Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ (/Fae/Ash), Quick, send a dossier to ArbCom and delete! Options

[carbuncle]

(mod note: "Conflicts of interest, paedophila images" subtitle added)
(mod note: See previous topic, 'Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face', for background)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

[Selina]

edited post btw, I have an annoying habit of posting then editing instead of using preview that I need to fix ^

I'd be interested if the paedophile "artwork" pics on user page thing was a proven thing and not just hearsay

[tarantino]

I'd be interested if the paedophile "artwork" pics on user page thing was a proven thing and not just hearsay

Ash used to display this rather suggestive photo of a nude teen-aged boy on his user page with the caption "This is not actually my photo Sometimes a fish is just a fish... "

Happy-melon deleted that from Ash's page history, while Ash was preparing his aborted request for comment about DC.

[carbuncle]

I'd be interested if the paedophile "artwork" pics on user page thing was a proven thing and not just hearsay

Ash used to display this rather suggestive photo of a nude teen-aged boy on his user page with the caption "This is not actually my photo Sometimes a fish is just a fish... "

Happy-melon deleted that from Ash's page history, while Ash was preparing his aborted request for comment about DC.

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 was termed the "locker room" problem. I'll find a link in a second.

Mr. Van Haeften? No, I don't think his pornography edits were remunerated or tied to anything professional (there was another guy, Benjamin Hohlman, who was deeply involved with the porn business who made common cause with him who was later blocked for sockpuppets, but their overlap was merely because of the shared interest).

If I recall, the spelling was Holmann, not Holhman. Also known as Dj Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst.

[thekohser]

I'd be interested if the paedophile "artwork" pics on user page thing was a proven thing and not just hearsay

Ash used to display this rather suggestive photo of a nude teen-aged boy on his user page with the caption "This is not actually my photo Sometimes a fish is just a fish... "

Happy-melon deleted that from Ash's page history, while Ash was preparing his aborted request for comment about DC.

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 was termed the "locker room" problem. I'll find a link in a second.

Sigh. Why does Selina wonder about proving the "artwork" accusation? Why does Carbuncle feel the need to go "finding" the link?

All of this work has already been done for you both, right here.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

In March 2010, Ash had prominently displayed on his Wikipedia User page (a User page is Wikipedia's equivalent of a Facebook profile) a photo that some might call "artistic", but others might call child pornography. The turn-of-the-century image is that of an adolescent Italian boy, stark naked save for a straw hat, sticking his finger in the mouth of a flying fish. The photo is there for shock value, to be sure. However, in November 2011, Fæ issued a 180-degree about-face, saying that "users on Commons with user space galleries of sexual photos of girls ... seemed a very poor reflection on this project". So, it's okay to post a sexual photo of a boy, but not of girls?

All right there, in the mainstream media, with convenient links pointing you exactly to an image of proof and to Ashley's hypocrisy on the Village pump.