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?

[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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=465501034

Shrigley is a clear PRC apologist. He is known to create hatchet jobs on critics of the PRC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=432993255

Shrigley admits being Chinese in the following diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=396852685

He's editing in the interests of his beloved motherland. His "I don't have too strong a sense of Chinese identity" and "I can barely speak the language" comments are bullshit. Anyone reviewing his revisions to Wikipedia can see that he knows many, many things about China, its culture, and its languages.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473564708

Shrigley has decided to play the "WR is anti-gay" card.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Sat 28th January 2012, 3:53pm

[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 (wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle - *still* banned for my involvement in this site) anyone trying to pull that card-pulling crap on me woul get laughed at

(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?)

Well I just found it:
web.archive.org/web/20100317194701/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ash (sexually-suggestive picture of a naked child, not-safe-for-work unless you work in whatever schools this guy worked in...)
• upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/VonGloeden_6052.jpg/150px-VonGloeden_6052.jpg (sexually-suggestive picture of a naked child, not-safe-for-work unless you work in whatever schools this guy worked in...)
uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board#Ashley_Van_Haeften_.28F.C3.A6.29

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/F%C3%A6%2C_WMUK_board_meeting%2C_August_2011.jpg
Ashley Van Haeften (Fæ)
Fae is currently a director of Wikimedia UK (from April 2011) with a particular interest in GLAM activities and supports the GLAM movement internationally as well as leading the GLAM UK task force. His main contributions are as an admin on Wikipedia (User:Fæ) but also supports Commons as an OTRS volunteer and trusted user.

Fae has a professional background in managing change and improvement in a number of sectors including Government agencies, utilities, retail and engineering. He used to be a pure mathematician and moved over to management and organizational strategy to "pay the bills".

this reminds me of the "Haiduc" paedophile who I argued wit ha few times before giving up (in the previous links), no one listened to me I saw what they were doing because it's exactly the same kind of slimy stuff PR companies do, it was only later WP actually did anything about the paedophiles pushing it (usually as "pederasty") - wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Haiduc - and the articles still tainted - I just gave up on WP, they did a few bans for show when they were getting media attention about the networks of pedo users then continued to do nothing...




I just searched up google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipediareview. com+pedophiles+OR+pedophile+OR+paedophile+OR+paedophiles+OR+pedophilia+OR+paedop
hilia:

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=30094 Commons and Pro-Pedophilia

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=15438 Boy Scouts are for spanking?, More from Wales talk

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=34313 Self-identified Pedophile blocks (2007)

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:30:58 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

Fred Bauder wrote:
> I did, acting as an administrator, block one of these guys
> indefinitely, and got away with it. But I think I was flying under
> the radar, perhaps trading on my status. I don't think I did anything
> wrong and would support any administrator who blocks a pedophile
> advocate. The basis is disruption.

I agree with this completely.

This is a thorny issue, and I have little to add to it. We don't want a
witch hunt. We also don't want a huge press scandal.

It is inevitable that at some point a reporter is going to come to me
and tell me about a user I don't know about, asking "Why does Wikipedia
allow a self-confessed pedophile to edit articles about children?"

And my response is going to be: "O RLY? *block*"

I will use "disruption" as my reason or "useless editor" or whatever
seems to suit the circumstance.

At the same time, other than that [the media], I think our best approach is just
like our best approach with other types of problems:

1. Quiet diplomacy is good
2. Don't ask, don't tell is good

--Jimbo

THAT IS NOT WHAT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS MEANT TO BE USED FOR JIMMY. CHRIST. >:|