FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin? -
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
I guess Ashley wants to delete the rest of his embarrassing uploads without the fuss of having to ask an admin...
QUOTE
I would like to put myself forward for admin tools. Over the last year I have committed to Commons projects, mostly in my role as a volunteer leading the GLAM UK programme, my work as an OTRS volunteer (for which having tools would mean a wider scope of the types of ticket I would pick up) and also my work as a trusted user (using my own scraping tool to help check and empty the Flickr backlog queue of dubious uploads every now and then). I run Faebot, though I recently paused in using my iMacro scripts as I would like to move to more standard batch upload tools for larger upload projects. In 2012 I will be part of a number of Commons projects and partnerships, including my continuing involvement in the future batch upload tool and some very high quality uploads with our UK GLAM partners; though it would always be useful to have a GLAM-knowledgeable admin available to help out, more important will be my experience of helping with all types of admin tasks on Commons to inform these projects as well as continuing the support I already give to the institutions on how to encourage Wikimedians to join in with making these projects a success, as well as promoting the use of simple policies for copyright and attribution. Fæ (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
It appears that he will get it, too. So far only Ottava objected.
Increasingly it appears that the Commons "community" is the most toxic and intolerant of all the WMF "project-things". I should look into this further.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
And I have my answer already...
QUOTE
Fear of canvassing of RfA Fæ
Hi everyone. I'm posting this as I fear canvassing on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ. All users who opposed after Ottava Rima didn't edit here for a long time. In particular RMHED (his first edit in two years) and Bali ultimate (he didn't edit here before). I could use some help overthere. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
Muckbutt seems to be plastering the rfa with comments about the opposers. I wonder why he is so keen on Ash. I am almost tempted to change one more letter in his id. But that would be homophobic of me.
Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th December 2011, 12:08am)
Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Just take it all down and write it up later. Don't forget what is on Bali ultimate's Commons talkpage.
So far the vote is 15 yes, 11 no. This is typical of how they "heel" a vote--by wearing people down. Commons is a much smaller community than en-wiki, so they can pull stunts like this.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 28th December 2011, 8:20am)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th December 2011, 12:08am)
Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Just take it all down and write it up later. Don't forget what is on Bali ultimate's Commons talkpage.
It looks like there will soon be more main stream media coverage on wikimedia's governance.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 28th December 2011, 10:26am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 28th December 2011, 8:20am)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th December 2011, 12:08am)
Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Just take it all down and write it up later. Don't forget what is on Bali ultimate's Commons talkpage.
It looks like there will soon be more main stream media coverage on wikimedia's governance.
I remember Bali, and that people were semi-impressed with his work on en-wiki. He obviously knew about problems with BLPs. So why does his block on Commons surprise him?
(Could someone fix the title of this thread? Either spell Van Haeften's name correctly, or go all the way and call him "Van Half-ton".)
"Canvassing" accusations are silly. Wikipedia / Wikimedia is supposed to be about spreading information instead of keeping it to a select few, yet they're saying, "You can't discuss about Wikipedia / Wikimedia on a forum." Common's alleged allegiance to everything free speech and open is horseshit. They don't want us to talk; they want to live in a fantastical, walled garden where they could make decisions without having "outsiders" knowing or speaking out about what's going on there.
Of course it's not wrong if people with a few edits vote here and everyone is of course allowed to give him/her opinion, but I noticed lots of users with few edits opposed. That made me think there was some canvassing campaign happening. Maybe it was not obvious canvassing, but clearly [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35962&hl= this] was the cause (which is an off-wiki discussion). I don't like it when people request others to vote (esp. oppose). Oh and for everyone reading here and on other channels: I'm not a '''HE''', I'm a '''SHE''' (yes, female, pfff). Kind regards, [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]] ([[User talk:Trijnstel|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:05pm)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 28th December 2011, 4:34pm)
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:05pm)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 10:01pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 28th December 2011, 4:34pm)
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:05pm)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.
He says it is ironic that someone should complain about canvassing by going to the Administrators' Noticeboard in order to make his complaint known to a bunch of other people (who wouldn't otherwise have become involved).
See also our Michael Suarez' follow-up comment
QUOTE
Every time someone expresses their views openly on the WR, you (= the people of Wikimedia) [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A6&diff=64487261&oldid=64487094 go on a witch hunt] against the WR's use of free speech with "canvassing" as your battle cry. Your hostility against freedom of expression anywhere but where you permit it isn't really appreciated. The WR (and forums in generally) exists to make opinions and voices, including opinions some would rather not here, accessible to others, just as Commons exists to make free media, including images some would rather not view, accessible to others. You can expect a lot of oppose's if an opinion expressed on the WR is enlightening to others. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 28th December 2011, 9:34pm)
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:05pm)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.
I think if it wasn't for SV's and Jayjg's secret mailing lists of a few years ago which they used to, among other things, call for help in torpeding RfAs they didn't approve of (like mine), then the promotion of "canvassing" as an illegal WP activity wouldn't be as strong. I think your point, that it is useless to prohibit canvassing, is correct. Since WP can't regulate participants sending emails to each other, messaging to their groups of friends on Facebook, or posting to Wikipedia Review, then why bother having an anti-"canvassing" rule?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE
Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Were you previously knows as Ashleyvh (presumably Ashley van Haeften), Teahot, or Ash? Can you please disclose your previous account(s)? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Fæ, were you also Speedoguy?67.168.135.107 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 29th December 2011, 2:18am)
QUOTE
Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Were you previously knows as Ashleyvh (presumably Ashley van Haeften), Teahot, or Ash? Can you please disclose your previous account(s)? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Fæ, were you also Speedoguy?67.168.135.107 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 29th December 2011, 2:31am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 29th December 2011, 2:18am)
QUOTE
Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Were you previously knows as Ashleyvh (presumably Ashley van Haeften), Teahot, or Ash? Can you please disclose your previous account(s)? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Fæ, were you also Speedoguy?67.168.135.107 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
See the block log. Chase me, who is an employee, initially blocked and Courcelles then stepped in and changed it by some amount less than a minute.
I see. Courcelles only removed talk page access. BTW please forgive my ignorance, but could somebody please tell me how people became trustee directors? Are they getting elected by the community?
See the block log. Chase me, who is an employee, initially blocked and Courcelles then stepped in and changed it by some amount less than a minute.
I see. Courcelles only removed talk page access. BTW please forgive my ignorance, but could somebody please tell me how people became trustee directors? Are they getting elected by the community?
They were elected by the membership of WMUK. I think the first batch were elected online and subsequent ones at the AGM. They can also be co-opted. At least that is the casewth various charities I know.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
As ever, Herbythyme can eventually be persuaded to see sense.
QUOTE
Support It is rare that there is a "no brainer" here these days but this is one of those - thanks for helping - appreciated --Herby talk thyme 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE
Goes to show how wrong I can be at times... --Herby talk thyme 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's see the powers that be at Commons dismiss his opinion. I'm tempted to nominate him for something next time we have awards.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Detective @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:22am)
As ever, Herbythyme can eventually be persuaded to see sense.
QUOTE
Support It is rare that there is a "no brainer" here these days but this is one of those - thanks for helping - appreciated --Herby talk thyme 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE
Goes to show how wrong I can be at times... --Herby talk thyme 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's see the powers that be at Commons dismiss his opinion. I'm tempted to nominate him for something next time we have awards.
He still has a + vote registered against his name.
Or, to put it plainly, en.wp community, which is much bigger than the Commons community, just have means to impose here their opinion without caring about the opinion of the Commons community at all. I am not on IRC nor on WR for the record.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"This is our walled garden. Go away. There shan't be any outside commentary or scrutiny. If an outsider speaks, we should stuff our fingers into our ears in order to avoid hearing something, even a fact, that we would rather not hear."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
Some material that isn't available on Fæ's talk page on WP (except to those with oversighter bits):
QUOTE
As I mentioned earlier I’m planning on doing a piece on Wikimedia governance and admin practices, probably using your rise to the positions of administrator on the English language Wikipedia and Board Member of Wikimedia UK as a case study. My name is Dan Murphy. Though I’m a reporter/editor at the Christian Science Monitor, I won’t be doing this story for them (for 3 reasons: I’ll be writing this from a first person perspective, something the CSM rarely does; it’s outside my remit; and some of the material I’ll need to cover will be too explicit for us).
I’ve also emailed this note to you with my personal email and phone number included. I append it here in the interest of full transparency, which I hope you’ll appreciate. Here are my questions: 1. Some of your statements on Wikimedia projects have confused me. You sometimes imply that there’s doubt that User:Teahot and User:Ash were not in fact, you. Could you address this directly? Did you or did you not control those two accounts? From my perspective and investigation it sure seems that you did. 2. The pictures of a half-naked man in bondage positions that were uploaded to commons by the User:Teahot account look a lot like you. Were you the model? If not, how did you come to own that photograph? (I suppose if you insist that you didn’t control the Ash/Teahot accounts, you wouldn’t be in a position to know). 3. Did you privately request the deletion of those pictures? If so, why? If you didn’t, what do you know about the decision to delete the images– at who’s request, and so on? 4. You’ve stated on multiple occasions that either “stalking†and/or “harassment†led to your “vanishing†(in the Wikipedia sense) as User:Ash. As someone involved in examining your editing at the RFC/U at the time you disappeared, I found this to be an implied attack on me and others and I found it offensive. In my mind, I was simply pulling on threads that indicated you had fabricated sourcing and stood in the way of article improvement. Why did you go? If you really feared for your safety (and that of your family if memory serves) why did you return under a new identity so quickly, that you then went on to publicly and clearly connect to your real name? 5. Do you think uploaders of pictures to commons should retain the right to withdraw the permissions they’ve given if they have second thoughts? This seems to have been done as a favor to you, (the bondage pictures) but commons practice (and some deletion discussions you’ve been involved in there recently) indicates this is generally frowned upon. This certainly looks like the case of a double standard, of different rules for the inner circle. Do I have this wrong? If so, can you explain how? 6. I have no particular concern or interest in your sexual habits. But examination of your editing requires that sexual content be dealt with – since that was a big portion of your work on Wikipedia as Ash and continues to be a major interest at commons as Fae. The biggest concern at the RFC/U for “Ash†was the misuse of sources, including claims they contained information they did not, in fact, contain. Do you dispute this was accurate? If not, did you disclose to Wikimedia UK your past account and the concerns of others before you were voted in? 7. I fully intend (after reviewing the old RFC/U and the links from that time) to write about the concerns about your editing then. In addition to what looked like deliberate misuse of sources, you also insisted on using industry PR (the “grabby†awards and so on) as reliable sources. The problem with those sources was not that they’re porn connected, but that they were marketing tools in which “facts†(physical measurements, personal preferences, real names, real ages etc…) are typically fabricated. Do you still think those are good sources for writing accurate and neutral encyclopedia articles about living people? 8. What was the process to become a Wikimedia UK board member? I.e. who voted, how were you nominated, stuff like that. 9. As Ash you created (and strenuously argued for the retention of an article called) “List of Gay Bathhouse Regulars.†Articles like this alarm me not just as a BLP issue (though false inclusion of a person in this article by a malicious IP was a near certainty at some point and that's alarming enough). They are at best a trivial cross categorization (the mundane example would be “People who like to go to the pubâ€) and at worst something that could cause real world harm and distress to someone who may have indeed frequented gay bathhouses, but would prefer some privacy in this manner (I have similar concerns about the marginal porn bios you spent so much time editing – many people who move on from porn don’t want to be remembered that way. Unless they’re folks of great fame, with extent sources to write serious biographies on, they don't need to be so immortalized). Why did you think this was an “encyclopedic†topic? Have your views changed on this? If so, how and why? 10. I’m still investigating this, but it appears that you’ve been involved in reaching out as a Wikimedia UK board member to MPs and other folks in the UK about Wikipedia’s safeguards against defamation, against inappropriate pornography (i.e. of kids), against general error. If I’m correct in this assumption, can you either explain to me what you’ve been telling them about editorial controls or direct me to presentation materials you’ve used?
Whew! That’s a lot for a start. It will probably be some weeks before I’m ready to publish anything and will certainly ping you when it’s getting close. Feel free to call or email at any time.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 29th December 2011, 10:40am)
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 29th December 2011, 9:26am)
Some material that isn't available on Fæ's talk page on WP (except to those with oversighter bits):
Not oversighted, actually, but revision-deleted by AGK.
Looks like Bali is definitely a white hat. More stuff that AGK rather ironically deleted for your reading pleasure:
QUOTE
There is no harassment. I'm going to write a piece about governance at Wikimedia. He has received my email (identical to this except the inclusion of my email address and phone number) and he will either respond, or he won't. Mr. Van Haeften is a board member of Wikimedia UK (i.e. not a garden variety editor or admin) and has disclosed his identity voluntarily, so there can be no "outing" (though as a reporter, which is how i'm approaching this now, I'm only interested in the truth). He is also welcome to delete or retain whatever he likes on his talk page. I will continue to publicly disclose all communications going forward in the interest of transparency. None of this is "harassment" (which, btw, is a claim that i'm doing something borderline illegal. You've hurt my feelings). If you'd like me to continue talking about this with you on wikipedia, simply respond, and we'll carry on a conversation about it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin?
