FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin? -
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
I guess Ashley wants to delete the rest of his embarrassing uploads without the fuss of having to ask an admin...
QUOTE
I would like to put myself forward for admin tools. Over the last year I have committed to Commons projects, mostly in my role as a volunteer leading the GLAM UK programme, my work as an OTRS volunteer (for which having tools would mean a wider scope of the types of ticket I would pick up) and also my work as a trusted user (using my own scraping tool to help check and empty the Flickr backlog queue of dubious uploads every now and then). I run Faebot, though I recently paused in using my iMacro scripts as I would like to move to more standard batch upload tools for larger upload projects. In 2012 I will be part of a number of Commons projects and partnerships, including my continuing involvement in the future batch upload tool and some very high quality uploads with our UK GLAM partners; though it would always be useful to have a GLAM-knowledgeable admin available to help out, more important will be my experience of helping with all types of admin tasks on Commons to inform these projects as well as continuing the support I already give to the institutions on how to encourage Wikimedians to join in with making these projects a success, as well as promoting the use of simple policies for copyright and attribution. Fæ (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
It appears that he will get it, too. So far only Ottava objected.
Increasingly it appears that the Commons "community" is the most toxic and intolerant of all the WMF "project-things". I should look into this further.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
And I have my answer already...
QUOTE
Fear of canvassing of RfA Fæ
Hi everyone. I'm posting this as I fear canvassing on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ. All users who opposed after Ottava Rima didn't edit here for a long time. In particular RMHED (his first edit in two years) and Bali ultimate (he didn't edit here before). I could use some help overthere. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
Muckbutt seems to be plastering the rfa with comments about the opposers. I wonder why he is so keen on Ash. I am almost tempted to change one more letter in his id. But that would be homophobic of me.
Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th December 2011, 12:08am)
Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Just take it all down and write it up later. Don't forget what is on Bali ultimate's Commons talkpage.
So far the vote is 15 yes, 11 no. This is typical of how they "heel" a vote--by wearing people down. Commons is a much smaller community than en-wiki, so they can pull stunts like this.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 28th December 2011, 8:20am)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th December 2011, 12:08am)
Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Just take it all down and write it up later. Don't forget what is on Bali ultimate's Commons talkpage.
It looks like there will soon be more main stream media coverage on wikimedia's governance.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 28th December 2011, 10:26am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 28th December 2011, 8:20am)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th December 2011, 12:08am)
Why is it that the people who scream 'Wikipedia is not censored' the loudest, are also involved in the most censorship? How do they carry those two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Just take it all down and write it up later. Don't forget what is on Bali ultimate's Commons talkpage.
It looks like there will soon be more main stream media coverage on wikimedia's governance.
I remember Bali, and that people were semi-impressed with his work on en-wiki. He obviously knew about problems with BLPs. So why does his block on Commons surprise him?
(Could someone fix the title of this thread? Either spell Van Haeften's name correctly, or go all the way and call him "Van Half-ton".)
"Canvassing" accusations are silly. Wikipedia / Wikimedia is supposed to be about spreading information instead of keeping it to a select few, yet they're saying, "You can't discuss about Wikipedia / Wikimedia on a forum." Common's alleged allegiance to everything free speech and open is horseshit. They don't want us to talk; they want to live in a fantastical, walled garden where they could make decisions without having "outsiders" knowing or speaking out about what's going on there.
Of course it's not wrong if people with a few edits vote here and everyone is of course allowed to give him/her opinion, but I noticed lots of users with few edits opposed. That made me think there was some canvassing campaign happening. Maybe it was not obvious canvassing, but clearly [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35962&hl= this] was the cause (which is an off-wiki discussion). I don't like it when people request others to vote (esp. oppose). Oh and for everyone reading here and on other channels: I'm not a '''HE''', I'm a '''SHE''' (yes, female, pfff). Kind regards, [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]] ([[User talk:Trijnstel|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:05pm)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 28th December 2011, 4:34pm)
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:05pm)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 10:01pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 28th December 2011, 4:34pm)
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:05pm)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.
He says it is ironic that someone should complain about canvassing by going to the Administrators' Noticeboard in order to make his complaint known to a bunch of other people (who wouldn't otherwise have become involved).
See also our Michael Suarez' follow-up comment
QUOTE
Every time someone expresses their views openly on the WR, you (= the people of Wikimedia) [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/F%C3%A6&diff=64487261&oldid=64487094 go on a witch hunt] against the WR's use of free speech with "canvassing" as your battle cry. Your hostility against freedom of expression anywhere but where you permit it isn't really appreciated. The WR (and forums in generally) exists to make opinions and voices, including opinions some would rather not here, accessible to others, just as Commons exists to make free media, including images some would rather not view, accessible to others. You can expect a lot of oppose's if an opinion expressed on the WR is enlightening to others. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 28th December 2011, 9:34pm)
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:05pm)
Can someone please point out the post on this thread that commands, "Everyone. Vote oppose. Do it now. Obey"?
Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules also prohibit making "uninvolved" persons aware of a "discussion" (that is, vote) on Wikipedia. Decisions are supposed to only be made by the right people, so inviting the wrong people is just plain out.
I think if it wasn't for SV's and Jayjg's secret mailing lists of a few years ago which they used to, among other things, call for help in torpeding RfAs they didn't approve of (like mine), then the promotion of "canvassing" as an illegal WP activity wouldn't be as strong. I think your point, that it is useless to prohibit canvassing, is correct. Since WP can't regulate participants sending emails to each other, messaging to their groups of friends on Facebook, or posting to Wikipedia Review, then why bother having an anti-"canvassing" rule?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE
Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Were you previously knows as Ashleyvh (presumably Ashley van Haeften), Teahot, or Ash? Can you please disclose your previous account(s)? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Fæ, were you also Speedoguy?67.168.135.107 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 29th December 2011, 2:18am)
QUOTE
Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Were you previously knows as Ashleyvh (presumably Ashley van Haeften), Teahot, or Ash? Can you please disclose your previous account(s)? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Fæ, were you also Speedoguy?67.168.135.107 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 29th December 2011, 2:31am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 29th December 2011, 2:18am)
QUOTE
Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Were you previously knows as Ashleyvh (presumably Ashley van Haeften), Teahot, or Ash? Can you please disclose your previous account(s)? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Fæ, were you also Speedoguy?67.168.135.107 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
See the block log. Chase me, who is an employee, initially blocked and Courcelles then stepped in and changed it by some amount less than a minute.
I see. Courcelles only removed talk page access. BTW please forgive my ignorance, but could somebody please tell me how people became trustee directors? Are they getting elected by the community?
See the block log. Chase me, who is an employee, initially blocked and Courcelles then stepped in and changed it by some amount less than a minute.
I see. Courcelles only removed talk page access. BTW please forgive my ignorance, but could somebody please tell me how people became trustee directors? Are they getting elected by the community?
They were elected by the membership of WMUK. I think the first batch were elected online and subsequent ones at the AGM. They can also be co-opted. At least that is the casewth various charities I know.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
As ever, Herbythyme can eventually be persuaded to see sense.
QUOTE
Support It is rare that there is a "no brainer" here these days but this is one of those - thanks for helping - appreciated --Herby talk thyme 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE
Goes to show how wrong I can be at times... --Herby talk thyme 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's see the powers that be at Commons dismiss his opinion. I'm tempted to nominate him for something next time we have awards.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Detective @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:22am)
As ever, Herbythyme can eventually be persuaded to see sense.
QUOTE
Support It is rare that there is a "no brainer" here these days but this is one of those - thanks for helping - appreciated --Herby talk thyme 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE
Goes to show how wrong I can be at times... --Herby talk thyme 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's see the powers that be at Commons dismiss his opinion. I'm tempted to nominate him for something next time we have awards.
He still has a + vote registered against his name.
Or, to put it plainly, en.wp community, which is much bigger than the Commons community, just have means to impose here their opinion without caring about the opinion of the Commons community at all. I am not on IRC nor on WR for the record.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"This is our walled garden. Go away. There shan't be any outside commentary or scrutiny. If an outsider speaks, we should stuff our fingers into our ears in order to avoid hearing something, even a fact, that we would rather not hear."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
Some material that isn't available on Fæ's talk page on WP (except to those with oversighter bits):
QUOTE
As I mentioned earlier I’m planning on doing a piece on Wikimedia governance and admin practices, probably using your rise to the positions of administrator on the English language Wikipedia and Board Member of Wikimedia UK as a case study. My name is Dan Murphy. Though I’m a reporter/editor at the Christian Science Monitor, I won’t be doing this story for them (for 3 reasons: I’ll be writing this from a first person perspective, something the CSM rarely does; it’s outside my remit; and some of the material I’ll need to cover will be too explicit for us).
I’ve also emailed this note to you with my personal email and phone number included. I append it here in the interest of full transparency, which I hope you’ll appreciate. Here are my questions: 1. Some of your statements on Wikimedia projects have confused me. You sometimes imply that there’s doubt that User:Teahot and User:Ash were not in fact, you. Could you address this directly? Did you or did you not control those two accounts? From my perspective and investigation it sure seems that you did. 2. The pictures of a half-naked man in bondage positions that were uploaded to commons by the User:Teahot account look a lot like you. Were you the model? If not, how did you come to own that photograph? (I suppose if you insist that you didn’t control the Ash/Teahot accounts, you wouldn’t be in a position to know). 3. Did you privately request the deletion of those pictures? If so, why? If you didn’t, what do you know about the decision to delete the images– at who’s request, and so on? 4. You’ve stated on multiple occasions that either “stalking†and/or “harassment†led to your “vanishing†(in the Wikipedia sense) as User:Ash. As someone involved in examining your editing at the RFC/U at the time you disappeared, I found this to be an implied attack on me and others and I found it offensive. In my mind, I was simply pulling on threads that indicated you had fabricated sourcing and stood in the way of article improvement. Why did you go? If you really feared for your safety (and that of your family if memory serves) why did you return under a new identity so quickly, that you then went on to publicly and clearly connect to your real name? 5. Do you think uploaders of pictures to commons should retain the right to withdraw the permissions they’ve given if they have second thoughts? This seems to have been done as a favor to you, (the bondage pictures) but commons practice (and some deletion discussions you’ve been involved in there recently) indicates this is generally frowned upon. This certainly looks like the case of a double standard, of different rules for the inner circle. Do I have this wrong? If so, can you explain how? 6. I have no particular concern or interest in your sexual habits. But examination of your editing requires that sexual content be dealt with – since that was a big portion of your work on Wikipedia as Ash and continues to be a major interest at commons as Fae. The biggest concern at the RFC/U for “Ash†was the misuse of sources, including claims they contained information they did not, in fact, contain. Do you dispute this was accurate? If not, did you disclose to Wikimedia UK your past account and the concerns of others before you were voted in? 7. I fully intend (after reviewing the old RFC/U and the links from that time) to write about the concerns about your editing then. In addition to what looked like deliberate misuse of sources, you also insisted on using industry PR (the “grabby†awards and so on) as reliable sources. The problem with those sources was not that they’re porn connected, but that they were marketing tools in which “facts†(physical measurements, personal preferences, real names, real ages etc…) are typically fabricated. Do you still think those are good sources for writing accurate and neutral encyclopedia articles about living people? 8. What was the process to become a Wikimedia UK board member? I.e. who voted, how were you nominated, stuff like that. 9. As Ash you created (and strenuously argued for the retention of an article called) “List of Gay Bathhouse Regulars.†Articles like this alarm me not just as a BLP issue (though false inclusion of a person in this article by a malicious IP was a near certainty at some point and that's alarming enough). They are at best a trivial cross categorization (the mundane example would be “People who like to go to the pubâ€) and at worst something that could cause real world harm and distress to someone who may have indeed frequented gay bathhouses, but would prefer some privacy in this manner (I have similar concerns about the marginal porn bios you spent so much time editing – many people who move on from porn don’t want to be remembered that way. Unless they’re folks of great fame, with extent sources to write serious biographies on, they don't need to be so immortalized). Why did you think this was an “encyclopedic†topic? Have your views changed on this? If so, how and why? 10. I’m still investigating this, but it appears that you’ve been involved in reaching out as a Wikimedia UK board member to MPs and other folks in the UK about Wikipedia’s safeguards against defamation, against inappropriate pornography (i.e. of kids), against general error. If I’m correct in this assumption, can you either explain to me what you’ve been telling them about editorial controls or direct me to presentation materials you’ve used?
Whew! That’s a lot for a start. It will probably be some weeks before I’m ready to publish anything and will certainly ping you when it’s getting close. Feel free to call or email at any time.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 29th December 2011, 10:40am)
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 29th December 2011, 9:26am)
Some material that isn't available on Fæ's talk page on WP (except to those with oversighter bits):
Not oversighted, actually, but revision-deleted by AGK.
Looks like Bali is definitely a white hat. More stuff that AGK rather ironically deleted for your reading pleasure:
QUOTE
There is no harassment. I'm going to write a piece about governance at Wikimedia. He has received my email (identical to this except the inclusion of my email address and phone number) and he will either respond, or he won't. Mr. Van Haeften is a board member of Wikimedia UK (i.e. not a garden variety editor or admin) and has disclosed his identity voluntarily, so there can be no "outing" (though as a reporter, which is how i'm approaching this now, I'm only interested in the truth). He is also welcome to delete or retain whatever he likes on his talk page. I will continue to publicly disclose all communications going forward in the interest of transparency. None of this is "harassment" (which, btw, is a claim that i'm doing something borderline illegal. You've hurt my feelings). If you'd like me to continue talking about this with you on wikipedia, simply respond, and we'll carry on a conversation about it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
It seems fairly likely that Van Haeften will be required to fall on his sword (pun only partially intended) in the near future. The only question is whether he'll realize it on his own or if it will take a full disfellowshipping by Jimbo before he gets the point.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 29th December 2011, 4:37pm)
It seems fairly likely that Van Haeften will be required to fall on his sword (pun only partially intended) in the near future. The only question is whether he'll realize it on his own or if it will take a full disfellowshipping by Jimbo before he gets the point.
How did you come to such conclusion, if I may ask please.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 29th December 2011, 4:42pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 29th December 2011, 4:37pm)
It seems fairly likely that Van Haeften will be required to fall on his sword (pun only partially intended) in the near future. The only question is whether he'll realize it on his own or if it will take a full disfellowshipping by Jimbo before he gets the point.
How did you come to such conclusion, if I may ask please.
Maybe it's because bad PR from the Christian Science Monitor is more concerning to them than bad PR from ... the Examiner.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(melloden @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:44am)
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 29th December 2011, 4:42pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 29th December 2011, 4:37pm)
It seems fairly likely that Van Haeften will be required to fall on his sword (pun only partially intended) in the near future. The only question is whether he'll realize it on his own or if it will take a full disfellowshipping by Jimbo before he gets the point.
How did you come to such conclusion, if I may ask please.
Maybe it's because bad PR from the Christian Science Monitor is more concerning to them than bad PR from ... the Examiner.
With this topic, I would assume this piece would be better suited for The Sun.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
It is a virtual certainty that Van Haeften will become a running embarrassment for Jimbo in the near future, and as a result he will be forced to step down from his roles with WMUK at the very least. The one thing Jimbo does not tolerate is anyone who causes him embarrassment, especially someone who does anything that results in the media asking him questions he doesn't feel like answering. Thou Shalt Not Annoy The God-King is the first commandment, after all.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 29th December 2011, 5:47pm)
It is a virtual certainty that Van Haeften will become a running embarrassment for Jimbo in the near future, and as a result he will be forced to step down from his roles with WMUK at the very least. The one thing Jimbo does not tolerate is anyone who causes him embarrassment, especially someone who does anything that results in the media asking him questions he doesn't feel like answering. Thou Shalt Not Annoy The God-King is the first commandment, after all.
It will be interesting to see, but jimbo never knows what he's doing and what he's saying. That's why his reaction is hard to predict.
Wikipedia cofounder and current chieftain, Jimmy “Jimbo†Wales, commented on the affair to The New Yorker, “I don't really have a problem with it,†... Wales added, “Mr. Ryan was a friend, and still is a friend.†The purported explanation by Wales continues, “He is a young man, and he has offered me a heartfelt personal apology, which I have accepted.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
And look what happens next (as was certainly bound to happen)
QUOTE
Oppose for the egregious transparency issues. It's a shame really. Most of the opposition to Ashley comes from WR and is motivated by homophobia and bigotry. It'd be nice to support but in this case they've accidentally hit the nail on the head. He cannot be trusted to use the tools in the best interests of the project. Lovetinkle (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I wondered when the 'h' word would come up. This is one of my pet peeves. Everytime I've characterised this issue (including in my upcoming submission to UK charity commission) I have studiously and carefully avoided the word 'gay' or its cognates. The problem is promoting links to commercial pornography websites. I have a problem with 'commercial', and I have a problem with 'pornography' of any kind, where under-age users are concerned. Yet there is a certain minority that uses 'homophobia' or 'harassment' as get-out-of-jail free card for avoiding any kind of scrutiny or public accountability. The problem with Fae's previous account was nothing to do with sex or homophobia or whatever. It was: malicious BLPs, misrepresentation of sources, linking to commercial sites, tag-teaming. What have these grave sins to do with homophobia? I deeply resent these accusations. Peter Damian (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Well of course you've been wondering about it Peter. No matter how carefully you, Ottava, Alison, RHMED, Barbour, SBJohnny and the other right-wing activists over at WR craft your words the nastiness leaks through. You're opposing Ashley because he's gay. You don't like him. His uploads make you feel icky. Whatever. As it I mentioned above it just happens you've revealed a real flaw in his candidacy but save us the wide-eyed innocence. Y'all would have opposed his candidacy even if he was as pure as the Risen Lord. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Please redact that offensive personal attack. In my country, and probably yours, accusations of homophobia are illegal. As well as being immoral. Please retract now. Peter Damian (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I do, and quite recently have been researching it. As soon as it hit the media headlines he changed direction about 180 degrees, very very quickly, quicker than a London cabbie can do a U-turn in a narrow street. In fact, the news hit the mainstream press on Feb 28th 2007. Jimmy was in India at the time. As soon as he got back and saw the breadth of the coverage, he U-turned
QUOTE
I want to make it perfectly clear that my past support of EssJay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on. Even now, I have not been able to check diffs, etc. I have asked EssJay to resign his positions of trust within the community.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 29th December 2011, 1:24pm)
And look what happens next (as was certainly bound to happen)
QUOTE
Oppose for the egregious transparency issues. It's a shame really. Most of the opposition to Ashley comes from WR and is motivated by homophobia and bigotry. It'd be nice to support but in this case they've accidentally hit the nail on the head. He cannot be trusted to use the tools in the best interests of the project. Lovetinkle (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I wondered when the 'h' word would come up. This is one of my pet peeves. Everytime I've characterised this issue (including in my upcoming submission to UK charity commission) I have studiously and carefully avoided the word 'gay' or its cognates. The problem is promoting links to commercial pornography websites. I have a problem with 'commercial', and I have a problem with 'pornography' of any kind, where under-age users are concerned. Yet there is a certain minority that uses 'homophobia' or 'harassment' as get-out-of-jail free card for avoiding any kind of scrutiny or public accountability. The problem with Fae's previous account was nothing to do with sex or homophobia or whatever. It was: malicious BLPs, misrepresentation of sources, linking to commercial sites, tag-teaming. What have these grave sins to do with homophobia? I deeply resent these accusations. Peter Damian (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Well of course you've been wondering about it Peter. No matter how carefully you, Ottava, Alison, RHMED, Barbour, SBJohnny and the other right-wing activists over at WR craft your words the nastiness leaks through. You're opposing Ashley because he's gay. You don't like him. His uploads make you feel icky. Whatever. As it I mentioned above it just happens you've revealed a real flaw in his candidacy but save us the wide-eyed innocence. Y'all would have opposed his candidacy even if he was as pure as the Risen Lord. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Please redact that offensive personal attack. In my country, and probably yours, accusations of homophobia are illegal. As well as being immoral. Please retract now. Peter Damian (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 29th December 2011, 12:20pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 29th December 2011, 5:47pm)
It is a virtual certainty that Van Haeften will become a running embarrassment for Jimbo in the near future, and as a result he will be forced to step down from his roles with WMUK at the very least. The one thing Jimbo does not tolerate is anyone who causes him embarrassment, especially someone who does anything that results in the media asking him questions he doesn't feel like answering. Thou Shalt Not Annoy The God-King is the first commandment, after all.
It will be interesting to see, but jimbo never knows what he's doing and what he's saying. That's why his reaction is hard to predict.
Hardly. Jimbo's reactions are fairly easy to predict; if you say they aren't it's because you haven't been paying attention long enough.
Jimmy will defend his "friends" up and until the point doing so interferes with some interest or another of his, at which point whoever he is defending is thrown to the wolves, without remorse. Jimmy's interests are entirely self-centered; the most important are his ongoing access to powerful people, his access to financial resources (others as much as his own), and his desire not to have people he can't afford to ignore (that is, journalists) asking him questions he doesn't want to answer.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 29th December 2011, 1:24pm)
And look what happens next (as was certainly bound to happen)
QUOTE
...No matter how carefully you, Ottava, Alison, RHMED, Barbour, SBJohnny and the other right-wing activists over at WR craft your words the nastiness leaks through. You're opposing Ashley because he's gay....
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 29th December 2011, 7:17pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 29th December 2011, 1:24pm)
And look what happens next (as was certainly bound to happen)
QUOTE
...No matter how carefully you, Ottava, Alison, RHMED, Barbour, SBJohnny and the other right-wing activists over at WR craft your words the nastiness leaks through. You're opposing Ashley because he's gay....
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:34am)
He still has a + vote registered against his name.
Oh come on, that's a typing error. He's clearly struck out the word "Support". Any bureaucrat who can't see what he's done needs an eye transplant or a brain transplant.
Fastily too has cottoned on (and correctly struck out the +), though perhaps a little more equivocally.
QUOTE
{{Support}} Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 07:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Striking !vote for now. I'll re-evaluate later. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 29th December 2011, 10:57am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 29th December 2011, 3:51pm)
What is Dan Murphy's e-mail address?
He has wiki email turned on.
Thanks, but I don't consider that a viable solution -- banned users sometimes can't easily navigate to an "E-mail this user" function. Many thanks to John for providing a web form for his CSM contact. I know, I was being lazy... sorry.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
There are many loyal Wikipedians of the North Korean variety who are still refusing to look further back than the 'clean start', and who accept the cleanness of the start. That is at the heart of the issue. Haeften is still refusing to acknowledge his identity with User:Ash on the basis of the 'all clean'.
Dan is already rightly questioning this
QUOTE
A few minutes ago I emailed a request for information about what was disclosed to the committee prior to and during the run for adminship of [[User:Fae]] ... I'm hoping for a response in the first week of January if that's not unreasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=468316758
My recollection is that our John Vandenberg gave the 'all clean' (I will have a look). What due diligence was actually done here? I emailed John, but no reply so far.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 29th December 2011, 6:03pm)
My recollection is that our John Vandenberg gave the 'all clean' (I will have a look). What due diligence was actually done here? I emailed John, but no reply so far.
By clean, I hope he wasn't referring to the images.
But seriously, nothing in the leaks alluding to this? I think it would have been far more valuable for Malice to have leaked every single email regarding someone seeking a clean start. It seems that ArbCom abused its power the most in granting approval to many people that were proved to have done a lot of damage and then got a new name and shepherd into adminship before anyone ever knew what was going on.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 29th December 2011, 5:47pm)
It is a virtual certainty that Van Haeften will become a running embarrassment for Jimbo in the near future, and as a result he will be forced to step down from his roles with WMUK at the very least. The one thing Jimbo does not tolerate is anyone who causes him embarrassment, especially someone who does anything that results in the media asking him questions he doesn't feel like answering. Thou Shalt Not Annoy The God-King is the first commandment, after all.
But where do you see embarrassment for Jimbo ? OK, the user wrote a few idiotic articles like the one about gay baths regulars, uploaded a few images of himself in chains, voting to keep every image of every penis ... So what? Why Jimbo is going to be embarrassed. Greg wrote a very good article, but was it embarrassing for Jimbo? If yes, please tell me why.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:15pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 29th December 2011, 5:47pm)
It is a virtual certainty that Van Haeften will become a running embarrassment for Jimbo in the near future, and as a result he will be forced to step down from his roles with WMUK at the very least. The one thing Jimbo does not tolerate is anyone who causes him embarrassment, especially someone who does anything that results in the media asking him questions he doesn't feel like answering. Thou Shalt Not Annoy The God-King is the first commandment, after all.
But where do you see embarrassment for Jimbo ? OK, the user wrote a few idiotic articles like the one about gay baths regulars, uploaded a few images of himself in chains, voting to keep every image of every penis ... So what? Why Jimbo is going to be embarrassed. Greg wrote a very good article, but was it embarrassing for Jimbo? If yes, please tell me why.
Because anything that exposes the ridiculous nature of wikipedia's internal working makes it harder for Jimbo to score the honoraria and social stroking that he so desperately needs
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:15pm)
But where do you see embarrassment for Jimbo ? OK, the user wrote a few idiotic articles like the one about gay baths regulars, uploaded a few images of himself in chains, voting to keep every image of every penis ... So what? Why Jimbo is going to be embarrassed. Greg wrote a very good article, but was it embarrassing for Jimbo? If yes, please tell me why.
If he was really proud of being bound up in chains, and had nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about, then he would not have had the images deleted.
I suspect it was more the embarrassment thing. He has reinvented himself from gay bath house article editor, who uploads pictures of himself trussed up, to the venerable Mr Haeften who carries a stick, speaks at the Joint Committee hearing, runs the GLAM project that involves visits to the British Library manuscript collection. It's very embarrassing to have a picture of your hairy bottom, chained up on a persian rug.
So he used his influence to have the pictures deleted.
These are the really important issues.
I've put myself down for the visit to the British Museum mon 17th Jan, by the way, where Mr Haeften will also be attending, and will have the opportunity to ask him about his knowledge of late medieval manuscripts. I did 'collar' him (oops) on the subject at the last wiki meet but couldn't get anything clear or sensible. We shall see.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE
No matter how carefully you, Ottava, Alison, RHMED, Barbour, SBJohnny and the other right-wing activists over at WR craft your words the nastiness leaks through. You're opposing Ashley because he's gay. You don't like him. His uploads make you feel icky. Whatever. As it I mentioned above it just happens you've revealed a real flaw in his candidacy but save us the wide-eyed innocence. Y'all would have opposed his candidacy even if he was as pure as the Risen Lord. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I would say something about this on Commons, but don't want to give them an opportunity to "block" for "disruption".
Mister "Lovetinkle", your username is pathetically funny. You're a sock of someone, yes?
And how dare you make pronouncements about my personal politics. You don't know me personally. Calling someone a "homophobe" is a venerable tradition on Wikipedia, to shut down and destroy opponents.
Let me make it clear: I don't care about Mr. Van Haeften's sexual life. He's an adult, if he wants to engage in the most disgusting sexual practices possible with other consenting adults, that's fine with me. I don't even care if he posts numerous photos of his dong and his hairy ass on Commons, although it's generally a bad idea for an alleged "educational resource".
I DO care about his attempt to cover up his past activities on en-wiki and Commons, and the attempts by his admin buddies, all of whom are abusing their power to do so. And Dan Murphy's comments being censored out of existence, that was the last straw.
I know you're reading this thread, troll. The Fae business is only the tip of a very large and nasty iceberg, one that I did not help to create. Your friend Fae did some of that, actually. (Assuming, of course, you're not Fae's sock account. Which, knowing Wikipedia, is probable.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
I've resurrected a slightly older thread here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...291994&st=140&# The issue of the March 2011 RfA is important. Why did Vandenberg prevent this information coming out, thus allowing Haeften complete immunity from any questions raised about his old account? John should explain himself.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:40pm)
QUOTE
No matter how carefully you, Ottava, Alison, RHMED, Barbour, SBJohnny and the other right-wing activists over at WR craft your words the nastiness leaks through. You're opposing Ashley because he's gay. You don't like him. His uploads make you feel icky. Whatever. As it I mentioned above it just happens you've revealed a real flaw in his candidacy but save us the wide-eyed innocence. Y'all would have opposed his candidacy even if he was as pure as the Risen Lord. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I would say something about this on Commons, but don't want to give them an opportunity to "block" for "disruption".
It would appear that Ottava and Rd232 are swooping down to save him from upon high
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:38pm)
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:15pm)
But where do you see embarrassment for Jimbo ? OK, the user wrote a few idiotic articles like the one about gay baths regulars, uploaded a few images of himself in chains, voting to keep every image of every penis ... So what? Why Jimbo is going to be embarrassed. Greg wrote a very good article, but was it embarrassing for Jimbo? If yes, please tell me why.
If he was really proud of being bound up in chains, and had nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about, then he would not have had the images deleted.
I suspect it was more the embarrassment thing. He has reinvented himself from gay bath house article editor, who uploads pictures of himself trussed up, to the venerable Mr Haeften who carries a stick, speaks at the Joint Committee hearing, runs the GLAM project that involves visits to the British Library manuscript collection. It's very embarrassing to have a picture of your hairy bottom, chained up on a persian rug.
So he used his influence to have the pictures deleted.
These are the really important issues.
I've put myself down for the visit to the British Museum mon 17th Jan, by the way, where Mr Haeften will also be attending, and will have the opportunity to ask him about his knowledge of late medieval manuscripts. I did 'collar' him (oops) on the subject at the last wiki meet but couldn't get anything clear or sensible. We shall see.
Well, it probably would have been an embarrassment for most people to have an image of his " hairy bottom, chained up on a persian rug" on wikipedia. But here we go again: Most people would have never uploaded such image in the first place (even to improve educational value of wikipedia article (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) ), and probably most people would not have put themselves in such position even in the privacy of their own home. But still how a deleted image of Mr. Haeften's "hairy bottom, chained up on a persian rug" could be such an embarrassment for Jimbo that Jimbo will ask the owner of this "hairy bottom, chained up on a persian rug" to resign?
I'm requesting a review of Fæ's recent poor conduct, and request that steps be taken to prevent more of the same or further escalation. Hopefully that means just a cautionary word from someone uninvolved; I'm not out for blood, just a less hostile editing environment. The poor behavior falls into three categories:
constant personal attacks and comments about editors; disruptive editing; inappropriate templating and warning of editors;
Full disclosure: we're presently in a content dispute on a controversial BLP article, and the rhetoric and tempers have risen a bit on all sides, but never to this level; review of my own actions is welcome, especially with regard to Fæ's many unsubstantiated mischaracterizations of my motivations.
Onslaught of unwarranted personal attacks and mischaracterizations:
"...you seem to be on a mission to disrupt ... You have made no positive steps ... Your polemic is tiresome ... your blanking of sourced material without clear explanation ... Your question appears so trivial ... nitpicking here to stop any progress ... look like trolling to me ... forget how to use Google? ... your opinion is starting to look rather irrelevant ... you do realize that nobody put you in charge here don't you? ... repeatedly saying the equivalent of "I don't like it" to everyone else's suggestions ... Nobody died and put you in charge ... Your problem with ownership of this article has been blatantly apparent ... after it was tampered with by Xenophrenic by being misleadingly indented ... your recent contribution to this article appears to introduce nothing but promotional bias to this article and is disruptive ... You appear to be keen to edit war ... your question appears trollish ... it is apparent that you have a problem with ownership of the article ... your continued off-putting and trivial challenges to other potential contributors ... it would help if rather than trolling other editors, you could positively propose text ... you are promoting her books by cherry picking quotations ... persistently introducing bias to Wikipedia articles or disrupting a consensus building process ... worryingly stalker-ish and rather threatening.
Disruptive editing:
After declaring "...I'm not terribly interested in proposing new content...", and, "I have no intention of wasting my time proposing detailed alternative text for this article if it is likely to be endlessly nitpicked over", s/he threatened to correct a perceived "imbalance" in the article through massive deletions. S/he then carried out that threat, making 16 edits over a 30 minute period starting with this one, that deleted considerable content and tagged even more content with various citation-needed tags. S/he then went to related articles and stuck 'PROD' tags on them (here); requested deletion of image files from the article (here). Deleting and tagging is not a problem in itself, when justified, but most of these edits were not justified -- sources were already cited in the article; articles about best selling books don't need to be deleted, etc. Not a single addition of new content, so it all seemed to me to be more pointy than productive. When I asked for an explanation of some of the edits, I was told I wasn't getting an explanation here.
Inappropriate templating/warning of experienced editors for:
Removing templates (here); Tampering with comments (here); Violating 3RR (here); and then when I delete the warning templates, referring to them as "possible harassment", I get yet another admonition to use a "recognized process" rather than edit summaries (here), referring me to the Help Desk(!). Looking for a bit of help to put the brakes on this mess before it becomes serious. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Followed by a long argument. But with no resolution evident.
Posted here just in case some asshole tries to erase it from AN/I archives. It's been done before. (I was just looking into Durova's and Grawp's activities, and the number of oversights related to each case is staggering. Yes, girls, Wikipedia is censored. A lot.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 29th December 2011, 5:15pm)
But where do you see embarrassment for Jimbo ? OK, the user wrote a few idiotic articles like the one about gay baths regulars, uploaded a few images of himself in chains, voting to keep every image of every penis ... So what? Why Jimbo is going to be embarrassed. Greg wrote a very good article, but was it embarrassing for Jimbo? If yes, please tell me why.
If and when Mr. Murphy's article, reportedly being written for the Christian Science Monitor (a highly reputable publication), appears, it will certainly lead to some press attention being focused on at least two people: Mr. Van Haeften, and Jimbo Wales. This is not the sort of attention Jimmy-boy wants, and he'll almost certainly take it out on Van Haeften, because the CSM is simply too influential and respectable for him to poo-poo under the carpet (as he routinely does with the Register and Gawker). Simply put, someone has to be In The Wrong here, and even Jimmy knows that he's not going to succeed if he tries to make it the CSM.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 30th December 2011, 1:26am)
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 29th December 2011, 5:15pm)
But where do you see embarrassment for Jimbo ? OK, the user wrote a few idiotic articles like the one about gay baths regulars, uploaded a few images of himself in chains, voting to keep every image of every penis ... So what? Why Jimbo is going to be embarrassed. Greg wrote a very good article, but was it embarrassing for Jimbo? If yes, please tell me why.
If and when Mr. Murphy's article, reportedly being written for the Christian Science Monitor (a highly reputable publication), appears, it will certainly lead to some press attention being focused on at least two people: Mr. Van Haeften, and Jimbo Wales. This is not the sort of attention Jimmy-boy wants, and he'll almost certainly take it out on Van Haeften, because the CSM is simply too influential and respectable for him to poo-poo under the carpet (as he routinely does with the Register and Gawker). Simply put, someone has to be In The Wrong here, and even Jimmy knows that he's not going to succeed if he tries to make it the CSM.
The Christian Science Monitor? Yes, right... Bur are you sure they are going to publish this kind of story?
He reminds me of Will Beback and Durova, oddly enough. Backstabbing, paranoia, and getting others to do the dirty work. That only works if you're not going around stabbing other admins in the back.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 30th December 2011, 1:26am)
If and when Mr. Murphy's article, reportedly being written for the Christian Science Monitor (a highly reputable publication), appears, it will certainly lead to some press attention being focused on at least two people: Mr. Van Haeften, and Jimbo Wales. This is not the sort of attention Jimmy-boy wants, and he'll almost certainly take it out on Van Haeften, because the CSM is simply too influential and respectable for him to poo-poo under the carpet (as he routinely does with the Register and Gawker). Simply put, someone has to be In The Wrong here, and even Jimmy knows that he's not going to succeed if he tries to make it the CSM.
Though I’m a reporter/editor at the Christian Science Monitor, I won’t be doing this story for them (for 3 reasons: I’ll be writing this from a first person perspective, something the CSM rarely does; it’s outside my remit; and some of the material I’ll need to cover will be too explicit for us).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th December 2011, 5:09am)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 29th December 2011, 10:27pm)
Ah, too bad there won't be an article. Looks like Van Haeften gets to keep his playtoy for a while yet.
There will be an article -- it's just that the journalist is going to publish it on a venue other than CSM.
Mr. Murphy knows how to ask the right questions. I hope this isn't the last investigation he does on some of the funny business that has gone on in WP.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:15pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 29th December 2011, 5:47pm)
It is a virtual certainty that Van Haeften will become a running embarrassment for Jimbo in the near future, and as a result he will be forced to step down from his roles with WMUK at the very least. The one thing Jimbo does not tolerate is anyone who causes him embarrassment, especially someone who does anything that results in the media asking him questions he doesn't feel like answering. Thou Shalt Not Annoy The God-King is the first commandment, after all.
But where do you see embarrassment for Jimbo ? OK, the user wrote a few idiotic articles like the one about gay baths regulars, uploaded a few images of himself in chains, voting to keep every image of every penis ... So what? Why Jimbo is going to be embarrassed. Greg wrote a very good article, but was it embarrassing for Jimbo? If yes, please tell me why.
"very good article" my ass. Gregory rarely writes very good articles. He sometimes writes very interesting articles, and other times very biased articles, but they're hardly very good articles.
I'm hoping he might learn a thing or two from Bali ultimate about writing articles that actually contain a small bit of credibility.
Gregory, do you write for the Patch? I think you would be very good at it, especially tracking local corruption and the like.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:40pm)
I DO care about his attempt to cover up his past activities on en-wiki and Commons, and the attempts by his admin buddies, all of whom are abusing their power to do so. And Dan Murphy's comments being censored out of existence, that was the last straw.
Why? Do you really care about corruption on a website? Perhaps it might matter in a minor British charity... but on Wikipedia, why do you choose to care? That's one thing I've never really understood about WR. I think it's amusing to comment and criticize. But why does anyone care about Wikipedia's issues? If the site fails, then sucks for all the stupid little kids plagiarizing their essays. That's about it.
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(melloden @ Fri 30th December 2011, 5:49am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:40pm)
I DO care about his attempt to cover up his past activities on en-wiki and Commons, and the attempts by his admin buddies, all of whom are abusing their power to do so. And Dan Murphy's comments being censored out of existence, that was the last straw.
Why? Do you really care about corruption on a website? Perhaps it might matter in a minor British charity... but on Wikipedia, why do you choose to care? That's one thing I've never really understood about WR. I think it's amusing to comment and criticize. But why does anyone care about Wikipedia's issues? If the site fails, then sucks for all the stupid little kids plagiarizing their essays. That's about it.
The sequence goes something like:
Wikipedia dominates the web through Google.
Wikipedia articles overshadow other more reliable sources of information.
Those other sources wither and die.
Wikipedia is not being managed responsibly, therefore it does not fulfil the obligation that goes with its position.
Over many years WR has identified the effects of "my one little corrupt action will not do any harm" and it is clear that this corruption has been used to control policy - which we now see is being used as the evidence that all is well in Wikipedia because everything is supposedly compliant with policy.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 30th December 2011, 12:40am)
The sequence goes something like: Wikipedia dominates the web through Google. Wikipedia articles overshadow other more reliable sources of information. Those other sources wither and die. Wikipedia is not being managed responsibly, therefore it does not fulfil the obligation that goes with its position.
What you said.
Plus, it's already the #1 source for plagiarism by students.
It is helping not only to make the web suck, it is slowly polluting education. A perverse database of some-not-bad articles and a vast pile of cartoon crap and Doctor Who trivia, all vandalized, semi-coherent, and containing difficult-to-find errors. And having references that are often wrong, repetitive, or point to dead web links. Not to mention its secret biases, in favor of Israel and against Scientology, TM, and a mixed bag of other things.
And now, the British government has decided to "bless" the mess, with the status of a nonprofit charity. We "old men" won't regret it, but our heirs might.....
I suspect Lovetinkle is a sock of Van Haeften, or someone very similar. Pushing for RFA, by patrolling half-assedly. Seen that stupid pattern too many times. And those last two links are dead.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(melloden @ Fri 30th December 2011, 12:43am)
"very good article" my ass. Gregory rarely writes very good articles. He sometimes writes very interesting articles, and other times very biased articles, but they're hardly very good articles.
I'm hoping he might learn a thing or two from Bali ultimate about writing articles that actually contain a small bit of credibility.
Gregory, do you write for the Patch? I think you would be very good at it, especially tracking local corruption and the like.
"melloden", I will happily answer your question about the Patch, if you'll just kindly tell me who you are. I don't feel the need to cooperate with some pseudonymous git who enjoys insulting my work. Fortunately, others can conclude that "good" articles can be written from a very biased perspective. For heaven's sake, with what do you think the op-ed page of any newspaper is filled?
Anyway, in less than 18 months of writing for Examiner, I've had over 58,000 page views. It's hard to believe that "non-good" content would be so popular.
I recommend careful scrutiny of the key accounts involved in those Wikipedia Review posts and their tag-team contribution patterns which harass, distort the facts and manipulate Wikimedia Commons consensus process. Just because allegations have been posted off-wiki or multiple times on-wiki does not turn them into "facts", as a community we should be strongly evidence based and as others have pointed out here, speculation and rumour is not evidence.
I think the best evidence is Van Haeften's refusal to clearly concede or deny whether the subject of the bondage photographs is himself. If he would only go on record as saying he is not the subject of the photographs, then that would bring clarity to the issue, and perhaps the Clarity Digital Group (Examiner.com) could be sued for alleging that Van Haeften was the subject of the photos. Van Haeften and his civil partner could then use the hefty settlement award to donate a large sum to Wikimedia UK, so that this proud and accomplished organization might live on in perpetuity off of an annual endowment stipend.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:28pm)
If he would only go on record as saying he is not the subject of the photographs, then that would bring clarity to the issue, and perhaps the Liberty Media Group (Examiner.com) could be sued for alleging that Van Haeften was the subject of the photos.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 30th December 2011, 10:09am)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 30th December 2011, 12:40am)
The sequence goes something like: Wikipedia dominates the web through Google. Wikipedia articles overshadow other more reliable sources of information. Those other sources wither and die. Wikipedia is not being managed responsibly, therefore it does not fulfil the obligation that goes with its position.
What you said.
Plus, it's already the #1 source for plagiarism by students.
It is helping not only to make the web suck, it is slowly polluting education. A perverse database of some-not-bad articles and a vast pile of cartoon crap and Doctor Who trivia, all vandalized, semi-coherent, and containing difficult-to-find errors. And having references that are often wrong, repetitive, or point to dead web links. Not to mention its secret biases, in favor of Israel and against Scientology, TM, and a mixed bag of other things.
Reforming Wikipedia is like reforming the conservatism out of Fox News or the liberalism out of NPR. The only argument I see is that Wikipedia corruption is bad because people believe everything they see on the site, in which case that's a problem of raising stupid children rather than stupid editors on Wikipedia.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
QUOTE(melloden @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:54pm)
Reforming Wikipedia is like reforming the conservatism out of Fox News or the liberalism out of NPR. The only argument I see is that Wikipedia corruption is bad because people believe everything they see on the site, in which case that's a problem of raising stupid children rather than stupid editors on Wikipedia.
Fox News doesn't claim to be an encyclopedia, nor does it aim to bring the sum of all human knowledge on the planet, nor does it raise money on the strength of such claims. Nor does it run 'chapters' to which it diverts charitable donations. Etc etc.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:18pm)
QUOTE(melloden @ Fri 30th December 2011, 12:43am)
"very good article" my ass. Gregory rarely writes very good articles. He sometimes writes very interesting articles, and other times very biased articles, but they're hardly very good articles.
I'm hoping he might learn a thing or two from Bali ultimate about writing articles that actually contain a small bit of credibility.
Gregory, do you write for the Patch? I think you would be very good at it, especially tracking local corruption and the like.
"melloden", I will happily answer your question about the Patch, if you'll just kindly tell me who you are. I don't feel the need to cooperate with some pseudonymous git who enjoys insulting my work. Fortunately, others can conclude that "good" articles can be written from a very biased perspective. For heaven's sake, with what do you think the op-ed page of any newspaper is filled?
Anyway, in less than 18 months of writing for Examiner, I've had over 58,000 page views. It's hard to believe that "non-good" content would be so popular.
It's OK, Gregory. If I told you who I was, you wouldn't believe it, now, would you?
Op-eds aren't news. They're more opinions that happen to be opposite the editorial page. Even Wikipedia says so.
Also, I feel obligated to point out that 58,000 pageviews is a little over one-third of what some article about an octopus garnered in one day. The moral is that people like reading about octopi more than Wikipedia. And no one cares about journalistic integrity when reading about octopi, I hope.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
Since so many comments seem to be [redacted] on Commons lately, here is the threat in full:
QUOTE
If the pictures are not of you...
Then sending them (there are always copies) to your civil partner should be no big deal. Yes/no? 98SA447 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Note that there is nothing here which suggests that sending the images to Van Haeften's partner is in any way contingent on his request for admin rights, although this was the stated reason for abandoning the request.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:55pm)
QUOTE(melloden @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:54pm)
Reforming Wikipedia is like reforming the conservatism out of Fox News or the liberalism out of NPR. The only argument I see is that Wikipedia corruption is bad because people believe everything they see on the site, in which case that's a problem of raising stupid children rather than stupid editors on Wikipedia.
Fox News doesn't claim to be an encyclopedia, nor does it aim to bring the sum of all human knowledge on the planet, nor does it raise money on the strength of such claims. Nor does it run 'chapters' to which it diverts charitable donations. Etc etc.
That's not my point. My point is that the corruption in Wikipedia is a defining characteristic that there is little point to change anymore. Many people absorb every detail churned out by Fox or NPR even if it's biased or wrong. Some people won't believe it. Same with Wikipedia. The argument that just because Wikipedia is influential doesn't give adequate reason for why it ought to be reformed.
People cheat off Yahoo Answers for homework, and believe it for pregnancy information, and ask for dating advice there, etc. And it's more of a shithole than Wikipedia. But no one cares, do they? I certainly don't. Some places will never be respectable or reliable sources of information and it's best to just let them die off quietly.
At this point, it's fair to say that AGK is familiar with the Fae drama. Despite this, AGK is a supporter of Fae. Either AGK has a poor sense of judgment or he's supporting Fae due to a grudge with me. He didn't provide a reason for his "support" !vote.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 30th December 2011, 5:18pm)
He also voted around 20 hours beforeoversighting Fae's talk page, so it's unlikely that he leaned about the RfA from the oversight request.
This oversight or rev-del is strange especially after this statement
QUOTE
You are correct. All the edits made by User:Bali ultimate have been restored to full visibility. I suppose the elephant in the room; this is a nasty personal attack regardless of its factual basis or the availability of the information being used. [[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 04:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
And now, Rd232 has blanked the request page......who's "canvassing" now?
Wikipedia is so pathetic. Just like a corrupt municipal police department--they hire each others' friends and relatives, lie about everything, and are also workplace-incompetent.
Bonus: unlike a police department, these idiots can sockpuppet themselves into multiple jobs, and never have to identify themselves, or even show up to work. Do it aggressively enough for a few years, and you can talk you way into an actual paying job with the WMF or their affiliates.
Very few people even notice the old-fashioned ward heeling, because they're "bringing all human knowledge" to the world.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:18pm)
Anyway, in less than 18 months of writing for Examiner, I've had over 58,000 page views. It's hard to believe that "non-good" content would be so popular.
How many Wikipedia article have had more page views in that time? It's hard to believe that "non-good" content would be so popular.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Fusion @ Fri 30th December 2011, 5:12pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 30th December 2011, 3:18pm)
Anyway, in less than 18 months of writing for Examiner, I've had over 58,000 page views. It's hard to believe that "non-good" content would be so popular.
How many Wikipedia article have had more page views in that time? It's hard to believe that "non-good" content would be so popular.
This point was already made by "melloden", Fusion. Please keep up with us!
It is not the same. Melloden said that one article about an octopus had attracted many views. I was asking (not making a point, genuinely asking a question to get information) how many articles in total in Wikipedia had had so many views.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 31st December 2011, 7:04am)
It is not the same. Melloden said that one article about an octopus had attracted many views. I was asking (not making a point, genuinely asking a question to get information) how many articles in total in Wikipedia had had so many views.
We can probably deduce an average page views per Wikipedia article statistic in a couple of ways.
Some facts: There are about 16 billion monthly page views of all language Wikipedias, (I assume) including article and non-article pages.
English Wikipedia articles represent about 20% of all language Wikipedia articles.
Some assumptions: Article traffic probably constitutes at least 50% of all page traffic on the English Wikipedia.
The English Wikipedia probably gets at least 150% more than its relative "share" of multi-language global page traffic, given that it's the largest Wikipedia and English is a globally dominant language.
+++
Given those facts and assumptions, one might conclude: 16,000,000,000 x 0.20 x 0.50 x 1.50 = 2,400,000,000 English Wikipedia article page views per month
Given that there are about 3.9 million English Wikipedia articles, that's about 615 page views per article, per month, on average.
###
Another way of checking might be to take X random English Wikipedia articles, then check their actual monthly page views with the Henrik tool.
I tried 15 random articles, and their November 2011 page views were as follows:
Or, an average of (13143 / 15) 876 page views per article per month.
Note that my 58,000 Examiner page views are now spread across 53 articles all together, but I began 18 months ago with just 1 article, so is it somewhat fair to say that my average page views per article are something like 58,000 divided by (let's say) 30, or approximately 1,933 page views per Examiner article, which we would then divide by 18 months to get an average of 107 page views per Examiner article per month?
Or, we could look at the 3,400 page views I've had in December, across 51 or 52 existing articles, which would be in the neighborhood of 65 or 70 page views per Examiner article per month.
Therefore, one might conclude that my Examiner articles are proportionally anywhere from one-twelfth to one-seventh as popular as a typical Wikipedia page. Plus, I get paid. For both.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 31st December 2011, 3:29pm)
QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 31st December 2011, 7:04am)
It is not the same. Melloden said that one article about an octopus had attracted many views. I was asking (not making a point, genuinely asking a question to get information) how many articles in total in Wikipedia had had so many views.
We can probably deduce an average page views per Wikipedia article statistic in a couple of ways.
Some facts: There are about 16 billion monthly page views of all language Wikipedias, (I assume) including article and non-article pages.
English Wikipedia articles represent about 20% of all language Wikipedia articles.
Some assumptions: Article traffic probably constitutes at least 50% of all page traffic on the English Wikipedia.
The English Wikipedia probably gets at least 150% more than its relative "share" of multi-language global page traffic, given that it's the largest Wikipedia and English is a globally dominant language.
+++
Given those facts and assumptions, one might conclude: 16,000,000,000 x 0.20 x 0.50 x 1.50 = 2,400,000,000 English Wikipedia article page views per month
Given that there are about 3.9 million English Wikipedia articles, that's about 615 page views per article, per month, on average.
###
Another way of checking might be to take X random English Wikipedia articles, then check their actual monthly page views with the Henrik tool.
I tried 15 random articles, and their November 2011 page views were as follows:
Or, an average of (13143 / 15) 876 page views per article per month.
Note that my 58,000 Examiner page views are now spread across 53 articles all together, but I began 18 months ago with just 1 article, so is it somewhat fair to say that my average page views per article are something like 58,000 divided by (let's say) 30, or approximately 1,933 page views per Examiner article, which we would then divide by 18 months to get an average of 107 page views per Examiner article per month?
Or, we could look at the 3,400 page views I've had in December, across 51 or 52 existing articles, which would be in the neighborhood of 65 or 70 page views per Examiner article per month.
Therefore, one might conclude that my Examiner articles are proportionally anywhere from one-twelfth to one-seventh as popular as a typical Wikipedia page. Plus, I get paid. For both.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
The nomination may have been withdrawn, but the drama isn't over. Here we have a proposal to de-sysop Rd232. Surprisingly, Ottava isn't the only person to vote for the motion. However, something makes me think that this proposal is more likely to be carried.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 9:06am)
The nomination may have been withdrawn, but the drama isn't over. Here we have a proposal to de-sysop Rd232. Surprisingly, Ottava isn't the only person to vote for the motion. However, something makes me think that this proposal is more likely to be carried.
School must be out, as the children are definitely playing in the treehouse.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 1st January 2012, 8:11am)
. . . and it was a graphic image, albeit a somewhat blurry one. [SSFW page containing link to NSFW image].
Oh, I didn't know there was a fleshy Wiener shot, too. I thought the image that was paraded around most of the pundit media was this one, which is not terribly more graphic than Ashley's.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 1st January 2012, 5:20pm)
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 9:06am)
The nomination may have been withdrawn, but the drama isn't over. Here we have a proposal to de-sysop Rd232. Surprisingly, Ottava isn't the only person to vote for the motion. However, something makes me think that this proposal is more likely to be carried.
School must be out, as the children are definitely playing in the treehouse.
I don't know why Fred the Oyster doesn't come and join us here. After all, contributions such as this, this and this suggest the audience he is seeking to entertain is to be found over here.
So Fred, since you mention parties, would you mind letting us know how much you had to drink last night? Your tolerance may be less than you think.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 2:12pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 1st January 2012, 5:20pm)
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 9:06am)
The nomination may have been withdrawn, but the drama isn't over. Here we have a proposal to de-sysop Rd232. Surprisingly, Ottava isn't the only person to vote for the motion. However, something makes me think that this proposal is more likely to be carried.
School must be out, as the children are definitely playing in the treehouse.
I don't know why Fred the Oyster doesn't come and join us here. After all, contributions such as this, this and this suggest the audience he is seeking to entertain is to be found over here.
So Fred, since you mention parties, would you mind letting us know how much you had to drink last night? Your tolerance may be less than you think.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined:
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 7:12pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 1st January 2012, 5:20pm)
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 9:06am)
The nomination may have been withdrawn, but the drama isn't over. Here we have a proposal to de-sysop Rd232. Surprisingly, Ottava isn't the only person to vote for the motion. However, something makes me think that this proposal is more likely to be carried.
School must be out, as the children are definitely playing in the treehouse.
I don't know why Fred the Oyster doesn't come and join us here. After all, contributions such as this, this and this suggest the audience he is seeking to entertain is to be found over here.
So Fred, since you mention parties, would you mind letting us know how much you had to drink last night? Your tolerance may be less than you think.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 1st January 2012, 7:02pm)
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 7:12pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 1st January 2012, 5:20pm)
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 9:06am)
The nomination may have been withdrawn, but the drama isn't over. Here we have a proposal to de-sysop Rd232. Surprisingly, Ottava isn't the only person to vote for the motion. However, something makes me think that this proposal is more likely to be carried.
School must be out, as the children are definitely playing in the treehouse.
I don't know why Fred the Oyster doesn't come and join us here. After all, contributions such as this, this and this suggest the audience he is seeking to entertain is to be found over here.
So Fred, since you mention parties, would you mind letting us know how much you had to drink last night? Your tolerance may be less than you think.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined:
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 2nd January 2012, 12:15am)
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 1st January 2012, 7:02pm)
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 7:12pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 1st January 2012, 5:20pm)
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 9:06am)
The nomination may have been withdrawn, but the drama isn't over. Here we have a proposal to de-sysop Rd232. Surprisingly, Ottava isn't the only person to vote for the motion. However, something makes me think that this proposal is more likely to be carried.
School must be out, as the children are definitely playing in the treehouse.
I don't know why Fred the Oyster doesn't come and join us here. After all, contributions such as this, this and this suggest the audience he is seeking to entertain is to be found over here.
So Fred, since you mention parties, would you mind letting us know how much you had to drink last night? Your tolerance may be less than you think.
None at all as it happens.
Life is far too serious to be treated seriously.
If life isn't so serious, then why don't you drink fucking beer???
My vice is swinging. It doesn't cost as much and you don't have to pee as often.
This post has been edited by Cunningly Linguistic:
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 2nd January 2012, 12:18am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 2nd January 2012, 12:15am)
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 1st January 2012, 7:02pm)
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 7:12pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 1st January 2012, 5:20pm)
QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 1st January 2012, 9:06am)
The nomination may have been withdrawn, but the drama isn't over. Here we have a proposal to de-sysop Rd232. Surprisingly, Ottava isn't the only person to vote for the motion. However, something makes me think that this proposal is more likely to be carried.
School must be out, as the children are definitely playing in the treehouse.
I don't know why Fred the Oyster doesn't come and join us here. After all, contributions such as this, this and this suggest the audience he is seeking to entertain is to be found over here.
So Fred, since you mention parties, would you mind letting us know how much you had to drink last night? Your tolerance may be less than you think.
None at all as it happens.
Life is far too serious to be treated seriously.
If life isn't so serious, then why don't you drink fucking beer???
My vice is swinging. It doesn't cost as much and you don't have to pee as often.
Leaders must deal with and accept harassment all the time, yet Fae appears not to be able to handle any sort of harassment. How did someone such as Fae end up in a WMUK position of leadership? Leadership isn't for the timid or the faint of heart.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 5th January 2012, 1:53pm)
Leaders must deal with and accept harassment all the time, yet Fae appears not to be able to handle any sort of harassment. How did someone such as Fae end up in a WMUK position of leadership? Leadership isn't for the timid or the faint of heart.
To be fair, he isn't putting himself out as a leader. He is a trustee for a charity.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 5th January 2012, 9:09am)
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 5th January 2012, 1:53pm)
Leaders must deal with and accept harassment all the time, yet Fae appears not to be able to handle any sort of harassment. How did someone such as Fae end up in a WMUK position of leadership? Leadership isn't for the timid or the faint of heart.
To be fair, he isn't putting himself out as a leader. He is a trustee for a charity.
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 5th January 2012, 2:09pm)
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 5th January 2012, 1:53pm)
Leaders must deal with and accept harassment all the time, yet Fae appears not to be able to handle any sort of harassment. How did someone such as Fae end up in a WMUK position of leadership? Leadership isn't for the timid or the faint of heart.
To be fair, he isn't putting himself out as a leader. He is a trustee for a charity.
and a board member of the company.
I would take issue with the wording. I would say that "People in positions of responsibility must accept that they will be scrutinised." which is different from harassment. Obama tends to be harassed rather than scrutinised - e.g. the Birther movement was one of harassment without a legitimate basis and just because he is a major world leader does not mean that it is legitimate to harass him.
However, the public has a right to be assured that those who are operating in a public role are competent, and as such anyone accepting a position has a duty to demonstrate, within reason, that they are fit and proper.
I would also recognise that Wikipedian interactions rarely seem to represent fair scrutiny, lynching is a fairly popular activity, along with deception and spinning, so it is understandable that any Wikipedian would eventually find it hard to distinguish between legitimate enquiry and harassment. Anyone putting themselves forward within Wikipedia should recognise that harassment is the nature of the game and should have a thick skin or not involve themselves.
Leaders must deal with and accept harassment all the time, yet Fae appears not to be able to handle any sort of harassment. How did someone such as Fae end up in a WMUK position of leadership? Leadership isn't for the timid or the faint of heart.
You know what, though? Delicious and Fred will eventually be unblocked, but Ashley will still be the Wikimedia UK trustee who put his bare, chained-up ass out on the Internet. That will be true forever.
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin?
