Ashley Van Haeften caught copying a map and lying about it, (and while he's up for admin on Commons no less) Options

[carbuncle]

At the Commons deletion discussion for a map created and uploaded by Wikimedia UK trustee Ashley Van Haeften, the following exchange took place:

For maps, more is required than a declaration of "own work". Where do the details in the coastline come from? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I created this map in Inkscape. The coastline was roughly based on a Google satellite photo and in practice is points from the coastline connected by thick lines rather than a detailed tracing. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous IP editor has pointed out that the map created by Van Haeften bears more than a passing resemblance to another map available online.

Here's the Van Haeften map in question:
(IMG:http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8476/20120104062739voidokili.png)

Just for fun, I took a screenshot of the Google satellite map of the area:
(IMG:http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7083/googlenooverlay.jpg)

I overlaid it with Fæ's image at 50% visibility, using the road for positioning and scale:
(IMG:http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8654/google50percentoverlay.jpg)

Notice how different the shape of the lagoon is? Now look at the tourist map with Fæ's image overlaid at 50% visibility:
(IMG:http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4885/overlayat50percent.jpg)

Interestingly, no scaling was required, it fit perfectly at the sizes downloaded. See how similar the placement of the text is? See how the lagoon is the same shape on both maps, unlike the shape it is on Google?

[edited to show the actual image, rather than the replacement now on commons - SBJ]

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny:

[mbz1]

At the Commons deletion discussion for a map created and uploaded by Wikimedia UK trustee Ashley Van Haeften, the following exchange took place:

For maps, more is required than a declaration of "own work". Where do the details in the coastline come from? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I created this map in Inkscape. The coastline was roughly based on a Google satellite photo and in practice is points from the coastline connected by thick lines rather than a detailed tracing. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous IP editor has pointed out that the map created by Van Haeften bears more than a passing resemblance to another map available online.

Here's the Van Haeften map in question:
(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Voidokilia_beach_location_map.png)

Just for fun, I took a screenshot of the Google satellite map of the area:
(IMG:http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7083/googlenooverlay.jpg)

I overlaid it with Fæ's image at 50% visibility, using the road for positioning and scale:
(IMG:http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8654/google50percentoverlay.jpg)

Notice how different the shape of the lagoon is? Now look at the tourist map with Fæ's image overlaid at 50% visibility:
(IMG:http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4885/overlayat50percent.jpg)

Interestingly, no scaling was required, it fit perfectly at the sizes downloaded. See how similar the placement of the text is? See how the lagoon is the same shape on both maps, unlike the shape it is on Google?

But why would he do it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Fusion]

But why would he do it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Because he thinks he can? To show how clever he thinks he is?

[carbuncle]

But why would he do it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Because he thinks he can? To show how clever he thinks he is?

Why would he trace a map from the website of the tourist board? Probably because it's easier than tracing the Google map (already has labels, roads, etc). Why would he lie about it? Lying appears to be a way of life for him. The WP RFC/U case that Ash escaped from by changing accounts doesn't have that much meat to it, but it came about because of a long-term pattern of self-serving prevarication and distortion.

[thekohser]

We seem to have a case of one of those rare Wikipedians who is so eager to prove his value to the cause of "the Project", that he's completely lost sight of common, everyday ethical values. And anyone who tries to point out this fatal flaw to him is "harassing" him or "attacking" him. He truly is Essjay II.

[Cla68]

We seem to have a case of one of those rare Wikipedians who is so eager to prove his value to the cause of "the Project", that he's completely lost sight of common, everyday ethical values. And anyone who tries to point out this fatal flaw to him is "harassing" him or "attacking" him. He truly is Essjay II.

All he needs to say is "Own work, patterned after such-and-such tourist map, linked [here]", and there wouldn't be a big problem. Can't he do that?

[Kelly Martin]

We seem to have a case of one of those rare Wikipedians who is so eager to prove his value to the cause of "the Project", that he's completely lost sight of common, everyday ethical values. And anyone who tries to point out this fatal flaw to him is "harassing" him or "attacking" him. He truly is Essjay II.

All he needs to say is "Own work, patterned after such-and-such tourist map, linked [here]", and there wouldn't be a big problem. Can't he do that?

That would be at best plagiarism and more likely copyright infringement. Although honestly I don't see why copying a Google map is any better on that count; most Google maps are just as copyrighted.

One of the things I've noticed about liars is that they'll often tell lies that, even if believed, are worse for them than the truth would have been. They become so accustomed to lying that they become incapable of telling the truth, except by accident. I suspect it's because they are incapable of knowing what truth is.

It's interesting how Wikipedia seems to attract pathological liars.

[Peter Damian]

One of the things I've noticed about liars is that they'll often tell lies that, even if believed, are worse for them than the truth would have been.

That's intrigued me for a long time. Why can't they spot easy and gentle ways out of a fib. Why do they choose a path that will inevitably - and obviously, to a person with any sense - lead to pain, misery, despair, and boredom?

It's interesting how Wikipedia seems to attract pathological liars.

I've also been intrigued by that. I've always been sceptical of the idea that a leader attracts people of a similar nature to him, or to her (in this case, him). But perhaps it is true after all.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

It's interesting how Wikipedia seems to attract pathological liars.

I've also been intrigued by that. I've always been sceptical of the idea that a leader attracts people of a similar nature to him, or to her (in this case, him). But perhaps it is true after all.

There is a very obvious policy issue that encourages an atmosphere of lying - the dreaded AGF. While it is disguised as a policy of encouraging civil conduct, it actually means that those engaged in deception have the right not to be challenged, because to challenge them even in a polite way is to break policy.

Someone who is engaged in mild deception can bluster and get those who spot the deception punished. Even if people know that it is a lie, as there is no policy "Do not lie", in WikiThink calling people on a lie is a breach of AGF policy and must be sanctioned, lying is just an unfortunate mistake to be overlooked until you tread on the wrong toes.

AGF is a typical poisonous policy because it supposedly encourages one behaviour but creates a different response. We can see the same in Verifiability where people like WillBeBack use Not Truth as an excuse to support articles full of lies and distortion.

I suspect most of the aberrant behaviour on Wikipedia can be traced to the distortion of what seem sensible policies whose actual application amplifies the inappropriate behaviour of the community. I'm pretty certain in my day that I drove someone off the project with a sustained dose of deliberate WP:CIVILITY that drove the guy mad, an interesting experiment of fighting policy nerds with policy. As a Wikipedian, you know things are about to get tedious when the policy references come out and common sense is about to vanish.

[Peter Damian]

It's interesting how Wikipedia seems to attract pathological liars.

I've also been intrigued by that. I've always been sceptical of the idea that a leader attracts people of a similar nature to him, or to her (in this case, him). But perhaps it is true after all.

There is a very obvious policy issue that encourages an atmosphere of lying - the dreaded AGF. While it is disguised as a policy of encouraging civil conduct, it actually means that those engaged in deception have the right not to be challenged, because to challenge them even in a polite way is to break policy.

Someone who is engaged in mild deception can bluster and get those who spot the deception punished. Even if people know that it is a lie, as there is no policy "Do not lie", in WikiThink calling people on a lie is a breach of AGF policy and must be sanctioned, lying is just an unfortunate mistake to be overlooked until you tread on the wrong toes.

AGF is a typical poisonous policy because it supposedly encourages one behaviour but creates a different response. We can see the same in Verifiability where people like WillBeBack use Not Truth as an excuse to support articles full of lies and distortion.

I suspect most of the aberrant behaviour on Wikipedia can be traced to the distortion of what seem sensible policies whose actual application amplifies the inappropriate behaviour of the community. I'm pretty certain in my day that I drove someone off the project with a sustained dose of deliberate WP:CIVILITY that drove the guy mad, an interesting experiment of fighting policy nerds with policy. As a Wikipedian, you know things are about to get tedious when the policy references come out and common sense is about to vanish.

I wrote an essay on precisely that subject, more than 3 years ago, here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...=21110&hl=hume# (with apologies to David Hume).

Hume was actually writing about priests (whom he hated), but it is written with great psychological insight and penetrating wit, and reads across nicely to Wikipedians, and particularly the problem of maintaining Good Faith.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[radek]

It's interesting how Wikipedia seems to attract pathological liars.

I've also been intrigued by that. I've always been sceptical of the idea that a leader attracts people of a similar nature to him, or to her (in this case, him). But perhaps it is true after all.

There is a very obvious policy issue that encourages an atmosphere of lying - the dreaded AGF. While it is disguised as a policy of encouraging civil conduct, it actually means that those engaged in deception have the right not to be challenged, because to challenge them even in a polite way is to break policy.

Someone who is engaged in mild deception can bluster and get those who spot the deception punished. Even if people know that it is a lie, as there is no policy "Do not lie", in WikiThink calling people on a lie is a breach of AGF policy and must be sanctioned, lying is just an unfortunate mistake to be overlooked until you tread on the wrong toes.

AGF is a typical poisonous policy because it supposedly encourages one behaviour but creates a different response. We can see the same in Verifiability where people like WillBeBack use Not Truth as an excuse to support articles full of lies and distortion.

I suspect most of the aberrant behaviour on Wikipedia can be traced to the distortion of what seem sensible policies whose actual application amplifies the inappropriate behaviour of the community. I'm pretty certain in my day that I drove someone off the project with a sustained dose of deliberate WP:CIVILITY that drove the guy mad, an interesting experiment of fighting policy nerds with policy. As a Wikipedian, you know things are about to get tedious when the policy references come out and common sense is about to vanish.

The way I've been summarizing all that is by saying that the number one pillar of Wikipedia is really "any Wikipedia policy or guideline can be and often is successfully gamed, including WP:GAME"

[lilburne]

I suspect it's because they are incapable of knowing what truth is.

I once had a friend that was in awe of his 10 year old son. He used to say

The boy moves from truth, to lies, and back to truth again without missing a heart beat. To catch the lie is near on impossible without spending a lot of time checking on the veracity. And besides you would rather the lie was truth anyway, as it would make life so much easier.

The boy would be about 35 now.

[Fusion]

The boy would be about 35 now.

So probably too old to be the average WP admin, no? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Malleus]

It's interesting how Wikipedia seems to attract pathological liars.

I've also been intrigued by that. I've always been sceptical of the idea that a leader attracts people of a similar nature to him, or to her (in this case, him). But perhaps it is true after all.

There is a very obvious policy issue that encourages an atmosphere of lying - the dreaded AGF. While it is disguised as a policy of encouraging civil conduct, it actually means that those engaged in deception have the right not to be challenged, because to challenge them even in a polite way is to break policy.

That's about right I think.

[lilburne]

The boy would be about 35 now.

So probably too old to be the average WP admin, no? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Not your average one for sure.

[EricBarbour]

No one noticed the obvious, that map is of a "gay-friendly" nudist beach?

He's just like Benjiboi. His whole life, and his Wiki-life, revolve around him, and his sexual identity.

He's just like Jayjg. His whole life, and his Wiki-life, revolve around protecting his POV--at all costs.
No matter how many lies and redactions and other-admin blankings and canvassings it takes.

I would not call him another Essjay. Essjay was pathetic, but he wasn't this pathetic.

(And here, after I said I would not compare him to Benjiboi.....it's impossible to avoid.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[carbuncle]

No one noticed the obvious, that map is of a "gay-friendly" nudist beach?

He's just like Benjiboi. His whole life, and his Wiki-life, revolve around him, and his sexual identity.

He's just like Jayjg. His whole life, and his Wiki-life, revolve around protecting his POV--at all costs.
No matter how many lies and redactions and other-admin blankings and canvassings it takes.

I would not call him another Essjay. Essjay was pathetic, but he wasn't this pathetic.

(And here, after I said I would not compare him to Benjiboi.....it's impossible to avoid.)

That article was created by Fæ, probably so that he had somewhere to post his vacation snaps. The source used for this statement is interesting (possibly not safe for work):

The beach is considered friendly for naturists and gay tourists.

Here is all that they say about the beach (although they do say it in both English and Greek):

Situated after Pylos and a a[sic] gulf with a big lagoon of murky water and is suitable for nudists.

Hmmm, using a tiny passage in a gay tourist guide as a source? This is ''exactly'' what that RFC/U on Ash was all about...

[Kelly Martin]

No one noticed the obvious, that map is of a "gay-friendly" nudist beach?

So that explains why he lied about the source. He's trying to conceal the true source, because revealing the true source would also reveal that he's a gay nudist. I so love dealing with pathologically closeted gays. You know, the ones that everyone knows are gay, but who have a conniption at even the slightest implication that they might be gay?

Wikipedia's "outing" policy is clearly designed with people like this in mind; after all, Wikipedia policy makes it an offense to reveal the real name of an editor even if that editor's real name is widely known, or even if it can be discovered merely by following links on the editor's own user's page. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the only facts that are "known" about an editor are those that the editor chooses to expose on his own user pages; all else is scurrilous rumor. Do we see a parallel here?

[dogbiscuit]

No one noticed the obvious, that map is of a "gay-friendly" nudist beach?

So that explains why he lied about the source. He's trying to conceal the true source, because revealing the true source would also reveal that he's a gay nudist. I so love dealing with pathologically closeted gays. You know, the ones that everyone knows are gay, but who have a conniption at even the slightest implication that they might be gay?

Wikipedia's "outing" policy is clearly designed with people like this in mind; after all, Wikipedia policy makes it an offense to reveal the real name of an editor even if that editor's real name is widely known, or even if it can be discovered merely by following links on the editor's own user's page. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the only facts that are "known" about an editor are those that the editor chooses to expose on his own user pages; all else is scurrilous rumor. Do we see a parallel here?

Hmmm, I noted that there was discussion that WR was homophobic, and of course that post will be taken as further evidence - a fixation on gays. Whilst there are some individuals here who have an issue, the fundamental issue is that Wikipedia is used as a site for promoting a sexual perspective on the world, whether that is straight or gay, and generally that is what posters here are uncomfortable with.

What is interesting from that perspective is that a person who is actively promoting a sexual perspective on Wikipedia should be so uncomfortable when it is him involved personally.

So is it WR which has the problem - where I would say WR represents a conventional view of the world where many posters, but not all, feel that the sexualisation of every and all activities is inappropriate - or those who seek to sexualise everything from beaches to electric carving knives?

[RMHED]

.You know, the ones that everyone knows are gay, but who have a conniption at even the slightest implication that they might be gay?