Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face Options

[carbuncle]

I has the misfortune to look at the list of trustees for Wikimedia UK that was posted in the WR thread about Wikimedia UK's charity status. One name is particular jumped out at me - Ashley Van Haeften.

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

My contributions to Wikipedia are under the name "Fæ" with legitimate doppelgängers 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. --Fæ (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 Fæ's RfA. Recall Fæ'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:

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. Fæ (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

<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. Fæ (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 Fæ's old username and the specifics of their previous actions, they may have felt differently about granting admin rights to Van Haeften.

Fæ 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 this WR thread. 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 posting statements 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 Fæ. The RfC 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).

[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.

[EricBarbour]

Fæ 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 this WR thread. 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.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[tarantino]

I has the misfortune to look at the list of trustees for Wikimedia UK that was posted in the WR thread about Wikimedia UK's charity status. One name is particular jumped out at me - Ashley Van Haeften.

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

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Man_in_stress_position.jpg/367px-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 Teahot

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

Or maybe the stomach.

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

And what was Teahot doing on en-wiki? Well.......

User contributions for Teahot

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

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

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Alison]

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Ash (T-C-L-K-R-D) did, of course.

"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*

[carbuncle]

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 to display your vacation snaps or write a bio of your spouse is a time-honoured tradition on WP, especially among admins.

[Peter Damian]

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 to display your vacation snaps or write a bio of your spouse 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 £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?


This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[mbz1]

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Ash (T-C-L-K-R-D) did, of course.

"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*

Here's a deletion request for List of gay bathhouse regulars.
It is interesting that by the end of that AfD Teahot (T-C-L-K-R-D) started signing as Teahot (migrating to Ash) (T-C-L-K-R-D)

BTW Ash menaged to introduce unwanted knoledge even in such safe (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) place as Wikipedia:SPI

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." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif) was blocked indefinetely over this poem.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[thekohser]

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 this, then?

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

[thekohser]

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Ash (T-C-L-K-R-D) did, of course.

Is there a publicly-viewable page that indicates Ash (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?

[Peter Damian]

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 this, then?

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.

[thekohser]

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

Which is standard procedure for most non-profit orgs.

[Peter Damian]

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.

[carbuncle]

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." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif) was blocked indefinetely over this poem.

And currently editing as User:38.109.88.218...

[mbz1]

I just looked at Meta, and there is a user suggesting using more random wikipedians on personal appeals versus using Jimbo alone.
So I tried to figure out what personal appeal would have written user Fæ.
Maybe something like this:

I feel like I’m living the first line of my obituary.

I don’t think there will be anything else that I do in my life as important as what I do now for Wikipedia. We’re not just building an encyclopedia, we’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 voted to delete it.
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, you’re supporting free knowledge around the world.
You’re not only leaving a legacy for your children and for their children, you’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 the real appeal by Brandon Harris)
(Disclosure:I was going to post it to Meta Forum, but then I decided WR is a safer place for such appeals (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) )

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Peter Damian]

(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.

[mbz1]

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Man_in_stress_position.jpg/367px-Man_in_stress_position.jpg)[/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 Teahot

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

Or maybe the stomach.

the image is gone. Only jimbo is left

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Alison]

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Man_in_stress_position.jpg/367px-Man_in_stress_position.jpg)[/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 Teahot

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

Or maybe the stomach.

the image is gone. Only jimbo is left

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

[Alison]

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Ash (T-C-L-K-R-D) did, of course.

Is there a publicly-viewable page that indicates Ash (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;

(IMG:http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/alliewiki/th_ScreenShot2011-11-26at41715PM-1.png)

Interesting that someone originally PRODded it, but Benjiboi swooped in a few minutes later to remove the tag (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Man_in_stress_position.jpg/367px-Man_in_stress_position.jpg)[/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 Teahot

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

Or maybe the stomach.

the image is gone. Only jimbo is left

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

Damn, Wikipedia Loves censorship when it suits their agenda.

[mbz1]

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Man_in_stress_position.jpg/367px-Man_in_stress_position.jpg)[/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 Teahot

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

Or maybe the stomach.

the image is gone. Only jimbo is left

(show/hide) 15:45, 26 November 2011 Blurpeace (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Man in stress position.jpg" ‎ (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 left such an important article with no illustration (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[tarantino]

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Man_in_stress_position.jpg/367px-Man_in_stress_position.jpg)[/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 Teahot

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

Or maybe the stomach.

the image is gone. Only jimbo is left

(show/hide) 15:45, 26 November 2011 Blurpeace (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Man in stress position.jpg" ‎ (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 left such an important article with no illustration (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ash released the image to the public domain, and Webcite still remembers it.

[Cla68]

Damn, Wikipedia Loves censorship when it suits their agenda.

Does this mean that "User:Fæ" reads WR?

[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?t...&oldid=63058705

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[mbz1]

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?t...&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.

[carbuncle]

Looks like the cat is out of the bag on WP:

Were you previously User:Ash?
I ask because I remember this RFC on the user (Ash departed wikipedia under a cloud.) [1]. 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)

[mbz1]

Looks like the cat is out of the bag on WP:

Were you previously User:Ash?
I ask because I remember this RFC on the user (Ash departed wikipedia under a cloud.) [1]. 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. But she does not like it to be redirected to her current account.

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 removed even this small period with an edit summary "courtesy blanked" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/jawdrop.gif) , but Gwen bravely (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) undid that "courtesy blanking" with edit summary: "thanks Daedalus but it's not needed : )" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
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.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[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
National Wiki Edits Examiner

[mbz1]

And who created the article, "List of Gay bathhouse regulars"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Ash (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.
He also created quite a few articles about pornographic actors (Who could have thought pornographic actors are so notable that they should have Wikipedia's entries (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) but I guess for a free knowledge (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) it's OK. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

What I cannot understand how come that Fæ, who started his contributions on 28 March 2010 with creating redirect for "Fairy (gay slang)", could have had a successful RfA just a year later.

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.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Kelly Martin]

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.

[the fieryangel]

With Benjiboi, we had a smoking gun in that he had Dj'd at a party given by Michael Lucas that was hosted by Sister Roma, who both work in the Porn industry. The connections were obvious (Sisters of Perputual Indulgence, SF chapter: Sister

From this, 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"...

[carbuncle]

With Benjiboi, we had a smoking gun in that he had Dj'd at a party given by Michael Lucas that was hosted by Sister Roma, who both work in the Porn industry. The connections were obvious (Sisters of Perputual Indulgence, SF chapter: Sister

From this, 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).

[TungstenCarbide]

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
National Wiki Edits Examiner

can't wait

[carbuncle]

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 "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.

[EricBarbour]

See this ANI thread entitled "Admin conduct review requested"

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

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

(cur | prev) 00:06, 10 November 2007‎ Chaser (talk | contribs)‎ 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 2007‎ Gnangarra (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (remove sockpuppet tag from user)
(cur | prev) 14:29, 16 February 2007‎ Gnangarra (talk | contribs)‎ (145 bytes) (sockpuppetproven)
(cur | prev) 14:10, 16 February 2007‎ Gnangarra (talk | contribs)‎ (139 bytes) (fix link to sockpuppeteer)
(cur | prev) 14:04, 16 February 2007‎ Gnangarra (talk | contribs)‎ 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 2007‎ Gnangarra (talk | contribs)‎ (138 bytes) (sockpupet tag added with links to decisions)
(cur | prev) 13:49, 16 February 2007‎ Gnangarra (talk | contribs)‎ m (17 bytes) (Reverted edits by Xenophrenic (talk) to last version by TDC)
(cur | prev) 03:22, 16 February 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Removed vandalism. Please cease.)
(cur | prev) 03:11, 16 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (17 bytes)
(cur | prev) 02:06, 16 February 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Removed vandalism.)
(cur | prev) 00:12, 16 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (17 bytes) (rv)
(cur | prev) 17:26, 14 February 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Vandalism removed.)
(cur | prev) 12:39, 14 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (17 bytes) (leave the tag be or I will have the page protected)
(cur | prev) 08:23, 14 February 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Removed vandalism.)
(cur | prev) 03:40, 14 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (17 bytes) (the jury is in Rob, and you are most certainly a sock)
(cur | prev) 06:29, 13 February 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Removed vandalism.)
(cur | prev) 21:11, 12 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (17 bytes) (see talk, Rob, three admins agree with me on this one, this is a legitimate tag)
(cur | prev) 21:01, 12 February 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Removed vandalism.)
(cur | prev) 20:43, 12 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (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 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Stop the vandalism, Rob. Last warning.)
(cur | prev) 16:32, 12 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (17 bytes) (rob, leave it be, this is now a well established fact)
(cur | prev) 20:42, 10 February 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Removed userpage vandalism again, please cease)
(cur | prev) 13:43, 10 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (17 bytes) (it is now beyond a doubt)
(cur | prev) 16:51, 8 February 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Removed vandalism)
(cur | prev) 12:16, 8 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (17 bytes)
(cur | prev) 08:40, 8 February 2007‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (Very funny)
(cur | prev) 23:17, 7 February 2007‎ TDC (talk | contribs)‎ (17 bytes) (←Created page with '{{Sockpuppeteer}}')

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[mbz1]

Looks like the cat is out of the bag on WP:

Were you previously User:Ash?
I ask because I remember this RFC on the user (Ash departed wikipedia under a cloud.) [1]. 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)

Ok, I'm now convinced that you and User:Ash are one and the same. This makes it crystal clear [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Corcoran&action=history]. How do you propose that this be handled going forward? Certainly knowledge of your editing as both User:Ash and User:Teahot would have been relevant to your RFA -- and, perhaps (one can hope) to your appointment to Wikimedia's UK board of directors. I'll probably bring this to a broader venue soonish.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 13:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[thekohser]

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

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

[Eppur si muove]

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

Is there iron-clad evidence of the Ashleyvh --> Teahot --> Ash --> Fæ 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 ‎ (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 ‎ (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Teahot" to "Ash") (revert)

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

[Peter Damian]

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

Is there iron-clad evidence of the Ashleyvh --> Teahot --> Ash --> Fæ 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 ‎ (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 ‎ (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%C...sly_User:Ash.3F

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

[Eppur si muove]

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

Is there iron-clad evidence of the Ashleyvh --> Teahot --> Ash --> Fæ 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 ‎ (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 ‎ (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%C...sly_User:Ash.3F

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

[Peter Damian]

Now on ANI

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:Adm..._User:Teahot.29

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[mbz1]

Now on ANI

It sure is,
except it looks like it is WR that is now at AN/I (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

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

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

Are there, Fetchcomms? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[EricBarbour]

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

Are there, Fetchcomms? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

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

Don't forget the looks-suspiciously-like-paid-editing, yo.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[carbuncle]

Don't forget the looks-suspiciously-like-paid-editing, yo.

Um, not paid editing so much as office work:

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...

[thekohser]

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been picked up by the mainstream media.

[Peter Damian]

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been picked up 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_Act...rity_Commission, posted for comment by the trustees.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[thekohser]

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

[EricBarbour]

Shitstorm!

[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:

My username was suggested to me by User:Speedo.

With this edit, he changed it to read

My username was suggested to me by User:Fæ.

The sensible interpretation of that change would mean that Speedo (formerly known as Speedoguy) and Fæ are one and the same, and they certainly share some interests. I'm sure this is a legitimate "alternate" account, but it does make one wonder if there are others...

[Peter Damian]

Shitstorm!

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.

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=...oldid=463108577 to Fae. Everything is magically all right, and it is as though nothing ever happened.

Ah, but what about this?

The sensible interpretation of that change would mean that Speedo (formerly known as Speedoguy) and Fæ are one and the same, and they certainly share some interests. 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.

[the fieryangel]

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 new lockerrooms at the Dulwich Leisure centre :


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

[EricBarbour]

Judging from Speedo's early history, 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?.....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[the fieryangel]

Judging from Speedo's early history, 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?

[thekohser]

Fae now says,

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

[the fieryangel]

Fae now says,

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 going to Amsterdam for the weekend on WMF business. I wonder what he'll get up to while he's there?.

[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.

[the fieryangel]

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

[TungstenCarbide]

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[the fieryangel]

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

That's funny. I saw it.

[melloden]

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, "Photo of a balding middle-aged man in green piano shirt who is a Wikimedia UK trustee" or "Photo of Wikimedia UK trustee who is not the essence of his surname"?

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?

This post has been edited by melloden:

[Cla68]

To be clear, we are, of course, not giving Fæ 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.

[EricBarbour]

To be clear, we are, of course, not giving Fæ 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

[carbuncle]

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.

[thekohser]

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.

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

That's funny. I saw it.

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

[TungstenCarbide]

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

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.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Alison]

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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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.

[mbz1]

Now on ANI

and now is closed
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?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[thekohser]

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:

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.

Or are you just waiting for Cade Metz to retire?

I wonder why you'd be so disdainful of Cade Metz, "melloden". Oh, yeah, now I remember.

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

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

[mbz1]

...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.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[TungstenCarbide]

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

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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

lol? you found that funny? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)


This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, 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.)

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.

This post has been edited by Ego Trippin' (Part Two):

[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.

[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.

[thekohser]

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 this, and this. 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?

[Eppur si muove]

Ash goes to parliament. 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.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:

[thekohser]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

[thekohser]

Ash goes to parliament.

Anyone notice that this meeting was held in the "Boothroyd Room"? (See "Sam Blacketer" for ironic effect.)

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

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Eppur si muove]

Ash goes to parliament.

Anyone notice that this meeting was held in the "Boothroyd Room"? (See "Sam Blacketer" for ironic effect.)

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

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

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 here. The meeting was on 28th November.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:

[mbz1]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

"Image:Hogtied_male.jpg is available as a mostly clothed male alternative to being a page only illustrated with nude women. Teahot (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)"

[Michaeldsuarez]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...ogtied_male.jpg:

{{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?t...&oldid=36041150

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[thekohser]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo 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.

[Vigilant]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo 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...

[thekohser]

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "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.

[Eppur si muove]

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "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 six hits. 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.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:

[Alison]

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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

lol? you found that funny? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

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.

[thekohser]

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.

[melloden]

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?

[melloden]

I wonder why you'd be so disdainful of Cade Metz, "melloden". Oh, yeah, now I remember.

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

[thekohser]

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? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, okay, Michael?

[mbz1]

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? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, okay, Michael?

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

It is interesting that he described the image "as mostly clothed male alternative to being a page only illustrated with nude women. Teahot (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)"

I mean I have nothing against UK wikimedia trustee director posing in bondage, but he does not know what being nude means (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) How could he be doing a good job in promoting a free knowledge. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Eppur si muove]

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? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, 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?

[Michaeldsuarez]

Your punishment? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, okay, Michael?

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Teahot

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

[mbz1]

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? Thirty minutes, bare bottomed, in some hogtie bondage, 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 Merrill (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.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Eppur si muove]

[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 Merrill (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.

[TungstenCarbide]

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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

lol? you found that funny? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ask Greg - he's on there.

now my delicate feelings are really hurt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[thekohser]

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?

[carbuncle]

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 caused the deletion of the image, based on a lack of proper information (which only he could provide). It all seems a little fishy.

[lilburne]

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?

[thekohser]

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been picked up 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

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[mbz1]

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 caused the deletion 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.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Kelly Martin]

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.

[Eppur si muove]

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.

[Eppur si muove]

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.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:

[Eppur si muove]

I wonder how this will go for the Wikimedia UK, now that the story's been picked up 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.

[Alison]

Speaking of Ash and Commons porn pics, Fae has been awfully busy at Undelete 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 remind anyone of the Squirtage Wiki)

[radek]

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "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 six hits. 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 real enough (or, if you don't trust Wikipedias)

[RMHED]

Also, it's interesting to note who appears to have been the only-ever winner of the coveted "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 six hits. 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 real enough (or, if you don't trust Wikipedias)

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

[thekohser]

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.

[Eppur si muove]

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.

[thekohser]

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.

[Jim]

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

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

edited to correct my dumb maths...

This post has been edited by Jim:

[Eppur si muove]

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.

[thekohser]

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.

[Jim]

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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

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...

This post has been edited by Jim:

[Eppur si muove]

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.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ffs_on_User:Ash

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...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=...oldid=464104544

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464106412

There's also this comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464108365

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.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[thekohser]

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

[Alison]

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 ....

[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:

...
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!

[lilburne]

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

[thekohser]

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

Ah, yes...

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 this sort of thing is right in line with the reputation of Wikimedia UK, so there's no serious risk of harm. Carry on!

[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.

[thekohser]

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.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User_talk%3AAGK

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464105592

AGK (the ArbCom candidate claiming to support greater transparency and open discussions) is now censoring his own talk page history:

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):

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

[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.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:

[mbz1]

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"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)
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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

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?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[AGK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User_talk%3AAGK

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464105592

AGK (the ArbCom candidate claiming to support greater transparency and open discussions) is now censoring his own talk page history:

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):

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.

[mbz1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User_talk%3AAGK

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464105592

AGK (the ArbCom candidate claiming to support greater transparency and open discussions) is now censoring his own talk page history:

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):

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 Fæ. 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 this innocent article has a link to this one.
Is it OK with you, AGK?

[Peter Damian]

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.

[thekohser]

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

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

[Eppur si muove]

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:...ile:My_Cock.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...eballsagger.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:..._Reeperbahn.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...s_Underwear.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...Smokah_Shit.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...jaculate577.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.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove:

[Michaeldsuarez]

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=...A67.168.135.107

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.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Alison]

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 ...

[radek]

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=...A67.168.135.107

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")

[Zoloft]

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=...oldid=464105592AGK (the ArbCom candidate claiming to support greater transparency and open discussions) is now censoring his own talk page history:

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):

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:
(IMG:http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/Stanistani/actos.png)
Choke on it.

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

[Eppur si muove]

Here's something for you, AGK:
(IMG:http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/Stanistani/actos.png)
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.

[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:Contr.../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.

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 [•] 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 [•] 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 coverup…to ArbCom? 67.168.135.107 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Cla68]

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 [•] 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 coverup…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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)