Fæ

Nomination of Linda Hulin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linda Hulin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Hulin (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Unblock review

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fæ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

My account was blocked in November 2020 for violating the TBan on the topic of "human sexuality or gender identity". The original condition of that block being (...) If you would like to reread the original restriction and the recent clarification from Cullen and confirm that you now understand the scope then I will eeduce the block to three months (...) The full details are at User_talk:Fæ/2020#Blocked. Clearly the intention was not to have my account blocked for several years, but a few months. In the years since the block I have continued my volunteer work for the LGBT+ user group, including supporting the conferences, which have been of significant benefit to the projects in many languages and sister projects. In the years of being blocked I have thought through appealing many times and have learned a lot about handling difficult cases and discussions on sexuality and gender. I would like an opportunity to demontrate my more mature behaviour on the English encyclopaedia, if you are prepared to have me back as a contributor. I understand the TBan and am prepared to strictly stay within it. I'm not appealing the topic ban here and I'm aware that for a convincing TBan appeal I would need a backlog of reasonable edits outside of that area first. Foolishly in 2023 I used an account I had been using to contribute on Simple Wiki here on en.wp to make 20 edits, completely unrelated to the TBan, being on ancient manuscripts that I had been researching for Simple. This caused my account profile to be changed to a sockpuppet page. I sincerly regret this error of judgement and I should have been far more careful about respecting the block. I apologise to the community for my poor judgement in 2023. My personal life has changed a lot in the last five years, I believe these experiences have made me a far more mellow person. In 2024 I needed surgery and for the past 2 years I prioritized my recovery rather than volunteer projects, if not I would have appealed earlier. Fæ (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Point of order. You say the point of the block was not to have your account blocked for several years, but instead a few months. That's not how I read it. I read it that the intention was to leave your account blocked until (1) you reread the original restriction and clarification, (2) you confirm you understand the scope of your topic ban, and (3) you've been blocked at least three months. I think you've satisfied the third condition there, but I don't see evidence you've satisfied (1) and (2). I'm not saying you haven't, only that I don't see you providing any evidence you have. I'd be inclined to support an unblock request if you demonstrate the first two points, though it'll be a different reviewing admin. The sockpuppetry was a bad idea, but it was more than three years ago so I don't think that's a compelling reason to leave you blocked. Yamla (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• For the benefit of any future appeal the review I undertook of their block at [] will be relevant. Ultimately, the issue with Fae is that drama follows them around and over many years they have not been able to control their propensity to throw petrol on the flames. Any precondition of us even considering an unblock should be an extended period of drama free editing at another wiki. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• While Fae's block was not ever changed to a Checksuer block, given the previous socking and the use of multiple accounts on some other projects (Commons, Meta) where such use did not cause drama/blocks, I ran a check and found no evidence of socking. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fæ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Apologies for the long request, I need to unpack the background to demonstrate what has been asked for.

Responding to the decline based on three points of order, two which are outstanding.
Point 1: The topic ban was instated after a community discussion on ANI, 6 years 9 months ago. The ANI discussion is at Special:PermanentLink/910447139 and the topic ban statement is on the archive page here. The statement is "The result of this community discussion is that Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed, has been reinstated. For the sake of clarity, this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues." In that discussion my disruptive editing was demonstrated based on evidence from an article about the Yaniv anti-discrimination case. Re-reading the ANI discussion in full, raises many points about argumentative behaviour and my experiences over the last few years have made me a far more mellow person who would certainly not respond in the same way.
Point 2: I confirm I understand the scope of the topic ban. In my own words, I understand the scope of this topic ban means that I cannot edit or discuss articles or edit any pages on the project relating to human sexuality and this includes transgender related subjects. The ban is indefinite and the place for an appeal would be an ANI discussion to achieve a consensus. If in doubt, as they previously suggested, I would try contacting Cullen better to understand if potential edits might be too close to the scope.

To address a question of evidence for trouble free contributions after the November 2020 block, after the block I continued to contribute to Commons and made c.165,000 uploads and edits with discussions mainly on my talk page, and a further c.600,000 from Faebot, I haven’t counted others like Noaabot. None of my edits was misleading or resulted in blocks. I am requesting an unblock for productive editing on Wikipedia, such as for my interests in local history and notable manuscripts, many recently discovered or newly published are poorly represented on the encyclopaedia, or suffer from outdated sources.

I have used alternative accounts on other projects for different reasons, not to evade blocks or mislead community processes. None has led to blocks apart from the aforementioned account I foolishly used in 2023 which was created to support a handful articles on Simple. The only significant wikimedia projects I have been involved with since 2023 are for the user group I support. Unfortunately the permanently reduced stamina I have after my recovery makes the sort of very large projects I ran on Commons years ago too daunting to consider. Fæ (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declined without prejudice to submitting a new appeal to be posted to AN for consideration by the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If I might challenge your narrative a little, there is no public evidence of you editing normally and appropriately to another wiki after I posted my block review on 1 September 2021. You immediately stopped editing anywhere under this account and at that time you were deeply into what appeared to be a witchhunt against an EN user at COM:ANU. Literally the only evidence we have of your most recent editing was actually igniting the drama flames. Then we have your sockpuppetry and may I remind you that this wasn't the only incidence of you deceptively clean starting as your original account vanished and you lied about having had a previous account to me in email. Which I still have by the way. My personal view is that we need a full disclosure of what accounts you have been using because your history makes it difficult to AGF. I did look through the edit history of the account you socked here with and it was blatantly obvious that you were playing the role of a new user, not the experienced editor you were. I find it hard not to see that as deceptive conduct that is deeply concerning. I don't personally see a way forward that does start with your going to somewhere else for a couple of years and then coming back to show us that you have reformed and are no longer a drama magnet. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I hope Fæ does disclose the accounts, because as my comment above indicated their use of multiple accounts ranged somewhere form an open secret to just plain open on other projects I'm most familiar with (Commons & Meta). I haven't named them here because I think it would be OUTING to do so absent explicit disclosure that I'm not sure happened. That said I think a 1 account restriction is "table stakes" for any admin considering accepting an appeal (which won't be me, but neither will I be declining one). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to disclose accounts. I'd like to walk through the details with, say Barkeep49 who has done some checks already or @Cullen328: who closed the ANI consensus. Fæ (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

or you could just list them here and let the community work out for themselves what you have been doing to change your approach. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I can understand Fæ not wishing to publicly disclose everything he may have done. It seems to me that if Barkeep49 or Cullen328 did an initial review, the community could trust their judgement over what might actually need to be made public.

I'm certainly not the one to take on this role, because I would admit to being somewhat biased in Fæ's favor: I work primarily on Commons and I found him a very valuable contributor there.

Please, we should be trying to get to the result that would be best for en-wiki and the various sister projects going forward, not trying to settle old scores. - Jmabel | Talk 15:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I have spent a good half hour reading through the arbitration case against Fae to refresh my memory. I had forgotten that the decision includes a prohibition against using multiple accounts that remains extant.

The case revealed a bunch of undeclared additional accounts and here we are again with the same conduct, including, within the last 2 years another undeclared account that was used deceptively, pretending to be a new user and not a returning user in good standing. (Which was still a violation of the arbitration restriction, something Fae neglects to mention in either appeal).

Fae is community banned at this point. No admin is going to unblock him without a community discussion. There seems clarity, given the conversation here and the history that a full disclosure of alt/sock accounts needs to be made before the community can consider this. This shouldn't be a case of their choosing an admin to make a disclosure too as d they did that before during their successful RFA where they selectively revealed unproblematic accounts and hid the previous account that was subject to discussions about sanctions when it was abandoned. I don't think we want a repeat, fool us twice and all that. As the blocking admin, with a block endorsed at ANI, I do believe it's reasonable that I can insist on that disclosure before an independent admin decides whether to reject the appeal or refer it to ANI.

I'm curious about your final comment about old scores. What are you referring to there? That sounds like a distraction rather than trying to get to the point where Fae can have their block appealed at ANI. Also curious what the engagement with Fae at Commons is. To my knowledge it's almost 5 years since they edited at Commons. Is that prior to that, or more recently with the alternative account Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I would just note that the community has not decided it must hear this appeal; the block was done enforcing a community decision but nothing in that community decision stated that appeals for violations must be handled by it. If the idea is that it's going to be heard by the community eventually it seems a disservice to Fæ to first get an administrator to "accept" and then also get the community to accept. I do think it entirely appropriate that this would be a community decision, rather than an individual administrator decision, and almost suggested it in my previous comment. But I think if that's going to be the case the discussion here should look different than if the thought is an individual administrator would accept this unblock appeal (or some other future version). The ongoing discussion of how/if Fæ will disclose alternative accounts is an example of an area where my expectations of what the discussion could/should be is very different depending on who is ultimately deciding the appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this Barkeep. My view is that any admin can decline the appeal - well except me as I'm the original blocking admin. If an admin thinks there is merit to the appeal then there seems consensus that should be a community discussion. That very much seems to be contingent on the requested disclosures. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, I have asked for a review of my accounts across all Wikimedia projects. None exists that have edited the English Wikipedia apart from the one already declared where the edits were from 16 Feb to 9 March 2023, which was a foolish thing to do. It seemed sensible that an admin familiar with the block could take a look and I'm available to walk through them, I apologize if that came over as inappropriate, it had not occurred to me that it might be seen that way. --Fæ (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I just check my own understanding that this means you are unwilling to locally disclose the accounts you have been using ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned about the information that Spartaz shared in their original comment here. I am willing to be part of an initial discussion here but I believe that approving any return to editing on the English Wikipedia ought to be a community decision arrived at WP:AN. Fæ, your next step ought to be a full and frank and forthcoming response to all the concerns that Spartaz has raised. As for disclosures, I believe quite firmly that editing this encyclopedia is based on radical transparency and honesty in all but the most unusual circumstances. I would need to be convinced that concealing possible misconduct from the broader community is wise during an unblock process. For me, that would be a tough sell. Cullen328 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Reading this exchange, I am feeling some intense déjà vu from 14 years ago. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm willing to disclose my accounts here. I have asked for a chat about them as these include projects for two groups, so involve others who I ought to contact before publishing, but I made no edits to the English Wikipedia. I wish to demonstrate my productive and collegiate editing on Wikipedia, including helping others improving content. These projects are productive for open knowledge and were gnomic in nature so not involved in discussions. My part with these projects ended in 2023 through no choice of my own. Fæ (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why we're having a song and dance about disclosing them when you say you're okay with disclosing them? If you're concerned some of them would reveal PII, then you can email those to ArbCom. But not sure why the holdup otherwise? The implication that you need permission from others to reveal your own usernames is troubling. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I've sorted out a list and will publish here later today. I intended to extend a courtesy to those I was working with, nothing more. I have informed one project and will email the other after publication here. --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Now sent a brief email for the other project. I'll format the text list and post in a couple of hours when I'm back home. --Fæ (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Account, created	Edits or home if none	Comments
yaypo 2023	meta	Testing German language regex for social media bot reports, not editing.
gaynonymous 2023	commons, meta	Presentation for user group conference on using AI for illustrations and the challenges associated with it.
enfoto 2022	es, meta, login	Research for Spanish language regex based social media bot reports, not editing.
boxset 2022	meta	User group meeting notes.
mucro 2022	wd	Wikidata reporting, testing and reading up on cross-wiki searching options. No edits.
vacot 2021	commons/ncc	Created by request for an OWID project on nccommons. See notes below.
anstil 2021	simple, wd, meta, en, commons	This is the account that made stupid edits on manuscript articles which I deeply regret and apologise for. The account was originally created to contribute on a Nigeria project that I supported off-wiki.
QW22 2021	meta, commons, wd	User group conference proposal and providing information about it.
pinked 2021	commons	Published a user group conference plan.
quamuy 2021	wikitech	Researching for bot reports on social media, not editing. Account creation date seems wrong on the global report but my notes at the time confirm the date on wikitech. No idea if this is a bug.
voal 2021	wd	Researching cross-language links and translations for bot reporting. Not editing.
scuto 2021	meta	User group related minutes edits and discussion. I decided to stop contributing to meta using my Fæ account 2 months previously and did not edit using Fæ again.
copyfraud 2020	commons	2 weeks long commons public domain image project, completed several months before en block.
poranon 2018	th	No edits, first research on cross-language reporting to social media. 2 years before block.

Notes for information on the list. The global search may not be accurate for some projects like wikitech and does not include nccommons. As Fæ I contributed over 1,000,000 edits on medical related images to nccommons, not listed in standard reports. The additional contributions by vacot required mostly behind the scenes work on testing how live OWID charts could best be imported. I believe this is ongoing but I have been unavailable since 2023.

The 2 bot accounts Faebot and Noaabot have not been included as they were declared on my Commons user page. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Cumulatively, these accounts have less then 200 edits between them and the last one was last used 2 years ago. Is this list complete? After all this back and forth I'm not seeing the compelling evidence of your being able to edit without drama that I was hoping for. Is there any further evidence of this you can offer? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I need to pace myself so I'll double check tomorrow. The accounts are based on my password tool and I'm diligent about keeping track of passwords but I might have missed sites like MDWiki or toolforge, but these aren't sites for discussions. I'm just looking at bot code which I could check for any bot tasks I've forgotten, but likely to be housekeeping or off-wiki by nature. Vacot made 109 edits which will not be shown in the global contributions report, nor will the code development behind it, QW22 made 132. These were gnomic edits and mainly focused on specific tasks to working with others as needed off wiki. Part of my starting an unblock request after so long is to return to productive editing and demonstrate that on Wikipedia. Though I have a much lower stamina, so an hour at the keyboard is tiring, I have been supporting the user group with wiki related reports, reviews and video discussions including back in 2024 despite being in recovery. Others can explain how that wiki related volunteering demonstrates working collaboratively. I hadn't thought specifically about returning to Commons discussion, but my experience could be useful again in discussions on copyright or helping semi-technical issues like searching PDF uploads. It didn't feel right before looking at those discussions using other accounts. Fæ (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I've gone through the programs I have that were amended or created from 2021. Some are maintained today by me, in particular for wiki related bot posts on telegram, X and Mastodon. These tasks run daily or hourly from my local machine and active, especially on telegram to help fellow volunteers on 12 different language wikipedias. Those have been running for several years and may leave access logs within Wikimedia with my details as best practice courtesy in case they go wrong, but don't rely on accounts to log in. These live reports have been developed collegiality with many volunteers, with improvements based on their feedback on Telegram and sometimes Mastodon.

Based on programme modification dates, the editing bot accounts that definitely were active for commons related projects after my block were vacot and faebot which anyone can examine.

There was Ximg which based on my file was intended for 'commons only automated' in 2023 but whatever project I had in mind, likely to be related to image hashing, must have been forgotten about when I fell ill, as it has no contributions and no other notes and was missed as it was filed in a different place.

I briefly looked at toolforge and mediawiki, but I don't believe there were any long running projects in the WMF cloud, though past tools and experiments of mine are somewhere in that ecosystem but should have been only relevant for Faebot. Fæ (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Given the accounts I know, I believe Fae that these are a complete list. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I have collaborated with Fae on the uploading millions of images. They were very important to this work and i am happy to hear their health has improved and they are able to return to helping our movement. I support them returning to editing with the restrictions they mentione. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with several other people above that the community needs to make the final call here. Fæ, if you have an appeal you'd like me to copy over to WP:AN, I'd be happy to do that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to pace myself, and it's Sunday. I would expect to take a few days to double check the timeline and feedback and hopefully have another pair of eyes give a perspective before posting. It's a bit daunting and better to only have an hour at a time at the keyboard, so a sensible plan would be to expect it will take a week. Fæ (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Taking longer than expected. There's a proposal that is a priority and underestimated the effort, so it may be another week or two before the unblock request can have the time and care needed. Meanwhile a couple of coding related background tasks on Commons have been revisited but those are trivial in comparison. Fæ (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Submit a new unblock request when you're ready and it'll be copied over to AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)