I have made so few edits on the English Wikipedia in the last few months is because "broadly construed" is just too difficult.

I have been thinking about it, and probably will later this year, but the prospect of mounting an appeal and having the peanut gallery throw all the hatred and ridicule they can imagine at me off-wiki again is hardly something that one easily goes through to write articles on a website. --Fæ (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Motion proposed on Fæ clarification request

Hi Fæ, just a message to let you know that a motion has been proposed the clarification request regarding you. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that I have closed and archived the clarification request you filed. The following motion has been enacted:

Despite the restrictions on his editing images related to sexuality, Fæ may operate the Commons fair use upload bot if the Bot Approvals Group approves it.

The bot may upload sexuality images that would, if Fæ himself had uploaded them to the English Wikipedia, breach Fæ's restriction, only if the upload is requested by a third party.

The bot shall maintain a log of: the images it uploads; the names of the articles on the English Wikipedia where the images appear at the time of upload; and the username of the Commons editor requesting the transfer to the English Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll get on with it then. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Roman empresses

Hi, you once commented at Category_talk:Roman_empresses, currently there's a related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_11#Category:Roman_empresses. Cheers Brandmeister^talk 12:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I have replied to your questions. Did you see my question? Mr Muffler (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Astonished

Fæ, I'm astonished by your recent behaviour, to the point of disgust. Now, I'll reply to the previous section in a moment (since you pinged me), but more pressing is your statement at RfAR. The language you use, in comparison to the acts you describe is absolutely unacceptable. Going further and suggesting without evidence that Chase Me or any other member of WMUK staff has used privileged information inappropriately is completely unacceptable. So I'm going to give you a standard "put up or shut up". Either provide evidence that such actions have been going on, or retract the accusation. If you do not do either of those, I will not hesitate to block you for disruption. Worm^TT(talk) 11:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I replied in the case before seeing you had written here.

As suggested I could look back over email correspondence as a charity trustee. I do not believe that is necessary, as what I relate is what Chase and another employee said to me, directly, when I was a trustee. I recall making a statement a year or two ago, but I am not quite sure where this was so am having difficulty tracking it down. I do not understand what it is about my language in expressing the facts that you find objectionable. If you would like to explain this to me I would be happy to strike and rephrase as you are demanding.

I'm taking a moment to take a close look at my words and strike anything superfluous. I hope that will help you be less astonished. --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your language there is much improved, I do appreciate that. I'm still concerned that you have carried on the accusation that Chase Me and other staff have been violating the policies of OTRS and CU without evidence - that's where your focus needs to be. Worm^TT(talk) 12:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Worm^TT(talk) 12:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Fae. You made a comment on this page which was kind of upsetting ('anti gay'). Perhaps I could explain the context. I had been discussing the idea of a stable version of Wikipedia articles with user:Anthonyhcole. Anthony can verify this, and you can actually see the button as developed here. The idea is that once the stable version of the article is developed, you can (i) click the button to go it, and (ii) also diff the current version of the article to the stable version, in case of any useful improvements that could be incorporated into a new stable version. Because I was then banned from en.wikipedia, I developed this at Commons. I had no idea it was not allowed there. To test the concept, I included some imaginary vandalism of the "X is gay" schoolkid kind you typically see on Wikimedia sites. It had not even entered my mind that the name I used was the same as another user: rather, I had in mind a typical American schoolboy vandal. That was all. The idea that this was some kind of homophobic remark is absurd. Quite the opposite. With hindsight it was a stupid thing to do, given the possibility of misinterpretation, and because of the user name, which honestly had not occurred to me.

Regarding use of commons, if you look back on my edit history, you see a lot of useful stuff before the en ban, but it was difficult to do much while banned from en. I would like to continue that at some point. For example, I would like to load images from my collection of incunabula, such as this one.

So please accept my apologies for being stupid, and please accept my assurance that no slur was intended, either in general or against any specific user. Absolutely none was intended. Peter Damian (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Peter and I had two meetings, with other Wikipedians, last August where we discussed at length the concept of stable (expert-reviewed, reliable, locked) versions of our best Wikipedia articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What I see is that:

1. You have chosen to raise an issue of homophobic language on my talk page less than 48 hours after a five years long ban was lifted by Worm That Turned. You know that I raised an objection during the unblock discussion, that you contributing on this project without a firm commitment to avoid using off-wiki hounding to get your way, makes this project an unsafe space for users who have been, or feel they have been, targeted for derision or malicious abuse by your known off-wiki cohort/supporters.
2. You could have easily apologised for your "anti gay" vandalism on Commons by email with me in the last six months. You have chosen to make drama on Wikipedia (when your vandalism was on Commons), knowing full well the background of my experience of harassment.
3. "X is gay" is regressive homophobic language, so yes it is "anti-gay". It derides LGBT people by making "gay" a term of abuse. In my eyes this should be treated as seriously as using "X is a Jew" or "X is black" as offensive terms.
4. At the same time as writing here with a carefully phrased apology, that makes it falsely appear I have made anti-gay claims about you on-wiki, you were thanking your friends and supporters on Kohs website for calling me an "asshole" and having "sand in [my] vagina". For the causal reader of my talk page, this is my statement which included the description "anti-gay" but was supportive of a future unblock request by you:

I doubt Peter Damian and me will ever claim to be friends, due to past unpleasantness of a nature that I am unlikely to ever forget. However, saying this, I do think it the right thing to do to allow anyone the potential to appeal against indef blocks, were he able to come back to this project with a credible request explaining how he would like to help contribute to our educational content and how he can avoid past problems, so that this project remains mellow and a positive non-hostile environment for all our contributors.
His use of Commons has been deliberately disruptive, and appears to have included using Commons as a means both to remotely poke at Wikipedia, plus a really stupid jibe at one of our long term contributors which might be interpreted by some as anti-gay. I may have been encouraged to support a block review in the short term, had Peter's reaction not been to immediately attempt to create public drama about his block off-wiki rather than, say, trying a proper apology for the target of his apparent trolling; even if he feels this was a misinterpretation. Given this context, I suggest that Peter is encouraged to reflect on what the Open Knowledge scope of this project is, and whether he can ever really be interested in doing more than using this site to inflame drama like it was 4Chan. I don't know how long serious reflection takes, but considering the upset recently caused, a period where his talk page access remains blocked is probably wise both for him and others affected, and I can't see much point in another unblock request until well into 2015. --Fæ (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to pursue this, then you should be raising an unblock request on Commons. I see no value in you making a case here unless the outcome you are seeking is to cause me grief, or to give your off-wiki chums more material to continue their years long campaign of abuse and defamatory allegations. --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone suggested you had sand in your vagina in a hurtful way. Things can often be misunderstood. Begoon ^talk 16:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You have a very innocent nature, Begoon. But you are certainly wrong. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm generally wrong. What am I wrong about this time? Begoon ^talk 16:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to provide the link. I notice you only ever seem to edit drama pages, so I'm not really interested in fanning the flames. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, then you've looked at part of my history. That's cool, and more than most folks do. I've noticed you talk a lot of sense, often, and I've agreed with it a lot. Ashley needs no help to fan flames. See you around. Begoon ^talk 16:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've not seen the diff in question, I don't know anything about Peter Damian's block on commons. What I do know is that here, on Wikipedia, consensus was that he should be unbanned. The time taken over the discussion was double that of the ban discussion, and it was absolutely clear what the community believed. Given that you've been through the ban/unban process yourself Fae, I think it's a shame that you have reacted so poorly to this attempt at building a bridge - but holding that grudge is your right. Peter, I recommend you keep away from Fae, it's unlikely anything you say will be treated with anything but mistrust. Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  I have not been given any reason over the last 5 years to move to a position of trust. Having been badly burned is not the same thing as "holding a grudge". The above easy apology, rather than a credible personal email (as a few others that were involved in my original case did when they came to regret their actions and wanted to put aside the past), does not offset those years. --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  I get that - I don't blame you for being mistrustful. But this is a collaborative project and the community has made a statement that Peter, just as yourself, has returned to good standing. I personally would prefer a "public" apology to a private one, but again, that's your choice. Worm^TT(talk) 14:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, it should be my choice, but apparently I have "sand in my vagina" for reading "X is gay" vandalism as anti-gay. At the end of the day, it's not really a "choice", as there are consequences for anyone who gives Peter a reason to stir up his friends on Wikipediocracy. Neither do I feel in "good standing". This is hardly conducive to seeing this project as becoming a safe space, or even a non-hostile one. While anyone feels they are being positive for our community to casually pull me down with tangential comments such as "you have fallen far from grace", I will remain an object to ridicule, rather than having a chance to be respected for my years of contributing to open knowledge. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  Fæ, I fundamentally disagree with so many points there. I'm not excusing Wikipediocracy, but they are not a homogeneous group - they are individuals at a forum. Tar them all with one brush and you sink to the level of those who tar all Wikipedians with the same brush. I don't see "X is gay" vandalism as "anti-gay", per se - but down to pure ignorance. It is regularly written by those who have no concept of homosexuality and are fearful of difference. There is a lot more significant homophobia to be dealt with, both on- and off-wiki than schoolyard vandalism - and it appears to me that you are focussing more on trivialities than real issues.
  I called you on poor behaviour - if another editor was making similar comments about you, I would have done the same. Feel free to investigate my history, it bears this out. I mentioned your standing on WMUK because it was relevant to my understanding of your position - I was not ridiculing you, I was trying to rationalise why you would make such accusations without evidence. My words obviously touched a nerve - and for that I apologise, as I say - I'm far removed from WMUK, I do not know which lies you were referring to, nor the full circumstances of your case, nor does it interest me - the last thing I want to get into is the politics of the WMUK office. Worm^TT(talk) 14:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot entertain the idea that non-ignorant people propagating language that "gay = bad" in exactly the same way as used to be with the words "Jew" and "Black" in the 1970s can be precisely and accurately described as anti-gay, then I doubt there is profit is saying more. To know more, you may want to try some of the wealth of independent articles on this topic rather than taking opinions from me or Peter, Using the word 'gay' to mean 'crap' is a form of bullying of gay people is a nice one. --Fæ (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that there is a difference between juvenile ignorance, best tackled with education and active hate language, which should be dealt with harshly. Worm^TT(talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure hearts and minds is a good approach for juveniles. However as a man with a husband who has been out of the closet since the age of 14, I put up with the drip, drip of casual "ignorance" from adults for four decades. When this comes not from schoolboys, but declared academics and sophisticated Wikipedia lobbyists, leave me the right to be heartily unimpressed if they claim their actions cannot be called anti-gay when wrapped in a public statement to clear their name. --Fæ (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened

You were recently offered a statement in 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/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your concerns

I saw your response to me, but am replying here as it has been archived by one of the clerks. I understand that you are concerned about the decision to hold the case in camera. However, we have decided to do so, and I feel I explained rather clearly why. As such, please make further comments on the case by email, as everyone else is doing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My last comment was about current on-wiki behaviour, which anyone can see for themselves. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_17#Sockpuppet_investigation_block --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in 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/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Commons fair use upload bot 3

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 3 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 23:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Hi, Fae! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Another Believer: thanks for getting these messages out. To my knowledge, very little is happening LGBT-wise in the UK right now (and more generally the community is in a lacuna, after WMUK has had to collapse in on itself after a huge budget cock-up last year, with the subsequent leaving of the CEO) and I've been personally busy with other matters which have been demanding my spare time. I am interested in the recent correspondence and will probably add a little to that matter in-camera. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Further Concerns About Chase Me

Fæ Hi. I would like to ask your help. Also going to ask Andreas. I was concerned that, after the ArbCom ruling Chase Me did not take down prose and boxes proclaiming he was an Administrator. I started a thread on his talk page and, whilst some people disagreed the changes were eventually made.

However, on looking again I notice that he still has his previous "I stand by everything" interview linked. This is a clear WP:BLP violation as the facts asserted in the interview have now obviously been found inaccurate by ArbCom - amongst others. There is a clear WP:NPOV problem as he does not link even to later articles by the Guardian correcting facts. It is clearly an attempt to WP:RGW and the controversy associated is clearly putting him in breach of WP:POINT.

I think someone should ask him to change it but do not want to be the one to start the thread on his talk page as I started the last one. I also want to secure a consensus. I think someone should start a thread there explaining the above - perhaps suggest a further ANI hearing if he does not comply. What do you think? Can you help? Vordrak (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Email sent. --Fæ (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Help with UK copyright and image licencing

As someone who knows more about UK image licencing and copyright can you give me any help with answering the queries in the image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive1?— Rod ^talk 08:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)