Posted by: carbuncle

I has the misfortune to look at the list of trustees for Wikimedia UK that was posted inhttp://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35640. One name is particular jumped out at me - Ashley Van Haeften.

Ashley Van Haeften is currently known on WP as User:FÃ¦. They make no secret of this in the context of Wikimedia UK. As FÃ¦ states on their userpage dealing with privacy:

QUOTE

My contributions to Wikipedia are under the name "FÃ¦" with legitimate doppelgÃ¤ngers of Fae and Faelig (these are my only other accounts, if there is any need for me to create more alternative accounts these would be in compliance with WP:SOCK#LEGIT). This account name is a convenient nom de plume. I will disclose necessary information on request such as my legal name, contact details or discuss possible areas of conflict of interest for administrative purposes. Please note that gathering personal information by data-mining or by analysing contributions on Wikipedia, across sister projects or elsewhere when not for an agreed bureaucratic process is considered a serious breach of the Privacy policy. --FÃ¦ (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd that someone who is elsewhere openly identifying themselves and their WP username would make such comments about their off-site identity. Perhaps it would be instructive to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/F%C3%A6. Recall FÃ¦'s userpage declaration that they had no other accounts. There was some reference made in the RfA to having a previous username, which prompted some discussion, but did not prevent the RfA from succeeding:

QUOTE

I accept. 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. FÃ¦ (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

<snip intervening discussion>
I am not Newman Luke and had never heard of this account until my RFA was running. I have never been banned from any topic or article or had any sort of ban imposed on me, ever. I interpret my "refocus" as a more positive style of interaction including active avoidance of drama, as part of clean start avoiding unnecessary interaction with editors that were part of past drama and moving my spheres of interest to new topics to become a more generalist Wikipedian and avoiding the articles which were the sites of previous disputes without it being a complete self-ban. I would intend to continue in the same positive style after this RFA regardless of outcome. FÃ¦ (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Although it does appear that their editing has moved to new areas, perhaps if editors outside of ArbCom had been aware of FÃ¦'s old username and the specifics of their previous actions, they may have felt differently about granting admin rights to Van Haeften.

FÃ¦ was previously known as User:Ash. Prior to that, they were Ashleyvh and Teahot. I'm sure there were others as well. Ash is probably best known for tag-teaming with Benjiboi in his efforts to fill WP with BLPs of unremarkable gay porn stars. The end of that particular episode is loosely discussed in http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826. The now banned Benjiboi has since been exposed as a prolific sockpuppeteer and POV-pusher, so I doubt Van Haeften would welcome his association with that particular user.

Ash "left" WP with claims that someone had threatened him with some form of violence (that person was never named, but he claimed in email that it was not me). It remains unclear to me if this threat was real or imagined (or fabricated), but Ash claimed to be leaving WP because of it. In reality, even as they were http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ash/Editnotice&diff=prev&oldid=353345065 like "As I am no longer actively contributing to articles you may wish to drop me an email in notification", they were already "actively contributing" as FÃ¦. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash that Van Haeften was allowed to duck out of via this deception was largely about the fraudulent use of references in BLPs. Although the evidence was not particularly strong, it seemed to be part of a long-standing pattern of misuse of sources to push particular POVs. I have no doubt that the RfC would have ended poorly for Ash (and Van Haeften clearly saw the writing on the wall).

Posted by: thekohser

Ashley's LinkedIn profile says he's a "Senior Consultant" for a company called TBL. Here's their website, according to Ash:

http://www.tblco.com/

Looks like a really top-notch business.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:15am)

FÃ¦ was previously known as User:Ash. Prior to that, they were Ashleyvh and Teahot. I'm sure there were others as well. Ash is probably best known for tag-teaming with Benjiboi in his efforts to fill WP with BLPs of unremarkable gay porn stars. The end of that particular episode is loosely discussed in http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826. The now banned Benjiboi has since been exposed as a prolific sockpuppeteer and POV-pusher, so I doubt Van Haeften would welcome his association with that particular user.

Yeah, and that really ended well. (Benjiboi is still socking, just as a little reminder.)

This is all very routine. You kiss ass on Wikipedia, then the WMF (or an affiliate thereof) gives you a paying job.
They are practicing good old-fashioned logrolling nepotism. They run like a city government. Corruption, lying,
backstabbing, massive incompetence. Only difference: the world wants Wikipedia, but doesn't need it.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 6:15pm)

I has the misfortune to look at the list of trustees for Wikimedia UK that was posted inhttp://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35640. One name is particular jumped out at me - Ashley Van Haeften.

I guess Ash really is a glutton for punishment, or perhaps punishing.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Man_in_stress_position.jpg
Description Man in stress position.jpg
English: Man in stress position or partial suspension bondage.
Date 4 November 2008(2008-11-04)
Source Own work
Author http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teahot

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 6:15pm)

... (and Van Haeften clearly saw the writing on the wall).

Or maybe the stomach.

Posted by: EricBarbour

And what was Teahot doing on en-wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Teahot.......

QUOTE

User contributions for Teahot

18:15, 4 September 2009 (diff | hist) Suspension bondage â€Ž (â†’Vertical suspension: clarify)
18:14, 4 September 2009 (diff | hist) Suspension bondage â€Ž (â†’Vertical suspension: adding image of man in vertical partial suspension (to balance all other images being women))
12:20, 1 September 2009 (diff | hist) Hogtie â€Ž (â†’Use in consensual erotic bondage: adding example image)
12:18, 1 September 2009 (diff | hist) Talk:Hogtie bondage â€Ž (â†’Add male pictures)
09:59, 31 August 2009 (diff | hist) Kristian Digby â€Ž (Adding portrait)
06:56, 8 August 2009 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert â€Ž (â†’Report date July 25, 2009, 09:32 (UTC): x-ref to WQA)
00:53, 6 August 2009 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert â€Ž (Summary)
11:59, 5 August 2009 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert â€Ž (â†’Report date July 25, 2009, 09:32 (UTC): slight reformat and qualification)
11:54, 5 August 2009 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert â€Ž (â†’Report date July 25, 2009, 09:32 (UTC))
08:32, 5 August 2009 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert â€Ž (â†’Report date July 25, 2009, 09:32 (UTC))
06:01, 29 July 2009 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars â€Ž (â†’List of gay bathhouse regulars: unsplit my infinitive, grammar!)
06:00, 29 July 2009 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars â€Ž (â†’List of gay bathhouse regulars: noting name change)
05:46, 29 July 2009 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars â€Ž (â†’List of gay bathhouse regulars)
15:20, 28 July 2009 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars â€Ž (â†’List of gay bathhouse regulars: wording)
15:17, 28 July 2009 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars â€Ž (â†’List of gay bathhouse regulars: r)
11:18, 27 July 2009 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars â€Ž (â†’List of gay bathhouse regulars: clarification)
09:09, 27 July 2009 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars â€Ž (â†’List of gay bathhouse regulars)

That guy has gone thru a lot of accounts. And is probably still socking like mad.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I believe this is him here (with clothes on). http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140981

This is excellent. The CC shouldn't be swayed (in principle) by the bondage thing. The ganging up with Benjiboi to promote the interests of commercial pornographers on Wikipedia is something else entirely.

Note the Fae is not a paid director. Nor are any of the other director trustees. The only salaried person is Richard Symonds (Chase Me). However, the trustees have considerable powers to influence how grants are allocated.

Posted by: Alison

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"? AshÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) did, of course.

QUOTE

"Inclusion on this list does not imply that the person had or does engage in sexual activity at gay bathhouses or that the individual identifies as gay, has any particular sexuality or endorses any particular political or moral view on gay bathhouses."

*sigh*

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 26th November 2011, 7:41am)

This is excellent. The CC shouldn't be swayed (in principle) by the bondage thing. The ganging up with Benjiboi to promote the interests of commercial pornographers on Wikipedia is something else entirely.

The "bondage thing", while attention-grabbing, really isn't relevant to Wikimedia UK's charity status at all and I can see no reason why it should be mentioned in any dealings with the relevant charity authorities.

In the context of WP, it is simply another example of the popular phenomenon of using WP as a vehicle to advance one's own goals and ignoring the inherent conflict of interest. True, posting images of yourself in bondage is a bit more extreme that, say, writing an article about yourself, but shades of the same thing. Using WP tohttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voidokilia_naturists.jpg or write a bio of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Corcoran&oldid=181587298 is a time-honoured tradition on WP, especially among admins.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 26th November 2011, 10:40am)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 26th November 2011, 7:41am)

This is excellent. The CC shouldn't be swayed (in principle) by the bondage thing. The ganging up with Benjiboi to promote the interests of commercial pornographers on Wikipedia is something else entirely.

The "bondage thing", while attention-grabbing, really isn't relevant to Wikimedia UK's charity status at all and I can see no reason why it should be mentioned in any dealings with the relevant charity authorities.

In the context of WP, it is simply another example of the popular phenomenon of using WP as a vehicle to advance one's own goals and ignoring the inherent conflict of interest. True, posting images of yourself in bondage is a bit more extreme that, say, writing an article about yourself, but shades of the same thing. Using WP tohttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voidokilia_naturists.jpg or write a bio of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Corcoran&oldid=181587298 is a time-honoured tradition on WP, especially among admins.

Agree 100%. I have written this up off-wiki in a way that hopefully makes this clear. I have even ignored the gay thing, which is also irrelevant. What extremely relevant is the promotion of commercial websites by by administrators or trustees, and the resulting conflict of interest.

[edit]
I met him on the 13th at the ghastly wiki-meetup. I quizzed him quite closely on what WMUK was actually for and got no intelligent answer. I was on the lines of 'the Vatican is digitising manuscripts, universities are digitising manuscripts, the Warburg is working on digitising manuscripts and incunabula (early printed books), so how is this any different from what WMUK is proposing to do? Why shouldn't the Warburg get a grant of Â£1m for its work on open content'.

He was quite evasive, but on the lines of, their grants have to involve doing it the MediaWiki way. The Warburg cannot just publish a digital manuscript on its website, it has to be open etc etc. This was exactly what I wanted him to say. This is also the reason I revived the dispute about the LogicMuseum. I want to demonstrate that the Wikipedia organisation is promoting its own way of doing things (which the Charity Commission expressly prohibits them from doing, per case law from 1957), and also has a "monopoly on knowledge", by prohibiting outbound links to non-wikipedia sites, such as the LogicMuseum.

And of course I love the idea that a WMUK director was promoting outbound links to gay porn sites, one of which has a section on '**very young-looking males** sprawled on a sofa masturbating', while at the same time Ckatz is blocking links to a site which includes extremely rare and difficult to obtain medieval Latin texts. I mean, I can only repeat the cliche that "you really can't make it up". You really can't make it up, can you?

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 26th November 2011, 9:51am)

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"?

AshÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) did, of course.

QUOTE

"Inclusion on this list does not imply that the person had or does engage in sexual activity at gay bathhouses or that the individual identifies as gay, has any particular sexuality or endorses any particular political or moral view on gay bathhouses."

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_gay_bathhouse_regulars.
It is interesting that by the end of that AfD TeahotÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) started signing as Teahot (migrating to Ash)Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)

BTW Ash http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Rusty_Trombone&diff=prev&oldid=354624841 even in such safe

place as Wikipedia:SPI

QUOTE

The fake title of this SPI request appears to be a deliberate act intended to cause offence and inflame argument. See [[Rusty trombone]] - "Rusty trombone is a euphemism for a sexual act in which a man stands with his knees and back slightly bent, with feet at least shoulder width apart in order to expose the anus." Please close and delete this SPI on that basis. [[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash|talk]]) 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And you are saying that the user who wrote " List of gay bathhouse regulars" and the above comment in SPI is now director trustee with WMF, and Wikipedia administrator!

While I am on this SPI it is interesting to notice that the subject of this SPI, this very one after whom SPI was given such "fake title" that it appeared "to be a deliberate act intended to cause offence and inflame argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Rusty_Trombone over http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daedalus969&oldid=286107768#I_want_to_share_something_with_you

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 26th November 2011, 2:41am)

Note the Fae is not a paid director. Nor are any of the other director trustees. The only salaried person is Richard Symonds (Chase Me). However, the trustees have considerable powers to influence how grants are allocated.

What was all http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=35461&view=findpost&p=288149, then?

QUOTE

Chief Executive 60,000
Office Manager 25,000
Events Manager 30,000
Communications 20,000
Developer 30,000

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 26th November 2011, 4:51am)

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"?

AshÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) did, of course.

Is there a publicly-viewable page that indicates AshÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) created that page? Now that it's deleted, I don't immediately see how you check who created it. Or, is that an admin-only function? If admin-only, could I get a screen shot for proof, please?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 26th November 2011, 3:44pm)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 26th November 2011, 2:41am)

Note the Fae is not a paid director. Nor are any of the other director trustees. The only salaried person is Richard Symonds (Chase Me). However, the trustees have considerable powers to influence how grants are allocated.

What was all http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=35461&view=findpost&p=288149, then?

QUOTE

Chief Executive 60,000
Office Manager 25,000
Events Manager 30,000
Communications 20,000
Developer 30,000

Sorry, yes, there are many other paid people. However, none of the trustees are paid.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 26th November 2011, 11:01am)

Sorry, yes, there are many other paid people. However, none of the trustees are paid.

Which is standard procedure for most non-profit orgs.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 26th November 2011, 4:37pm)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 26th November 2011, 11:01am)

Sorry, yes, there are many other paid people. However, none of the trustees are paid.

Which is standard procedure for most non-profit orgs.

I was replying to someone's comment that if you kiss ass on Wikipedia, then the WMF (or an affiliate thereof) gives you a paying job. That is not true of Fae, who kissed ass to get a trusteeship.

The position of other Wikipedians who are getting paying jobs, such as Richard Symonds, is different. I don't know whether Richard kissed any asses though.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 26th November 2011, 3:11pm)

While I am on this SPI it is interesting to notice that the subject of this SPI, this very one after whom SPI was given such "fake title" that it appeared "to be a deliberate act intended to cause offence and inflame argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Rusty_Trombone over http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daedalus969&oldid=286107768#I_want_to_share_something_with_you

And currently editing as User:38.109.88.218...

Posted by: mbz1

I just looked at Meta, and there is a user http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&diff=prev&oldid=3106579
So I tried to figure out what personal appeal would have written user FÃ¦.
Maybe something like this:

QUOTE

I feel like Iâ€™m living the first line of my obituary.

I donâ€™t think there will be anything else that I do in my life as important as what I do now for Wikipedia. Weâ€™re not just building an encyclopedia, weâ€™re working to make people free.
When we have access to free knowledge, we are better people.
We understand the world is bigger than us, and we become infected with tolerance and understanding. Right now there is still not enough tolerance and understanding on Wikipedia.
For example I wrote an article "List of gay bathhouse regulars." The users who have not yet become infected with either tolerance or understanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_gay_bathhouse_regulars
This example demonstrates that we all have lot's of work to do in order to make people free by providing them with a free knowledge, and in order to do this we need more money.
Remember when you give to Wikipedia, youâ€™re supporting free knowledge around the world.
Youâ€™re not only leaving a legacy for your children and for their children, youâ€™re elevating people around the world who have access to this treasure.
So please make your donation now, please ensure that your children and grandchildren would not be deprived from a knowledge about gay bathhouse regulars.
I am trustee director with Wikimedia Foundation, so you could rest assure your donations would be spend for a good purpose.
Thank you,

(Disclosure:Some parts of this imaginary appeal were copied from https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=L11_1107_CA_Brandon/en/CA)
(Disclosure:I was going to post it to Meta Forum, but then I decided WR is a safer place for such appeals

)

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 26th November 2011, 6:16pm)

(Disclosure:I was going to post it to Meta Forum, but then I decided WR is a safer place for such appeals)

I think your decision may have been wise.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:20pm)

[/url]
Description Man in stress position.jpg
English: Man in stress position or partial suspension bondage.
Date 4 November 2008(2008-11-04)
Source Own work
Author http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teahot

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 6:15pm)

... (and Van Haeften clearly saw the writing on the wall).

Or maybe the stomach.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Man_in_stress_position.jpg

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 26th November 2011, 4:00pm)

QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:20pm)

[/url]
Description Man in stress position.jpg
English: Man in stress position or partial suspension bondage.
Date 4 November 2008(2008-11-04)
Source Own work
Author http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teahot

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 6:15pm)

... (and Van Haeften clearly saw the writing on the wall).

Or maybe the stomach.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Man_in_stress_position.jpg

(show/hide) 15:45, 26 November 2011 Blurpeace (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Man in stress position.jpg" â€Ž (User requested) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 26th November 2011, 7:53am)

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 26th November 2011, 4:51am)

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"?

AshÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) did, of course.

Is there a publicly-viewable page that indicates AshÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) created that page? Now that it's deleted, I don't immediately see how you check who created it. Or, is that an admin-only function? If admin-only, could I get a screen shot for proof, please?

No there isn't, as it's admin-only. Here's a screenshot, though, which is the best I could do;

http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/alliewiki/ScreenShot2011-11-26at41715PM-1.png

Interesting that someone originally PRODded it, but Benjiboi swooped in a few minutes later to remove the tag

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Alison @ Sun 27th November 2011, 12:08am)

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 26th November 2011, 4:00pm)

QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:20pm)

[/url]
Description Man in stress position.jpg
English: Man in stress position or partial suspension bondage.
Date 4 November 2008(2008-11-04)
Source Own work
Author http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teahot

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 6:15pm)

... (and Van Haeften clearly saw the writing on the wall).

Or maybe the stomach.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Man_in_stress_position.jpg

(show/hide) 15:45, 26 November 2011 Blurpeace (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Man in stress position.jpg" â€Ž (User requested) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)

Damn, Wikipedia Loves censorship when it suits their agenda.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Alison @ Sun 27th November 2011, 12:08am)

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 26th November 2011, 4:00pm)

QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:20pm)

[/url]
Description Man in stress position.jpg
English: Man in stress position or partial suspension bondage.
Date 4 November 2008(2008-11-04)
Source Own work
Author http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teahot

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 6:15pm)

... (and Van Haeften clearly saw the writing on the wall).

Or maybe the stomach.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Man_in_stress_position.jpg

(show/hide) 15:45, 26 November 2011 Blurpeace (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Man in stress position.jpg" â€Ž (User requested) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)

Oh, no, what a pity! And how about a free knowledge? It should not be deleted like that, and now they http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suspension_bondage&oldid=423589634#Vertical_suspension

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 27th November 2011, 12:35am)

QUOTE(Alison @ Sun 27th November 2011, 12:08am)

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 26th November 2011, 4:00pm)

QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:20pm)

[/url]
Description Man in stress position.jpg
English: Man in stress position or partial suspension bondage.
Date 4 November 2008(2008-11-04)
Source Own work
Author http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teahot

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 6:15pm)

... (and Van Haeften clearly saw the writing on the wall).

Or maybe the stomach.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Man_in_stress_position.jpg

(show/hide) 15:45, 26 November 2011 Blurpeace (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Man in stress position.jpg" â€Ž (User requested) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)

Oh, no, what a pity! And how about a free knowledge? It should not be deleted like that, and now they http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suspension_bondage&oldid=423589634#Vertical_suspension

Ash released the image to the public domain, and http://www.webcitation.org/getfile.php?fileid=aefee6714b7ac95c9a40782f3b90db102e5693bc.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 27th November 2011, 12:28am)

Damn, Wikipedia Loves censorship when it suits their agenda.

Does this mean that "User:FÃ¦" reads WR?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Is this within the general rules observed in Commons? The fact that VH took the picture would not be enough to have it deleted, because of the terms of the licence. If it was actually him in the picture, then privacy might be sufficient. But then he gave permission for the picture to be released, so does that apply? And if it wasn't him in the picture, but took the picture or simply uploaded it, then wanting the picture deleted to prevent embarrassment to a director of WMUK is not sufficient reason either.

I am going onto Commons right now to demand that information must be free.

[edit] I have started a discussion here http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=63064706&oldid=63058705

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 27th November 2011, 9:21am)

Is this within the general rules observed in Commons? The fact that VH took the picture would not be enough to have it deleted, because of the terms of the licence. If it was actually him in the picture, then privacy might be sufficient. But then he gave permission for the picture to be released, so does that apply? And if it wasn't him in the picture, but took the picture or simply uploaded it, then wanting the picture deleted to prevent embarrassment to a director of WMUK is not sufficient reason either.

I am going onto Commons right now to demand that information must be free.

[edit] I have started a discussion here http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=63064706&oldid=63058705

No, this is not within the general rules observed in Commons. Images as donations cannot be taken away. If for one reason or another an uploader wants the image off, the image should be nominated on deletion and most of the times it will not get deleted.

Posted by: carbuncle

Looks like the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&curid=26760596&diff=462745928&oldid=462643261 on WP:

QUOTE

Were you previously User:Ash?
I ask because I remember this RFC on the user (Ash departed wikipedia under a cloud.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash. There seems to be rather strong evidence that you and Ash are one and the same. Maybe a redirect from the old account and a talk merge, as was done with Teahot, is in order?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 27th November 2011, 5:20pm)

Looks like the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&curid=26760596&diff=462745928&oldid=462643261 on WP:

QUOTE

Were you previously User:Ash?
I ask because I remember this RFC on the user (Ash departed wikipedia under a cloud.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash. There seems to be rather strong evidence that you and Ash are one and the same. Maybe a redirect from the old account and a talk merge, as was done with Teahot, is in order?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Some administrators doing their best in order to cover up their prior accounts.
For example Gwen Gale used account The Witch. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThe_Witch&action=historysubmit&diff=256329384&oldid=256326444.

Of course all her talk page history from this account and other sock accounts was deleted against all wikipedia rules.

Everything that was left from the talk history of the Witch was a small single ... period, yes a period like this one ".".
Still the stupidest Gwen's lackey http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Witch&action=historysubmit&diff=256350718&oldid=256327243 , but Gwen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Witch&action=historysubmit&diff=256351060&oldid=256350718
I wish somebody would have asked Gwen why the Witch is not redirected to her current account. After all the Witch was used to violate Gwen's topic ban on gays and lesbian topics, and then Gwen lied about using the Witch account in both of her RfAs.

Posted by: thekohser

Barbara Streisand Effect about to take effect on Monday morning, on Examiner.com.

Ashley Van Haeften, if you wish to discuss how this will be portrayed in my story, you have 20 hours to contact me.

Gregory Kohs
http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/gregory-kohs

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 26th November 2011, 9:51am)

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"?

AshÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) did, of course.

Yes, as well as Pleasuredrome (T-H-L-K-D) and Chariots Shoreditch (T-H-L-K-D)
and List of films featuring gay bathhouses (T-H-L-K-D)
that are advertising gay saunas.
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Ash&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects (Who could have thought pornographic actors are so notable that they should have Wikipedia's entries

but I guess for a free knowledge

it's OK.

What I cannot understand how come that FÃ¦, who started his contributions on 28 March 2010 with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairy_%28gay_slang%29&redirect=no, could have had a successful RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/F%C3%A6.

I've always thought that about 3 years of positive contributions are required before passing RfA.

Question to Larry Sanger.
Larry, I know that you are not with Citizendium anymore, but probably you'd know response to my question that I am asking out of a simple curiosity.

Let's say I'd make an account with Citizendium, providing my real name and other required information. Let's say I'd write a well sourced article like this one Pleasuredrome (T-H-L-K-D). Would it be allowed to stay in Citizendium ? Thanks.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 27th November 2011, 3:19pm)

I've always thought that about 3 years of positive contributions are required before passing RfA.

Where'd you get that idea? Three months is enough if you have sucked all the right cocks.

Posted by: the fieryangel

With Benjiboi, we had a smoking gun in that he had Dj'd at a party given by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lucas_%28director%29 that was hosted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Roma, who both work in the Porn industry. The connections were obvious (Sisters of Perputual Indulgence, SF chapter: Sister

From http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Ash&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects, it's quite obvious that our friend Ash has gay porn on the brain. Many gay men do. However, I'm not seeing the connection to the porn ndustry, other than these articles created. It could be that he's just doing this to gain access to these gay porn stars via their blogs etc. However, he seems to spend an awful lot of time doing this stuff just to be a "fanboi".

I'm wondering exactly what the company that he's susposed to work for actually does? Maybe he does promotional work for gay porn studios?

In any case, I'd like to find this "missing link"...

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 27th November 2011, 11:10pm)

With Benjiboi, we had a smoking gun in that he had Dj'd at a party given by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lucas_%28director%29 that was hosted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Roma, who both work in the Porn industry. The connections were obvious (Sisters of Perputual Indulgence, SF chapter: Sister

From http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Ash&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects, it's quite obvious that our friend Ash has gay porn on the brain. Many gay men do. However, I'm not seeing the connection to the porn ndustry, other than these articles created. It could be that he's just doing this to gain access to these gay porn stars via their blogs etc. However, he seems to spend an awful lot of time doing this stuff just to be a "fanboi".

I'm wondering exactly what the company that he's susposed to work for actually does? Maybe he does promotional work for gay porn studios?

In any case, I'd like to find this "missing link"...

It was always my feeling that Ash's interest in gay porn performers (and English bathhouses) was personal rather than professional. It may also have been partly ideological as well, since both he and Benjiboi were quick to throw out insinuations of homophobia about those who were trying to get rid of the worst of the gay porn BLPs. I never found any indication that Ash had a professional connection to porn studios (but I wasn't really looking for one, either).

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 27th November 2011, 6:34pm)

Barbara Streisand Effect about to take effect on Monday morning, on Examiner.com.

Ashley Van Haeften, if you wish to discuss how this will be portrayed in my story, you have 20 hours to contact me.

Gregory Kohs
http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/gregory-kohs

can't wait

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 27th November 2011, 9:25pm)

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 27th November 2011, 3:19pm)

I've always thought that about 3 years of positive contributions are required before passing RfA.

Where'd you get that idea? Three months is enough if you have sucked all the right cocks.

See this ANI thread entitled "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Admin_conduct_review_requested", which suggests that rather soon after his successful RfA, there were rumblings from fellow admins about whether or not he should have been given the tools. I'm not suggesting that the fix was in, but it's clear that the RfA was tainted by the somewhat disingenuous statements by ArbCom member John Vandenberg about Van Haeften's earlier accounts.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 27th November 2011, 7:15pm)

See this ANI thread entitled "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Admin_conduct_review_requested"

That was started by XenophrenicÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Ever looked at Xenophrenic's userpage history? It's fascinating.

QUOTE

(cur | prev) 00:06, 10 November 2007â€Ž Chaser (talk | contribs)â€Ž m (empty) (Changed protection level for "User:Xenophrenic": reducing per editor's request; editor's block log indicates Gnangarra no longer believes him to be a sockpuppet, so original reason for protection is mute [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])
(cur | prev) 04:55, 20 February 2007â€Ž Gnangarra (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (remove sockpuppet tag from user)
(cur | prev) 14:29, 16 February 2007â€Ž Gnangarra (talk | contribs)â€Ž (145 bytes) (sockpuppetproven)
(cur | prev) 14:10, 16 February 2007â€Ž Gnangarra (talk | contribs)â€Ž (139 bytes) (fix link to sockpuppeteer)
(cur | prev) 14:04, 16 February 2007â€Ž Gnangarra (talk | contribs)â€Ž m (138 bytes) (Protected User:Xenophrenic: sockpuppet - confirmed by checkuser, user keeps removing tag violating probation [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
(cur | prev) 14:02, 16 February 2007â€Ž Gnangarra (talk | contribs)â€Ž (138 bytes) (sockpupet tag added with links to decisions)
(cur | prev) 13:49, 16 February 2007â€Ž Gnangarra (talk | contribs)â€Ž m (17 bytes) (Reverted edits by Xenophrenic (talk) to last version by TDC)
(cur | prev) 03:22, 16 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Removed vandalism. Please cease.)
(cur | prev) 03:11, 16 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes)
(cur | prev) 02:06, 16 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Removed vandalism.)
(cur | prev) 00:12, 16 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes) (rv)
(cur | prev) 17:26, 14 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Vandalism removed.)
(cur | prev) 12:39, 14 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes) (leave the tag be or I will have the page protected)
(cur | prev) 08:23, 14 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Removed vandalism.)
(cur | prev) 03:40, 14 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes) (the jury is in Rob, and you are most certainly a sock)
(cur | prev) 06:29, 13 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Removed vandalism.)
(cur | prev) 21:11, 12 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes) (see talk, Rob, three admins agree with me on this one, this is a legitimate tag)
(cur | prev) 21:01, 12 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Removed vandalism.)
(cur | prev) 20:43, 12 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes) (its right in your block log Rob, if you disagree take it up with the admins who sanctioned you)
(cur | prev) 20:14, 12 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Stop the vandalism, Rob. Last warning.)
(cur | prev) 16:32, 12 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes) (rob, leave it be, this is now a well established fact)
(cur | prev) 20:42, 10 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Removed userpage vandalism again, please cease)
(cur | prev) 13:43, 10 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes) (it is now beyond a doubt)
(cur | prev) 16:51, 8 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Removed vandalism)
(cur | prev) 12:16, 8 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes)
(cur | prev) 08:40, 8 February 2007â€Ž Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)â€Ž (empty) (Very funny)
(cur | prev) 23:17, 7 February 2007â€Ž TDC (talk | contribs)â€Ž (17 bytes) (â†Created page with '{{Sockpuppeteer}}')

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 27th November 2011, 5:20pm)

Looks like the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&curid=26760596&diff=462745928&oldid=462643261 on WP:

QUOTE

Were you previously User:Ash?
I ask because I remember this RFC on the user (Ash departed wikipedia under a cloud.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash. There seems to be rather strong evidence that you and Ash are one and the same. Maybe a redirect from the old account and a talk merge, as was done with Teahot, is in order?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AF%C3%A6&action=historysubmit&diff=462892381&oldid=462864503

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 1:15pm)

FÃ¦ was previously known as User:Ash. Prior to that, they were Ashleyvh and Teahot.

Is there iron-clad evidence of the Ashleyvh --> Teahot --> Ash --> FÃ¦ chain of name-changing?

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 28th November 2011, 7:55pm)

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 1:15pm)

FÃ¦ was previously known as User:Ash. Prior to that, they were Ashleyvh and Teahot.

Is there iron-clad evidence of the Ashleyvh --> Teahot --> Ash --> FÃ¦ chain of name-changing?

There is for the first two. Looking at user (talk) pages

12:09, 15 April 2009 Anonymous Dissident (Talk | contribs) moved User:Ashleyvh to User:Teahot â€Ž (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Ashleyvh" to "Teahot") (revert)

02:43, 27 July 2009 Kingturtle (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:Teahot to User talk:Ash â€Ž (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Teahot" to "Ash") (revert)

The rest involves inferences from the first user name and edit patterns.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Mon 28th November 2011, 8:44pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 28th November 2011, 7:55pm)

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 1:15pm)

FÃ¦ was previously known as User:Ash. Prior to that, they were Ashleyvh and Teahot.

Is there iron-clad evidence of the Ashleyvh --> Teahot --> Ash --> FÃ¦ chain of name-changing?

There is for the first two. Looking at user (talk) pages

12:09, 15 April 2009 Anonymous Dissident (Talk | contribs) moved User:Ashleyvh to User:Teahot â€Ž (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Ashleyvh" to "Teahot") (revert)

02:43, 27 July 2009 Kingturtle (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:Teahot to User talk:Ash â€Ž (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Teahot" to "Ash") (revert)

The rest involves inferences from the first user name and edit patterns.

Fae has already conceded this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F%C3%A6#Were_you_previously_User:Ash.3F

He changed name after an RfC where he was accused of blatant misuse of sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash

However he (abetted by Benjiboi) claimed that the real reason was homophobia - all the articles were about gay saunas or gay porn stars. So, claiming harrassment he changed his user name. Vandenberg supported this in the RfA and refused to disclose.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 28th November 2011, 8:56pm)

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Mon 28th November 2011, 8:44pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 28th November 2011, 7:55pm)

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 25th November 2011, 1:15pm)

FÃ¦ was previously known as User:Ash. Prior to that, they were Ashleyvh and Teahot.

Is there iron-clad evidence of the Ashleyvh --> Teahot --> Ash --> FÃ¦ chain of name-changing?

There is for the first two. Looking at user (talk) pages

12:09, 15 April 2009 Anonymous Dissident (Talk | contribs) moved User:Ashleyvh to User:Teahot â€Ž (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Ashleyvh" to "Teahot") (revert)

02:43, 27 July 2009 Kingturtle (Talk | contribs) moved User talk:Teahot to User talk:Ash â€Ž (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Teahot" to "Ash") (revert)

The rest involves inferences from the first user name and edit patterns.

Fae has already conceded this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F%C3%A6#Were_you_previously_User:Ash.3F

He changed name after an RfC where he was accused of blatant misuse of sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash

However he (abetted by Benjiboi) claimed that the real reason was homophobia - all the articles were about gay saunas or gay porn stars. So, claiming harrassment he changed his user name. Vandenberg supported this in the RfA and refused to disclose.

I think Fae avoided either conceding it or denying it, just said it had been covered in the RFA.

It would have been helpful if he had explained in the RFA that there were allegations of sourcing issues in the RFC and then people could have assessed the application in that context. I don't know how many people would have changed their !votes but it would probably have ensured proper scrutiny of the current pattern and hopefully the !votes would have been on that basis rather than on the smut factor.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Now on ANI

QUOTE

I would hope the knowledge that someone requesting a position of authority and trust (on one of the highest trafficked sites on the internet) thought listing people as being fond of cruising for anonymous sex was a good idea would give most RFA voters pause. By the time of the RFC, Van Haeften (i'm using his real name since it's disclosed and avoids confusion with the four online handles) had been found by me and a few other editors to have a habit of misusing sources in BLPS (that is, he frequently asserted that sources contained information on living people that they did not, in fact, contain). Van Haeften, as Ash, also frequently attacked people who criticized his editing as being motivated by homophobia, implied he was a victim of real world stalking and harassment, referred to "hate crimes" and implied that he was leaving wikipedia to protect the safety of himself and his family. The Ash user page continues to say he left the project because of a "disturbing personal attack" and "sustained wikihounding" (there was, of course, neither; he merely got caught fudging sources). He remained an active editor until April 13 2010 (the RFC was opened on April 5) and the RFC was then closed with the line user has stopped editing wikipedia; delisted due to inactivity. [75]. Yet Van Haeften had already taken up editing as Fae on March 28 2010, even as "Ash" was retiring over some alleged, yet incredibly vague, threat to himself and/or his family (the story changed a lot). The paranoia about real life identities and "hate crimes" struck me as disingenuous then, and more so now that he's openly disclosed his identity on wikipedia.

I could go on, but this is already overly long. What action am i seeking? A re-run of the RFA with full disclosure. This was an editor who not very long ago was mucking about with BLPs in a cavalier, to say the least, fashion. I'd also like for the arbs and admins that enabled this obfuscation to reflect on why so many people don't trust anything that happens behind closed doors on wikipedia. Your judgement about what other folks might think is relevant A. Isn't good and, 2. It's inapropriate to even try. A clean start for some gnomish guy who wants to avoid his past problem areas? Fine, great. A clean start for someone who wants a position of authority that does (no matter how much you deny it) have an outsized impact on content, just so they can avoid scrutiny? A really bad idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:F.C3.A6_.3D_User:Ash_.28and_was_previously_User:Ashleyvh_and_User:Teahot.29

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 28th November 2011, 10:28pm)

Now on ANI

It sure is,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=462987029

QUOTE

Is Bali ultimate simply dramamongering after reading some gossip at the ''Wikipedia Review''?

QUOTE

but there are more important things to do than to read WR.

Are there, Fetchcomms?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 28th November 2011, 8:39pm)

QUOTE

but there are more important things to do than to read WR.

Are there, Fetchcomms?

Oh, momma. He's got to delete something every day, or he's not happy.

Don't forget the looks-suspiciously-like-paid-editing, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DD172&diff=prev&oldid=461861559.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 29th November 2011, 5:25am)

Don't forget the looks-suspiciously-like-paid-editing, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DD172&diff=prev&oldid=461861559.

Um, not paid editing so much as office work:

QUOTE

WP:OFFICE
Hi all,
At the request and in consultation with the WMF's legal department, this article and Damon Dash are temporarily courtesy blanked. Please don't re-add anything to them; we do not expect this to be a long term action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The courtesy blank for this page is expired. It's on full protection for a week, but I'm open to stepping it down early if someone puts in a request. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But this one probably belongs in its own thread if there's more to the story...

Posted by: thekohser

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-trustee-finds-his-hands-tied by the mainstream media.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th November 2011, 5:50pm)

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-trustee-finds-his-hands-tied by the mainstream media.

I was looking forward to this. Lends itself to the Kohs treatment. I'm saying this before I've even read it.

[edit] And I was not disappointed. Meanwhile, my first draft of submission to UK Charity Commission is here http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Activity_Plan#Draft_of_the_summary_of_my_proposed_submission_to_the_UK_Charity_Commission, posted for comment by the trustees.

Posted by: thekohser

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q="Wikimedia+UK", and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Posted by: EricBarbour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:F.C3.A6_.3D_User:Ash_.28and_was_previously_User:Ashleyvh_and_User:Teahot.29

Posted by: carbuncle

Here's an edit that may provoke some speculation - User:Lidos (Oliver Merrington, when he's at home) used to have this on his userpage:

QUOTE

My username was suggested to me by User:Speedo.

With http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lidos&diff=428968701&oldid=428968196, he changed it to read

QUOTE

My username was suggested to me by User:FÃ¦.

The sensible interpretation of that change would mean that Speedo (formerly known as Speedoguy) and FÃ¦ are one and the same, and they certainly http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Ash&user2=Speedo&user3=. I'm sure this is a legitimate "alternate" account, but it does make one wonder if there are others...

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 29th November 2011, 8:47pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:F.C3.A6_.3D_User:Ash_.28and_was_previously_User:Ashleyvh_and_User:Teahot.29

Sadly it's not a shitstorm. The majority of them are perfectly Ok with it. As long as you behave, and as long as Arbcom allow you to come back, it's perfectly fine. See below.

QUOTE

Firstly, Fae hasn't abused his admin tools. Second, he hasn't repeated the behavior that resulted in the RfC. Third, he was extremely transparent about the cleanstart at his RfA. I really don't see any reasons for an action here. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

History suggests a lot of rubbish. If ArbCom allowed him to start an RfA under the account Fae, then why are we wasting time questioning it now? All we are doing now is making an established contributor unwelcome and uncomfortable. /Æ’ETCHCOMMS/ 00:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And the chairman of the UK board has sent a Wikilove token http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=463125226&oldid=463108577 to Fae. Everything is magically all right, and it is as though nothing ever happened.

Ah, but what about this?

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 29th November 2011, 8:51pm)

The sensible interpretation of that change would mean that Speedo (formerly known as Speedoguy) and FÃ¦ are one and the same, and they certainly http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Ash&user2=Speedo&user3=. I'm sure this is a legitimate "alternate" account, but it does make one wonder if there are others...

There is only one person on Wikipedia who has an interest in Brockwell public baths.

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 29th November 2011, 9:54pm)

There is only one person on Wikipedia who has an interest in Brockwell public baths.

And here's Fae's very nice photo of the http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Dulwich_leisure_center_lockers.jpg:

Do you suppose that they just meet up at the....swimming pool?

Posted by: EricBarbour

Judging from Speedo's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=500&target=Speedo, they were doing more than public baths.
More like each other.

Isn't WP's history function magical? We can find connections--between gentlemen of the gay persuasion.
(As if it was entertaining. Wikipedia is like a gay Jersey Shore sometimes. Wait, do I hear the
plaintive strains of a tiny violin?.....)

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 29th November 2011, 10:18pm)

Judging from Speedo's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=500&target=Speedo, they were doing more than public baths.
More like each other.

Isn't WP's history function magical? We can find connections--between gentlemen of the gay persuasion.
(As if it was entertaining. Wikipedia is like a gay Jersey Shore sometimes. Wait, do I hear the
plaintive strains of a tiny violin?.....)

Threeway monomaniac editing about outdoor swimming pools...What can it all mean?

Posted by: thekohser

Fae now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=prev&oldid=463108577,

QUOTE

This user is no longer very enthusiastic about Wikipedia and must take frequent wikibreaks to keep from leaving this place for good.

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th November 2011, 10:35pm)

Fae now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=prev&oldid=463108577,

QUOTE

This user is no longer very enthusiastic about Wikipedia and must take frequent wikibreaks to keep from leaving this place for good.

Well he's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:F%C3%A6/events for the weekend on WMF business. I wonder what he'll get up to while he's there?.

Posted by: carbuncle

Can we impose a limit of one locker room and/or bathhouse joke per user per day, please? It's sounding a bit catty in here.

Posted by: the fieryangel

Redacting, since he's had a bad enough day as it is...

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th November 2011, 6:50pm)

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q="Wikimedia+UK", and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 29th November 2011, 11:17pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th November 2011, 6:50pm)

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q="Wikimedia+UK", and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though

That's funny. I saw it.

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE

Photo of a man who is likely a Wikimedia UK trustee

What is this, the Daily Mail? That's a rubbish caption, Greg, and you know it. No evidence has been produced that actually implies Ashley Van Haeften is the subject of that image. That's not ethical journalism in the slightest.

Why not, "http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roger_Bamkin-lblue_in_Haifa.jpg" or "http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steve_Virgin.jpg"?

You had a chance to write a decent, respectable piece about a charity's trustee that previously had a lying issue on Wikipedia. Instead of journalistic criticism, you made it a thinly-veiled attack with assumptions and a potentially misleading image and title.

Your article doesn't answer the question of, "What does the sex life of the pictured person have to do with Wikipedia?" Obviously, nothing--a personal decision to engage in bondage acts is not news.

At least, not real news.

Shame, Gregory, shame. Do you want to be a gossip writer or an actual journalist? Or are you just waiting for Cade Metz to retire?

Posted by: Cla68

To be clear, we are, of course, not giving FÃ¦ a hard time for perhaps being gay or into bondage. We're giving him a hard time because he holds a position of trust and influence in the Wikimedia UK organization while his editing history shows misuse of sources, agenda-driven editing, violations of WP's BLP policy, and subsequent attempts to cover the entire thing up.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 29th November 2011, 3:00pm)

To be clear, we are, of course, not giving FÃ¦ a hard time for perhaps being gay or into bondage. We're giving him a hard time because he holds a position of trust and influence in the Wikimedia UK organization while his editing history shows misuse of sources, agenda-driven editing, violations of WP's BLP policy, and subsequent attempts to cover the entire thing up.

FTFY

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 29th November 2011, 10:57pm)

Your article doesn't answer the question of, "What does the sex life of the pictured person have to do with Wikipedia?" Obviously, nothing--a personal decision to engage in bondage acts is not news.

I agree that Van Haeften's sexuality is a distraction in this discussion (although as Ash, he had no trouble using it as a shield against legitimate criticism by implying his critics were homophobic).

I'm sure you meant your question rhetorically, but there is a case to be made that Van Haeften's sex life may actually have some bearing on his role as a Wikimedia UK trustee. If someone engages in risky sexual practices, it may imply that they are willing to accept more risk in other areas as well. By "risky" I mean an increased risk not only to health and to safety, but also legal risk. In this case, we have what appears to be a man chained up in a public place. Note that it was Van Haeften who uploaded this image to one of the world's most-visited websites and Van Heaften who added it to articles so that it would be seen. If the man in that image is Van Haeften, what does that say about his attitude toward risk? Would you appoint this man as the trustee of a charity? Would he make a good treasurer?

I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften should be mocked for his sexual proclivities, but I am suggesting that this isn't perhaps quite as simple as you would like it to be.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 29th November 2011, 5:57pm)

No evidence has been produced that actually implies Ashley Van Haeften is the subject of that image.

The evidence was so overwhelming, it was pouring out of the image like a high-pressure shower nozzle. Van Haeften uploaded it, he claimed the rights for it, no mention of who the "subject" was in the upload details, he failed to respond to my request to discuss it, and it looks just like him.

I'm sure if the image is not of him, then I should be expecting some sort of retraction demand from England. Haven't gotten one of those yet. Hmm... maybe because Haeften is the subject of that image.

You're just being ridiculous, small, jealous, and petty, Mike. My "Daily Mail" articles have received tens of thousands of page views, so it's obviously just what the public wants and needs to read about Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, which the traditional press isn't giving them.

Go do your frantic hand waving on another thread.

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 29th November 2011, 5:21pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 29th November 2011, 11:17pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th November 2011, 6:50pm)

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q="Wikimedia+UK", and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though

That's funny. I saw it.

I had, too. Maybe somebody "reported" it, and it was removed? Try again!

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 1:44am)

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 29th November 2011, 5:21pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 29th November 2011, 11:17pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th November 2011, 6:50pm)

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q="Wikimedia+UK", and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though

That's funny. I saw it.

I had, too. Maybe somebody "reported" it, and it was removed? Try again!

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 29th November 2011, 6:10pm)

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

.. and to send me friend requests!

I think the reason it's disappearing is because the page owner needs to 'approve' comments. You can see your own but until they're "public'd", nobody else can.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 28th November 2011, 10:28pm)

Now on ANI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=463190001&oldid=463189419
28bytes is right. There's nothing to do for administrators there.
AN/I was a wrong venue for this post and besides who cares, if an admin said half-truth
or untruth in his/her RfA? Isn't a very common occurrence on wikipedia? Try to put yourself in their shoes. If they are to desysop one admin over such a small deal, other editors will start complaining about the same situations with different admins, and what then? Desysoping 70+% of English wikipedia admins?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 29th November 2011, 9:14pm)

I think the reason it's disappearing is because the page owner needs to 'approve' comments. You can see your own but until they're "public'd", nobody else can.

There's no "approval" process with these Facebook-embedded comments on Examiner, though. And both Paul and I saw Tungsten's comment earlier.

Ah, I think I've figured it out -- Tungsten must have some setting switched on in Facebook, that only "friends" can see his posts. When I sign out of Facebook, Tungsten's Examiner comment disappears for me again. When I sign into Facebook, voila, it's back again.

Here's his comment, for the record:

QUOTE

One of your best articles ever - good job Greg.

Wikipedians are always claiming "Wikipedia is not censored" - objectionable material there gets extra protection under the banner of anti-censorship. In reality, though, Wikipedians love censorship whenever it suits their purpose, as exemplified by this article.

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 29th November 2011, 5:57pm)

Or are you just waiting for Cade Metz to retire?

I wonder why you'd be so disdainful of Cade Metz, "melloden". Oh, yeah, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19/wikipedia_civil_servant_scandal/.

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 29th November 2011, 9:24pm)

...and what then? Desysoping 70+% of English wikipedia admins?

That would leave just another 27% or 28%, and then our job would be done!

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 2:29am)

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 29th November 2011, 9:24pm)

...and what then? Desysoping 70+% of English wikipedia admins?

That would leave just another 27% or 28%, and then our job would be done!

Oh come on now! How could you be so selfish!
Our job would be done alright, but have you thought about Wikipedia?
How will they manage with only 27% or 28% of admins left?
Assuming that these 27% or 28% who are left would be honest, decent, unafraid and fair persons,
who is going to block content contributors who are reported by trolls?
Who's going to vote in new RfAs?
Who's going to delete IP messages from Jimbo's talk before he even was able to see it?
Who's going... but that's enough already.
I proved wikipedia needs each and every of its admins.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 2:29am)

Ah, I think I've figured it out -- Tungsten must have some setting switched on in Facebook, that only "friends" can see his posts. When I sign out of Facebook, Tungsten's Examiner comment disappears for me again. When I sign into Facebook, voila, it's back again.

thanks, I can't find the switch but will keep looking

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 30th November 2011, 2:14am)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 29th November 2011, 6:10pm)

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

.. and to send me friend requests!

lol? you found that funny?

Posted by: Ego Trippin' (Part Two)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th November 2011, 1:50pm)

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q="Wikimedia+UK", and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Greg, I think you did a very good job with this article on the whole, and I'm glad to see it high up there in the Google rankings. I just have one bit of constructive criticism. You focused primarily on Van Haeften's hypocrisy on the pornography issue and Wikipedians' obfuscation of the truth through username changes and cover-ups, and you played up the bondage angle. But you only briefly touched upon (and, more importantly, didn't hammer home) what makes this case particularly shocking: Van Haeften was promoted to sysop and hired by Wikimedia UK because he concealed from the public his history of "biographical malpractice," as PD put it, and in particular of adding references to support "facts" that were not present in the sources. The average reader is not as familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia as you and I. Such a reader would be grabbed by the bondage angle, but that reader would be even more shocked that a website which is purportedly a reliable encyclopedia is being administrated by a man who slanted that website's articles by using fraudulent referencing. (That the same man has not been disavowed but has instead been made a trustee of a closely related organization is icing on the cake.)

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 29th November 2011, 6:55pm)

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 29th November 2011, 10:57pm)

Your article doesn't answer the question of, "What does the sex life of the pictured person have to do with Wikipedia?" Obviously, nothing--a personal decision to engage in bondage acts is not news.

I agree that Van Haeften's sexuality is a distraction in this discussion (although as Ash, he had no trouble using it as a shield against legitimate criticism by implying his critics were homophobic).

I'm sure you meant your question rhetorically, but there is a case to be made that Van Haeften's sex life may actually have some bearing on his role as a Wikimedia UK trustee. If someone engages in risky sexual practices, it may imply that they are willing to accept more risk in other areas as well. By "risky" I mean an increased risk not only to health and to safety, but also legal risk. In this case, we have what appears to be a man chained up in a public place. Note that it was Van Haeften who uploaded this image to one of the world's most-visited websites and Van Heaften who added it to articles so that it would be seen. If the man in that image is Van Haeften, what does that say about his attitude toward risk? Would you appoint this man as the trustee of a charity? Would he make a good treasurer?

I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften should be mocked for his sexual proclivities, but I am suggesting that this isn't perhaps quite as simple as you would like it to be.

These are good points. I think that most employers would balk at hiring an individual who has uploaded sexual images of themselves onto the internet, as they would probably interpret that as evidence of poor judgment. I imagine that this would especially be true when the images involve bondage. One would think that even Wikimedia groups consider how hiring such individuals could reflect poorly on their organization.

Posted by: Ottava

I do find it odd how that "Clean Start" says that people aren't allowed to resume their old editing areas and old disputes, yet this user and many others that aren't banned after "clean starting" get a free pass. Rlevse didn't, which is rare. I think they should be very strict about this kind of sock puppetry - hiding from your past only encourages further bad behavior, not less.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I think the most important point to be made here is that WM UK argued, in their Charity Commission application, that WMF has policies in place that are supposed to ensure that the quality of the encyclopedia is maintained and improved, while at the same time one of their governing trustees has a notorious history of seeking to flaunt, violate, and undermine those very same policies. Truly an example of placing the wolves in charge of the henhouse.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Ego Trippin' (Part Two) @ Tue 29th November 2011, 11:00pm)

But you only briefly touched upon (and, more importantly, didn't hammer home) what makes this case particularly shocking: Van Haeften was promoted to sysop and hired by Wikimedia UK because he concealed from the public his history of "biographical malpractice," as PD put it, and in particular of adding references to support "facts" that were not present in the sources. The average reader is not as familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia as you and I. Such a reader would be grabbed by the bondage angle, but that reader would be even more shocked that a website which is purportedly a reliable encyclopedia is being administrated by a man who slanted that website's articles by using fraudulent referencing. (That the same man has not been disavowed but has instead been made a trustee of a closely related organization is icing on the cake.)

The article was getting awfully long already, and I had considerable doubts whether the average reader would care much about the nuances of fraudulent referencing, when (for most people) the real hammer to the head is simply that uploaded image. I did crop out the underpants, so as not to overly sensationalize.

Think http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/12780/thumbs/s-DRESSED-OBAMA-large.jpg, and http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/12/14/bush-shoe-cp-5981394-wide.jpg. I admit -- I'm guilty as the rest of the mainstream media when it comes to dumbing down a snafu. Though, the rest of the media can't even seem to muster a critical viewpoint of Wikim/pedia; at least I'm managing that, right?

Posted by: Eppur si muove

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9574. It takes 21 minutes before he says something. At 50 minutes someone notices that Ash has said nothing and questions him. He talks about Wikipedia's wonderful editorial policies, it's being the 6th biggest site and how he is a nobody. Isn't he lucky she googled him two days ago?

Edit: I have now watched the whole of his appearance and his speaking is confined to about a minute at 21 minutes in and to a direct question to him and follow-ups and then a question to the whole group which between them take up much of the range 50-60 minutes on the tape.

Posted by: thekohser

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hogtie_bondage&diff=prev&oldid=311264743 that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Wed 30th November 2011, 9:13am)

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9574.

Anyone notice that this meeting was held in the "Boothroyd Room"? (See "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21101&view=findpost&p=174544" for ironic effect.)

Van Haeften contends (59 minutes in) that "Wikipedia has a reputation that is purer than pure".

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 4:23pm)

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Wed 30th November 2011, 9:13am)

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9574.

Anyone notice that this meeting was held in the "Boothroyd Room"? (See "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21101&view=findpost&p=174544" for ironic effect.)

Van Haeften contends (59 minutes in) that "Wikipedia has a reputation that is purer than pure".

I think he was quoting one of the parliamentarians who had earlier said she thought he was portraying Wikipedia in this way.

For those who do not want to sit through the video, uncorrected transcripts seem to take about a week to be listed http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/privacy-and-superinjunctions/. The meeting was on 28th November.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 4:12pm)

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hogtie_bondage&diff=prev&oldid=311264743 that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHogtie_bondage#Add_male_pictures

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 11:12am)

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hogtie_bondage&diff=prev&oldid=311264743 that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AHogtied_male.jpg:

QUOTE

{{Information |Description={{en|1=BDSM scene. Man in hogtied position with restraints and chains.}} |Source=Own work by uploader |Author=[[User:Teahot|Teahot]] |Date=2009-01-15 |Permission= |other_versions= }}

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ash&diff=37321483&oldid=36041150

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 11:12am)

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hogtie_bondage&diff=prev&oldid=311264743 that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

I received the photo a few moments ago. I kind of wish I hadn't now.

Cripes, if anyone had a problem with the path down which my Examiner article went, they should be happy I didn't have access to this photo at the time of publication.

Posted by: Vigilant

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 6:29pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 11:12am)

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hogtie_bondage&diff=prev&oldid=311264743 that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

I received the photo a few moments ago. I kind of wish I hadn't now.

Cripes, if anyone had a problem with the path down which my Examiner article went, they should be happy I didn't have access to this photo at the time of publication.

Post it. Don't be greedy...

Posted by: thekohser

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=Henryk+Kupiszewski+Prize", unknown to Google Search, Google News, and Google Books, save for as it appears on one online resume page, one Wikipedia article, countless scrapings of said Wikipedia article, and one "booklet" sort of thing on Google Books.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 9:17pm)

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=Henryk+Kupiszewski+Prize", unknown to Google Search, Google News, and Google Books, save for as it appears on one online resume page, one Wikipedia article, countless scrapings of said Wikipedia article, and one "booklet" sort of thing on Google Books.

It appears to be the "Premio Henryk Kupiszewski" in its home language. I get http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Premio+Henryk+Kupiszewski%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&redir_esc=&ei=A6_WTri2NYSV8QPSr7H8AQ. How's your Italian or French?

Perhaps it should be anglicised to the "Henry Cooper Prize" which you get for almost beating the greatest. The greatest being a book on Roman Law published in the relevant period which might be 3 or 1 years as the sources seem inconsistent.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 29th November 2011, 7:03pm)

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 30th November 2011, 2:14am)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 29th November 2011, 6:10pm)

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

.. and to send me friend requests!

lol? you found that funny?

Yes! Why on earth would you interested in my FB? I'm a boring, middle-aged nerd who posts pictures of snot-nosed kids and elementary school pottery. Ask Greg - he's on there.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 1st December 2011, 3:23am)

Yes! Why on earth would you interested in my FB? I'm a boring, middle-aged nerd who posts pictures of snot-nosed kids and elementary school pottery. Ask Greg - he's on there.

I like when she posts stuff about homemade synthesizers.

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 1:44am)

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 29th November 2011, 5:57pm)

No evidence has been produced that actually implies Ashley Van Haeften is the subject of that image.

The evidence was so overwhelming, it was pouring out of the image like a high-pressure shower nozzle. Van Haeften uploaded it, he claimed the rights for it, no mention of who the "subject" was in the upload details, he failed to respond to my request to discuss it, and it looks just like him.

I'm sure if the image is not of him, then I should be expecting some sort of retraction demand from England. Haven't gotten one of those yet. Hmm... maybe because Haeften is the subject of that image.

You're just being ridiculous, small, jealous, and petty, Mike. My "Daily Mail" articles have received tens of thousands of page views, so it's obviously just what the public wants and needs to read about Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, which the traditional press isn't giving them.

Go do your frantic hand waving on another thread.

Jealous, that's a good one. Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

Anyway, what's new without criticism?

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 2:29am)

I wonder why you'd be so disdainful of Cade Metz, "melloden". Oh, yeah, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19/wikipedia_civil_servant_scandal/.

Hey, I like reading Cade Metz's stories more than I like reading yours.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 1st December 2011, 10:20am)

Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

I call that an "angle". If you think that's "misleading", then you must not have much mental ability to discriminate between the two.

Your punishment? http://webcitation.org/query.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AHogtied_male.jpg, okay, Michael?

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:08pm)

QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 1st December 2011, 10:20am)

Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

I call that an "angle". If you think that's "misleading", then you must not have much mental ability to discriminate between the two.

Your punishment? http://webcitation.org/query.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AHogtied_male.jpg, okay, Michael?

OMG! It's him, English wikipedia admin and trustee director FÃ¦!

It is interesting that he described the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHogtie_bondage#Add_male_pictures

I mean I have nothing against UK wikimedia trustee director posing in bondage, but he does not know what being nude means

How could he be doing a good job in promoting a free knowledge.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:08pm)

QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 1st December 2011, 10:20am)

Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

I call that an "angle". If you think that's "misleading", then you must not have much mental ability to discriminate between the two.

Your punishment? http://webcitation.org/query.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AHogtied_male.jpg, okay, Michael?

Hm that looks suspiciously like the person who spoke to parliament. What puzzles me is how he managed to take the photos while in that position. Does he have a long photo delay on that camera? Has he photoshopped the picture? Has he an identical twin brother? Or could he have legitimately got the pictures deleted as not his own work?

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 1st December 2011, 11:08am)

Your punishment? http://webcitation.org/query.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AHogtied_male.jpg, okay, Michael?

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Teahot

I couldn't resist. I had to upload them onto ED.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:38pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:08pm)

QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 1st December 2011, 10:20am)

Because I'm totally jealous of someone who deliberately writes news in a misleading manner.

I call that an "angle". If you think that's "misleading", then you must not have much mental ability to discriminate between the two.

Your punishment? http://webcitation.org/query.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AHogtied_male.jpg, okay, Michael?

Hm that looks suspiciously like the person who spoke to parliament. What puzzles me is how he managed to take the photos while in that position. Does he have a long photo delay on that camera? Has he photoshopped the picture? Has he an identical twin brother? Or could he have legitimately got the pictures deleted as not his own work?

Why do you believe he took the photo of himself?
He probably could not have chained himself either.
Remember there was a discussion concerning this user David MerrillÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?
This user also has a sex slave, and he provides the link to his home page
which contains pictures and "Slave Manual".
So, if you are interested how it works, you could follow the link from his wikipedia user page to his sex slave page - so much for a free knowledge.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:54pm)

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:38pm)

[Hm that looks suspiciously like the person who spoke to parliament. What puzzles me is how he managed to take the photos while in that position. Does he have a long photo delay on that camera? Has he photoshopped the picture? Has he an identical twin brother? Or could he have legitimately got the pictures deleted as not his own work?

Why do you believe he took the photo of himself?
He probably could not have chained himself either.
Remember there was a discussion concerning this user David MerrillÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?
This user also has a sex slave, and he provides the link to his home page
which contains pictures and "Slave Manual".
So, if you are interested how it works, you could follow the link from his wikipedia user page to his sex slave page - so much for a free knowledge.

I don't believe he took it himself. My point is that the pictures were uploaded and released as his own work. So maybe he did not have the right to release them into the public domain in the first place. They could therefore have been deleted from Wikimedia as incorrectly licensed.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 1st December 2011, 8:23am)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 29th November 2011, 7:03pm)

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 30th November 2011, 2:14am)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 29th November 2011, 6:10pm)

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

.. and to send me friend requests!

lol? you found that funny?

Yes! Why on earth would you interested in my FB? I'm a boring, middle-aged nerd who posts pictures of snot-nosed kids and elementary school pottery.

the same reason I sent an invite to every other Wikipedia Reviewer I recognized there.

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 1st December 2011, 8:23am)

Ask Greg - he's on there.

now my delicate feelings are really hurt.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 1st December 2011, 12:10pm)

So maybe he did not have the right to release them into the public domain in the first place. They could therefore have been deleted from Wikimedia as incorrectly licensed.

If that was the flimsy excuse for their deletion, don't you think that reason would have been presented to the reporter prior to his publishing the story about the images?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:54pm)

Why do you believe he took the photo of himself?
He probably could not have chained himself either.

Did you look at the image in question? Whoever the pictured man is, he could very easily have clipped the larger chain to his right cuff and just as easily unlock it. If you wanted to upload an image of yourself in bondage to one of the world's most visited websites, I suspect that you might be willing to go to a small amount of effort. In any case, you are suggesting that Van Haeften was being untruthful when he uploaded that image to Commons.

So far as I can tell, it was Ash who http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ash&diff=37321483&oldid=36041150 of the image, based on a lack of proper information (which only he could provide). It all seems a little fishy.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 1st December 2011, 5:10pm)

I don't believe he took it himself. My point is that the pictures were uploaded and released as his own work. So maybe he did not have the right to release them into the public domain in the first place. They could therefore have been deleted from Wikimedia as incorrectly licensed.

He's a thief you say?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th November 2011, 12:50pm)

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-trustee-finds-his-hands-tied by the mainstream media.

Traffic from England over the past 3 days:

..........City ...Visits ...Pages/Visit ...Avg. Time on Site
1. London ...41 ...1.78 ...00:03:53
2. Lambeth ...17 ...2.35 ...00:06:52
3. Teddington ...7 ...2.29 ...00:05:41
4. Brentford ...6 ...3.67 ...00:19:29
5. Kensington ...5 ...1.20 ...00:00:07
6. Nottingham ...3 ...2.67 ...00:04:34
7. Leeds ...2 ...1.50 ...00:00:10
8. Manchester ...2 ...2.00 ...00:01:14
9. Preston ...2 ...1.00 ...00:00:00
10. Southampton ...2 ...1.50 ...00:01:04

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 1st December 2011, 7:13pm)

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:54pm)

Why do you believe he took the photo of himself?
He probably could not have chained himself either.

Did you look at the image in question? Whoever the pictured man is, he could very easily have clipped the larger chain to his right cuff and just as easily unlock it. If you wanted to upload an image of yourself in bondage to one of the world's most visited websites, I suspect that you might be willing to go to a small amount of effort. In any case, you are suggesting that Van Haeften was being untruthful when he uploaded that image to Commons.

So far as I can tell, it was Ash who http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ash&diff=37321483&oldid=36041150 of the image, based on a lack of proper information (which only he could provide). It all seems a little fishy.

No, I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften was being untruthful, when he uploaded that image to Commons because I do not believe that in this particular situation it matters who took the image. He could have asked his master to take this image of him, and still be a copyright holder for the image. He could have even paid for the image.

Commons is not really interested who took an image,
Commons only interested who is the copyright holder of an image.

And yes, it is definitely possible to put a camera on tripod and make it wait for a few moments before taking a picture to have enough time to place himself in the right position.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 1st December 2011, 2:37pm)

No, I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften was being untruthful, when he uploaded that image to Commons because I do not believe that in this particular situation it matters who took the image. He could have asked his master to take this image of him, and still be a copyright holder for the image. He could have even paid for the image.

Commons is not really interested who took an image,
Commons only interested who is the copyright holder of an image.

The copyright in a photograph vests in the photographer, not the subject and not the person who asked for the photograph to be taken. This is true even if the photographer is being paid to take the picture. The copyright might have transferred later, but the law generally requires that a copyright transfer be evidenced by a written document, so merely asking his "master" to take the image is insufficient. In any case, claiming a photograph taken by someone else as "own work" is misrepresentation at best; even if one has acquired the copyright it's still not one's "own work", but someone else's work that you've paid for.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 1st December 2011, 7:13pm)

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 1st December 2011, 5:10pm)

I don't believe he took it himself. My point is that the pictures were uploaded and released as his own work. So maybe he did not have the right to release them into the public domain in the first place. They could therefore have been deleted from Wikimedia as incorrectly licensed.

He's a thief you say?

No it could all be perfectly innocent. Suppose his partner is researching his lectures on ancient slavery and bemoans the fact that, although the likes of Plato and Phaedo were know to have been enslaved, ancient accounts of slavery are dominated by slave owner discources and lack coverage of the slave's experience of being placed in chains. Similarly Ash comments on the preponderance of discources of male domination in Wikipedia's coverage even of fantasy slavery and particularly in the availability of pictorial representations. They realise that both of these issues could be solved if they were to carry out some practical research.

Only Ash was willing to have pictures of himself uploaded. While Ash's partner was happy to take the picture and to let Ash use the pictures on Wikipedia, he was unaware that this entailed releasing them into the public domain. Ash at the time was in a phase of being rather slapdash in his Wikipedia activities and the incorrect licensing would be in line with this. When Ash is shifting to reform his activities in 2010, he realises that he has incorrectly licensed some of his partner's pictures and seeks to fix them. Hence the hog picture being withdrawn.

It is only when this thread emerges that Ash realises that he forgot to withdraw the picture that has graced this thread.

It is only an unfortunate mislabelling of the deletion that results in a "purer than pure" correction of an innocent oversight gets misconstrued as Wikimedia seeking to protect one of its own.

Or something.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 1st December 2011, 9:14pm)

The copyright in a photograph vests in the photographer, not the subject and not the person who asked for the photograph to be taken. This is true even if the photographer is being paid to take the picture. The copyright might have transferred later, but the law generally requires that a copyright transfer be evidenced by a written document, so merely asking his "master" to take the image is insufficient. In any case, claiming a photograph taken by someone else as "own work" is misrepresentation at best; even if one has acquired the copyright it's still not one's "own work", but someone else's work that you've paid for.

But all this occured in the days when the Ash account was known to have problems. Explaining things in this way would be rather more face-saving than the steps that actually have been taken. And this would have prevented Greg from using the picture in his article unless his publishers wanted to go the public interest route.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 1st December 2011, 7:25pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th November 2011, 12:50pm)

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-trustee-finds-his-hands-tied by the mainstream media.

Traffic from England over the past 3 days:

..........City ...Visits ...Pages/Visit ...Avg. Time on Site
1. London ...41 ...1.78 ...00:03:53
2. Lambeth ...17 ...2.35 ...00:06:52
3. Teddington ...7 ...2.29 ...00:05:41
4. Brentford ...6 ...3.67 ...00:19:29
5. Kensington ...5 ...1.20 ...00:00:07
6. Nottingham ...3 ...2.67 ...00:04:34
7. Leeds ...2 ...1.50 ...00:00:10
8. Manchester ...2 ...2.00 ...00:01:14
9. Preston ...2 ...1.00 ...00:00:00
10. Southampton ...2 ...1.50 ...00:01:04

So fewer than 100 visits a fair number of which were probably repeats.

Posted by: Alison

Speaking of Ash and Commons porn pics, Fae has been http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=prev&oldid=61278529 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=prev&oldid=61278376 at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests, saving all the 'educational' photos, but for some reason his zeal for penis, anal sex toys and male ejaculation* photos has been curbed over the last week or so ....

I could spend a while cataloging all the dozens of pics he's voting {{support}} on, but I've a life off the internets.

(* - yes, smartypantsez, there is such thing as female ejaculation - do I have to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30983 of the Squirtage Wiki)

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Wed 30th November 2011, 4:34pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 9:17pm)

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=Henryk+Kupiszewski+Prize", unknown to Google Search, Google News, and Google Books, save for as it appears on one online resume page, one Wikipedia article, countless scrapings of said Wikipedia article, and one "booklet" sort of thing on Google Books.

It appears to be the "Premio Henryk Kupiszewski" in its home language. I get http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Premio+Henryk+Kupiszewski%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&redir_esc=&ei=A6_WTri2NYSV8QPSr7H8AQ. How's your Italian or French?

Perhaps it should be anglicised to the "Henry Cooper Prize" which you get for almost beating the greatest. The greatest being a book on Roman Law published in the relevant period which might be 3 or 1 years as the sources seem inconsistent.

I don't know about the prize but Kupiszewski himself seems to be http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_Kupiszewski (or, http://www.wuw.pl/ksiegarnia/tresci/studiaiuridica/31/31_15.pdf)

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(radek @ Thu 1st December 2011, 11:23pm)

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Wed 30th November 2011, 4:34pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th November 2011, 9:17pm)

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=Henryk+Kupiszewski+Prize", unknown to Google Search, Google News, and Google Books, save for as it appears on one online resume page, one Wikipedia article, countless scrapings of said Wikipedia article, and one "booklet" sort of thing on Google Books.

It appears to be the "Premio Henryk Kupiszewski" in its home language. I get http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Premio+Henryk+Kupiszewski%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&redir_esc=&ei=A6_WTri2NYSV8QPSr7H8AQ. How's your Italian or French?

Perhaps it should be anglicised to the "Henry Cooper Prize" which you get for almost beating the greatest. The greatest being a book on Roman Law published in the relevant period which might be 3 or 1 years as the sources seem inconsistent.

I don't know about the prize but Kupiszewski himself seems to be http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_Kupiszewski (or, http://www.wuw.pl/ksiegarnia/tresci/studiaiuridica/31/31_15.pdf)

That's in foreign and therefore doesn't count.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:44pm)

So fewer than 100 visits a fair number of which were probably repeats.

For 39% of them, it was their first-ever visit to any of my Examiner articles, and for 83%, the visit counted was not a repeat visit within the four-day window.

I know... it's not like one of my other articles that gets picked up by StumbleUpon.com's home page and surges to 5,000 page views, but... consider that some of the readers were members of Parliament.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 3:14am)

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 1st December 2011, 4:44pm)

So fewer than 100 visits a fair number of which were probably repeats.

For 39% of them, it was their first-ever visit to any of my Examiner articles, and for 83%, the visit counted was not a repeat visit within the four-day window.

I know... it's not like one of my other articles that gets picked up by StumbleUpon.com's home page and surges to 5,000 page views, but... consider that some of the readers were members of Parliament.

How good are you at spotting repeats by people with dynamic IPs. I can't remember exactly how many times I visited and I'm not sure which figure I appear in. There's another Wikipedian who I know near me but I'm surprised by the total formy part of the world.

Also do you mean members of parliament or people with a parliament.uk address which includes office staff etc? Of course, they may pass the info on.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 3:20am)

How good are you at spotting repeats by people with dynamic IPs.

Not good at all.

Also do you mean members of parliament or people with a parliament.uk address which includes office staff etc? Of course, they may pass the info on.

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

Posted by: Jim

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 11:13pm)

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 3:20am)

How good are you at spotting repeats by people with dynamic IPs.

Not good at all.

Also do you mean members of parliament or people with a parliament.uk address which includes office staff etc? Of course, they may pass the info on.

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

I'd agree with your deduction, largely, on the face of it.

London's population is around 7.5 million - the UK around 62 million.
So purely by chance about 12% of your hits should be London based.

You got 5 out of 6 in that period (I think, if I understand) - so 83.3%.

It's a very small sample, so this sort of surmising is just that - but in your position I think I'd make the same assumption as you did myself about that blip.

Since we have to accept the small sample size - further support is that you got an extra ~42% to your hit total for London in those 30 minutes. If that's unique for that period compared to before and after, it's very strong evidence, I think.

Obviously this back of a beermat calculation doesn't factor in the possibility that there is more internet use in general in London than out in the sticks where a portion of those 62 million may live, and obviously, it presupposes that the mail was sent during business hours for the committee you mailed

All in all, looks like your mail did hit the mark and generated the interest you wanted, though...

edited to correct my dumb maths...

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 12:13pm)

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

Oh right. Some donkey work with Whois or similar might identify whether any of those were from parliamentary servers or constituency offices but would miss access from elsewhere.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 7:36am)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 12:13pm)

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

Oh right. Some donkey work with Whois or similar might identify whether any of those were from parliamentary servers or constituency offices but would miss access from elsewhere.

Sheesh, you guys are tough! It's just the plain old Google Analytics package, and I try not to get too personal in public about what ISPs are accessing my articles on Examiner, but if it makes you happy, on Wednesday and Thursday, there were 3 unique visitors from the ISP listed by Google Analytics as "Houses of Parliament". One used Chrome, one used Firefox, and one used Internet Explorer. Two were sourced to the page via "direct" (which means they clicked a link in an e-mail, or they had the page bookmarked somehow), and the other one was sourced to a Google search string of "has community been canceled?" Don't ask me how that string got them to my Examiner page.

Anyway, that's hard and fast proof that Parliament looked at the article. I'd say that there are certainly other MPs across London and the metro area who also looked at the article, just not from the office ISP. I think when I sent my note, it was in the early evening in England, so most who opened the e-mail in that time-frame might have been on a mobile browser or at home.

Posted by: Jim

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 1:18am)

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 7:36am)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 12:13pm)

I mean that in the 30 minutes after I e-mailed an entire committee of Parliament with the link, the unique visits from London increased from 12 to 17, while visits from anywhere else in England increased only by 1. So, I deduced that these were the members of Parliament whom I had just e-mailed.

Oh right. Some donkey work with Whois or similar might identify whether any of those were from parliamentary servers or constituency offices but would miss access from elsewhere.

Sheesh, you guys are tough! It's just the plain old Google Analytics package, and I try not to get too personal in public about what ISPs are accessing my articles on Examiner, but if it makes you happy, on Wednesday and Thursday, there were 3 unique visitors from the ISP listed by Google Analytics as "Houses of Parliament". One used Chrome, one used Firefox, and one used Internet Explorer. Two were sourced to the page via "direct" (which means they clicked a link in an e-mail, or they had the page bookmarked somehow), and the other one was sourced to a Google search string of "has community been canceled?" Don't ask me how that string got them to my Examiner page.

Anyway, that's hard and fast proof that Parliament looked at the article. I'd say that there are certainly other MPs across London and the metro area who also looked at the article, just not from the office ISP. I think when I sent my note, it was in the early evening in England, so most who opened the e-mail in that time-frame might have been on a mobile browser or at home.

aww...

You misunderstand. I wasn't trying to be tough, or prying. I *want* you to be right that your message was received by the right people, and I was sharing the inane pseudo-mathematical thoughts your post inspired in my peculiar mind to let you know that I thought you were probably right.

I'm thrilled you can confirm that 3 users were confirmed as Houses of Parliament. That means lots more of them read it, or heard about it, and your efforts were not in vain. They gossip, you know (cos they're people) ...

copyedited cos my initial post was crap...

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 2:18pm)

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 7:36am)

Some donkey work with Whois or similar might identify whether any of those were from parliamentary servers or constituency offices but would miss access from elsewhere.

Sheesh, you guys are tough!

Sorry, I did not mean you had to do the donkey work. That's why I said it would miss access elsewhere.

Given the three different readers, then it makes sense to assume that a minimum of five people who were members of the committee or their personal staff read the committee. A fair number of the latter would be wannabee parliamentarians and therefore within your target group. If it was the committee whose meeting we discussed above that would be a good hit rate out of the 26 members they though they might regard it as an example of what they want to regulate. I'm off to raise your hit rate by 1 while I remind myself of how you put things.

Later: No I think the article will make its point to them fine.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&oldid=464108616#Oversighted_diffs_on_User:Ash

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=User%3AAsh

Is anyone voting the AGK in this year's ArbCom election? This is the candidate claiming to support greater transparency. He's also censoring the WebCitation links from the user's comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=464105592&oldid=464104544

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=464107218&oldid=464106412

There's also this comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=464108616&oldid=464108365

QUOTE

I don't know what else to tell you, other than that I am adamant that a user who moved account due to harassment should not have their new identity publicly paraded.

We're talking about a person who might be an enwiki sysop, who might be a trustee within the Wikimedia's UK Chapter, and who might have spoken in font of the UK Parliament. This isn't someone whose past needs covering up. We're not talking about the average user. AGK is basically saying that someone in a position as high as Fae's isn't accountable for their past activity. I have to question AGK's judgment on this subject. AGK isn't obtaining my vote in this election.

Posted by: thekohser

There should be a law that when a Wikipedian uses the term "harassment", it must appear in quotation marks.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 4th December 2011, 8:47pm)

There should be a law that when a Wikipedian uses the term "harassment", it must appear in quotation marks.

Well, sometimes it's the real-deal, and sometimes it's not. The term has been worn smooth by so many on WP that the true meaning of the word has been lost somewhat. Harassment happens over there - it seriously does, but it generally doesn't appear all over ANI and others' talk pages. As an Oversighter on there, you get to see the real stuff ....

Posted by: thekohser

As a lark, when writing to the members of Parliament, I CC'd the Charity Commission (no pun intended). Here is the Charity Commission's response to Examiner's concern about Trustee Van Haeften's misuse of Wikimedia platforms to promote -- then cover up -- his bondage/bathhouse agenda:

QUOTE

...
We have assessed your complaint in relation to the criteria that are set out in our published guidance. I am writing to explain that the Commission does not consider that the complaint falls into the category of complaints that we take up and therefore we will not be taking any further action.
...

Shirley Banks

Charity Commission - First Contact

Shirley, you're joking!

Posted by: lilburne

That will be this:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc47.aspx#d

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 5th December 2011, 7:59am)

That will be this:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc47.aspx#d

Ah, yes...

QUOTE

What issues does the Commission want to know about?

The short answer

We need to know where there is a serious risk of significant harm to or abuse of a charity, its assets, beneficiaries or reputation.

I guess http://webcitation.org/query.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AHogtied_male.jpg is right in line with the reputation of Wikimedia UK, so there's no serious risk of harm. Carry on!

Posted by: lilburne

It needs to be cast in such a way that they can see the abuse etc. After all the image itself isn't going to cause significant harm to the reputation of ALL charities. You have too much of an American puritan outlook. You need to be pointing out his naked youth photos, the fact that he'll be working with minors, or at least in a position to interact with them online from a position of trust. You need to couple it with the communitah's willingness to allow a 13 year old to edit porn. If you can link other trustees with a laissez-faire attitude to porn and youth so much the better.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 5th December 2011, 10:48am)

It needs to be cast in such a way that they can see the abuse etc. After all the image itself isn't going to cause significant harm to the reputation of ALL charities. You have too much of an American puritan outlook. You need to be pointing out his naked youth photos, the fact that he'll be working with minors, or at least in a position to interact with them online from a position of trust. You need to couple it with the communitah's willingness to allow a 13 year old to edit porn. If you can link other trustees with a laissez-faire attitude to porn and youth so much the better.

Meh, it's not my job, and not even my country.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=AGK&page=User_talk%3AAGK

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=464106412&oldid=464105592

AGK (the ArbCom candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/AGK/Statement) is now censoring his own talk page history:

QUOTE

Per discussion in talk page, and edit summary is of no editorial value.

Here's the edit summary AGK decided to censor (http://www.webcitation.org/63gmjjQYX):

QUOTE

The deleted material criticized ArbCom; you are running for ArbCom - http://www.webcitation.org/63gm15wO7

Posted by: Eppur si muove

One aspect that I have not seem fully developed in this thread is that, whether or not there was a need to produce a sexual balance in the pictures and whether or not Fae's decision to use himself as the model in the pictures showed the judgement one wants in a trustee or admin, there is no need for any of the pictures in the article to be semi-naked.

If there was an educational purpose in describing the different ways of binding a person, one could produce sufficient pictures by using models who were dressed in loose clothing such as tracksuits. What brings WR into disrepute is the decision to use pictures that qualify as soft porn when it was not necessary to do so. And this decision reduces the utility of the project as an encyclopedia in cultures where many people, rightly or wrongly, object to such pictures or particularly object to their children being shown such pictures.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Mon 5th December 2011, 7:00pm)

One aspect that I have not seem fully developed in this thread is that whether or not there was a need to produce a sexual balance in the pictures and whether or not Fae's decision to use himself as the model in the pictures showed the judgement one wants in a trustee or admin, there is no need for any of the pictures in the article to be semi-naked.

If there was an educational purpose in describing the different ways of binding a person, one could produce sufficient pictures by using models who were dressed in loose clothing such as tracksuits. What brings WR into disrepute is the decision to use pictures that qualify as soft porn when it was necessary to do so. And this decision reduces the utility of the project as an encyclopedia in cultures where many people, rightly or wrongly, object to such pictures or particularly object to their children being shown such pictures.

"semi-naked"? How could have you called it "semi-naked"?

He described the image as the image of " a mostly clothed male alternative to being a page only illustrated with nude women."

So is the glass half-full or half-empty?

On a more serious note: I believe that wikipedia would have been a better place, if there were no articles about... well... should I say "uncommon, risky sexual practices" at all.

I'd also like to ask, if, for example, there were an absolutely free written by volunteers encyclopedia of pornography, would have such free encyclopedia be able to get the status of a charitable organization?

Posted by: AGK

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 5th December 2011, 6:38pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=AGK&page=User_talk%3AAGK

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=464106412&oldid=464105592

AGK (the ArbCom candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/AGK/Statement) is now censoring his own talk page history:

QUOTE

Per discussion in talk page, and edit summary is of no editorial value.

Here's the edit summary AGK decided to censor (http://www.webcitation.org/63gmjjQYX):

QUOTE

The deleted material criticized ArbCom; you are running for ArbCom - http://www.webcitation.org/63gm15wO7

I presume you're the anon I spoke to on Wikipedia.

I'm disappointed you didn't e-mail me, because then I could have spoken more frankly about the issue. Here will have to do. In short, I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts. The real point is that, contrary to your perception, you aren't a masked crusader for transparency, but an anonymous person pushing (with creepy vehemence) for the disclosure of the old account name of a Wikipedian. I don't know why Fae abandoned his old account, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt long before I take the word of an unidentified individual by dragging the question of his accounts to ANI for a pillorying.

When I said I was pushing for transparency on ArbCom, I wasn't talking about giving the floor to people with an axe to grind. If there's a problem with someone in the community, then it must be addressed, but I'm an editor - and we protect our own. Before you lunge on my phrasing, I don't mean that I want to lock transparency and fair scrutiny in the basement - only that I won't start a public spectacle on the say-so of an anonymous post to my user talk page, or in an anonymous edit to Fae's old userspace.

Presumably you think your act over there was delightfully clever. If you think the history of Fae is actually of interest to the Wikipedia community, then perhaps you might do something about it - tactfully - rather than use the most suspicious of tactics, then complain when we don't take you very seriously.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 5th December 2011, 8:19pm)

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 5th December 2011, 6:38pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=AGK&page=User_talk%3AAGK

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=464106412&oldid=464105592

AGK (the ArbCom candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/AGK/Statement) is now censoring his own talk page history:

QUOTE

Per discussion in talk page, and edit summary is of no editorial value.

Here's the edit summary AGK decided to censor (http://www.webcitation.org/63gmjjQYX):

QUOTE

The deleted material criticized ArbCom; you are running for ArbCom - http://www.webcitation.org/63gm15wO7

I presume you're the anon I spoke to on Wikipedia.

I'm disappointed you didn't e-mail me, because then I could have spoken more frankly about the issue. Here will have to do. In short, I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts. The real point is that, contrary to your perception, you aren't a masked crusader for transparency, but an anonymous person pushing (with creepy vehemence) for the disclosure of the old account name of a Wikipedian. I don't know why Fae abandoned his old account, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt long before I take the word of an unidentified individual by dragging the question of his accounts to ANI for a pillorying.

When I said I was pushing for transparency on ArbCom, I wasn't talking about giving the floor to people with an axe to grind. If there's a problem with someone in the community, then it must be addressed, but I'm an editor - and we protect our own. Before you lunge on my phrasing, I don't mean that I want to lock transparency and fair scrutiny in the basement - only that I won't start a public spectacle on the say-so of an anonymous post to my user talk page, or in an anonymous edit to Fae's old userspace.

Presumably you think your act over there was delightfully clever. If you think the history of Fae is actually of interest to the Wikipedia community, then perhaps you might do something about it - tactfully - rather than use the most suspicious of tactics, then complain when we don't take you very seriously.

AGK, I do not know how other people who contributed to this thread felt, but I sometimes felt as a bully who's going after a person. It was not a good feeling. I've nothing personal against FÃ¦. I feel sorry for him.

Bur, I thought to myself, if this thread is to help wikipedia to reconsider hosting some of the dirtiest articles and some of the dirtiest images available on the NET, wouldn't this protect the children who reading wikipedia that is supposed to be a safe cite for children?

For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fournier_gangrene has a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrotal_inflation.
Is it OK with you, AGK?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 5th December 2011, 8:19pm)

I'm disappointed you didn't e-mail me, because then I could have spoken more frankly about the issue. Here will have to do. In short, I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts. The real point is that, contrary to your perception, you aren't a masked crusader for transparency, but an anonymous person pushing (with creepy vehemence) for the disclosure of the old account name of a Wikipedian. I don't know why Fae abandoned his old account, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt long before I take the word of an unidentified individual by dragging the question of his accounts to ANI for a pillorying.

This really is the problem isn't it. You haven't read any of the history of that account, you haven't read any of the details, but you assume an important Wikipedian must be right and you leap to hide whatever you imagine he is right to hide. I think nearly every nasty thing in Wikipedia springs from that mindset.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 5th December 2011, 3:19pm)

If there's a problem with someone in the community, then it must be addressed, but I'm an editor - and we protect our own.

-- AGK

QUOTE

If there's a problem with someone in the locker room, then it must be addressed, but I'm an assistant coach - and we protect our own.

-- Penn State football culture

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 5th December 2011, 9:00pm)

This really is the problem isn't it. You haven't read any of the history of that account, you haven't read any of the details, but you assume an important Wikipedian must be right and you leap to hide whatever you imagine he is right to hide. I think nearly every nasty thing in Wikipedia springs from that mindset.

Given the history of the Ash account, then patterns of voting such as that at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:My_Cock.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Freeballsagger.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Prostitutes_in_the_street_of_Reeperbahn.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hanes_Underwear.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Smokah_Shit.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ejaculate577.JPG
etc etc, albeit on another project, might be regarded as continuing the previous problematic behaviour onto the new incarnation and therefore invalidite claims to be a WP:CLEANSHEET start.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 5th December 2011, 3:19pm)

I presume you're the anon I spoke to on Wikipedia.

I'm disappointed you didn't e-mail me, because then I could have spoken more frankly about the issue. Here will have to do. In short, I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts. The real point is that, contrary to your perception, you aren't a masked crusader for transparency, but an anonymous person pushing (with creepy vehemence) for the disclosure of the old account name of a Wikipedian. I don't know why Fae abandoned his old account, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt long before I take the word of an unidentified individual by dragging the question of his accounts to ANI for a pillorying.

When I said I was pushing for transparency on ArbCom, I wasn't talking about giving the floor to people with an axe to grind. If there's a problem with someone in the community, then it must be addressed, but I'm an editor - and we protect our own. Before you lunge on my phrasing, I don't mean that I want to lock transparency and fair scrutiny in the basement - only that I won't start a public spectacle on the say-so of an anonymous post to my user talk page, or in an anonymous edit to Fae's old userspace.

Presumably you think your act over there was delightfully clever. If you think the history of Fae is actually of interest to the Wikipedia community, then perhaps you might do something about it - tactfully - rather than use the most suspicious of tactics, then complain when we don't take you very seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3A67.168.135.107

The IP address was being used by a banned user. My username on Wikipedia is the same one that I use here, and my Wikipedia account isn't blocked. Your comment throws words such as "anonymous" and "unidentified" around when I am neither. I use my real name on Wikipedia and on the WR. I'm not the anon.

I would expect a ArbCom candidate to do some research before recklessly throwing accusations and attacks around. This is careless and irresponsible.

The information on Fae's prior accounts should've been made public. The voters on that RfA deserved the truth, the whole truth.

I haven't done anything about this yet on Wikipedia because I rather wait to see which ArbCom incumbents will lose their seats in this year's election. The current ArbCom is responsible for concealing information from voters. I also have content that I want to contribute to Wikipedia.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 5th December 2011, 1:26pm)

The IP address was being used by a banned user. My username on Wikipedia is the same one that I use here, and my Wikipedia account isn't blocked. Your comment throws words such as "anonymous" and "unidentified" around when I am neither. I use my real name on Wikipedia and on the WR. I'm not the anon.

I can take a fair guess as to who owns the IPs involved, and it's not Suarez. Totally wrong geographic location for starters ...

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 5th December 2011, 3:26pm)

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 5th December 2011, 3:19pm)

I presume you're the anon I spoke to on Wikipedia.

I'm disappointed you didn't e-mail me, because then I could have spoken more frankly about the issue. Here will have to do. In short, I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts. The real point is that, contrary to your perception, you aren't a masked crusader for transparency, but an anonymous person pushing (with creepy vehemence) for the disclosure of the old account name of a Wikipedian. I don't know why Fae abandoned his old account, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt long before I take the word of an unidentified individual by dragging the question of his accounts to ANI for a pillorying.

When I said I was pushing for transparency on ArbCom, I wasn't talking about giving the floor to people with an axe to grind. If there's a problem with someone in the community, then it must be addressed, but I'm an editor - and we protect our own. Before you lunge on my phrasing, I don't mean that I want to lock transparency and fair scrutiny in the basement - only that I won't start a public spectacle on the say-so of an anonymous post to my user talk page, or in an anonymous edit to Fae's old userspace.

Presumably you think your act over there was delightfully clever. If you think the history of Fae is actually of interest to the Wikipedia community, then perhaps you might do something about it - tactfully - rather than use the most suspicious of tactics, then complain when we don't take you very seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3A67.168.135.107

The IP address was being used by a banned user. My username on Wikipedia is the same one that I use here, and my Wikipedia account isn't blocked. Your comment throws words such as "anonymous" and "unidentified" around when I am neither. I use my real name on Wikipedia and on the WR. I'm not the anon.

I would expect a ArbCom candidate to do some research before recklessly throwing accusations and attacks around. This is careless and irresponsible.

The information on Fae's prior accounts should've been made public. The voters on that RfA deserved the truth, the whole truth.

I haven't done anything about this yet on Wikipedia because I rather wait to see which ArbCom incumbents will lose their seats in this year's election. The current ArbCom is responsible for concealing information from voters. I also have content that I want to contribute to Wikipedia.

As I mentioned on AGK's "questions" page, AGK is a sort of person who's been climbing the ladder to ArbCom for awhile now and doing so by basically saying the right things that s/he thinks people want to hear. What s/he does is a completely different matter. So ... some of these people have managed to pick up on the fact that "greater transparency" is a thing which is desirable to the electorate and which, if name-dropped appropriately might garner a few votes. This doesn't mean they have or will do shit for actual "greater transparency". This is just the evolution of Wiki-speak and Wiki-hypocrisy (combined making it the Wiki-doublethink) happening as we watch.

Basically a Coren or Risker wanna-be. And usually "wanna-be's" are worse than the real thing (though sometimes they do "get to be")

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(AGK @ Mon 5th December 2011, 12:19pm)

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 5th December 2011, 6:38pm)

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=AGK&page=User_talk%3AAGK]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User_talk%3AAGK[/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=464106412&oldid=464105592AGK (the ArbCom candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/AGK/Statement) is now censoring his own talk page history:

QUOTE

Per discussion in talk page, and edit summary is of no editorial value.

Here's the edit summary AGK decided to censor (http://www.webcitation.org/63gmjjQYX):

QUOTE

The deleted material criticized ArbCom; you are running for ArbCom - http://www.webcitation.org/63gm15wO7

I presume you're the anon I spoke to on Wikipedia.

I'm disappointed you didn't e-mail me, because then I could have spoken more frankly about the issue. Here will have to do. In short, I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts. The real point is that, contrary to your perception, you aren't a masked crusader for transparency, but an anonymous person pushing (with creepy vehemence) for the disclosure of the old account name of a Wikipedian. I don't know why Fae abandoned his old account, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt long before I take the word of an unidentified individual by dragging the question of his accounts to ANI for a pillorying.

When I said I was pushing for transparency on ArbCom, I wasn't talking about giving the floor to people with an axe to grind. If there's a problem with someone in the community, then it must be addressed, but I'm an editor - and we protect our own. Before you lunge on my phrasing, I don't mean that I want to lock transparency and fair scrutiny in the basement - only that I won't start a public spectacle on the say-so of an anonymous post to my user talk page, or in an anonymous edit to Fae's old userspace.

Presumably you think your act over there was delightfully clever. If you think the history of Fae is actually of interest to the Wikipedia community, then perhaps you might do something about it - tactfully - rather than use the most suspicious of tactics, then complain when we don't take you very seriously.

Here's something for you, AGK:

Choke on it.

Arbs need to read, and analyze, and draw logical conclusions thereof.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Tue 6th December 2011, 2:24am)

Here's something for you, AGK:

Choke on it.

Arbs need to read, and analyze, and draw logical conclusions thereof.

Funny, that section of my ballot looks the same. I've only just noticed that I failed to vote Geni down. Now, he would be "interesting" if he ever got in.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I've looked carefully at the claims that User:Ash (i.e. Fae) made in April, 2010 just before he left because of harassment. The claims only concern the RfC that was brought by Carbuncle and Bali Ultimate, relating to his promotion of commercial pornography, and his misrepresenting sources.

The fact he had written two biographies of friends and that he insisted on keeping a list of celebrities 'who had visited gay bathhouses' was not even much of an issue. The issue related almost solely to misuse of sources.

Van Haeften then claimed conspiracy and harassment, and vanished, with the connivance of some senior administrators (including Vandenberg, yes?).

An IP ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.168.135.107 - nothing to do with me) who has been complaining bitterly about the fact the evidence of all this being covered up by other administrators, including User:Denisarona, User:Planetary Chaos Redux, and of course Arbcom hopeful AGK, has meanwhile been blocked by Coren - another Arbcom hopeful.

The analogy would be a politician who has been caught with his or her hand in the till, or some other misdemeanour, then attacking their critics with charges of 'harassment', and successfully getting the government to change their identity, while still retaining office. And anyone who tried to reveal this duplicity being put in prison, and their charges censored.

This is one of the most incredible things I have seen at Wikipedia.

QUOTE

Hi AGK, I believe your oversights to User:Ash exceed the scope of Wikipedia's oversight policy. I append webcites of the deleted revisions so that others can judge for themselves. 67.168.135.107 (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I deleted the revisions under the Wikipedia:Revision deletion process, not Wikipedia:Oversight, so the Oversight (suppression) policy does not apply. To be clear, I deleted the revisions because the editor had stopped using his account because of harassment (details of which were posted by the user in the notice at User:Ash). My evaluation was that an attempt to disclose the user's new account for no reason other than, apparently, to be vindictive was not appropriate, and therefore that the revisions should not be subject to general review. By the same token, as I hope you understand, I do not think it is appropriate to link to an archived version of these revisions, so I have removed the links you attached. I hope this clarifies my thinking in this case. Regards, AGK [â€¢] 21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your deletion here also prevents onlookers from arriving at an informed conclusion as to whether your deletions were appropriate. The deleted material criticized ArbCom; you are running for ArbCom.67.168.135.107 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my deletions, the appropriate response is to e-mail ArbCom, which currently has sole jurisdiction over administrator conduct. Regards, AGK [â€¢] 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I quote: "NOTE: despite fake retirement note below, user secretly returned and become an administrator with the help of ArbCom" You expect me to complain about you covering up ArbCom's coverupâ€¦to ArbCom? 67.168.135.107 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 6th December 2011, 9:14pm)

If you have a problem with my deletions, the appropriate response is to e-mail ArbCom, which currently has sole jurisdiction over administrator conduct. Regards, AGK [â€¢] 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I quote: "NOTE: despite fake retirement note below, user secretly returned and become an administrator with the help of ArbCom" You expect me to complain about you covering up ArbCom's coverupâ€¦to ArbCom? 67.168.135.107 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To complain about ArbCom, the IP would need to email Jimbo Wales. Jimbo will, of course, leap into action and fully investigate the matter, issue appropriate, fair remedies, and ensure that Wikipedia's configuration control board incorporates the lessons learned into WP's adminstrative best practices guidelines

Posted by: Peter Damian

The transcript of Van Haeften's evidence is now available. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/ucJCPI281111ev7.pdf

I have copied it below. I have written to some members of the committee explaining in detail, and with examples, of why I think his evidence is grossly misleading.

QUOTE

Ashley Van Haeften: Can I pick up on Wikipedia as an example of trust? People trust the brand that Wikipedia has, and that comes from good editorial policies rather than regulation. They are highly credible, public and well enforced by our community. I am speaking as a Wikipedian myself. Those policies are developed by community consensus. You can go in and you can contribute to that consensus. In particular with biographies, they fairly represent the enforcement of polices to ensure facts are presented with appropriate weight and are verifiable. In my opinion, Wikipedia already has more credibility than the majority of mainstream tabloid press, and high levels of external regulation are highly unlikely to influence our collaborative way of working.
Q555 Lord Black of Brentwood: But the editorial policies you are talking about are a form of internal regulation.
Ashley Van Haeften: They are the editorial policies that our community have created for themselves.
Q571 Ms Stuart: Ashley Van Haeften, wearing your Wikipedia hat, could you respond to George Eusticeâ€™s idea of kitemarking? While we were sitting here I googled your name and tried to work out whether you had your own Wikipedia entry, and you donâ€™t. I was wondering whether you want to say a bit about that too.
Ashley Van Haeften: Well, Wikipedia only contains information that is notable, not transient. We are not a holder of indiscriminate information, and I am transient and not notable. Lord Gold: That might change.
Ashley Van Haeften: The kitemark is quite relevant, I think, for Wikipedia. The brand is clear. I am speaking for myself as a Wikipedian, not the Wikimedia Foundation or anything. There were references previously to the amount of money to be made. Wikipedia and its community believe they are completely neutral, because it is not sponsored and it does not have advertising. It runs as a charity for open knowledge. There is this distinction to be made, I think, between gossip and knowledge. Knowledge will always transcend geographical borders. That is probably something everybody supports, even when that contains privacy issues. Wikipedia works because of strong editorial policies that the community believes in, and that encompasses policies for the biographies of living people and biographies of the recently deceased. When you google a recently deceased famous person today you will find that the bare facts are there and the things that, for example, are transiently tweeted are not. Those tweets will all evaporate within a week, but the Wikipedia encyclopaedic article will last for the long term, and that is true knowledge. That is why Wikimedia is considered Wikipedia. It runs on a charitable basis and people believe in it as a global programme. It is a magnitude larger than any of the sites you have talked about. It is the sixth largest website on the planet, and that is why it appears so high when you search for these topics.
Q572 Ms Stuart: Just before you get away with this notion that you are so pure and donâ€™t take any money, currently if I go on Wikipedia somebodyâ€™s face flashes upâ€”I am so ignorant I canâ€™t remember who the guy isâ€”and his charity, so he is taking money from somebody.
Ashley Van Haeften: There are several faces. There is the famous Jimmy Wales; certainly he has a Wikipedia article. We are currently fundraising.
Q573 Ms Stuart: But you have to live off something, donâ€™t you?
Ashley Van Haeften: Yes, we are currently in a fundraiser cycle that lasts for something like 50 days. We do not have any banners for the rest of the year, and that is how we raise all the money we need to run.
Q574 Ms Stuart: So because you just do it for 50 days of the year rather than longer, you are purer than the others.
Ashley Van Haeften: We are, yes. Ms Stuart: That is fine by me; it is an interesting notion.
Ashley Van Haeften: This is purely for open knowledge; it is not advertising anybody else. It is saying: if you are interested in a free and open resource like this, you can chip in your dollar to keep it going.
Q575 Yasmin Qureshi: Can I just ask something? You say Wikipedia is sort of purer than pure. But if somebody does not want to be on Wikipedia, they do not want information about them on it, can they stop it from being published?
Ashley Van Haeften: I think it is worth explaining that there are a range of things that you can do, and I think that is a very good model that can be thought of in a different context. In the first instance you can edit it yourselfâ€”it is open. You can go in and you can edit it anonymously. If it is wrongâ€”if your birth date is wrong on thereâ€”you can go and edit it. You can discuss it on a talk page that discusses improvements to articles. We have helpdesks and notice boards specific to that. We also have administrators. I am an administrator; I can help you out in fixing an article if there is a dispute going on. You can also email. We have a system for confidential emails. So there is quite a chain of things that you can do before you might seek legal recourse, and that is part of why it works so well and why it is so well trusted. For those people that have a problem and say, â€œThe article about me is wrongâ€”my birthday is wrongâ€, it is fairly obvious how to go about it. You can always send us an email and ask for help, and that works very well. It is all run by volunteers, so I do that as a volunteer rather than a paid person.
Q576 Yasmin Qureshi: That simple, factual stuff like the birthday is alright. But there is other stuff that is written on Wikipedia about people that can be a bit suspect because of the way it is slanted, or the way it is put, or it omits a very relevant piece of information that could explain why something happened. From what I have heard from people who have tried to deal with it, they have been very disappointed because they have not found the offending information removed. They have made an amendment, then somebody comes in and blanks them out and then puts something else on. It seems the sort of action that an individual can take regarding their Wikipedia entry is not so straightforward.
Ashley Van Haeften: The problem is reaching consensus on the changes. So you may believe that you can write about yourself with a fairly independent view; other members of the public may disagree with you and think it is an unfair representation. So it is a question of how you then reach that community consensus, and the information you want to add, for instance, correcting your birth date, still needs a source for it. Of course if the sources are conflicting, that is another discussion to have.
Q577 Yasmin Qureshi: The source? Do you have to show your birth certificate?
Ashley Van Haeften: Maybe, if you can produce it. If someone can be bothered to go and look it up.
Q578 Yasmin Qureshi: How do you do that?
Ashley Van Haeften: It depends whether it is notable or not. Normally there are enough sources to find that sort of thing fairly easily. It comes up a lot with birth dates of actors. Yasmin Qureshi: I am not really concerned about my birth certificate.
Q580 [â€¦] Professor Murray: I would like to see people who address the largest audiences be held responsible for the audiences they reach, which means I think that bloggers of a certain scale should be brought within the same regulatory regime as press, television and radio publishers. I think responsibility for any kind of incitement or nudge-and-wink-style reporting should be laid squarely at the door of newspaper editors and newspaper publishers. They should be held responsible for inciting others to breach injunctions via social media and other means.
Ashley Van Haeften: I would encourage thinking more about the reputation of where people would go to on the internet to find their information. Wikipediaâ€”what was the phrase, â€œPurer than pureâ€â€”has that reputation because of a strong editorial policy. So your reputation should be tied into neutrality, and respect and civility is part of why people use our website and why it is number six in the world for people to visit.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 7th December 2011, 4:47pm)

The transcript of Van Haeften's evidence is now available. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/ucJCPI281111ev7.pdf

I have copied it below. I have written to some members of the committee explaining in detail, and with examples, of why I think his evidence is grossly misleading.

QUOTE

Ashley Van Haeften: I would encourage thinking more about the reputation of where people would go to on the internet to find their information. Wikipediaâ€”what was the phrase, â€œPurer than pureâ€

http://webcitation.org/query.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AHogtied_male.jpg

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE

People trust the brand that Wikipedia has...

-- Ashley Van Hogtie

Oh, Ash... you make this too easy. Is this the sort of brand trust you're talking about?

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 7th December 2011, 7:10pm)

QUOTE

People trust the brand that Wikipedia has...

-- Ashley Van Hogtie

Oh, Ash... you make this too easy. Is this the sort of brand trust you're talking about?

This video reminded to me https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=L11_1205_GW_pict/en/US&utm_source=B11_1205_GW&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=C11_1205_GW_pic_US&language=en&uselang=en&country=US&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLava

QUOTE

I'm a university student. Textbooks for one semester cost me $500. On Wikipedia, I get thousands of books' worth of information for free.

Would you hire an attorney who got his education without using textbooks, only from wikipedia.
Would you go to a doctor who got his education without textbooks, only from wikipedia.
Not only wikipedia, but any encyclopedia for that matter cannot replace textbooks.
It not like you donate $20 to wikipedia and save hundreds of dollars on your textbooks.
Then why to use this misleading comparison between $500 worth of textbooks and wikipedia free articles?

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/AGK&diff=464931127&oldid=464931087

QUOTE

Note: Yes, that's a WR link. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK|<nowiki>[</nowikI>â€¢<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is how AGK defends himself against my statement against him.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Reviving the original thread. There are many questions here. Some quotes below. It is clear that Arbcom merely approved the name change, rather than the 'clean start' itself, of which John Vandenberg was the sole arbiter.

Vandenberg made the judgment that this was a clean start, without giving the community any information as to the nature of the original RfC, where Fae (as user:Ash) had been incriminated of misrepresenting sources, BLP violations galore, promoting links to commercial pornsites etc etc.

The question is as below: had the 'community' known the precise details of Fae's history at the RfA, would they have supported the RfA?

------------From the March 2011 RfA--------

QUOTE

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. FÃ¦ (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/F%C3%A6

QUOTE

I can confirm that FÃ¦ took the time to talk with one of his prior critics (not me,fwiw), letting them know both old and new account names. FÃ¦ 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 FÃ¦ 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 FÃ¦ 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 FÃ¦ 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 FÃ¦ knows this. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/F%C3%A6

QUOTE

With all due respect, John, this is increasingly disturbing. From what you are saying, had the material that has been hidden from the !voters been disclosed to them, "no doubt there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history" This is shocking. Your comment that "I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now" misses the point -- if they were equal to the number of opposers, then this nomination would not (at this point) pass. And btw, it is irrelevant that you and an editor who brought an RFC against the candidate do not oppose him (thought I note you do not say that that editor "supported" the candidate here -- could that be because of the prior history, that he saw but that other supporters did not see?). The other !voters here deserve to be aware of the same information that you two had access to, and to make their own "informed" decisions. Otherwise, their !votes are severely flawed. â€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk â€¢ contribs) 2011-03-19T20:37:15

In July 2011 there was an admin conduct review requested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Admin_conduct_review_requested july 2011 .

Posted by: Peter Damian

Can someone with oversight privileges get me a copy of the page referred to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ash/analysis please?

I am trying to get to the bottom of why Ash/Haeften claimed homophobia and discrimination etc. Carbuncle, did you keep a copy?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:57pm)

Can someone with oversight privileges get me a copy of the page referred to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ash/analysis please?

I am trying to get to the bottom of why Ash/Haeften claimed homophobia and discrimination etc. Carbuncle, did you keep a copy?

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 30th December 2011, 4:08pm)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:57pm)

Can someone with oversight privileges get me a copy of the page referred to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ash/analysis please?

I am trying to get to the bottom of why Ash/Haeften claimed homophobia and discrimination etc. Carbuncle, did you keep a copy?

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ash/RfC_Delicious_carbuncle&action=history.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(melloden @ Fri 30th December 2011, 11:17am)

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 30th December 2011, 4:08pm)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:57pm)

Can someone with oversight privileges get me a copy of the page referred to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ash/analysis please?

I am trying to get to the bottom of why Ash/Haeften claimed homophobia and discrimination etc. Carbuncle, did you keep a copy?

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ash/RfC_Delicious_carbuncle&action=history.

Yup, it was moved to there, not deleted.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Thanks

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 30th December 2011, 4:08pm)

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

This is crucial. Was there any genuine harassment, or was the 'clean start' a way of evading scrutiny by an editor who wanted to become an admin, and clearly saw that his current track record would severely obstruct that ambition.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 30th December 2011, 4:43pm)

Thanks

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 30th December 2011, 4:08pm)

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

This is crucial. Was there any genuine harassment, or was the 'clean start' a way of evading scrutiny by an editor who wanted to become an admin, and clearly saw that his current track record would severely obstruct that ambition.

I am probably not the best person to comment on whether or not that page shows that I am harassing Ash, but I have started a http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35978&hl= which includes a relevant email sent to me by Ash not long after.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 30th December 2011, 4:08pm)

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

This is the oldest tactic in the wiki-book for trying to do away with one's opponents; frame their opposition to your opinions in the context of some prejudice.

You oppose unref'ed BLPs of gay porn actors? Ash claims you are motivated by homophobia.

I oppose the removal of images from the Muhammad article? Ludwigs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Workshop#A_note_on_mobbing_and_the_evolution_of_the_project.

It never ends.

Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Editors _ Wikimedia UK's FÃ¦

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: tarantino

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: Alison

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: Alison

Posted by: Alison

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: tarantino

Posted by: Cla68

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Posted by: the fieryangel

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: Eppur si muove

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: Eppur si muove

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: Peter Damian

Posted by: the fieryangel

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: the fieryangel

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: the fieryangel

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: the fieryangel

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Posted by: the fieryangel

Posted by: melloden

Posted by: Cla68

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: carbuncle

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Posted by: Alison

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: mbz1

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Posted by: Ego Trippin' (Part Two)

Posted by: Ottava

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Posted by: thekohser

Posted by: Eppur si muove