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

[Peter Damian]

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

You mean this rule?

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=466962720

As I understand, there were two editors on the user:Ash RfC who certified it. The RfC can only proceed on the assumption that Ash=Fae. The problem is that to acknowledge that is 'outing'.

'Outing' in an odd sense becaue Fae=Mr Van Haeften is not an issue, and is acknowledged. The outing involves admitting his past user account.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 27th January 2012, 7:09pm

[MBisanz]

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

You mean this rule?

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=466962720

As I understand, there were two editors on the user:Ash RfC who certified it. The RfC can only proceed on the assumption that Ash=Fae. The problem is that to acknowledge that is 'outing'.

'Outing' in an odd sense becaue Fae=Mr Van Haeften is not an issue, and is acknowledged. The outing involves admitting his past user account.

I brought up this specific issue yesterday and it was resolved to my satisfaction with DC, AB, and NE taking responsibility for the current complaints and DR process involving the current user, irrespective of their prior identity.

[Abd]

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

You mean this rule?

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=466962720

Yeah, basically. The issue I see revolves around what "the dispute" means. There was a prior dispute, with attempts to resolve it by the required users, who certified it. That could not be used in a future RfC as a certification. Otherwise a single person could keep opening new RfCs based on an old one!

If the old dispute was not resolved by the old RfC, by agreement with the parties, then the next step, procedurally, would be ArbComm. RfC was not intended as a process to generate sanctions, though I've seen that abused. It's a process intended to generate voluntary agreement, or, alternatively, to lay the due process foundation for an ArbComm filing. That's how I used RfC/JzG 3. The pile-in of users supporting JzG -- in a position where he was clearly out to lunch -- and calling for me to be banned -- simply had the effect of demonstrating a situation requiring ArbComm intervention.

ArbComm, unfortunately, didn't want to look at the real problem, that a faction could appear and call for the ban of a user who was merely raising an obvious problem with abusive use of admin tools while involved. And they could easily do this with a two-thirds majority, often adequate to get a noticeboard "community ban."

What later followed was quite to be expected, Durova predicted it. I'd be banned, in spite of following due process *exactly*. They merely needed to wait for a more believable cover.

This procedural problem has nothing to do with alleged "outing," and the alleged socking, if that's what it is, would not be handled by RfC. RfC cannot, by design, generate binding sanctions.

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 27th January 2012, 8:10pm

[DanMurphy]

Fascinating

BLP crusades disproportionately serve to minimize the visibility of gay people and to aggrandize antigay politicians; and Fæ is not the first prominent LGBT editor that DC has targeted. This is shameless [[dog-whistle politics]]: where overt gay-bashing is not tolerated on Wikipedia, sustained harassment and outing campaigns against prominent gay editors are.

I will be eagerly watching to see how the fair and impartial community behavior policing mechanisms spring into action on this one. Dollars to donuts that "shrigley" is in off-line communication with Mr. Van Haeften. I guess I'll have to revise my opinion that he's just building alliances for the nationalism stuff though.

This post has been edited by DanMurphy: Fri 27th January 2012, 8:55pm

[Tarc]

Fascinating

BLP crusades disproportionately serve to minimize the visibility of gay people and to aggrandize antigay politicians; and Fæ is not the first prominent LGBT editor that DC has targeted. This is shameless [[dog-whistle politics]]: where overt gay-bashing is not tolerated on Wikipedia, sustained harassment and outing campaigns against prominent gay editors are.

I will be eagerly watching to see how the fair and impartial community behavior policing mechanisms spring into action on this one. Dollars to donuts that "shrigley" is in off-line communication with Mr. Van Haeften. I guess I'll have to revise my opinion that he's just building alliances for the nationalism stuff though.

Its nothing new, I received the same treatment when I got the Marcus Bachmann article deleted.

What people need to come to terms with is the notion that a homosexual person is capable of deception, deceit or general assholish behavior, and to call such a person out for that behavior doesn't mean you're attacking them for their homosexuality.

[Selina]

Interesting, I followed a few links and he's somehow tied in with a porn baron/is a porn baron (dealing exclusively with gay male stuff)? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admini...ent_referencing seems somewhat of a conflict of interest but I can't be bothered to read it all the sum of it seems to be re-inserting advertising links in a way a spambot would and getting away with it?

What people need to come to terms with is the notion that a homosexual person is capable of deception, deceit or general assholish behavior, and to call such a person out for that behavior doesn't mean you're attacking them for their homosexuality.

yeah. really. ESPECIALLY gay males whose bitchiness can be aggression to the power of 10. and this is coming from the one that made wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bifemale.svg and wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bimale.svg which is on like a gazillion users' pages now - I think I was maybe THE most infamous bi fem on WP (*still* banned for my involvement in this site) anyone trying to pull that card-pulling crap on me woul get laughed at

(also was pushing against the paedophiles before anyon in charge actually started doing anything about it: wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:LGBT_notice_board/Archive_3#what_belongs_here "Deletion of pederasty-related topics is partisan, and you need to re-check the NPOV policy and guidelines before you (Mistress Selina Kyle, I'm looking at you) continue to remove these topics" .... yeeeaahhh. Thanks, 'Dave'

... I can't find that thread now where people were saying his user page on this Fæ guy's old account used to have childporn artwork on it too?)

[DanMurphy]

Interesting, I followed a few links and he's somehow tied in with a porn baron/is a porn baron (dealing exclusively with gay male stuff)? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admini...ent_referencing seems somewhat of a conflict of interest but I can't be bothered to read it all the sum of it seems to be re-inserting advertising links in a way a spambot would and getting away with it?

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). I came to the conclusions that for Van Haeften it was a hobby, and perhaps slightly political (porn is awesome, gay porn is even more awesome because I'm gay, and I'm striking a blow against all you prudes who think that the "grabby awards" aren't equivalent to academic papers and in-depth news articles). The attempts to create a poorly sourced article on "Rod Handle" (or whoever the porn star du jour was) under the argument that it was an "LGBT" topic, i found a rather clear illustration of the dysfunctional approach to "knowledge" at Wikipedia. In theory, there should be lots of articles on gay sexuality, and many of them on porn from an academic perspective (and there is lots of research to use if one were so inclined). But the fanboy stuff, you know, "Rod Handle is known for his relentless appetite for sex and is equally willing to be the top or bottom" was one step removed from the transformers and my little pony keyboard diarrhea, with the added benefit that presumably lots of guys in their 40s and 50s who spent 5 years in the porn meat grinder probably don't want to be memorialized that way on google (though, of course, there was a level of protection thanks to the frequent use of stage names).

His use of advertising as references was simply because those were the only "sources" available to justify writing articles on his interests.

This post has been edited by DanMurphy: Fri 27th January 2012, 10:04pm

[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]

Shrigley looks like a regular contributor

Yeah.

04:45, 14 July 2010 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) blocked Shrigley (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Splittist=WilliamWater=Lolnuts3000)

15:16, 29 July 2010 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) unblocked Shrigley (talk | contribs) ‎ (user was blocked as a result of a misunderstanding re: multiple accounts. Issue has since been clarified.)

18:46, 11 August 2010 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) renamed User:Splittist to "Quigley" ‎ (416 edits. Reason: WP:USURP)

05:07, 12 August 2010 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) blocked Shrigley (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (nothing but hardcore pov pushing)

06:22, 14 August 2010 Sandstein (talk | contribs) unblocked Shrigley (talk | contribs) ‎ (Consensus at WP:ANI is that there is no basis for this block.)

02:03, 29 November 2011 MBisanz (talk | contribs) renamed User:Quigley to "QdZLjUtTCKz34ou7YDQX" ‎ (5,481 edits. Reason: WP:CHU)

04:10, 12 December 2011 MBisanz (talk | contribs) renamed User:QdZLjUtTCKz34ou7YDQX to "Shrigley" ‎ (5,482 edits. Reason: WP:CHU)

That all seems regular for wikipedia.

[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.

[mbz1]

I wonder how RFC/U works. In "desired outcome" section you said: "I would like to ask that Fæ resign their adminship ". Let's say most users will agree with this, but Fæ refuses to resign. What would happen next?

[carbuncle]

I wonder how RFC/U works. In "desired outcome" section you said: "I would like to ask that Fæ resign their adminship ". Let's say most users will agree with this, but Fæ refuses to resign. What would happen next?

A series of jubilant Twitter posts by his supporters? What do you mean what would happen next? Nothing would happen. It's WP.

[mbz1]

I wonder how RFC/U works. In "desired outcome" section you said: "I would like to ask that Fæ resign their adminship ". Let's say most users will agree with this, but Fæ refuses to resign. What would happen next?

A series of jubilant Twitter posts by his supporters? What do you mean what would happen next? Nothing would happen. It's WP.

I meant , if there are any means to enforce the recommendations made in RFC/U

[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.

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.

[Web Fred]

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.

He was just pissed that I got there first with the "waxed pudenda" that so outraged Jimbo!

[Peter Damian]

Vandenberg says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...comment/F%C3%A6

Arbcom did not endorse Fæ's RFA. I did. Feel free to discuss that.
Neither Arbcom nor myself had anything to do with Fæ's seat on the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees; the Wikimedia UK members selected him, and that is not an appropriate topic for RFCs on English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is correct, as I noted here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=S...t=35679&st=140# .

For reasons of disclosure it should be noted that after an RFC/U which caused me to refocus and improve my Wikipedia editing I took the option of a clean start, though I have never been blocked. Prior to this nomination I spoke privately with one of the critical contributors to the discussion, who knows both account names and we have resolved our concerns. I will recuse myself of admin requests related to editors who gave an opinion in that discussion. This is the first time I have had an RFA nomination. Fæ (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/F%C3%A6

Who was the 'critical contributor to the discussion'? It was not Vandenberg (see below). And why did Vandenberg suggest that it would not unduly affect the outcome of the vote, given that many people were not even aware of the RfA? Vandenberg's argument was precisely that the "there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history, but I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now due to the fact that they can't see the prior history", which is bizarre.

Vandenberg should be the focus of this, rather than 'Fae'. Fae is simply exploiting the corrupt nature of a system that allows these favours to be traded with influential and regarded admins like Vandenberg.

I can confirm that Fæ took the time to talk with one of his prior critics (not me,fwiw), letting them know both old and new account names. Fæ has also informed Arbcom of the prior account name. I have looked over the contributions of old and new account names, and can also confirm that Fæ has refocused, in many ways. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said to Balloonman below, there is no need to trust my judgement on the previous contribs.[1] The only request I have is that you believe me when I say that a participant in the old RfC (the 'prior critic') is aware of the previous account, has looked at the new contribs and reviewed the old history, and has not rocked up here to oppose this RfA. In addition, I swear that the person I am referring to would be here, stridently opposing, if they thought it was in the best interest of the community and project. They are not a meek and mild type. Far from it. They are not here attesting to this themselves as that would make it simple to determine the name of the old account that Fæ used.

Answering "What was the focus of the old contributions" will also simplify determining the old account name. However, I can answer "Are they ones that could concern a reasonable !voter here?", but this will end up being something you'll need to trust me on, and I don't think you will, but answers should be given anyway. A reasonable !voter here would not be concerned about the focus of the old account. It was too narrow for an admin candidate, but Fae has since broadened their focus. The reasonable !voter would be concerned about the specific issues raised at the old RfC/U, if the RfC/U been recent and there wasn't much evidence that the previous concerns have been resolved; the reasonable voter would have be voting 'great contributor, but not right now' and 'maybe next year' had the concerns about Fae been recent.

However the RfC/U is not recent, and the reasonable voter now has 50,000 edits to survey in an effort to work out if there are any issues. I consider the 'former critic' mentioned above to be a tough !voter at RfA, especially when they are concerned about something.

Had Fæ disclosed their prior account here at RfA, no doubt there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history, but I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now due to the fact that they can't see the prior history. In both scenarios, respected members of our project would feel the need to oppose in order to protect the project from the unknowable: will the prior concerns re-emerge. To that, all I can say is that the people who know the prior concerns don't think it is probable, and are not the sort of people who will sit by quietly if it ever eventuates. And Fæ knows this. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[HRIP7]

The RfC/U was deleted by Will Beback today. The reason Will gave was that it was not established that Ash and Fæ were the same person, and that arbcom, in response to his inquiry, failed to confirm that they were. This being so, Will concluded that therefore the RfC was based on a faulty premise, and deleted it.

Twenty minutes later, arbitrator John Vandenberg undeleted it ...

[Web Fred]

Ah, I see that Australian, plane-spotting twat Russavia is in on the act now. Things can only go downhill now. His recent 'promotion' to bureaotwat must surely be coincidental, after all this couldn't be a perfect chance for him to prove that he was the right candidate now could it?

[Peter Damian]

The RfC/U was deleted by Will Beback today. The reason Will gave was that it was not established that Ash and Fæ were the same person, and that arbcom, in response to his inquiry, failed to confirm that they were. This being so, Will concluded that therefore the RfC was based on a faulty premise, and deleted it.

Twenty minutes later, arbitrator John Vandenberg undeleted it ...

WB is demanding evidence that Ash=Fae. But they can't give evidence that Ash=Fae. Why can't they? Because it would be 'harassment'. Why would it be harassment? Because Ash=Fae

This is shameless dog-whistle politics: where overt gay-bashing is not tolerated on Wikipedia, sustained harassment and outing campaigns against prominent gay editors are. Who knows? Maybe DC is just out to save the encyclopedia, and it just so happens that the worst editors are gay. We can't read minds. But the effect of his actions is that many gay editors, myself included, feel intimidated and unwelcome on Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really stupid. 'Outing' is revealing the real-life identity of an anonmous person. But we already know that Fae=Van Haeften. That is on the record and not an issue. The issue is whether Fae= an old account that ran into trouble at an RfC and ducked out.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 28th January 2012, 10:47am