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

[carbuncle]

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

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

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

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

I accept. For reasons of disclosure it should be noted that after an RFC/U which caused me to refocus and improve my Wikipedia editing I took the option of a clean start, though I have never been blocked. Prior to this nomination I spoke privately with one of the critical contributors to the discussion, who knows both account names and we have resolved our concerns. I will recuse myself of admin requests related to editors who gave an opinion in that discussion. This is the first time I have had an RFA nomination. Fæ (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[thekohser]

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

[TungstenCarbide]

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

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

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Tue 29th November 2011, 10:17pm

[the fieryangel]

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

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

That's funny. I saw it.

[melloden]

Photo of a man who is likely a Wikimedia UK trustee

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

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

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

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

At least, not real news.

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

This post has been edited by melloden: Tue 29th November 2011, 11:00pm

[thekohser]

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

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

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

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

Go do your frantic hand waving on another thread.

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

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

That's funny. I saw it.

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

[melloden]

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

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

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

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

Go do your frantic hand waving on another thread.

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

Anyway, what's new without criticism?

[thekohser]

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

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

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

[Eppur si muove]

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

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

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

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

[mbz1]

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st December 2011, 4:54pm

[Eppur si muove]

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

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

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