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

[thekohser]

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

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

Shirley Banks

Charity Commission - First Contact

Shirley, you're joking!

[lilburne]

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

[thekohser]

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

Ah, yes...

What issues does the Commission want to know about?

The short answer

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

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

[lilburne]

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

[thekohser]

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

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

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eppur si muove]

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

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

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Mon 5th December 2011, 8:29pm

[mbz1]

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

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

"semi-naked"? How could have you called it "semi-naked"?
He described the image as the image of " a mostly clothed male alternative to being a page only illustrated with nude women."

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

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

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

This post has been edited by mbz1: Mon 5th December 2011, 8:22pm

[AGK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mbz1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

[thekohser]

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

-- AGK

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

-- Penn State football culture

[Eppur si muove]

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

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...ile:My_Cock.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...eballsagger.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:..._Reeperbahn.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...s_Underwear.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...Smokah_Shit.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...jaculate577.JPG
etc etc, albeit on another project, might be regarded as continuing the previous problematic behaviour onto the new incarnation and therefore invalidite claims to be a WP:CLEANSHEET start.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Mon 5th December 2011, 9:23pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...A67.168.135.107

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Mon 5th December 2011, 9:56pm

[Alison]

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

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

[radek]

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...A67.168.135.107

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zoloft]

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=AGK&page=User_talk%3AAGK]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User_talk%3AAGK[/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464105592AGK (the ArbCom candidate claiming to support greater transparency and open discussions) is now censoring his own talk page history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's something for you, AGK:

Choke on it.

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

[Eppur si muove]

Here's something for you, AGK:

Choke on it.

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

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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haha

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 6th December 2011, 9:16pm

[Cla68]

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

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

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