Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:53, 6 March 2012

Archives

2010 2011 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Disclaimer Any opinions expressed on Misplaced Pages, sister projects or in tweets and blog posts are mine and do not represent the opinion of Wikimedia UK or any other organization that I am affiliated with. – Fæ

Just quit already

You're gonna burn in this world and the next! Best admin evar ! Ash=Fae=F4g (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This comment fits a coordinated pattern I have seen of personal homophobic harassment directed against me over the last month on Twitter, Misplaced Pages Review, email, Wikimedia Commons and Misplaced Pages. I would like those that keep an eye on my user page to take note and reflect on whether the harassment policies we have for the Wikimedia projects are able to act effectively or efficiently when anonymous accounts, low contribution sock puppet accounts and manipulative traveling circuses are used to attack members of our community. Not all such attacks are as obvious as this one. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents, I would have just WP:RBI and this thread wouldn't have existed to manifest that further. --Dave 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Too many people would not believe that this kind of talk exists if they did not see it. People who are not LGBT supporters do not have this happen to them. This has happened to me also on Misplaced Pages and it is scary that people would use their short time on this earth to harass other people. Hiding it in an attempt to keep it from manifesting further is what people have done for most of history, and that has proven to be an incomplete solution. I do not know what the whole solution is, but raising awareness of this reality is part of it. If it were an isolated random incident I would say to delete it, but it is not productive to ask the victims of a persistent, pervasive problem to do their best to prevent public disclosure of it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• True, but not applying WP:DENY (part of WP:RBI) is just playing right into their hands, no? Moral of the story, why play the victim card? In the 1969 film "Battle of Britain", an irritated ACM Sir Hugh Dowding said: "I'm not very interested in propaganda. If we're right, they'll give up. If we are wrong, they'll be in London in a week!" --Dave 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Where I live if anyone spoke those words publicly or graffiti'd them then then no one would say that Fæ was insulted or a victim of vandalism; they would say that he was threatened and the target of a hate crime. Of course things are different at the keyboard but this behavior is representative of deeper problems on Misplaced Pages and as Fæ says there ought to be conversation about other protections. A part of the LGBT rights movement as well as other rights movements for face, religion, and other traits facing discrimination dictates calling for wider recognition of the prejudice against people representing minorities. Fæ is not playing a victim card; he is acting in accord with the movement consensus that allies of minority groups should tell others details about targeted attacks so that more people can understand that this is not a problem that any attack recipient has, but rather a problem which the community has to address. If the community does not hear about it then there can be no community response.

The vandals which ought to be ignored are the ones who are likely to go away. Fæ's situation is extraordinary because among other things it includes attacks off Misplaced Pages. It may not be socially appropriate for him to say that for humility or for not wanting to disturb anyone with his problems, but I confirm that what he is experiencing is hostile for reasons unrelated to his Misplaced Pages behavior. Even if attacks cannot be stopped he should get community support beyond what Misplaced Pages policies say should be afforded to those visited by mere vandals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

regarding your block reduction

Hi Fae - I was surprised to see you reduce that block on User:PaoloNapolitano. I would, and do, consider you involved concerning anything to do with wikipedia review and would appreciate it if in future you left such related admin actions to others. PaoloNapolitano is also quacking loudly - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_3#Proposal_by_PaoloNapolitano is quite revealing, and it is only a matter of time before his previous restricted account is revealed.Youreallycan 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I have no prior involvement with PaoloNapolitano or their Misplaced Pages contributions related to this block. Perhaps you are confusing for one of the Misplaced Pages administrators that writes on Misplaced Pages Review? You will note that both PaoloNapolitano and the administrator that gave the original indefinite block against them are satisfied with my use of the administrator tools.

If you believe that someone is in breach of the Sock puppetry policy, please use Sockpuppet investigations and supply the relevant evidence. Considering your total number of edits to Misplaced Pages is similar to or may exceed mine, I feel certain that you are experienced with the process and fully understand why it is not acceptable to make sock puppetry allegations about other contributors here on my user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A disappointing reply. You are clearly involved in issues related in any way to the wikipedia review. Paolo is here attacking the review and its users, a position you clearly are involved in . I have let you know my concerns, the next time you take an admin action in this area I will report you. Youreallycan 17:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing other people making personal and sexual allegations about me off-wiki with me being involved with PaoloNapolitano. I suggest you refrain from making any further allegations against others on my user talk page or threats of possible action. I am not interested in getting drawn in your drama, particularly in consideration of your long history of apparent personal difficulty in taking an objective approach with gay related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what this discussion about your admin action has to do with gays? Youreallycan 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

De wha?? That went from normal to strange in less than a couple posts.VolunteerMarek 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I was also surprised to see that you had reduced the block. I have asked for a review of your unblock on ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no involvement of Fae with an image copyright dispute or a sockpuppetry allegation. Just because WR mounts a smear campaign against an admin doesn't mean that he should be ineligible to weigh in on any case where an editor has made an anti-WR comment, even when those comments are not in any way involved with the block. P.S. I was surprised not to find anything in - was there an investigation? How was it decided that IP was PauloNapolitano anyway? Wnt (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask that in the ongoing ArbCom3 RfC. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A request to relinquish your tools

As far as I can tell you're not one of the admins open to recall. However, in some circumstances I think it is reasonable to invoke the "admins open to recall" procedure even in cases where a particular administrator has not identified themselves as such. This is what I'm doing here. I am asking you to step down as an administrator and run for reconfirmation. I think a good part of the community has lost faith in you as an administrator (though not necessarily a Misplaced Pages editor) and has become uncomfortable with you continuing in your role as an administrator. Of course your contributions to the project are still very much appreciated.

The reasons for this request are as follows:

• You were a subject of a recent RfC/U where several concerns over the way that your confirmation was made were highlighted. As far as I can tell you stayed away from this discussion, which, while commendable in terms of avoiding drama, also left these questions wide open.
• You made a ill-judged decision to unblock an obvious disruptive user simply because s/he was attacking users that you yourself had antagonistic relations with. Using the most charitable of terms this can be described as "cynical". Or in Misplaced Pages language WP:BATTLEGROUND.

In particular, the second aspect illustrates pretty clearly that you either lack the kind of judgement necessary to be an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages, or are not self aware enough to know when to consider yourself "involved" or not.

Of course I am not 100% impartial in this spat (I formed an opinion at some point, while reading through all the archives, and I am expressing it here) - though I've never been in any kind of dispute with you and I very much fall into the category of "uninvolved", as defined by Misplaced Pages (a definition which you yourself invoked recently). If my sense of community feelings is wrong then you will be reconfirmed. But I don't think that would be the case - it's pretty clear that were you to run for adminship right here and now you would not pass by a mile. And that means that this request has merit.

Do the Roman thing.

Thanks.VolunteerMarek 07:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Marek, how would you answer my question above? And I think it is all too clear who started this BATTLEGROUND, and it isn't Fae. The artillery never stops pounding around here, and those rounds aren't outgoing. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And the RfC/U called for his undergoing reconfirmation? No. There were a number of views that agreed that he probably wouldn't have passed if his past had been known (big surprising news there---I opposed his RfA because I feared that possibility.) But the community overwhelmingly passed his RfA... and a small number of people actually called for his undergoing a reconfirmation RfA. In fact, fewer people actively called for a reconfirm than said he didn't need to. Give it a break.---Balloonman 16:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget Balloonman that a large number of people also called the very RFC/U a form of harassment on Fae. That should not be forgotten, especially in certain contexts. Russavia 17:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that falling for PN's trolling is a desysopping offense. Not on en.wiki anyway. PN knew how to push people's buttons. He had plenty of experience doing that on three other wikis, never mind his prior enwiki accounts. Let's AGF that Fæ was AGFing while having seen only part of the picture. At the time when Fæ had reduced the block (to 24 hrs.) the evidence of socking and cross-wiki disruption was not yet public. Luckily for us, the indef reblock was done by an Arbitrator and endorsed by another with a comment to not unblock without contacting ArbCom first. So, at least in this case, we can avoid more public admin-vs-admin drama. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, there was no "admin-vs-admin drama".

The admin giving the previous indef block made it conditional on an explanation and my change of the block was after that condition was met. The original admin supported my action, in writing, on ANI. A more accurate description would be "admin supporting admin non-drama used by long term Misplaced Pages Review supporters and promoters eager to create a BATTLEGROUND". Though I expect you probably know that, as you can be seen following and commenting at every step of these events on ANI.

Yes, the later change to my block appears to have been based on what was non-public information and analysis at the time. Information that it would have been impossible for me as an ordinary administrator to know. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment

Fae, I am sorry that you still seem to be undergoing harassment on enwp, and I am sickened by the fact that the Arbcom is totally spineless in doing anything about it. As someone who has undergone systematic and serial harassment myself in the past on this project, I am just letting you know that this is not on; one would have thought the community would have learned by now; but no, this community really does not give a shit. Ignore the trolls and keep doing what you are doing! Russavia 13:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, it is nice to know there are people around who can see that off-wiki harassment and threats being allowed to propagate onto Wikimedia projects is a serious problem for our whole community. It would be excellent if our processes could improve in a way that can reduce harassment of minority groups and find a way of making contributors in good standing feel they can work with others in a safe and positive environment. Recognizing that anyone making, or encouraging others to make, serious false allegations off-wiki (such as my experience of being called a sexual pervert, fraud, adulterer and naming my husband as part of these allegations) should never be allowed to continue engaging with the same editors they are harassing through their Wikimedia accounts would be a great start. I take your advice seriously and will try to ignore the trolls and the blatant travelling circus that continues to be canvassed off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec):I'll second that. "Sanctimonious twaddle" is one thought that's occurred to me. If inviting someone to fall on their sword, i.e. "do the Roman thing", isn't a personal attack, what is? As I see it, it's just a fancy way of saying "fuck off and die". Nortonius (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to be associated with those who support you. Whenever we have interacted those interactions have always been to the highest standard of behaviour. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)