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?

[Selina]

If that's true then Wikipedia should look at why they aren't admitting that they are doing this stuff here, presumably because they assume they'd get banned from WR too...

This idea that WR is any kind of bloc really pisses me off, it's an open discussion forum that ANYONE who isn't a complete scumbag can join in on. It's more open than Wikipedia that we allow open HONEST discussion about issues than pussyfooting around with snipes and sliminess in private email lists and locked chat channels, and they really really seem to hate that...

Whenever Fae/Ash find things are going against them then out come the claims of harassment/blackmail. Either he's the unluckiest queen on the planet or it's a little to good to be true.

Ok I think that's both WR's regular LGBT posters agreeing this guy is a creep now. Nevermind that. wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BADSITES, homophobic!

There was another thing I saw when I was reading it too:

I've been looking into this off and on since late December. I emailed Arbcom a month ago with a series of questions about what they knew about "Fae's" past accounts (the linkage between this account and "Ash" was made clear when Fae publicly announced his identity [ http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board#Ashley_...n_.28F.C3.A6.29 ), his editing activity on this website, and what they think that might say about his suitability for positions of power. I have not received a response and at this point don't expect one. Though I don't intend to participate in this RFC, the thing that interests me is the level of responsibility he's been given in representing Wikimedia to the government and public in the UK, weighed against his editing behavior over the years, particularly the misuse of sources and a casual attitude towards protecting the privacy and reputation of article subjects. There are related concerns on how very small, self-selected groups of individual wield large amounts of power on wikimedia websites, rather than "the community" that is so often spoken of in public forums.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was reading over the snide little messages I got on WP earlier when I tried to bite back against the influx of paedophiles earlier, posted links a few posts up ^ It seems to be a common tactic they use to divert attention, it's not pro-paedophilia it's pro-pederasty, it's not pro-pederasty it's homophobia... ugh the cry wolf effect then makes EVERYONE who has actually had to deal with genuine harassment look bad:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexuality_of_Robert_Baden-Powell_(4th_nomination) - that article was basically an advertisement for paedophilia being pushed by the paedophilia cabal that formed on WP... Haiduc later got banned but only because he openly said it, the rest started behaving the same way PR companies do on Wikipedia by being more sneaky about it...

the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic

While early works on the life of Baden-Powell tended towards the hagiographic[2], two modern biographers, Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University and Tim Jeal in his book Baden-Powell, have reached the conclusion that he was probably a repressed homosexual.[2][3] Baden-Powell "…consistently praised the male body when naked. At Gilwell Park, the Scouts' camping ground in Epping Forest, he always enjoyed watching the boys swimming naked, and would sometimes chat with them after they had just 'stripped off.'"[2] Jeal cites an account by Baden-Powell of a visit to Charterhouse, his old public school, where he stayed with a bachelor teacher and housemaster who had taken large numbers of nude photographs of his pupils. Baden-Powell's diary entry reads: "Stayed with Tod. Tod's photos of naked boys and trees. Excellent." In a subsequent communication to Tod regarding starting up a Scout troop at the school, Baden-Powell mentions an impending return visit and adds: "Possibly I might get a further look at those wonderful photographs of yours." (According to R. Jenkyns, the album contained nude boys in "contrived and artificial" poses.)[2]

The topic is amply sourced. However, the article as it presently stands after the edits of the past few days has become a mockery of intelligent and responsible editing and will have to be repaired when and if cooler heads prevail. Haiduc (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I'm posting this as the one who wrote this: Talk:Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA#Discrimination_against_.22Infidels.22_and_Bisexual.2FGay_people:
paedophilia =/= gay/lesbian/bi
paedophilia = paedophilia