Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →


Automation

Seriously, if I wanted to "conceal automation" I do not think I would fail. I was building systems to detect the signatures of attacker's IP stacks before a good chunk of ArbCom were born. Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think it is widely acknowledged that you have skills in that area. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal

I personally wish you had not recused yourself from the FG case, in large part because of your own personal prior experience with dealing with the subject, and that you already know a little more about the recent history than others, who will have to wade through the mass of material for the first time. I have never had any reasons to believe you were biased then, and I don't think you would be now. I can, of course, understand your possible concern about the appearance of being prejudiced based on previous actions, but would myself probably prefer it had you not recused. In any event, I salute your integrity. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was to be about the Falun Gong topic itself, then I would not have recused, but it is to be about the editors, as that is what ArbCom does - it looks at user conduct, not at encyclopedic content. I have striven to remain neutral in my views of the editors involved, and tried not to engage closely with anyone. I am somewhat helped in that by being dyslexic, so user names usually do not remain in my head; and I don't court friendships. However, I have found myself over the years inclining toward respect/fondness for at least one of the editors in the list, and while I don't think that would influence my assessment of behaviour, or making a decision on sanctions (it has not previously swayed me in any way), it is possible it would, and it would be inappropriate of me to proceed with that doubt in my mind. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for !voting

at my successful RFA
Thank you, SilkTork/Archive2, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. Tea is good, have you tried maple? Love it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look, and it seems that maple tea is not available in the UK. Shame, as it sounds interesting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

Never seen such a fabulous user page.copying some contents 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you click on Edit on your talkpage, there will appear top right of the edit box two red links Group notice and Page notice. Click on Page notice and then copy and paste this:
{{editnotice | header =Welcome, {{REVISIONUSER}} | headerstyle =font-size: 120%; | text =No rules <br> Just a warm welcome, and a nice cup of tea. | textstyle =font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" | image =[[File:Nice Cup of Tea.jpg|70px]] }}
You can adjust the text and select a different image if you want. Enjoy! SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you need general advice or help with any aspect of editing Wikipedia, then type {{Helpme}} on your talkpage, and someone will attempt to help you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SilkTork. You have new messages at Talk:The Concert in Central Park/GA1.
Message added 11:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GoPTCN 11:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shoot! I hadn't watchlisted it, so totally forgot I took that. As is my habit, I take a bunch of GANs when I have some spare time and motivation, and work through them. I usually take too many and struggle, but this time not only did I take too many, but also I became real busy in real life when we had to take in a friend and her daughter. I still have three left to do, even without this one, so I may just drop it back in the pool with my apologies for the inconvenience and time wasting - but before I do I will take a look to see if it can be passed quickly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working through it now, and - thankfully - it is well written, comprehensive and well sourced, so there shouldn't be too many problems. I'm going to quibble about the images, as I'm doubtful of the value of the Ed Koch photo, and the two concert photos, as these three were not contemporaneous with the topic, and we don't need them anyway. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay banned (suspended)

With the second sentence, "If GoodDay engages in battleground or uncollegial conduct, the ban to be enacted by motion of the Arbitration Committee.", should it not be "the ban can be enacted or will be enacted? It seems to make more sense that way. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 10:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thanks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honky Tonk Heroes

Hello, SilkTork. You have new messages at Talk:Honky Tonk Heroes/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GDuwenTell me! 18:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medway

What on Earth have you been doing with the articles related to Medway? Medway is a unitary authority politically separate from Kent County Council but it most definitely is still in the ceremonial county of Kent and so are all the places within it. Also Medway is a conurbation, not a town or city and therefore your wholesale changing of placenames is erroneous. I say this myself being from Rochester. You have changed so many articles I would appreciate it if you would help reverting them back to their correct state. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medway is not in Kent - it is in the position of a number of places, such as Bromley and Enfield Town, where the administration has changed over the years. It has an anachronistic link to Kent in that the Lieutenancies Act 1997 which linked the Medway Towns with Kent has not been amended, and I have put that information in the articles with citations so people are correctly informed of the situation, so there is nothing to revert back. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My two penn'orth: I've looked at WP:UKPLACE, I've looked at Bromley, I've looked at Enfield Town and I've looked at Kent, and from what I've seen I'm with ChiZeroOne on this one. You yourself say that "the Lieutenancies Act 1997 which linked the Medway Towns with Kent has not been amended": for places in England, WP:UKPLACE begins by saying "[the] usual convention is to use [[placename, ceremonial county]]. For example, Halling, Kent"; it then goes on to say that "district/unitary" is used "[when] further disambiguation is required". I've checked one example, Cliffe, and there seems to be only one place of this name in Kent. Regarding Bromley and Enfield Town, WP:UKPLACE says that "[for] localities within Greater London: [[placename, London]] is used." In the event, Bromley and Enfield Town don't use "London", presumably because disambiguation isn't needed (e.g. the other Bromley north of the river in London is "Bromley-by-Bow"). In the case of Cliffe, therefore, my reading of WP:UKPLACE is that the article should be named "Cliffe, Kent", since it lies in the ceremonial county of Kent and there is no need for further disambiguation. I haven't looked at the other articles which you've moved to "N, Medway", but I think it's pretty clear that they should be moved back to "N, Kent" unless "further disambiguation is required". The fact that you've added information and citations to the articles in question is all to the good, but forgive me if I say that I think you've misunderstood WP:UKPLACE. Really though, I think it would be a good idea to raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, rather than getting into it further here on your talk page, and before insisting on the moves to "N, Medway" – who knows, consensus there might agree with you, and not ChiZeroOne or me! But at least then there'd be a chance for a wider consensus... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that as there is some uncertainty over this issue that it would be worth raising it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the constructive response, I've added to the discussion you started at WikiProject UK geography. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jailhouse Rock

I started working on the article, I'll be assessing your concerns through the week. --GDuwenTell me! 20:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been woring on the cast section, I'm trying to find more details now on the production.--GDuwenTell me! 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tetley's Bitter

Hi. I'm looking to fix up the Tetley's Bitter page. There is a page called Tetley's Brewery which relates to the brewery building, so I would like the name of the Tetley's Bitter page changed to "Tetley's". The Tetley Bitter name does not accurately reflect the page which is about the company. This will not clash with the tea which is Tetley. To further differentiate, the page will begin: Tetley's (Joshua Tetley & Son Ltd). Cheers. Farrtj (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an inappropriate name change took place. The Tetley's Bitter page is about the brewery and was named Tetley's Brewery, but another user split off some material on the brewery to create a standalone article which he called Tetley's Brewery, and he renamed the original article to Tetley's Bitter. The article needs renaming to Tetley's Brewery, and the Tetley's Brewery page needs redirecting back. If you want to develop an article on the brand, then you can do that when you are ready by splitting out from the main article per WP:Summary style. Tetley's Bitter will be a redirect, and you can edit it into an article without admin tools, so just do it when you are ready. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*ping* Not sure if you got the reply on my talk page. Farrtj (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of metaphors

I was following the naming example at List of English language idioms; which I might add I moved from List of idioms in the English language, which is most definitely not concise. I think it's worthwhile to disambiguate the language being used because Wikipedia does describe words that are not English (even though the text itself is written in English). For example, if you want to know grammar for a specific language you wouldn't go to grammar -- you would go to English grammar or Japanese grammar. I do think we will expand into pages like List of Japanese language idioms and List of German language idioms in the future, which would make the disambiguation all the more necessary. And I think the word "language" should be included because English could refer to the country or to Anglo-Saxon culture -- but I can see both sides of the issue. Mostly I'm just concerned with clarifying which language is being described. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, on a totally unrelated note, how did you get the "cup of tea" message when I edit your talk page? I've seen it a few times but it doesn't seem to be in this page's code. Is it a custom JavaScript thing? CaseyPenk (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else asked that the other day - take a look at: User_talk:25_Cents_FC#User_Page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honky Tonk Heroes & Jailhouse Rock

Thanks for your help and for reviewing the articles, once again a great work. Looking forward to more collaborations in the future.--GDuwenTell me! 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fae case

Phobias on enWP pushing editors away

You asked in the Fae ArbCom inquiry if LGBT editors or others have felt pushed away from enWP based on their personal identities. I have worked as a victim advocate and in that work have come across a lot of people's stories of alleged or actual acts of discrimination. I will be the first to concede that some folks see discriminatory behavior where none was intended or committed. I've also committed and seen plenty of discriminatory acts that while not coming from a person anyone would call racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. were no less discriminatory in nature. In other words, it doesn't require a "bigot" to commit an unintended, yet still harmful, act of bigotry.

To answer your question directly, after that disclaimer, yes - I have encountered folks who have felt pushed away from enWP based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristics. I know a lot more people who feel that their contributions have been pushed out because of their LGBT content. It is one of the reasons we founded WikiQueer and a number of supporters have shared related instances with me privately. I encourage folks to speak up on enWP, as I'm not about to take on the task of relaying every person's concern, because I have not experienced that personally and continue to support enWP (which is why WikiQueer tries to promote and encourage its use as well). However, making any claims that folks have not been the targets of anti-LGBT discrimination - regardless of how wonderful the people committing the acts may otherwise be - is simply untrue. I wish folks who felt oppressed felt more confident in speaking up and sharing their concerns - but that's often an outcome of experiencing discrimination - unintended is sometimes worse as the source denies it making you feel even worse..a bigot generally owns up to it. Plus, examples like Fae and folks saying they felt that has happened then being attacked for "labeling folks as bigots" certainly doesn't help.

That said, I've received death threats, had my car vandalized repeatedly, received direct threats in person, been ousted from work at a youth camp, and testified about personal experiences because of my work in LGBT advocacy (I've also been in the oval office, met some cool people, helped put some people in prison and gotten to wear a snazzy police vest because of the work..I'm not complaining) - so I would have no problems taking those claims all the way should it ever happen to me. --Varnent (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Varnent. It would be useful to get evidence of harassment. Could you ask people you know have been harassed on Wikipedia to contact me. They can email me via Wikipedia or directly: silktork@gmail.com SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mirror what Varnent says and give my own perspective. It has long been my policy to stay as far away from ArbCom as possible. If I'm any sort of queen, drama queen is not it. The occasional times I have to visit WP:ANI, I get a slightly sinking feeling in my stomach. I agree with Mary J. Blige in condemning drama.

In response to the question you pose regarding openly gay editors and harassment, I shall say this: I'm an openly gay Wikipedia admin, and I edit under my real name, which is linked to my blog which has a number of posts on LGBT-related themes, and I do occasionally make edits to LGBT-related articles on-wiki (most recently, Ian Buist and Rupert Croft-Cooke), although it isn't a large part of what I do. Personally, I haven't been the victim of any harassment over my sexual orientation on Wikipedia. Which is good. I'm thankful that this is not the case. My desire to not be the subject of any harassment is part of the reason I avoid the drama boards these days with the sort of fervency that Jainists avoid stepping on bugs.

With the greatest respect, the post you've made on the workshop page is not likely to receive the sort of response you wish it to have. Those who have been subject to harassment are not likely to jump in and explain their story in the middle of a contentious ArbCom debate where claims and counter-claims over harassment and homophobia are flying around and make up the subject matter of the case in question. It should be fairly obvious why.

If I had been the subject of sexual orientation-related harassment on the basis of my Wikipedia activities, the absolute last place I'm likely to post about it is in the middle of an ArbCom case of this nature. Having spoken to people who have been the subject of harassment related to their Wikipedia activity (though not on the grounds of them being LGBT), the effect of such harassment is to induce a chilling effect on the sort of behaviour one engages in on-wiki. I hope the Arbitration Committee don't conclude that there is no issue to worry about if nobody answers on the workshop page... it just means that if there is a problem, those suffering the problem have decided to not make a fuss about it in public.

And if you don't get people stepping up to tell you about harassment, I don't blame them. Off-wiki, I'm a campaigning shouting ranting political type on equality and calling out homophobia all over the damn place. But I'm here to build an encyclopaedia, not to fight the next civil rights campaign (see aforementioned dramaphobia). I'm out because I don't like lying about myself by omission, not in order to make myself into a scapegoat. The same is true for LGBT editors generally, both out and not-out.

Do I see problematic behaviour on Wikipedia over gay issues? Well, one little example as an illustration of the issue. I see accusations of people having an agenda quite frequently. Accusing editors of having agendas often breaches WP:AGF, but accusing editors of having a specifically gay agenda (see Homosexual agenda) has a particularly powerful punch. It supports the Big Lie perpetuated by homophobes, that gay people are trying to recruit children, with the underlying accusation that gay people are all menacing paedophiles, card-carrying members of NAMBLA. Are there people who, say, edit war on Wikipedia over the sexual orientation of BLPs? Sure. Do they have an agenda? Sure. But the use of the phrase "gay agenda" or "queer agenda" or whatnot brings to fore this ugly stereotype, which is trotted out time and time again by people who absolutely loathe gay people with every ounce of their being... and that really fucking stings. Plenty of gay people laugh it off, joke about it, even make iPhone apps about it, but underlying it is the worst kind of scaremongering prejudice: "they are coming for your children".

Anyway, just my perspective. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Every response is helpful. My email is enabled so people can contact me in private if they wish. I'd like to feel that Wikipedians can write a little bit about themselves on their userpage without fear of being ridiculed or harassed for it. I am particularly concerned when Ash/Fae says that there was a concerted effort to stalk him and drive him off Wikipedia purely because he was gay. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a gay man who has been on the receiving end of homophobic abuse on Wikipedia. Nevertheless I do feel that allegations of homophobia are often misused on Wikipedia. See e.g. [1]. I think it's perfectly possible to not be homophobic and at the same time consider that there is far too much pornography, including gay pornography, on Wikipedia [content moved] --Peter cohen (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with DC

Extended content
SilkTork, since I am the editor most closely associated with Fæ's claims of harassment, I would like to publicly reply here. I am on record as acknowledging that Fæ has been the target of homophobic attacks, but this type of discussion appears to be exactly what Sir Fozzie's rules of evidence in the RFAR were designed to prevent. Fæ has made a number of unsubstantiated claims. While I would agree that some of them have a basis in actual statements, I also know that some of them are gross exaggerations or complete misinterpretations. The one quote that I recognize as a reference to one of my own comments ("risky sexual practices"), I have already taken pains to explain that it is in reference to bondage and domination practices and has absolutely nothing to do with being gay. Shown in context, it would be obvious that it is also a hypothetical statement, not a statement I actually made about Fæ. In his original statement in the RFAR, Fæ wrote "speculation about my sex life and HIV status was posted by DC on ANI". I have never speculated about Fæ's HIV status on ANI, on Wikipedia Review, in private emails, or anywhere else. I have not speculated about his HIV status anywhere, publicly or privately, nor would I. Fæ knows his statement to be false, even if he mistakenly thought it to be true the first time he made the allegation. I do not condone harassment of editors based on sexual identity, but given Fæ's tendency to prevaricate, dissemble, and distort, it is difficult for me to view Fæ's particular case as representative. My dispute with Fæ has come about because of his actions, not his sexual identity. MBisanz started a request for arbitration because of Fæ's failure to engage in dispute resolution. We seem to have gotten seriously off-track here, which can be attributed directly to Fæ and his supporters making his sexual identity an issue when it really is nothing more than a distraction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Delicious carbuncle's link to his "risky sexual practices" explanation was useful. Comments such as "Would you appoint this man as the trustee of a charity?" clarifies for me Fae/Ash's position that his harassment is due to his Wikimedia activities, and also clarifies his belief that his sexuality was being used against him in an attempt to discredit him. I take on board Delicious carbuncle's observation that the image being talked about was a self-loaded image, and his comment that the reference to "risky sex" was in relation to bondage activities in apparently public places, rather than homosexual activities; though his later comment in the same thread, regarding that it is "unlikely that Fæ is unaware of von Gloeden's [paedophilia] associations", is unpleasantly speculative, and even if done with the good faith intention of attracting the attention of people involved in Wikimedia UK to some dubious or inappropriate behaviour by one of their prominent members, the way it has been done would give the appearance to reasonable viewers that this is a personal attack, and that the person's sexuality was being unnecessarily used against them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, allow me to reintroduce the context of the rhetorical question that you have singled out: "If the man in that image is Van Haeften, what does that say about his attitude toward risk? Would you appoint this man as the trustee of a charity? Would he make a good treasurer?". These are questions posed to the reader in a discussion of hypotheticals. In regard to my supposition about Fæ's knowledge of Wilhelm von Gloeden, you inserted the word "paedophilia" which I did not use. In the same WR thread that the original comments came from I said "I do not recall anyone seriously accusing Van Haeften of being a paedophile, nor do I think there is any basis for that charge, flying fishes notwithstanding. I think the old user page was brought up in relation to a discussion on Commons wherein Fæ stood shoulder to shoulder with Sue Gardener in proposing that user pages should not display, well, such things as naked youths fingering fishes". It would be nice if both sides of this dispute could have their comments and actions viewed in good faith, at very least by Arbs who allow the RFAR rules of evidence to be flouted on their talk pages. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I inserted paedophilia in the quote: "... Wilhelm von Gloeden, who has a known association with paedophilia (as any Google search will show) ... it is unlikely that Fæ is unaware of von Gloeden's associations".

Other matters

Extended content
Could you point out the RFAR rules of evidence which prevent or restrict discussion of the case on my talkpage - I have not read all the case pages yet, and am just getting into the case, doing the background reading, etc, so if I'm doing wrong I would certainly welcome you putting me right. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. ~~ First section notes. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link Fasttimes, but you've linked to the whole page, and I've scanned it again and I don't see where it says that the case shouldn't be discussed on someone's talkpage. Can you cut and paste the wording for me? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that Fasttimes has misunderstood "These rules will apply on all case-related pages, which explicitly include talk pages.". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Whether or not an involved arbitrators talk page is case related is unclear. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

someone who has been active in that area is not the best person to be in a public-facing role in a Wikipedia-related charity especially if they had a picture taken by a well-known pederast on their user page.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cohen, you have previously complained to Wikimedia UK and as advised before, you should use the Whistle-blowing Policy to raise any complaint about my competence as a trustee with Jon Davis, the Chief Executive. I had assumed that your previous meeting and complaints raised with Jon Davis addressed issues you had at that time. If you have new issues to raise about my suitability as a charity trustee, then Wikipedia is not the right place to raise them, certainly this is outside of SilkTork's remit. Please use Whistle-blowing Policy as linked, it is an independent process which will raise any serious concerns with the charity trustees. If you would like your unredacted letter on the 12th January to Nicolas Besly, Lords clerk, to be forwarded to Arbcom as evidence, as I feel the explanation about your background it includes would go a long way to providing context for Arbcom in this case, please let Jon Davis know at the same time. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

SilkTork, the von Gloeden image is indeed problematic, as it is a highly sexualized image of a youth. I have been the most critical of that image, and I've detailed why in response to a Wnt on my talk page. However, I don't recall any one saying that the image was used to promote paedophilia. Rather the comments have been that its usage on a WP talk page demonstrated an astonishing lack of judgement. Whilst there have been suggestions that the image is not sexualized, those suggestions are wrong. Even if one discounts the Tiberius and Capri connection, of the 100s of images von Gloeden images held WP that image is of almost the youngest model, and the most explicitly sexual of all of them. The image is even the one chosen to illustrate the NAMBLA page on von Gloeden. My opinion is that it was used on the talk page as a NOTCENSORED poke at his critics. Possibly in light of Tom Morris' statement above with the intent to elicit homophobic comments. John lilburne (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not just Nambla who connect von Gloeden with pederasty. Just look at whose picture appears first in Pederasty and what the caption says about him.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Fae

I think you are going by my statement "I am a long term active supporter of the Wikimedia movement who happens to be openly gay, and as a result I have been subject to nasty on-wiki and off-wiki homophobic attacks, stalking and abuse in sustained attempts to frighten me off the projects". This was not intended as a claim that I was being driven off Wikipedia "purely" because I am gay. There is no doubt that threats on-wiki and allegations off-wiki have been judged by many others as homophobic. The trouble with paraphrasing my statement with the word "purely", is that if someone keeps bringing up my being gay (such as allegations of "risky sexual practices") when discussing what may be seen as relevant Wikipedia complaints, then it is easy to claim that is not "purely" a campaign of hounding intending to be homophobic, but it still may be unnecessarily pandering to homophobic views. --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment Fae. Could you clarify it a little for me. I got the impression from your statement that you were saying you were getting "homophobic attacks", and that this was "as a result" of being "openly gay". Have I got that wrong, and what you are saying is that the attacks on you were because you are an "active supporter of the Wikimedia movement", and the people who are attacking you are disenfranchised from Wikipedia (or are anti-Wikipedia in some way), and that they are acting you as an active member, and they are using homophobic comments as a way of upsetting you? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a long term active support of the Wikimedia movement including being a trustee of a Wikimedia charity, handling relationships with institutions such as the British Library and having addressed UK Parliament attracts its own attention. I fully accept that and have positively encouraged those with complaints to follow the independent whisle-blowing process if they have complaints about me in my professional capacity. Indeed, the UK charity and the Charity Commission have received complaints about me and investigated them completely independently of my involvement, a process I understand and support as part of the enforcement of standards expected of any charity trustee.
When allegations off-wiki using my full legal name and that of my husband include false claims of promoting paedophile images, false claims of protecting paedophiles, false claims of adultery with other gay men, false claims of gay related sexual perversions and then the same people who create or create the discussions for such allegations are seen actively pursuing me across Wikimedia projects and, in that pursuit, gay related claims are repeated, then most people, including professionals in the police, Stonewall and victim support identify that as a problem with harassment and in particular they see this as homophobic harassment. In terms of being upset, yes, how could I not be stressed after asking for help and advice over a period of more than six months, following the advice I have been given, yet seeing no related warning or sanction on-wiki against those using off-wiki websites in this long term pattern and at the same time being officially obliged to repeat and highlight that material in a public case on Wikipedia. The case itself is encouraging development of material off-wiki that I find harassing and distressing, something that should concern Arbcom in the way sensitive matters involving the personal lives of Wikimedians ought to be handled.
I'm going to take a break from this RFAr for a day. I am aware of some other questions and I want to give myself a little emotional pause before thinking about them. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

I think this discussion is a good example of the subtle hounding I have experienced. I used an amusing image of a topless young man holding a fish with the caption "sometimes a fish is just a fish" on my user page 3 years ago. The image did not have a penis in it, as at that time the image was cropped at the waist. Later on, when I no longer used the image, it was changed on commons by someone else to be a full length nude, including a non-erect penis. This does not make me a paedophile, or a pederast, or a NAMBLA supporter no matter how many times these words are repeated in a tar-brushing abusive campaign. I did not include the image in order to attract homophobic abuse as appears to be claimed here. Who the hell would choose to be a victim of cyber-bullying? The same claims about this image were made and de-bunked on the talk page of the 2012 RFC/U against me, the same RFC/U that the same people making the claims here took part in. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is unpleasant that people are speculating about your use of the image, though you would perhaps agree that use of the image, in retrospect, was unfortunate. While we have our ideals for Wikipedia, the reality is that Wikipedia is not a club or society - it is a very public website, and everything posted on your userpage is made public and can be turned against you. This is not to say that people should, but once posted they have been given the opportunity to do so. This is also not to say that when people do make personal attacks and are brought to account for it, they will be allowed to get away with it. But recognition of how one's own even innocent actions can be used and abused can be helpful in preventing future problems. There is, it has to be recognised, a difference between a personal attack, and open discussion about your use of images on your userpage. While there is a restriction on speculation on the case pages, and there is a question as to whether such a restriction applies to the talkpage of an active Arb, it is not going to be reasonable to restrict legitimate discussion of the use and implications of that image throughout Wikipedia. I understand and sympathise with your frustration at the situation (as you say, it was a long time ago, and the later changes to the image were beyond your control), and will ask that people now stop mentioning it on my talkpage (I will collapse the above and remove any future mentions). SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that some of the claims here are documented, but there's more that fall under the rule "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to back it up, so please be VERY careful when making such comments to fully back them up. SirFozzie (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this in reference to "subtle hounding" and "a tar-brushing abusive campaign"? Yes, perhaps better wording could have been used, though I take Fae's point that what has been occurring on my talkpage could be read as hounding, and I am keen now to discourage usage of my talkpage as an out spill of the case pages because of the way matters have unfolded here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise

Hi there. I was wondering if you could have a look at the history of these two articles :

1 and 2.

I think the admin is abusing his admin right. pays no attention to my edit summary ( talk page ) and claims that a very well known book is unreliable. And the worst is that he is threatening to block me !!!

Thanking you in anticipation. In fact 08:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another thing, I beieve he is Wiki Hounding me. He appears anywhere I edit, and opposes me. I have already asked him not to do so. But he keeps on doing that. In fact 09:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look, and there seems to be some history between you two. I wasn't able to make a judgement on the recent edits just by looking at them - it would require studying the subject and reading some sources. I don't have the time at the moment to spare to go into that kind of depth as there are ArbCom matters for me to deal with, and I'd like to keep some spare time on Wikipedia for myself - both for any research I need to do, and also just to do some edits as a pastime. I will keep your request on my talkpage though, to remind me to look into when I get the time. Meanwhile, as regards the edits themselves and the revert, you could try an initial polite, neutral discussion with Future Perfect, and if that doesn't get anywhere, ask for a WP:Third opinion or WP:Editor assistance. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have always tried to be polite. (That is for sure the first rule.) So perhaps we could work on this case some time in future. Regards, In fact 09:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_6&oldid=1036552562"