Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ (/Fae/Ash), Quick, send a dossier to ArbCom and delete! Options

[carbuncle]

(mod note: "Conflicts of interest, paedophila images" subtitle added)
(mod note: See previous topic, 'Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face', for background)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

[SB_Johnny]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

I'm guessing the accusations of "canvassing on WR" will begin in 5...4...3... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[DanMurphy]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Good luck. The attempted smearing of that guy kuiper (sp?) amused at least. I won't be getting involved myself as that would seem over the line (yes, I'm still noodling a piece about wikipedia).

Isn't there some time limit on getting "x" certifiers? I guess that's when they'll knock it down. The over under on you being accused of stalking and harassment? No one's gong to take that bet.

This post has been edited by DanMurphy:

[carbuncle]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Good luck. The attempted smearing of that guy kuiper (sp?) amused at least. I won't be getting involved myself as that would seem over the line (yes, I'm still noodling a piece about wikipedia).

Isn't there some time limit on getting "x" certifiers? I guess that's when they'll knock it down. The over under on you being accused of stalking and harassment? No one's gong to take that bet.

I'm pretty sure I can find someone to certify it if need be.

[mbz1]

Does somebody know what Fæ meant here?

By the way, your revenge off-wiki post maliciously outing two contributors here, within minutes of receiving a decline for your unblock review, will hardly be taken as a step in the right direction.

What "off-wiki post" he's talking about?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Michaeldsuarez]

Does somebody knows what Fæ meant here?

By the way, your revenge off-wiki post maliciously outing two contributors here, within minutes of receiving a decline for your unblock review, will hardly be taken as a step in the right direction.

What "off-wiki post" he's talking about?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...65&#entry294965 (16:29)

This? The post that Fae is referring to must have been published between the following two revisions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473169313 (16:11)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473177396 (16:38)

Alternatively, it's possible that Fae might have Pieter confused with someone else:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64837581

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Random832]

I know nothing about the basis for this dispute other than what's listed on the page, since I haven't paid attention to Wikipedia in years. However, I can't help but think that there once was a day when being found to have had undisclosed past accounts that left under a cloud was grounds for summary desysopping and blocking.

[EricBarbour]

Carb opened it about 3 hours ago, and except for some clueless nerd stumbling into the talkpage, there's not a peep from anyone. Crickets.

Did you remember to tell Fae about this, Carb? You might also poke the other WMUK principals. See if someone's stupid enough to start shit. Heh heh.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[carbuncle]

Did anyone have Reaper Eternal at 13:00UTC? Come on up and claim your money!

[carbuncle]

Did anyone have Reaper Eternal at 13:00UTC? Come on up and claim your money!

Ok, it's back. Place your bets!

[cookiehead]

"outing" should be allowed in cases of WP:COI, which that clearly is. As is almost any "outing". If someone is outed due to the clues they leave in their edits, they are almost surely editing in a COI way to arise such suspicion.

See G Weiss and his cavalcade as the most famous example on WP. Also Linda Mack in regards to her romantic relations, her former employers, and her old grudges from school. I'm sure there are hundreds of stories in the Naked Wikicity like those.

I frequently see real world names un-out themselves while editing their BLP's. They start out with their real names, run into a WP:AUTO/COI brick wall, then come back either under an IP or alias or both. Then continue to successfully edit with a now undisclosed COI.

In fact, WP should require all adults to register as "real users" if they want "credibility" as does Amazon reviews, or as minors that they voluntarily disclose they are editing as a minor.

Naaahhhhh (Theodoric of York voice)........just keep on with the kabuki theater (note that it is not a Witch Hunt, unless you're the COI perp) that keeps the WP Social Network game going....

This post has been edited by cookiehead:

[mbz1]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Does not look like there's much activity. I bet it is going to be closed.

[EricBarbour]

Christ. I've been watching this crap for 3 1/2 years, and the behaviour Russavia and Will are displaying here still amazes me. It has to be deliberate, and they have to be either complete fools or pathological liars. Yes, it's settled, Ash=Fae=Ashley Van Haeften. End of story.

They just need one more troll to deny everything (Fae himself, probably), and they'll have a full set of Hear-no-evil, See-no-evil, and Speak-no-evil monkeys.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Russavia mentions "harassment" and the Wikipedia Review. Shrigley endorses that comment without elaborating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473443184

I believe that certain posts on the following thread provides the reason for that move:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34837

[Abd]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Does not look like there's much activity. I bet it is going to be closed.

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[SB_Johnny]

Is Will Beback connected to WMUK? He's certainly up in arms about this.

[Rhindle]

Where is this homophobic harrassment that this Russavia character is claiming? Does someone have a link? Shady behavior is shady behavior. It looks to me as playing the homophobia card and people are falling for it.

[DanMurphy]

Where is this homophobic harrassment that this Russavia character is claiming? Does someone have a link? Shady behavior is shady behavior. It looks to me as playing the homophobia card and people are falling for it.

Falling for it? That account (Mattxxx whatever) has 200 edits over 3 1/2 years. Make of that what you will.

But the homophobia/harassment/stalking/antisemtic/etc/etc gambit is a popular and effective one. Mr. Van Haeften makes it his go-to tactic (back when he was Ash, Mr. Van Haeften accused various other editors of "hate crimes" for questioning his deceptive use of sources).

Why does it work?

People form alliances in the service of different agendas (see "shrigley" and probably "russavia," both of whom appear to be ethno-nationalist editors in search of admin protection), which accounts for some of the pile on. They're just playing the game.

But when you have a lot of Harry Potter's and Hermonia's running around in charge, they really are easy to fool (yes, virginia, children are much easier to manipulate and mislead than adults). Oh my God, that 40 year old is gay and he's being PERSECUTED for it! Somebody help that poor man!

Mr. Van Haeften is, of course, lucky to live in the most enlightened time about sexuality in human history, and in one of the more enlightened countries. His sexual preference is public knowledge because he's repeatedly shared information about it online. He has sought time and again to make it relevant (somehow) to his online activities and use it as a shield. That forces his sexuality into any conversation about his behavior. That was his choice.

That some grawp-like troll his written "fag" on his user page or whatever, is unfortunate, but far worse things happen at sea. It's childish vandalism of the sort wikipedia sees literally hundreds of times a day (and by everyone in history who's gotten involved in dust-ups on anonymous online forums).

This post has been edited by DanMurphy:

[EricBarbour]

People form alliances in the service of different agendas (see "shrigley" and probably "russavia," both of whom appear to be ethno-nationalist editors in search of admin protection), which accounts for some of the pile on. They're just playing the game.

But when you have a lot of Harry Potter's and Hermonia's running around in charge, they really are easy to fool (yes, virginia, children are much easier to manipulate and mislead than adults). Oh my God, that 40 year old is gay and he's being PERSECUTED for it! Somebody help that poor man!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) Now do you see, Dan? Wikipedia, as absurd as it sounds, does have a "gay mafia". The mere existence of such "mafias" completely invalidates the whole idea of a crowdsourced reference work, because it leads inevitably to bias. It has nothing to do with LGBT people either--I suspect most of them would be disgusted to see these antics on a "neutral" operation like Wikipedia. It's embarrassing, but because it's obscure, no one knows it's happening.

Shrigley looks like a regular contributor, mostly in Chinese subjects, but "Wikiwind" and especially "Matty the Damned" smell like socks. The latter does very little other than vote on RFAs and AFDs. Sock. Period.

Mr. Van Haeften is, of course, lucky to live in the most enlightened time about sexuality in human history, and in one of the more enlightened countries. His sexual preference is public knowledge because he's repeatedly shared information about it online. He has sought time and again to make it relevant (somehow) to his online activities and use it as a shield. That forces his sexuality into any conversation about his behavior. That was his choice.

And that also invalidates what they're doing. If Van Haeften had kept his sexual life quiet, he might have a good case to complain about "harassment". Instead, he had to run around under the Ashleyvh account, posting photos of his underwear-clad peepee on Commons. He tried to delete everything, but we've got screenshots of some of them. (Get it? Ashleyvh, Ashley Van Haeften?)

You guys wanna see obvious socking by a gay man on Commons? Try Yummyjuicybanana and Juicybnana. No doubt those genitals are attached to the same guy---who may also be Ashley Van Haeften, for all we know. He might have 50,000 accounts for all we can know.

(and to help clean the penises from our eyes, I can't think of many photos more "encyclopedic" and "educational" than this one. It's for you, Horsey. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) )

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Michaeldsuarez]

Shrigley looks like a regular contributor, mostly in Chinese subjects.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34837

I don't believe that Shrigley is a normal user. If Shrigley was simply a "regular contributor", then he wouldn't have invoked his right to vanish in November 2011:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=462904835

[Peter Damian]

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

You mean this rule?

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=466962720

As I understand, there were two editors on the user:Ash RfC who certified it. The RfC can only proceed on the assumption that Ash=Fae. The problem is that to acknowledge that is 'outing'.

'Outing' in an odd sense becaue Fae=Mr Van Haeften is not an issue, and is acknowledged. The outing involves admitting his past user account.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[MBisanz]

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

You mean this rule?

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=466962720

As I understand, there were two editors on the user:Ash RfC who certified it. The RfC can only proceed on the assumption that Ash=Fae. The problem is that to acknowledge that is 'outing'.

'Outing' in an odd sense becaue Fae=Mr Van Haeften is not an issue, and is acknowledged. The outing involves admitting his past user account.

I brought up this specific issue yesterday and it was resolved to my satisfaction with DC, AB, and NE taking responsibility for the current complaints and DR process involving the current user, irrespective of their prior identity.

[Abd]

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

You mean this rule?

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=466962720

Yeah, basically. The issue I see revolves around what "the dispute" means. There was a prior dispute, with attempts to resolve it by the required users, who certified it. That could not be used in a future RfC as a certification. Otherwise a single person could keep opening new RfCs based on an old one!

If the old dispute was not resolved by the old RfC, by agreement with the parties, then the next step, procedurally, would be ArbComm. RfC was not intended as a process to generate sanctions, though I've seen that abused. It's a process intended to generate voluntary agreement, or, alternatively, to lay the due process foundation for an ArbComm filing. That's how I used RfC/JzG 3. The pile-in of users supporting JzG -- in a position where he was clearly out to lunch -- and calling for me to be banned -- simply had the effect of demonstrating a situation requiring ArbComm intervention.

ArbComm, unfortunately, didn't want to look at the real problem, that a faction could appear and call for the ban of a user who was merely raising an obvious problem with abusive use of admin tools while involved. And they could easily do this with a two-thirds majority, often adequate to get a noticeboard "community ban."

What later followed was quite to be expected, Durova predicted it. I'd be banned, in spite of following due process *exactly*. They merely needed to wait for a more believable cover.

This procedural problem has nothing to do with alleged "outing," and the alleged socking, if that's what it is, would not be handled by RfC. RfC cannot, by design, generate binding sanctions.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[DanMurphy]

Fascinating

BLP crusades disproportionately serve to minimize the visibility of gay people and to aggrandize antigay politicians; and Fæ is not the first prominent LGBT editor that DC has targeted. This is shameless [[dog-whistle politics]]: where overt gay-bashing is not tolerated on Wikipedia, sustained harassment and outing campaigns against prominent gay editors are.

I will be eagerly watching to see how the fair and impartial community behavior policing mechanisms spring into action on this one. Dollars to donuts that "shrigley" is in off-line communication with Mr. Van Haeften. I guess I'll have to revise my opinion that he's just building alliances for the nationalism stuff though.

This post has been edited by DanMurphy:

[Tarc]

Fascinating

BLP crusades disproportionately serve to minimize the visibility of gay people and to aggrandize antigay politicians; and Fæ is not the first prominent LGBT editor that DC has targeted. This is shameless [[dog-whistle politics]]: where overt gay-bashing is not tolerated on Wikipedia, sustained harassment and outing campaigns against prominent gay editors are.

I will be eagerly watching to see how the fair and impartial community behavior policing mechanisms spring into action on this one. Dollars to donuts that "shrigley" is in off-line communication with Mr. Van Haeften. I guess I'll have to revise my opinion that he's just building alliances for the nationalism stuff though.

Its nothing new, I received the same treatment when I got the Marcus Bachmann article deleted.

What people need to come to terms with is the notion that a homosexual person is capable of deception, deceit or general assholish behavior, and to call such a person out for that behavior doesn't mean you're attacking them for their homosexuality.

[Selina]

Interesting, I followed a few links and he's somehow tied in with a porn baron/is a porn baron (dealing exclusively with gay male stuff)? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admini...ent_referencing seems somewhat of a conflict of interest but I can't be bothered to read it all the sum of it seems to be re-inserting advertising links in a way a spambot would and getting away with it?

What people need to come to terms with is the notion that a homosexual person is capable of deception, deceit or general assholish behavior, and to call such a person out for that behavior doesn't mean you're attacking them for their homosexuality.

yeah. really. ESPECIALLY gay males whose bitchiness can be aggression to the power of 10. and this is coming from the one that made wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bifemale.svg and wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bimale.svg which is on like a gazillion users' pages now - I think I was maybe THE most infamous bi fem on WP (*still* banned for my involvement in this site) anyone trying to pull that card-pulling crap on me woul get laughed at (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

(also was pushing against the paedophiles before anyon in charge actually started doing anything about it: wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:LGBT_notice_board/Archive_3#what_belongs_here "Deletion of pederasty-related topics is partisan, and you need to re-check the NPOV policy and guidelines before you (Mistress Selina Kyle, I'm looking at you) continue to remove these topics" .... yeeeaahhh. Thanks, 'Dave'

... I can't find that thread now where people were saying his user page on this Fæ guy's old account used to have childporn artwork on it too?)

[DanMurphy]

Interesting, I followed a few links and he's somehow tied in with a porn baron/is a porn baron (dealing exclusively with gay male stuff)? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admini...ent_referencing seems somewhat of a conflict of interest but I can't be bothered to read it all the sum of it seems to be re-inserting advertising links in a way a spambot would and getting away with it?

Mr. Van Haeften? No, I don't think his pornography edits were remunerated or tied to anything professional (there was another guy, Benjamin Hohlman, who was deeply involved with the porn business who made common cause with him who was later blocked for sockpuppets, but their overlap was merely because of the shared interest). I came to the conclusions that for Van Haeften it was a hobby, and perhaps slightly political (porn is awesome, gay porn is even more awesome because I'm gay, and I'm striking a blow against all you prudes who think that the "grabby awards" aren't equivalent to academic papers and in-depth news articles). The attempts to create a poorly sourced article on "Rod Handle" (or whoever the porn star du jour was) under the argument that it was an "LGBT" topic, i found a rather clear illustration of the dysfunctional approach to "knowledge" at Wikipedia. In theory, there should be lots of articles on gay sexuality, and many of them on porn from an academic perspective (and there is lots of research to use if one were so inclined). But the fanboy stuff, you know, "Rod Handle is known for his relentless appetite for sex and is equally willing to be the top or bottom" was one step removed from the transformers and my little pony keyboard diarrhea, with the added benefit that presumably lots of guys in their 40s and 50s who spent 5 years in the porn meat grinder probably don't want to be memorialized that way on google (though, of course, there was a level of protection thanks to the frequent use of stage names).

His use of advertising as references was simply because those were the only "sources" available to justify writing articles on his interests.

This post has been edited by DanMurphy:

[Selina]

edited post btw, I have an annoying habit of posting then editing instead of using preview that I need to fix ^

I'd be interested if the paedophile "artwork" pics on user page thing was a proven thing and not just hearsay

[tarantino]

Shrigley looks like a regular contributor

Yeah.

04:45, 14 July 2010 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) blocked Shrigley (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Splittist=WilliamWater=Lolnuts3000)

15:16, 29 July 2010 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) unblocked Shrigley (talk | contribs) ‎ (user was blocked as a result of a misunderstanding re: multiple accounts. Issue has since been clarified.)

18:46, 11 August 2010 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) renamed User:Splittist to "Quigley" ‎ (416 edits. Reason: WP:USURP)

05:07, 12 August 2010 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) blocked Shrigley (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (nothing but hardcore pov pushing)

06:22, 14 August 2010 Sandstein (talk | contribs) unblocked Shrigley (talk | contribs) ‎ (Consensus at WP:ANI is that there is no basis for this block.)

02:03, 29 November 2011 MBisanz (talk | contribs) renamed User:Quigley to "QdZLjUtTCKz34ou7YDQX" ‎ (5,481 edits. Reason: WP:CHU)

04:10, 12 December 2011 MBisanz (talk | contribs) renamed User:QdZLjUtTCKz34ou7YDQX to "Shrigley" ‎ (5,482 edits. Reason: WP:CHU)

That all seems regular for wikipedia.

[tarantino]

I'd be interested if the paedophile "artwork" pics on user page thing was a proven thing and not just hearsay

Ash used to display this rather suggestive photo of a nude teen-aged boy on his user page with the caption "This is not actually my photo Sometimes a fish is just a fish... "

Happy-melon deleted that from Ash's page history, while Ash was preparing his aborted request for comment about DC.

[carbuncle]

I'd be interested if the paedophile "artwork" pics on user page thing was a proven thing and not just hearsay

Ash used to display this rather suggestive photo of a nude teen-aged boy on his user page with the caption "This is not actually my photo Sometimes a fish is just a fish... "

Happy-melon deleted that from Ash's page history, while Ash was preparing his aborted request for comment about DC.

I do not recall anyone seriously accusing Van Haeften of being a paedophile, nor do I think there is any basis for that charge, flying fishes notwithstanding. I think the old user page was brought up in relation to a discussion on Commons wherein Fæ stood shoulder to shoulder with Sue Gardener in proposing that user pages should not display, well, such things as naked youths fingering fishes. It was termed the "locker room" problem. I'll find a link in a second.

Mr. Van Haeften? No, I don't think his pornography edits were remunerated or tied to anything professional (there was another guy, Benjamin Hohlman, who was deeply involved with the porn business who made common cause with him who was later blocked for sockpuppets, but their overlap was merely because of the shared interest).

If I recall, the spelling was Holmann, not Holhman. Also known as Dj Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst.

[mbz1]

I wonder how RFC/U works. In "desired outcome" section you said: "I would like to ask that Fæ resign their adminship ". Let's say most users will agree with this, but Fæ refuses to resign. What would happen next?

[carbuncle]

I wonder how RFC/U works. In "desired outcome" section you said: "I would like to ask that Fæ resign their adminship ". Let's say most users will agree with this, but Fæ refuses to resign. What would happen next?

A series of jubilant Twitter posts by his supporters? What do you mean what would happen next? Nothing would happen. It's WP.

[mbz1]

I wonder how RFC/U works. In "desired outcome" section you said: "I would like to ask that Fæ resign their adminship ". Let's say most users will agree with this, but Fæ refuses to resign. What would happen next?

A series of jubilant Twitter posts by his supporters? What do you mean what would happen next? Nothing would happen. It's WP.

I meant , if there are any means to enforce the recommendations made in RFC/U

[thekohser]

I'd be interested if the paedophile "artwork" pics on user page thing was a proven thing and not just hearsay

Ash used to display this rather suggestive photo of a nude teen-aged boy on his user page with the caption "This is not actually my photo Sometimes a fish is just a fish... "

Happy-melon deleted that from Ash's page history, while Ash was preparing his aborted request for comment about DC.

I do not recall anyone seriously accusing Van Haeften of being a paedophile, nor do I think there is any basis for that charge, flying fishes notwithstanding. I think the old user page was brought up in relation to a discussion on Commons wherein Fæ stood shoulder to shoulder with Sue Gardener in proposing that user pages should not display, well, such things as naked youths fingering fishes. It was termed the "locker room" problem. I'll find a link in a second.

Sigh. Why does Selina wonder about proving the "artwork" accusation? Why does Carbuncle feel the need to go "finding" the link?

All of this work has already been done for you both, right here.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

In March 2010, Ash had prominently displayed on his Wikipedia User page (a User page is Wikipedia's equivalent of a Facebook profile) a photo that some might call "artistic", but others might call child pornography. The turn-of-the-century image is that of an adolescent Italian boy, stark naked save for a straw hat, sticking his finger in the mouth of a flying fish. The photo is there for shock value, to be sure. However, in November 2011, Fæ issued a 180-degree about-face, saying that "users on Commons with user space galleries of sexual photos of girls ... seemed a very poor reflection on this project". So, it's okay to post a sexual photo of a boy, but not of girls?

All right there, in the mainstream media, with convenient links pointing you exactly to an image of proof and to Ashley's hypocrisy on the Village pump.

[Web Fred]

I'd be interested if the paedophile "artwork" pics on user page thing was a proven thing and not just hearsay

Ash used to display this rather suggestive photo of a nude teen-aged boy on his user page with the caption "This is not actually my photo Sometimes a fish is just a fish... "

Happy-melon deleted that from Ash's page history, while Ash was preparing his aborted request for comment about DC.

I do not recall anyone seriously accusing Van Haeften of being a paedophile, nor do I think there is any basis for that charge, flying fishes notwithstanding. I think the old user page was brought up in relation to a discussion on Commons wherein Fæ stood shoulder to shoulder with Sue Gardener in proposing that user pages should not display, well, such things as naked youths fingering fishes. It was termed the "locker room" problem. I'll find a link in a second.

He was just pissed that I got there first with the "waxed pudenda" that so outraged Jimbo! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Vandenberg says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...comment/F%C3%A6

Arbcom did not endorse Fæ's RFA. I did. Feel free to discuss that.
Neither Arbcom nor myself had anything to do with Fæ's seat on the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees; the Wikimedia UK members selected him, and that is not an appropriate topic for RFCs on English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is correct, as I noted here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=S...t=35679&st=140# .

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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/F%C3%A6

Who was the 'critical contributor to the discussion'? It was not Vandenberg (see below). And why did Vandenberg suggest that it would not unduly affect the outcome of the vote, given that many people were not even aware of the RfA? Vandenberg's argument was precisely that the "there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history, but I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now due to the fact that they can't see the prior history", which is bizarre.

Vandenberg should be the focus of this, rather than 'Fae'. Fae is simply exploiting the corrupt nature of a system that allows these favours to be traded with influential and regarded admins like Vandenberg.

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)

As I said to Balloonman below, there is no need to trust my judgement on the previous contribs.[1] The only request I have is that you believe me when I say that a participant in the old RfC (the 'prior critic') is aware of the previous account, has looked at the new contribs and reviewed the old history, and has not rocked up here to oppose this RfA. In addition, I swear that the person I am referring to would be here, stridently opposing, if they thought it was in the best interest of the community and project. They are not a meek and mild type. Far from it. They are not here attesting to this themselves as that would make it simple to determine the name of the old account that Fæ used.

Answering "What was the focus of the old contributions" will also simplify determining the old account name. However, I can answer "Are they ones that could concern a reasonable !voter here?", but this will end up being something you'll need to trust me on, and I don't think you will, but answers should be given anyway. A reasonable !voter here would not be concerned about the focus of the old account. It was too narrow for an admin candidate, but Fae has since broadened their focus. The reasonable !voter would be concerned about the specific issues raised at the old RfC/U, if the RfC/U been recent and there wasn't much evidence that the previous concerns have been resolved; the reasonable voter would have be voting 'great contributor, but not right now' and 'maybe next year' had the concerns about Fae been recent.

However the RfC/U is not recent, and the reasonable voter now has 50,000 edits to survey in an effort to work out if there are any issues. I consider the 'former critic' mentioned above to be a tough !voter at RfA, especially when they are concerned about something.

Had Fæ disclosed their prior account here at RfA, no doubt there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history, but I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now due to the fact that they can't see the prior history. In both scenarios, respected members of our project would feel the need to oppose in order to protect the project from the unknowable: will the prior concerns re-emerge. To that, all I can say is that the people who know the prior concerns don't think it is probable, and are not the sort of people who will sit by quietly if it ever eventuates. And Fæ knows this. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[HRIP7]

The RfC/U was deleted by Will Beback today. The reason Will gave was that it was not established that Ash and Fæ were the same person, and that arbcom, in response to his inquiry, failed to confirm that they were. This being so, Will concluded that therefore the RfC was based on a faulty premise, and deleted it.

Twenty minutes later, arbitrator John Vandenberg undeleted it ...

[Web Fred]

Ah, I see that Australian, plane-spotting twat Russavia is in on the act now. Things can only go downhill now. His recent 'promotion' to bureaotwat must surely be coincidental, after all this couldn't be a perfect chance for him to prove that he was the right candidate now could it?

[Peter Damian]

The RfC/U was deleted by Will Beback today. The reason Will gave was that it was not established that Ash and Fæ were the same person, and that arbcom, in response to his inquiry, failed to confirm that they were. This being so, Will concluded that therefore the RfC was based on a faulty premise, and deleted it.

Twenty minutes later, arbitrator John Vandenberg undeleted it ...

WB is demanding evidence that Ash=Fae. But they can't give evidence that Ash=Fae. Why can't they? Because it would be 'harassment'. Why would it be harassment? Because Ash=Fae (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This is shameless dog-whistle politics: where overt gay-bashing is not tolerated on Wikipedia, sustained harassment and outing campaigns against prominent gay editors are. Who knows? Maybe DC is just out to save the encyclopedia, and it just so happens that the worst editors are gay. We can't read minds. But the effect of his actions is that many gay editors, myself included, feel intimidated and unwelcome on Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really stupid. 'Outing' is revealing the real-life identity of an anonmous person. But we already know that Fae=Van Haeften. That is on the record and not an issue. The issue is whether Fae= an old account that ran into trouble at an RfC and ducked out.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: