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

[Peter Damian]

I was in the Support column in that RFA, I haven't yet seen anything to challenge the things we were told in that RFA ,clean blocklog exercised Cleanstart etc. ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Says Liberal councillor for Richmond Jonathan Cardy, whose register of interests http://www.richmond.gov.uk/who_are_my_coun...&HID=478&HPID=0 fails to include any mention of his work on Wikipedia or WMUK.

And Sam Blacketer, Labour member for Westminster council, agrees http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473755124 (At least major UK political parties are beginning to be represented on this important issue, albeit anonymously).

'Victuallers' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473816877 also gives his support to Fae. Not of any political party AFAIK, but he is Roger Bamkin, Chair of Wikimedia UK.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 29th January 2012, 10:49am

[Eppur si muove]

Would anyone like some COI issues to hit Fae with in the RFC?

Is this anything other than writing about his partner and their colleagues and the Codex Gregorianus? This has probably received official sanction by WMUK before Fae became a trustee as they used some of that in a press release. There hasn't been any substantial change to the articles by Fae/Ash in the last year, just someone tidying up.

I do, however, find this edit quite interesting. I wonder how AGK can justify that redaction.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Sun 29th January 2012, 10:49am

[Peter Damian]

Would anyone like some COI issues to hit Fae with in the RFC?

Is this anything other than writing about his partner and their colleagues and the Codex Gregorianus? This has probably received official sanction by WMUK before Fae became a trustee as they used some of that in a press release. There hasn't been any substantial change to the articles by Fae/Ash in the last year, just someone tidying up.

I do, however, find this edit quite interesting. I wonder how AGK can justify that redaction.

On Fae's contributions since his 'clean restart' it is nearly all gnome work and bot-assisted editing. He cites his work on 'Hoxne Hoard' in his RfA but on looking through his contributions it appears to be entirely edits like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=370692278 i.e. linking, spell corrections, 'wikifying' and stuff like that. All very important but entirely content-free.

[Web Fred]

Would anyone like some COI issues to hit Fae with in the RFC?

Hmm, that's two guns loaded in a day ready for someone else to fire.

[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 (wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle - *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?)

Well I just found it:
web.archive.org/web/20100317194701/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ash (sexually-suggestive picture of a naked child, not-safe-for-work unless you work in whatever schools this guy worked in...)
• upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/VonGloeden_6052.jpg/150px-VonGloeden_6052.jpg (sexually-suggestive picture of a naked child, not-safe-for-work unless you work in whatever schools this guy worked in...)
uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board#Ashley_Van_Haeften_.28F.C3.A6.29

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/F%C3%A6%2C_WMUK_board_meeting%2C_August_2011.jpg
Ashley Van Haeften (Fæ)
Fae is currently a director of Wikimedia UK (from April 2011) with a particular interest in GLAM activities and supports the GLAM movement internationally as well as leading the GLAM UK task force. His main contributions are as an admin on Wikipedia (User:Fæ) but also supports Commons as an OTRS volunteer and trusted user.

Fae has a professional background in managing change and improvement in a number of sectors including Government agencies, utilities, retail and engineering. He used to be a pure mathematician and moved over to management and organizational strategy to "pay the bills".

this reminds me of the "Haiduc" paedophile who I argued wit ha few times before giving up (in the previous links), no one listened to me I saw what they were doing because it's exactly the same kind of slimy stuff PR companies do, it was only later WP actually did anything about the paedophiles pushing it (usually as "pederasty") - wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Haiduc - and the articles still tainted - I just gave up on WP, they did a few bans for show when they were getting media attention about the networks of pedo users then continued to do nothing...




I just searched up google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipediareview. com+pedophiles+OR+pedophile+OR+paedophile+OR+paedophiles+OR+pedophilia+OR+paedop
hilia:

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=30094 Commons and Pro-Pedophilia

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=15438 Boy Scouts are for spanking?, More from Wales talk

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=34313 Self-identified Pedophile blocks (2007)

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:30:58 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

Fred Bauder wrote:
> I did, acting as an administrator, block one of these guys
> indefinitely, and got away with it. But I think I was flying under
> the radar, perhaps trading on my status. I don't think I did anything
> wrong and would support any administrator who blocks a pedophile
> advocate. The basis is disruption.

I agree with this completely.

This is a thorny issue, and I have little to add to it. We don't want a
witch hunt. We also don't want a huge press scandal.

It is inevitable that at some point a reporter is going to come to me
and tell me about a user I don't know about, asking "Why does Wikipedia
allow a self-confessed pedophile to edit articles about children?"

And my response is going to be: "O RLY? *block*"

I will use "disruption" as my reason or "useless editor" or whatever
seems to suit the circumstance.

At the same time, other than that [the media], I think our best approach is just
like our best approach with other types of problems:

1. Quiet diplomacy is good
2. Don't ask, don't tell is good

--Jimbo

THAT IS NOT WHAT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS MEANT TO BE USED FOR JIMMY. CHRIST. >:|

[Michaeldsuarez]

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473564708

Shrigley has decided to play the "WR is anti-gay" card.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473786040

Appalling, appalling, appalling. I also '''Support''' the community ban proposal for blackmail, breach of confidence, and incitement to real-life harassment. Wikipolitics aside, willfully and directly endangering somebody's personal security is inexcusable. [[User:Shrigley|Shrigley]] ([[User talk:Shrigley|talk]]) 01:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[carbuncle]

One of the mods added the "Conflicts of interest, paedophila images" line to the title of this thread. I wasn't planning on being banned on WP just at the moment (there are some issues with Prioryman that I want to get addressed first) - would you mind removing it? I'm sure it will be attributed to me by one of the more rabid fantasists over there. Thanks!

[SB_Johnny]

One of the mods added the "Conflicts of interest, paedophila images" line to the title of this thread. I wasn't planning on being banned on WP just at the moment (there are some issues with Prioryman that I want to get addressed first) - would you mind removing it? I'm sure it will be attributed to me by one of the more rabid fantasists over there. Thanks!

Better now?

[edit to add:] That crap on ANI is pretty out there. Let us know when they settle on what exactly it is that they're banning you for.

[thekohser]

Other than Kohser insulting me for being gay, I haven't seen any of you guys saying anything like that.

Nah, nobody here cares that you're gay. We make fun of you for being a furry. Totally different concept.

Well, some of the bleeding-hearts got a little uppity during the Bachmann debate here back when I referred to him and his avatar as "furfags". But that was a reflection on furrydom in general rather than Seren's sexuality in particular, which at the time I had no knowledge of. Political correctness is not my forte.

I think Kohser has used that terminology as well. If it's not meant to mean something sexuality related, then I do take back my comment. But that's usually what the comment means, so just generally using it often seems to imply that.

Given the failure to provide any links to actual evidence and the wishy-washy weakness of this retraction, I ask the WR moderators/staff to remove Seren's initial libel, and any mention of it thereafter.

I strongly doubt I have ever insulted someone for "being gay", and I emphatically deny that I have ever called anyone a "furfag". It is reprehensible that these sorts of lazy aspersions can be cast here. I won't tolerate it.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 29th January 2012, 3:35pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...01.118.25.78.29

Some users now want to censor statements.

[carbuncle]

Let's talk about "blackmail" for a second, since it is mentioned in that ANI thread. Here is the "blackmail threat" posted on Fæ's Commons talk page during their RfA:

If the pictures are not of you...
Then sending them (there are always copies) to your civil partner should be no big deal. Yes/no? 98SA447 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who this was (it wasn't me). Note that there is no mention of the RfA (which was sinking like a concrete warship by this point anyway). Note also that it is not even in the traditional form of unless you do x, I will do y. There isn't even any implied action that Fæ might take to avoid this. A threat, certainly, but is it blackmail or simply trolling?

[SB_Johnny]

Let's talk about "blackmail" for a second, since it is mentioned in that ANI thread. Here is the "blackmail threat" posted on Fæ's Commons talk page during their RfA:

If the pictures are not of you...
Then sending them (there are always copies) to your civil partner should be no big deal. Yes/no? 98SA447 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who this was (it wasn't me). Note that there is no mention of the RfA (which was sinking like a concrete warship by this point anyway). Note also that it is not even in the traditional form of unless you do x, I will do y. There isn't even any implied action that Fæ might take to avoid this. A threat, certainly, but is it blackmail or simply trolling?

Or maybe it was just Fae himself?

[Peter Damian]

Let's talk about "blackmail" for a second, since it is mentioned in that ANI thread. Here is the "blackmail threat" posted on Fæ's Commons talk page during their RfA:

If the pictures are not of you...
Then sending them (there are always copies) to your civil partner should be no big deal. Yes/no? 98SA447 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who this was (it wasn't me). Note that there is no mention of the RfA (which was sinking like a concrete warship by this point anyway). Note also that it is not even in the traditional form of unless you do x, I will do y. There isn't even any implied action that Fæ might take to avoid this. A threat, certainly, but is it blackmail or simply trolling?

I think it crossed an ethical line, as Greg would say. But anyway, why is Wikipedia Review being tarred with this brush? And it detracts from the main point, which is that there is no 'outing' in the standard sense here. That Fae=Van Haeften is public domain. What is not in the public domain is that Van Haeften = some user who left under a cloud.

The main argument now gaining ascendancy on the RfC is the 'Balloonman' one that voters at the RfA were told that it was a clean start, that they did not oppose, and so everything is OK.

[Web Fred]

Let's talk about "blackmail" for a second, since it is mentioned in that ANI thread. Here is the "blackmail threat" posted on Fæ's Commons talk page during their RfA:

If the pictures are not of you...
Then sending them (there are always copies) to your civil partner should be no big deal. Yes/no? 98SA447 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who this was (it wasn't me). Note that there is no mention of the RfA (which was sinking like a concrete warship by this point anyway). Note also that it is not even in the traditional form of unless you do x, I will do y. There isn't even any implied action that Fæ might take to avoid this. A threat, certainly, but is it blackmail or simply trolling?

It seems someone just posted something similar to the above on ANI.

It is true though, and there seems to be a pattern forming. Whenever Fae/Ash find things are going against them then out come the claims of harassment/blackmail. Either he's the unluckiest queen on the planet or it's a little to good to be true.

[Vigilant]

Let's talk about "blackmail" for a second, since it is mentioned in that ANI thread. Here is the "blackmail threat" posted on Fæ's Commons talk page during their RfA:

If the pictures are not of you...
Then sending them (there are always copies) to your civil partner should be no big deal. Yes/no? 98SA447 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who this was (it wasn't me). Note that there is no mention of the RfA (which was sinking like a concrete warship by this point anyway). Note also that it is not even in the traditional form of unless you do x, I will do y. There isn't even any implied action that Fæ might take to avoid this. A threat, certainly, but is it blackmail or simply trolling?

It seems someone just posted something similar to the above on ANI.

It is true though, and there seems to be a pattern forming. Whenever Fae/Ash find things are going against them then out come the claims of harassment/blackmail. Either he's the unluckiest queen on the planet or it's a little to good to be true.

OK, someone is having too much fun with this.

Googling "98SA447" reveals it to be the case number of some sort of ethics complaint against Fred Bauder.

This wikipedia stuff is so incestuous. It seems to me that someone inside is settling scores.

[carbuncle]

OK, someone is having too much fun with this.

Googling "98SA447" reveals it to be the case number of some sort of ethics complaint against Fred Bauder.

This wikipedia stuff is so incestuous. It seems to me that someone inside is settling scores.

This is the work of someone experienced with WP and WR. Here's the most recent threat posted (it was revdeleted and the account renamed, but Fæ has chosen to keep a copy of it on his talk page):

Just quit already

You're gonna burn in this world and the next! Best admin evar ! Ash=Fae=F4g (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone knows enough to get by the account name filters (although F4g should have been caught, surely). The reference to "burn in this world and the next" is to the Twitter fight between Fæ and whatsisname that I posted here recently. My money is either on one of WR's resident trolls, or Benjiboi.

[Selina]

If that's true then Wikipedia should look at why they aren't admitting that they are doing this stuff here, presumably because they assume they'd get banned from WR too...

This idea that WR is any kind of bloc really pisses me off, it's an open discussion forum that ANYONE who isn't a complete scumbag can join in on. It's more open than Wikipedia that we allow open HONEST discussion about issues than pussyfooting around with snipes and sliminess in private email lists and locked chat channels, and they really really seem to hate that...

Whenever Fae/Ash find things are going against them then out come the claims of harassment/blackmail. Either he's the unluckiest queen on the planet or it's a little to good to be true.

Ok I think that's both WR's regular LGBT posters agreeing this guy is a creep now. Nevermind that. wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BADSITES, homophobic!

There was another thing I saw when I was reading it too:

I've been looking into this off and on since late December. I emailed Arbcom a month ago with a series of questions about what they knew about "Fae's" past accounts (the linkage between this account and "Ash" was made clear when Fae publicly announced his identity [ http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board#Ashley_...n_.28F.C3.A6.29 ), his editing activity on this website, and what they think that might say about his suitability for positions of power. I have not received a response and at this point don't expect one. Though I don't intend to participate in this RFC, the thing that interests me is the level of responsibility he's been given in representing Wikimedia to the government and public in the UK, weighed against his editing behavior over the years, particularly the misuse of sources and a casual attitude towards protecting the privacy and reputation of article subjects. There are related concerns on how very small, self-selected groups of individual wield large amounts of power on wikimedia websites, rather than "the community" that is so often spoken of in public forums.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was reading over the snide little messages I got on WP earlier when I tried to bite back against the influx of paedophiles earlier, posted links a few posts up ^ It seems to be a common tactic they use to divert attention, it's not pro-paedophilia it's pro-pederasty, it's not pro-pederasty it's homophobia... ugh the cry wolf effect then makes EVERYONE who has actually had to deal with genuine harassment look bad:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexuality_of_Robert_Baden-Powell_(4th_nomination) - that article was basically an advertisement for paedophilia being pushed by the paedophilia cabal that formed on WP... Haiduc later got banned but only because he openly said it, the rest started behaving the same way PR companies do on Wikipedia by being more sneaky about it...

the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic

While early works on the life of Baden-Powell tended towards the hagiographic[2], two modern biographers, Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University and Tim Jeal in his book Baden-Powell, have reached the conclusion that he was probably a repressed homosexual.[2][3] Baden-Powell "…consistently praised the male body when naked. At Gilwell Park, the Scouts' camping ground in Epping Forest, he always enjoyed watching the boys swimming naked, and would sometimes chat with them after they had just 'stripped off.'"[2] Jeal cites an account by Baden-Powell of a visit to Charterhouse, his old public school, where he stayed with a bachelor teacher and housemaster who had taken large numbers of nude photographs of his pupils. Baden-Powell's diary entry reads: "Stayed with Tod. Tod's photos of naked boys and trees. Excellent." In a subsequent communication to Tod regarding starting up a Scout troop at the school, Baden-Powell mentions an impending return visit and adds: "Possibly I might get a further look at those wonderful photographs of yours." (According to R. Jenkyns, the album contained nude boys in "contrived and artificial" poses.)[2]

The topic is amply sourced. However, the article as it presently stands after the edits of the past few days has become a mockery of intelligent and responsible editing and will have to be repaired when and if cooler heads prevail. Haiduc (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I'm posting this as the one who wrote this: Talk:Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA#Discrimination_against_.22Infidels.22_and_Bisexual.2FGay_people:
paedophilia =/= gay/lesbian/bi
paedophilia = paedophilia

[Vigilant]

OK, someone is having too much fun with this.

Googling "98SA447" reveals it to be the case number of some sort of ethics complaint against Fred Bauder.

This wikipedia stuff is so incestuous. It seems to me that someone inside is settling scores.

This is the work of someone experienced with WP and WR. Here's the most recent threat posted (it was revdeleted and the account renamed, but Fæ has chosen to keep a copy of it on his talk page):

Just quit already

You're gonna burn in this world and the next! Best admin evar ! Ash=Fae=F4g (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone knows enough to get by the account name filters (although F4g should have been caught, surely). The reference to "burn in this world and the next" is to the Twitter fight between Fæ and whatsisname that I posted here recently. My money is either on one of WR's resident trolls, or Benjiboi.

Twitter fight?

[lilburne]

Let's talk about "blackmail" for a second, since it is mentioned in that ANI thread. Here is the "blackmail threat" posted on Fæ's Commons talk page during their RfA:

If the pictures are not of you...
Then sending them (there are always copies) to your civil partner should be no big deal. Yes/no? 98SA447 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who this was (it wasn't me). Note that there is no mention of the RfA (which was sinking like a concrete warship by this point anyway). Note also that it is not even in the traditional form of unless you do x, I will do y. There isn't even any implied action that Fæ might take to avoid this. A threat, certainly, but is it blackmail or simply trolling?

Well wasn't the email to you in response to you asking the question wrt to the so called blackmail attempt? IOW the backmail was before you posted the email and thus could have had nothing to do with giving away Fæ's dox to nasty persons unknown.

[carbuncle]

Twitter fight?

This one.