User:Slaunger/Sandbox/A review of past interactions between Fæ and Colin

This page is a work in progress page, not an article or policy, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. Please offer suggestions on the talk page.

The purpose of this page is to provide a review of past interactions between Colin and Fæ. It is intended to be used as background material for finding a good and fair solution to the dispute between the users currently discussed at Bureaucrats Noticeboard. My original motivation for involving myself was a request I have received offline from Colin, first to defend Colin in a situation where he had been block controversially by Ellin Beltz, and later he has asked me offline to try and mediate in the dispute in order to find a long term solution. Although it is my intent to provide a both balanced and unbiased review, I cannot rule out if I have a sub-conscious bias as it is evident that I have been defending Colin, and I should also make it clear that also I regularly communicate with him privately about Commons and life in general, as I find his views interesting, similar to the many other friendships I have on Commons. Still, I think I am quite capable of forming my own independent opinion.

I originally only intended to review interaction about a year back, as it is seldomly constructive to keep on repeating issues further back. However, I have found there are so many direct or more subtle references to past controversies, that it is difficult to understand what has heppened more recently unless some interactions as old as three years are included as well.

2013-03, Nordic cooperation, March

In March 2013 Colin places a friendly note on on Fæ’s talk page thanking Fæ for uploading a series of excellent pictures from http://norden.org. They discuss how the pictures can be used and how the descriptions and categorization can be improved. A very positive discussion. Just to mention that these two users have previously been capable of working well together in a most constructive manner. The fruitful cooperation continued at Tidying up Norden.org.

My observations

A long time ago, in a online community called Commons, there was peace between Colin and Fæ.

2013-11, Kelvin and Aren NSFW discussion

In November 2013, Fæ nominated a (for some NSFW) picture of a full frontal nude gay couple at as a featured picture candidate in this nomination page. It has already been mentioned earlier in the discussion by Christian Ferrer, but the discussion we have had about it here does not really focus on the Colin vs Fæ issue IMO.

Here Colin replaced the image on the nomination page with a link, arguing it was NSFW with the explanatory comment.

 Comment I have replaced the image with a link. I have no problem with such works on Commons or being reviewed for FP but a general forum like FPC should remain "safe for work" (or safe for viewing while my in-laws are visiting!). I appreciate the lack of image makes the nomination harder-work but hope you understand. Not everyone here is reviewing images in the privacy of their own study, and could face significant embarrassment or even disciplinary action for viewing this.

In follow-up comments Saffron Blaze agrees it is NSFW, A.Savin disagrees. Fæ reacts by asking for feedback on what images are to be censored in nominations, and regarding NSFW question, he writes

...Nudity itself is not really "NSFW" in my view, this was a life study image, and an obviously gay one, but not a sexually explicit image or even an erotic one in my view...

Colin replies, where he disagrees with seeing this as censorship, and he makes an reference to how images are categorized on flickr. Here full frontal nudity is "restricted", in which case previews are replaced with links on flickr. Another definition from flickr is "If you would hesitate to show your photos or videos to a child, your mum, or Uncle Bob". Furthermore, Colin argues that in an open office work environment viewing such images could lead to disciplinary actions, so it is best to apply a precautionary principle and link instead of showing explicltly.

Fæ reverts Colin and his reply contains this statement

A few simple points, from someone who happens to be the most active contributor to Wikimedia Commons this month:...

In what follows, Fæ argues what Colin has done is censorship and he refers to the project scope policy on Commons:Project scope#Censorship, and he rejects the NSFW argument for hiding the content until Colin has managed to reach community consensus via an RFC. He also comments on the flickr recommendation

...Thank you for your concern for my family, but my mother would not be in the least bit offended by this life study shot of a gay couple that is more romantic than erotic. If you are offended by it, I'm afraid that is your problem, not Wikimedia Commons' problem to hide it from you or your mum.

Colin attempts to clarify on Fæ’s talk what his objectives with the statements

I hope you understand my edit here isn't out of personal prudishness or some anti-porn crusade. Thanks.

and in a follow-up message

We've got on well in the past. Please don't make this a battle. It isn't about censorship at all. I just plain can't participate at FPC if such images are on display 5"x5". My morality has nothing to do with it. I have no problem with the image.

Although Fæ finds it hard to follow Colin's line of thought in this, he does comment

...I am happy to write this off as a misunderstanding of English, however I can only go by what has been written.

Jkadavoor joins the discussion at Fæ's talk page, and tries to explain the FPC process, appraising him for his efforts for the LGBT community, but also with a recommendation to revert his unhiding of the image.

Fæ responds with

I am afraid this does just look like prudishness... If yourself or Colin wish to establish a special practice of censorship on FPC, then please do run a RFC to establish a consensus for doing so which includes an unambiguous description of exactly what is to be censored. There are past example of artworks featuring (non-gay) nudity which were not censored, so this should be discussed by the community to ensure consistent practices for censorship that can be seen to be fairly applied and that have an independent process of appeal should there be a challenge.

and in a follow-up

...If we are in the position that explicit homoerotic artworks such as the Warren Cup can be put on public display by the British Museum, in full view of children, yet on Commons any gay related nudity would be censored, then the Commons start to look more oppressive than most governments.

Colin objects to basically all the claims, specifically he makes it clear his motivation for using a courtesy link to the image is not related to the gay content of the image

...I'm disappointed you continue to use the "censored" word and that you choose to ignore my request to not inflame this into a battle over censorship. I'm disappointed you are trying to turn this into a Gay-rights issue when there's not even the slightest hint that is the problem here (I'd most certainly do the same for a similar image of two women, or man and woman)... I have in the past argued strongly for displaying difficult pictures (e.g. Smallpox on Wikipedia) but appreciate the need to show editorial judgement. I'm simply asking for some respect in return. I don't see why using a courtesy link rather than displaying the image in the FPC list is some great censorship issue....

Fæ response contains

...I am the co-founder of Wikimedia LGBT and Commons is my primary project. You can expect me to ask questions and to be concerned about use of Wikimedia projects where gay subjects are being suppressed or where LGBT volunteers are having problems contributing. Whether this was your intention or not, if this non-sexual photograph is suppressed, then Commons would appear to be allowing the censorship of a gay artwork.

Meanwhile it is not going so well with the nominated image, as a lot of FPC regulars opposes it due to a technical issue with with bad focus - noone objects about the content. At a point, the {{FPX}} template is added by a regular, which indicate that unless the nomination gets a support within the next 24 hours, it can be speedy closed as declined. In disagreement with the general rule #9 Fæ contests contests this call for a speedy decline, whereafter another regular adds another FPX template, which is again contested by Fæ. This is reverted by Russavia explaining in the edit summary that the nominator cannot contest this speedy decline and Russavia elaborates in a follow-up comment. In the end it is speedy declined as no-one supports the nomination except the nominator.

In yet another attempt Colin explains the decline of the nomination is solely due to technical issues

... You may be interpreting the negative voting for some anti-LGBT conspiracy but this not the case.

Fæ comments again that support for censorship should pass an RFC, and he intends to open one himself, which he does shortly thereafter here. It turned into one long heated argument between Colin and Fæ, and was closed quite rapidly due its biased wording ("censoring").

In parallel to this Colin opened a discussion at FPC talk about Safe for Work candidates. After some initial strong opposes referring to COM:NOTCENSORED, Fæ writes to Colin on his talk page

If you did not want to force a community discussion to reach a consensus on this point, then you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me without discussing it with the community first....

This increasingly upsets Colin, who comments

...I have treated this image no differently to that of any image of any sexuality by any Commons user. I am disgusted that you think you deserve special treatment.

and later in the day Colin express his frustration

...Fæ, as far as I'm concerned, you are a guy who uploads a lot of photographs for the benefit of Commons, who I've worked with in the past and added hundreds of them to Wikipedia. I couldn't and shouldn't give a damn what your sexuality is and what kind of image you want featured. Your comment "you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me" is essentially I picked the wrong fight with the wrong guy. I was under the impression we were wikifriends, hence my friendly note to you. You've just escalated this to some major battle about censorship and suppression of gay artwork, and been quite horrible to me....

Colin later posts a long comment at FPC talk, which tries to make a point that the picture was rejected due to quality concerns by listing all the users who have agreed this is the real issue with the nomination. In the end of it Colin writes

Ouch, that's gotta hurt. Take your conspiracy-theory and go have fun with it on Jimbo's talk page where it belongs. The benefits of considerate nominations and a courteous respectful attitude towards fellow reviewers vastly outweigh the points scored by flaunting our lack of restraint.

Dschwen enters the discussion and proposes an opt-in solution with a gadget, where NSFW images can be hidden from direct view at FPC if you have actively enabled it.

This does not stop Fæ though from repeating himself

...Colin's unsupported action in censoring an LGBT artwork... this action of suppression of a gay artwork on the basis of arbitrary personal tastes...

Dscwhen comes to Colin's defense

Uh.. what? Are you trying to pull the "homophobe card" here? Per Occams razor I'd say it is pretty clear that this image would qualify as NSFW because the guy has his freaking dick out for god's sake! I fail to see how the LGBT aspect is even remotely relevant in this matter.

Meanwhile, Dscwhen has developed the opt-in solution fully, and people users generally support this compromise solution. Fæ does not miss another oppurtunity though to repeat again

...There is no definition of NSFW on Commons. At the moment we only have Colin's undefined moral viewpoint, which at the moment has only censored one gay artwork.

Next, Fæ makes this comment

...Given the level of abusive and misleading "parody" and general hostility towards me by FPC regulars after I made clear my complaint about the direct censorship of a gay artwork, I doubt that FP candidates will show a balance of diversity with regard to LGBT subjects and culture any time soon. The discussion here certainly will not encourage other openly gay contributors to our projects to take part in this process...

and elaborates

I certainly leave this feeling dirtier for being such an active supporter and contributor to this project and convinced that there is a deeply unpleasant underlying cultural problem here that has been quickly swept under the carpet by using me as the handy scape-goat, rather than being taken seriously and resolving it

Dschwen expresses a critique

What really get me riled up here is that this all seems to be just a game to you. You argue like a person that has fun arguing. You are pulling dirty rhetoric tricks, rather than try to argue on the subject. You make blatantly obvious insinuations about Colin's motives being anti-gay. And when you are called out about it you cry foul. This is plain dishonest!

After a lot of objections from Fæ and Niabot, consensus for the opt-in gadget was reached. Fæ contested the closure and asked for a wider discussion at the village pump.

My observations

There are two parallel discussions taking place here.

1. A community discussion, which relates to the subjective topic of what kind of media files, if any, are to be considered Not safe for work (NSFW), and if deemed NSFW, how to handle such media files in certain contexts.
2. A discussion between Colin and Fæ, who disagrees strongly on the use of the word "censorship" vs "courtesy linking"/"editorial judgement", what is "SFW" and "NSFW", and seeing negative reviews as being due to topic being gay-related, nominated by an openly gay user in an FPC-community having a deeply unpleasant underlying cultural problem (Fæ) vs bad technical quality (Colin and all other reviewers).

The constructive community discussion

Regarding the NSFW discussion, Colin is at one end of the spectrum seeing a particular full frontal nudity image of a gay couple nominated at FPC as a clearly NSFW image, immediately replacing it with a "courtesy link", being bold without asking for community consensus, whereas Fæ sees it as a clear case of "censorship", and disagrees the image is NSFW, and objects to making such a "suppression". There is nothing unsual in disagreeing strongly about a particular matter such as this, as it is subjective, and we have no established policies within the area. What is also normal is that users bring worth their arguments and own perspectives, and if one is willing to show empathy with the opponents viewpoint, it is often possible to bride gaps, or get a better mutual understanding.

As this part of the discussion evolves, a number of other users add their views, and it turns out that there is an about a fifty-fifty distribution, between users, who find it is preferable to use "courtesy linking" to avoid embarassment and possible diciplinary actions in an open office work environment as Colin has done, and the other half (approximately) being of the opinion that it is censorship or a slippery slope towards censorship, rejecting that it could be warranted to "suppress" such an image. I think this shows that there is a lot of ambiguity and subjectivity the handling of possible NSFW material, and none of the parties can be said to be "right". It is just different opinions, and that is OK.

Then Dschwen gets an excellent idea for a compromise solution. He makes an opt-in gadget, which you can actively enable. If enabled, it will have the effect that if an image on the FPC nomination page is embedded in a {{Nsfw}} template, you will see a collapsed box, indicating the image is NSFW, and if you click it to open the collapsed view you see the initially hidden content, thus giving those users for which it is a problem to view such images in an open office environment an oppurtunity to avoid it in that environment, for all other users, for all other image, it will be business as usual, where the image is shown. Once the initial confusion over how this actually works is clarified, a significant majority of users, including Colin, but certainly not including Fæ embrace this solution and it is approved for use in the FPC project. A good example of how an compromise solution can be reached taking the opposite views into account.

The destructive Colin/Fæ interaction

From the very onset of the discussion, Fæ is very critical against Colin's original replacement of an image with a link. He insists on calling it "censorship" throughout the discussion, despite Colin's repeated objections to using that term - Colin prefers to call it "courtesy linking" or "editorial judgement" instead. Early in the discussion, Fæ attempts to belittle Colin "from someone who happens to be the most active contributor to Wikimedia Commons this month" and he consequently mentions the gay content of the image, indicating this has a special meaning. Although Colin repeatedly states calmly in several discussions, that his underlying motivation for his edit was solely due to the full frontal nudity, which he perceived NSFW, and that it has nothing to do with being a prude, on an anti-porn crusade, or against gay content.

However, Fæ persists in first subtly indicating that Colin did what he did due to the gay content. This is clearly bad faith. Even when Colin re-assures that if the image had shown a man and a female, he would have done the same, Fæ refuses. Fæ continues with the remarkable comment "I am the co-founder of Wikimedia LGBT and Commons is my primary project. You can expect me to ask questions and to be concerned about use of Wikimedia projects where gay subjects are being suppressed or where LGBT volunteers are having problems contributing.". Fæ has repeated over and over again that he has not explicitly called another user "homophobic", and I think that is correct, but here he is repeatedly using association fallacies, which is "guilt by association" of the form:

• An image has gay content.
• The image was uploaded by an "openly gay" user.
• Colin considers the image NSFW, suppressing it.

Ergo (guilt by association):

• Colin will suppress images with gay content uploaded by an openly gay user.
• Colin gives LGBT contributors problems contributing.

These rhetoric tricks by Fæ are used to insinuate that Colin's motives are anti-gay, further upsetting Colin and baiting him into accusing Fæ of accusing him of homophobia; a claim which Fæ can dismiss, as he has never called anyone "homophobic". By using the repeated association fallacies, Fæ systematically attacks Colin's integrity in the project and damages his reputation. As a further provocation, Fæ opens an RFC with a biased wording, which further upsets Colin.

Over the course of the nomination, the image receives a lot of decline votes all using the argument that the technical quality of the photo is far below featured picture standards. Fæ interrupts a well-described speedy decline process twice in violation of the guidelines, possibly due to his inexperience with the process. Colin makes a spiteful comment about the fate of the nomination ("Ouch, that's gotta hurt. Take your conspiracy-theory and go have fun with it on Jimbo's talk page where it belongs. The benefits of considerate nominations and a courteous respectful attitude towards fellow reviewers vastly outweigh the points scored by flaunting our lack of restraint."). Fæ now extends his insinuations towards Colin about anti-gay behavior to cover the entire FPC community with statements like "Given the level of abusive and misleading "parody" and general hostility towards me by FPC regulars after I made clear my complaint about the direct censorship of a gay artwork, I doubt that FP candidates will show a balance of diversity with regard to LGBT subjects and culture any time soon. The discussion here certainly will not encourage other openly gay contributors to our projects to take part in this process" and I certainly leave this feeling dirtier for being such an active supporter and contributor to this project and convinced that there is a deeply unpleasant underlying cultural problem here that has been quickly swept under the carpet by using me as the handy scape-goat,...

A wiki-friendship ends here. Colin is left feeling he has been unfairly treated with accusations of anti-gay behaviour hidden in association fallacies expressed by a user, who he feels is fundamentally dishonest. Fæ is (for a reason I really, really do not understand) refusing to believe a word of what Colin has said about his intentions. He is assuming bad faith consistently throughout, and is not capable of separating a difference of opinion of how to handle NSFW from a perceived anti-gay crusade. It also appears that Fæ feels his nomination has been unfairly treated in the review by the entire FPC community, and that the declines due to technical quality in reality is just a bad excuse of not appreciating the gay content. For unknown reasons, Fæ seems to believe his contributions are getting an unfair negative treatment due to his sexuality. I fail to see any evidence that this is the case.

But, really, is this all relevant? It happened more than three years ago! I think it is, as discussion that followed somehow kept referring back to this incident directly or indirectly.

2013-11, Kelvin and Aren spin-off discussions

The NSFW discussion above gave rise to a majority in the COM:FPC to support the introduction of a new gadget, which allowed users to actively opt-in, to hide NSFW content in a default collapsed box in FPC nominations if they had been explicitly embedded in a {{Nsfw}} template. With one click it would be shown. For all other users, there would be no hiding of content. A few users contested this consensus, Fæ being the most vocal in a series of follow-up discussions.

Please remove the "nsfw" featured pictures discussion image hiding gadget from User Preferences

• Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/11#Please remove the "nsfw" featured pictures discussion image hiding gadget from User Preferences

Fæ opens this discussing with the following with a clear bad faith assumption about a 'politically/socially conservative viewpoint' for having the opt-in gadget.

This gadget only applies to the small number of people that take part in discussions at Featured picture candidates, it cannot be used anywhere else on Commons. There is no community accepted definition of what images this might be applied to. It is redundant and bereft of life, with no value for the vast majority of commons users, see table of usage below. User Preferences should be focused on gadgets that are likely to be of use to the majority, not become a shop front to promote gadgets that do little more than lobby for a politically/socially conservative viewpoint.

The italized part was later struck by Fæ as Colin objected to this allegation. Fæ gave this reason for striking the comment

Remark struck, just to mollify you as a self-confessed non-prude.

Discussion is closed after Dschwen rearrange the gadget into a sub-projects section. Other users agree it is valuable.

Opt-in gadget proposed to defer the immediate display of certain candidate images on COM:FPC

Being unsuccesful with the above discussion, Fæ tries again at

• Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/11#Opt-in gadget proposed to defer the immediate display of certain candidate images on COM:FPC

Here he expresses concerns over the availability of the gadget for all users, although it is only intended for FPC. No other users share the concern, as it is an opt-in gadget, which is not enabled by default.

Deletion discussion about the nsfw template

• Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nsfw

Opened by odder expressing concerne over the governance of such a template. The discussion attracts a lot of users, who, with a few exceptions says 'keep' once they understand how it works. At a point a user asks for examples of images the template could be relevant for. At this point Colin and Fæ begins to argue again along the exact same lines as the FPC discussion. Fæ repeats over and over again that the image is 'gay', Colin says it is NSFW due to its full frontal nudity. Colin objects strongly to the insinuations that he had any anti-gay objectives. Eventually russavia closes the discussion with 'keep'.

How LGTB-friendly is Commons' featured picture process?

• Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/11#How LGBT friendly is Commons' featured pictures process?

Fæ sets the scene which this statement

After a disastrous first experience with raising a gay life study photo on Featured picture candidates, resulting in it being the first photograph in the history of featured picture candidates to be censored from view, I am interested in finding out how easy it is to get LGBT culture or LGBT history photos listed as a featured picture.

So, he insists on relating the supression of the image with gay content, and he persists in calling it censoring.

In what follows, Fæ argues that by counting the of featured pictures which has an LGBT content, it is possible to see if LGBT content is suppressed. Colin is critical about counting can be used to assess this point, but invests a long time in browsing thorugh all existing FPs and find a few examples of what may be LGBT related. Fæ argues that one POTD/year with LGBT content would be at the level he would expect for an LGBT-friendly process. Colin argues

What makes you think the LGBT contributors don't also take/nominate photographs of butterflies and birds and mountains and buildings? People-images in general are under-represented to the point where any statistical comment on their proportions is meaningless.

At this stage Fæ expresses a wish to cease further communication with Colin about this topic, stating

As we appear to be going over old ground and I have reasons to avoid unnecessary stress, I have now added you to my mute list, so apologies in advance for not reading any more of these sorts of questions you may have. If you feel something seriously needs my attention, feel free to drop me an email or encourage someone else to raise a similar point. Thanks.

In what follows, all other users (pere prlpz, A.Savin, Conti, and Saffron Blaze) fail to see that there is any evidence for systemic bias against LGBT-related images in the FPC process.

In the process Fæ mentions Fanny and Stella - a historically interesting image with LGBT content.

Fanny and Stella FPC

• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Park and Boulton (Fanny and Stella) restored.jpg

Encouraged by Jkadavoor, Fæ nominates a rare photo from 1869 of two female impersonators, who were originally on trial accused for being homosexuals. Only one in 5000 pictures on Commons becomes featured and the nominated image is with its 0.84 Mpixels below the recommended minimum size of 2 Mpixels. Despite the low resolution, it gets support from several reviewers - enough to be promoted. Regulars at FPC will know it is very rare that an image with such low resolution gets support - it indicates that the historical and rare nature of the photo is seen as a strong mitigating reason by many reviers. However, two reviewers oppose. Adam Cuerden thinks a greater effort should be done to find a larger resolution scan. Fæ does try that during the process, but to no avail. Colin also opposes the nomination arguing that with 0.84 Mpixels it has lower resolution than any other historical photo that has been promoted, moreover the technical quality is not on par with 'the finest of the finest' images.

Although Fæ has not nominated the image with any reference to the underlying LGBT-theme being a motivation, an anonymous reviewer (it is most likely Adam Cuerden, forgetting to log in) comments

...Your heart's in the right place, but, if the point is to add LGBT images to FP, may I point out that the decadent art movement of the late 19th century did a lot of boundaries-pushing work....

and later Jebulon, who supports the image adds

...I don't support this picture because of an assumed need of LGBT pictures in FP list (we have already at least designs by Niabot in japanese style, for instance). I support this picture because it is nice and interesting, and historicaly very valuable and rare, per Saffron Blaze. The point cannot be "to add LGBT images to FP", because this should be using "Commons" in an activist (and therefore non neutral) way....

At a point, where there it is likely that the nomination will be promoted, Fæ withdraws with the comment

Having had a couple of days to think about it, I am increasingly unhappy with the nature of discussion on this page and personal comments about my motivation elsewhere. When nominating this rare photograph from 1869, which I originally uploaded in July without any thought of Featured pictures, I had presumed that "Above all, be polite" would extend to not making slurs against the nominator. Comments of particular concern are:

• "special pleading" — I am not on trial for a crime, I do not feel the need to plead a case.
• The point cannot be "to add LGBT images to FP", because this should be using "Commons" in an activist (and therefore non neutral) way. — I proposed this image due to its historic and cultural value, yes this may help address a lack of LGBT cultural images in FP, I did not expect my viewpoint or any that appear later with LGBT subject material, to be marginalized as gay activism. If the LGBT community at some point nominate a heap of FP quality images, I expect this to be welcomed and encouraged rather treated with scepticism.

Thanks to reviewers supporting this photograph, but I would rather it pass based on a mellow discussion about its merits rather than on a review spotted with pointed jibes on the record at my expense. Not worth it.

Colin responds

You've done nothing but make unjustified slurs against the reviewers here. Good riddance I say.

My observations

In the aftermath of the Kevin and Aren FPC, Fæ vehemently tries to oppose and challenge the consensus that formed at COM:FPC about having an opt-in gadget as a possibility for those wishing to defer display of NFSW images at COM:FPC. Fæ continues to repeat that the photo had 'gay' content insinuating this was the actual reason for hiding the image, despite repeated objections and lack of evidence. In the process, he also portrays the FPC as not welcoming to newcomers, and appears to believe FPC community has a systmetic bias wrt LGBT images, which upsets several FPC regulars. Fæ states he believes the gadget relects a politically/socially conservative viewpoint, which is later striked, but it appears not regretted.

Again, this is a long time ago, but the persistent bad faith from Fæ added to further cool-down a previous productive wiki-friendship between the two users. Colin appears increasingly bitter, and he is loosing patience. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

2013-11 Photo challenge initiative

• Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/11#Photo competition

Colin proposes a Commons Photo competition, later initiated as Commons:Photo challenge. There is in general support for the idea. Fæ comments

If you were to timetable an international LGBT related photo competition around springtime, the LGBT group should be able to apply for a fairly attractive prize as sponsorship.

Colin does not respond to that.

My observations

Not much of relevanse for the interaction between the two, but in the process to follow, Colin showed an ability to orchestrate the start-up of a new Commons project in a cooperative and mellow manner, and has since been a big asset in that project to keep the project alive and running. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

2016-02, NSFW Main page images

On Feb 1, 2016 Reguyla started a NSFW Main page images section on COM:VP. The occasion was that this (for some NSFW)low-key nude photo appeared as POTD on the main page. Reguyla argued that it was a NSFW image and the main page should be not NSFW, thus we should be mindful about that, and it has caused Regyula to quickly change his screen. Pretty quickly Yann chimed in saying he thought it was not NSFW and Reguyla resonded that in that case Reguyla would just change his default at work from the main page to the watchlist to avoid an embarrassing situation at work. I argued it would probably be better editorial judgement not to have such a photo as POTD as I could relate to the work environment issue. It was just important that it was easy to find this FP if you actively searched for a low-key photograph of a nude. Otherwise until now a mellow discussion, some discussing thresholds for NSFW in different countries arguing it is or is not NSFW, some saying you should really work, when at work and not surf on the internet for Commons. Well, just different opinions. But then Fæ makes this comment

I hardly ever pay attention to POTD. I'm aware that nude women have featured before. Just to assess how heteronormative the majority vote/decision-making process for POTD is likely to be, can anyone work out exactly how many photos of nude sexually attractive women have made it to POTD, or at least, women showing their breasts or backsides, compared to how many photos of nude sexually attractive men have featured? I can guess the answer but numbers would be great.

In the link to “heteronormative” it is stated in the article summary at the top:

...It assumes that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation or only norm,... Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia.

Colin responds, by calling Fæ out for again insinuating the FPC community is homophobic

Fæ, of course you make accusations. From your position of admitted ignorance "I hardly ever pay attention to POTD" and vague assertion "I'm aware that nude women have featured before" you charge "the majority vote/decision-making process for POTD" with being "heteronormative", which Wikipedia tells me "is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia". So lets just put 2+2 together and say this is yet another homophobia accusation against the FPC team. Facts then...

Colin brings forth the statictics showhing that only 1/16 FP shows people, of which 4 are female nudes, of which three have appeared on the Main Page so far. Colin argues that there is no statistics enough to say anything sensible about the presence or not of a heteronormative bias based on this. Colin finishes with this

... But that doesn't stop you waving homophobia accusations around and challenging people to defend themselves against them. Shame on you Fae, you are a disgrace to Commons and to the LGBT community you claim to stand up for.

Fæ is unhappy about these comments as he states he has ot accused anyone of homophobia, and moreover sees the above as a personal attack. Fæ goes on regarding the statistics to propose

I propose a moratorium on any further nude photographs of women as POTD until there is at least a history of POTDs achieving at least one nude photograph of a man for every 2 nude photographs on the main page of nude women.

Colin says a quota system is silly, and adds

...The community should have topic banned you as a favour -- to stop writing such foolish nonsense. The folk that do the POTD do not deserve to be accused of "heteronormative" actions or any similar and you should appologise.

The discussion escalates further, Fæ calls Colins comments a tangent, adding

This is not a safe space with Colin free to turn any discussion on to a hostile debate about Wikimedia LGBT. This level of hostility and personal attack is planned and deliberate, it cannot be excused as some sort of weird misunderstanding.

And Colin keeps the drama level high with this statement

Fae you are so transparent. Whenever you up to something nefarious, you accuse others of exactly that. It's kind of a Freudian slip with you. Look at what this topic section is about: Reguyla taking issue with unexpected NSFW content on the main page. But you turn up, admitting the POTD content isn't of interest to you ("I hardly ever pay attention to POTD") while at the same time accusing those organising POTD of "heteronormative" bias. So you go spinning off-topic with yet another ill-thought-out charge of homophobia on Commons. The harassment is by you against those at FPC. You didn't need to make your comments. You didn't need to attack the POTD organisers. Stick to File: space, Fae, it's the only area where you make a positive contribution to the project.

My observations

Fæ is here opening a new discussion unrelated to the original NSFW main page question of editorial judgement. And somehow he thinks that by counting how many sexually attractive women and men have made it to POTD it can be assessed how heteronormative the POTD decision process is. Personally I find it a most peculiar metric of heteronormality; since heteronormality assumes that heterosexuality is the only sexual norm (per the link above), I would assume that the occurance of explicit heterosexual values/couples/activities vs non-heterosexual would be what to consider taking into account. It is very hard to see what the ratio of men vs women has to do with heteronormality for me at least. It does also appear at this point that Fæ suspects that the POTD process has a heteronormative bias. Fæ is Just Asking Questions which is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not sanctionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent.

Colin call Fæ out for this, which is fair, especially given that this has been discussed in great length back in 2013, see #The destructive Colin/Fæ interaction, where Fæ accused the FPC community for such a bias I doubt that FP candidates will show a balance of diversity with regard to LGBT subjects and culture any time soon. The discussion here certainly will not encourage other openly gay contributors to our projects to take part in this process.. An accusation there was never any evidence for and which insulted many members of the FPC community. Fæ is correct that he never explicitly accuses other users or groups of users for being "homophobic", but by describing users or groups of users by all the characteristics normally associated with homophobia or by "Just Asking Questions", he makes such strong insinuations that it is understood as such.

Colin writes "Shame on you Fae, you are a disgrace to Commons and to the LGBT community you claim to stand up for." This is a clear personal attack and not acceptable. There is no reason to have that sentence.

In what follows, this is being referred back to by Fæ, claiming it is deliberate and planned. This is a speculation and I do not know what Colin has deliberately planned, but I see Colin's attack as a reaction to the button being presssed again by Fæ until it snaps.

Colin makes a particularly rude generalising comment against Fæ as well "...Stick to File: space, Fae, it's the only area where you make a positive contribution to the project." This is obviously an unreasonbale characterisation of Fæs contributions, as there are many, many examples, where Fæ has made valuable and sensible contributions outside of the File: name space.

2016-01, Jcb discussion

on Jan 31 2016 a lengthy and very heated discussion was started about admin actions by Jcb relating to contributions from russavia. The discussion rapidly turns into one of the classic polarised pro or con russavia and pro and con WMF interference in Commons affairs. Fæ begins commenting half an hour after the discussion has been opened and comments 12 times during the time of the discussion. Colin makes his first post in the discussion on February 4, totaling to 19 different comments in the thread. Revent, Nick, and odder are notable editors in the thread as well, when it comes to interactions with the two. The discussion progresses initially without the two users interfering or mentioning each other. At a point Nick writes a reply to Kalliope (WMF) which contains

I can tell you now, with a degree of certainty, the Commons community has such little trust and such intense distrust, dislike, hatred and fear for the Wikimedia Foundation (rightly or wrongly)...

This triggers a reaction from Colin. I urge to read the full diff, but among others, he states

Nick does not speak for the "community" his attempts to frame his personal opinions as "we" and "us" and "The Commons community" are over-reaching. There are about half a dozen people who give a **** about russavia or who have adolescent issues with authority and wish to use russavia as a football with which to attack WMF...

At a point, Nick then critizies a Colin's comments

People matter so if you could stop being so derogatory, high handed and unpleasant to others Colin, that would be really appreciated, just because we disagree is no reason for this sort of behaviour.

At this stage Fæ chooses to get involved in the discussion (note that Colin has not previously referred to Fæ at this stage)

+1 Colin's use of Commons for nasty personal attacks over the past year has created a hostile environment in many important community discussions. His repeated disruptive allegations about homophobia as we saw yesterday on the village pump were completely uncalled for (diff).

The diffs he provides for “repeated disruptive allegations of homophobia” are the ones discussed above. Fæ continues

I made no allegation of any kind against anyone. The word "homophobia" was deliberated introduced by Colin, who then made it read as if I was making allegations of homophobia against someone, and used that to make an ad-hominim attack, that was irrelevant to the discussion about the statistics of photographs of nude women vs. nude men on POTD — "Shame on you Fae, you are a disgrace to Commons and to the LGBT community you claim to stand up for." Colin is misusing Commons as a means to harass people based on them as a person, especially myself as a known openly gay man, using this as a tactic to take discussions off topic, to disrupt the Commons community from reaching a collegiate consensus and force his views on everyone else. Colin's behaviour in this discussion and in several other places is unacceptable, and has been for at least 2 years, with the low point of when he made a personal attack using a carefully written description of me as a "raging gay", using the foil that it was an example of a personal attack that could be made against me by others. Allowing and encouraging this type of behaviour on Commons is an embarrassment to the project and makes it appear an unsafe space for future contributors.

My observations

Here Fæ is bringing in the unrelated topic of homophobia in a thread about Jcb, which has absolutely nothing to do about LGBT. He does what he accuses Colin for, he takes the discussion off-topic, and again, he brings in his own sexuality "..as a known openly gay man..." in the discussion, although I fail to see how that is relevant except to make the association fallacy again, that Colin has made personal attacks elsewhere, because Fæ is openly gay.

2016-03, Jan Arkesteijn and file overwrites

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 58#Jan Arkesteijn and file overwrites

Colin and Fæ agrees wrt to an issue with a user overwriting files.

2016-04 Russvia socking

In an argument with Andy Dingley regarding socking by Russavias, Fæ writes

I have never been a "Russavia supporter". This project is not a war where you have to fight for a side. The insults here are entirely yours.

Colin responds

Fae, wrt your claim to have never been a "Russavia supporter", I feel this should be challenged but can't remember the exact word to use. It is a term meaning "a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as deceiving, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false", but I have a vague feeling the word also refers to the faecal matter excreted from the anus of a male cow. Since you seem to be an expert on such language, perhaps you can remind me? It's on the tip of my tongue :-). Alternatively, you could respect that a genuine query has been made about the bulk addition of a template, and that Pokefan has kindly engaged with the user in question in an effort to resolve the matter.

Whereas I think it is OK, that Colin thinks this is bullshit, the way he does it is more vicious and rude than needed - even if it contains a smiley.

Later, in April, Andy Dingley reports socking again, calling Fæ his friend. Fæ objects to this with the comment containing

In the above linked DR where you call me a "friend" of Russavia, you are suppressing a legitimate question with regard to copyright releases that has an impact on 14,000 other public domain images. Stop your disruptive campaign, you are damaging the project and wasting limited free volunteer time that could be spent fixing real problems.

To which Yann comments

This is an obvious fact. Why do you deny being called a friend of Russavia when you support him in all and every case?

Fæ states he finds Yann is trolling him, to which Colin replies

Yann isn't trolling. It's a genuine query. Why are you so determined to distance yourself from him in your words, when your deeds tell a different story. Previously you have told us you "worked happily and collegiately with Russavia for around 3 years" and "shared on-wiki and in private correspondence". You attack the reputation of anyone who claims he might actually be a bully, whereas pretty much everyone else admits he's no angel. You turn up at every hint of a spark of Russavia-related issues with some gasoline and matches. Its very clear you are BFF and I am happy for you both. I hardly think WMF are going to globally ban you for merely being "friends" with a banned user, so there seems little purpose to this game you keep playing.

I was unfamiliar with the acronym BFF, but it appears to mean Best Friends Forever. I seems like a sarcastic comment to me, when Colin says "...and I am happy for you both".

2016-05, User:32X citing actions on other Wikis as evidence for indefinite block.

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 58#User:32X citing actions on other Wikis as evidence for indefinite block.

A long discussion on COM:AN, where an admin has indef blocked a user, and it is being discussed if it was the right thing to do. Fæ enters the discussion early, and it is fairly mellow and constructive. At some stage Natuur12 refers to a wikipedia essay, and there is some discussion about what Commons policy applies in this case. At some stage Fæ argues that there is no reason to refer to a Wikipedia essay as COM:BP is the relevant policy here. He adds

...Unfortunately there is a creeping cultural change on Commons where English Wikipedia essays and policies are quoted by administrators as if they represent the consensus on this project, this is unnecessary and often introduces irrelevant tangents or fundamentally conflicting guidance when there are sufficient Commons policies to apply.

It is a pity I cannot highlight that issue without being attacked on IRC and on this project as if I were defending trolling or vandalism. I am not and I have stated that very clearly above.

This triggers Colin to enter the discussion for the first time

Wrt your claim "Unfortunately there is a creeping cultural change on Commons", this is simply bullshit. For goodness sake, this project was created to serve images for the Wikipedias (and other Wikimedia projects) and the original idea for Commons was on a Wikpedia mailing list. Nearly all of us have Wikipedia accounts, and a few of us can even edit there without being inhibited by blocks or topic bans. Commons and Wikipedia have always been in symbiosis. And Commons policies have always been inadequate. Partly due to the multi-lingual effort to write or change them, but also perhaps because this community doesn't attract good writers who will polish and grow them. Fæ, when you discredit something because of who said it, where it is hosted or because it isn't part of "us" but from "them", then you are prejudiced, and all sorts of hateful things grow from that attitude. Quit trolling with your anti-Wikipedia bigotry.

I think this an unnecessarily harsh and escalating comment. Especially the last sentence "Quit trolling with your anti-Wikipedia bigotry." I kind of agree with both wrt policies. Fæ is right that when there are applicable Commons policies in place they should be used instead of referring to Wikipedia policies or essays. Likewise, I agree with Colin, the Commons' policies are underdeveloped, but I do not see Fæs comment as anti-Wikipedia bigotry as Colin states. I think that is an overreaction.