Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin? Options

[Kelly Martin]

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.

[mbz1]

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.

[melloden]

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.

[Ottava]

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.

[Kelly Martin]

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.

[mbz1]

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.

Remember jimbo's reaction on Essjay's scandal?

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.

[Peter Damian]

And look what happens next (as was certainly bound to happen)

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)

Remember jimbo's reaction on Essjay's scandal?

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

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 29th December 2011, 6:34pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

And look what happens next (as was certainly bound to happen)

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Lovetinkle

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:...ions/Lovetinkle

Peter, YHBT.

Update:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64552584

Fae has decided to capitalize on Lovetinkle's trolling.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Thu 29th December 2011, 6:56pm

[Kelly Martin]

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.

[SB_Johnny]

And look what happens next (as was certainly bound to happen)

...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....

Wait, I thought I was a pinko pseudo-commie pro-gay-marriage liberal. What changed?

[Ottava]

And look what happens next (as was certainly bound to happen)

I see what you did there.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 29th December 2011, 7:58pm

[lilburne]

And look what happens next (as was certainly bound to happen)

...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....

Wait, I thought I was a pinko pseudo-commie pro-gay-marriage liberal. What changed?

He's just giving us the Ali G

[Detective]

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.

{{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)

[thekohser]

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.

[Peter Damian]

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

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.

[Ottava]

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.

[mbz1]

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.

[Vigilant]

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

[Peter Damian]

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 29th December 2011, 11:38pm

[EricBarbour]

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.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 29th December 2011, 11:54pm