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?

[SB_Johnny]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

I'm guessing the accusations of "canvassing on WR" will begin in 5...4...3...

[DanMurphy]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Good luck. The attempted smearing of that guy kuiper (sp?) amused at least. I won't be getting involved myself as that would seem over the line (yes, I'm still noodling a piece about wikipedia).

Isn't there some time limit on getting "x" certifiers? I guess that's when they'll knock it down. The over under on you being accused of stalking and harassment? No one's gong to take that bet.

This post has been edited by DanMurphy: Thu 26th January 2012, 12:11am

[carbuncle]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Good luck. The attempted smearing of that guy kuiper (sp?) amused at least. I won't be getting involved myself as that would seem over the line (yes, I'm still noodling a piece about wikipedia).

Isn't there some time limit on getting "x" certifiers? I guess that's when they'll knock it down. The over under on you being accused of stalking and harassment? No one's gong to take that bet.

I'm pretty sure I can find someone to certify it if need be.

[mbz1]

Does somebody know what Fæ meant here?

By the way, your revenge off-wiki post maliciously outing two contributors here, within minutes of receiving a decline for your unblock review, will hardly be taken as a step in the right direction.

What "off-wiki post" he's talking about?

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 26th January 2012, 1:45am

[Michaeldsuarez]

Does somebody knows what Fæ meant here?

By the way, your revenge off-wiki post maliciously outing two contributors here, within minutes of receiving a decline for your unblock review, will hardly be taken as a step in the right direction.

What "off-wiki post" he's talking about?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...65&#entry294965 (16:29)

This? The post that Fae is referring to must have been published between the following two revisions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473169313 (16:11)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473177396 (16:38)

Alternatively, it's possible that Fae might have Pieter confused with someone else:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=64837581

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Thu 26th January 2012, 3:38am

[Random832]

I know nothing about the basis for this dispute other than what's listed on the page, since I haven't paid attention to Wikipedia in years. However, I can't help but think that there once was a day when being found to have had undisclosed past accounts that left under a cloud was grounds for summary desysopping and blocking.

[EricBarbour]

Carb opened it about 3 hours ago, and except for some clueless nerd stumbling into the talkpage, there's not a peep from anyone. Crickets.

Did you remember to tell Fae about this, Carb? You might also poke the other WMUK principals. See if someone's stupid enough to start shit. Heh heh.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 26th January 2012, 5:11am

[carbuncle]

Did anyone have Reaper Eternal at 13:00UTC? Come on up and claim your money!

[carbuncle]

Did anyone have Reaper Eternal at 13:00UTC? Come on up and claim your money!

Ok, it's back. Place your bets!

[cookiehead]

"outing" should be allowed in cases of WP:COI, which that clearly is. As is almost any "outing". If someone is outed due to the clues they leave in their edits, they are almost surely editing in a COI way to arise such suspicion.

See G Weiss and his cavalcade as the most famous example on WP. Also Linda Mack in regards to her romantic relations, her former employers, and her old grudges from school. I'm sure there are hundreds of stories in the Naked Wikicity like those.

I frequently see real world names un-out themselves while editing their BLP's. They start out with their real names, run into a WP:AUTO/COI brick wall, then come back either under an IP or alias or both. Then continue to successfully edit with a now undisclosed COI.

In fact, WP should require all adults to register as "real users" if they want "credibility" as does Amazon reviews, or as minors that they voluntarily disclose they are editing as a minor.

Naaahhhhh (Theodoric of York voice)........just keep on with the kabuki theater (note that it is not a Witch Hunt, unless you're the COI perp) that keeps the WP Social Network game going....

This post has been edited by cookiehead: Thu 26th January 2012, 4:01pm

[mbz1]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Does not look like there's much activity. I bet it is going to be closed.

[EricBarbour]

Christ. I've been watching this crap for 3 1/2 years, and the behaviour Russavia and Will are displaying here still amazes me. It has to be deliberate, and they have to be either complete fools or pathological liars. Yes, it's settled, Ash=Fae=Ashley Van Haeften. End of story.

They just need one more troll to deny everything (Fae himself, probably), and they'll have a full set of Hear-no-evil, See-no-evil, and Speak-no-evil monkeys.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Russavia mentions "harassment" and the Wikipedia Review. Shrigley endorses that comment without elaborating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473443184

I believe that certain posts on the following thread provides the reason for that move:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34837

[Abd]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Does not look like there's much activity. I bet it is going to be closed.

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 27th January 2012, 3:20pm

[SB_Johnny]

Is Will Beback connected to WMUK? He's certainly up in arms about this.

[Rhindle]

Where is this homophobic harrassment that this Russavia character is claiming? Does someone have a link? Shady behavior is shady behavior. It looks to me as playing the homophobia card and people are falling for it.

[DanMurphy]

Where is this homophobic harrassment that this Russavia character is claiming? Does someone have a link? Shady behavior is shady behavior. It looks to me as playing the homophobia card and people are falling for it.

Falling for it? That account (Mattxxx whatever) has 200 edits over 3 1/2 years. Make of that what you will.

But the homophobia/harassment/stalking/antisemtic/etc/etc gambit is a popular and effective one. Mr. Van Haeften makes it his go-to tactic (back when he was Ash, Mr. Van Haeften accused various other editors of "hate crimes" for questioning his deceptive use of sources).

Why does it work?

People form alliances in the service of different agendas (see "shrigley" and probably "russavia," both of whom appear to be ethno-nationalist editors in search of admin protection), which accounts for some of the pile on. They're just playing the game.

But when you have a lot of Harry Potter's and Hermonia's running around in charge, they really are easy to fool (yes, virginia, children are much easier to manipulate and mislead than adults). Oh my God, that 40 year old is gay and he's being PERSECUTED for it! Somebody help that poor man!

Mr. Van Haeften is, of course, lucky to live in the most enlightened time about sexuality in human history, and in one of the more enlightened countries. His sexual preference is public knowledge because he's repeatedly shared information about it online. He has sought time and again to make it relevant (somehow) to his online activities and use it as a shield. That forces his sexuality into any conversation about his behavior. That was his choice.

That some grawp-like troll his written "fag" on his user page or whatever, is unfortunate, but far worse things happen at sea. It's childish vandalism of the sort wikipedia sees literally hundreds of times a day (and by everyone in history who's gotten involved in dust-ups on anonymous online forums).

This post has been edited by DanMurphy: Fri 27th January 2012, 5:13pm

[EricBarbour]

People form alliances in the service of different agendas (see "shrigley" and probably "russavia," both of whom appear to be ethno-nationalist editors in search of admin protection), which accounts for some of the pile on. They're just playing the game.

But when you have a lot of Harry Potter's and Hermonia's running around in charge, they really are easy to fool (yes, virginia, children are much easier to manipulate and mislead than adults). Oh my God, that 40 year old is gay and he's being PERSECUTED for it! Somebody help that poor man!

Now do you see, Dan? Wikipedia, as absurd as it sounds, does have a "gay mafia". The mere existence of such "mafias" completely invalidates the whole idea of a crowdsourced reference work, because it leads inevitably to bias. It has nothing to do with LGBT people either--I suspect most of them would be disgusted to see these antics on a "neutral" operation like Wikipedia. It's embarrassing, but because it's obscure, no one knows it's happening.

Shrigley looks like a regular contributor, mostly in Chinese subjects, but "Wikiwind" and especially "Matty the Damned" smell like socks. The latter does very little other than vote on RFAs and AFDs. Sock. Period.

Mr. Van Haeften is, of course, lucky to live in the most enlightened time about sexuality in human history, and in one of the more enlightened countries. His sexual preference is public knowledge because he's repeatedly shared information about it online. He has sought time and again to make it relevant (somehow) to his online activities and use it as a shield. That forces his sexuality into any conversation about his behavior. That was his choice.

And that also invalidates what they're doing. If Van Haeften had kept his sexual life quiet, he might have a good case to complain about "harassment". Instead, he had to run around under the Ashleyvh account, posting photos of his underwear-clad peepee on Commons. He tried to delete everything, but we've got screenshots of some of them. (Get it? Ashleyvh, Ashley Van Haeften?)

You guys wanna see obvious socking by a gay man on Commons? Try Yummyjuicybanana and Juicybnana. No doubt those genitals are attached to the same guy---who may also be Ashley Van Haeften, for all we know. He might have 50,000 accounts for all we can know.

(and to help clean the penises from our eyes, I can't think of many photos more "encyclopedic" and "educational" than this one. It's for you, Horsey. )

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 27th January 2012, 5:57pm

[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