Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ (/Fae/Ash), Quick, send a dossier to ArbCom and delete! Options

[radek]

The "Balloonman argument". This seems to be winning the day. The argument is precisely this: Fae was perfectly open in his replies to the questions asked at the RfA, he conceded that there had been a 'clean start', that there had been problems, that there would have been opposes if his identity were known etc etc. But the community took it on trust, in particular, from John Vandenberg. The RfA community utterly failed in this case by giving him a free pass, but by that token has relinquished the moral right to question the results today.

Any comments? My thoughts are

(1) Even if the system failed, does that prevent a re-run of the RfA? My example would be a doctor who obtained his qualification because a lazy examiner failed to mark his examinations or tests properly. I.e. he would have failed the exams if not for the slack marking. Would we be comfortable in his remaining qualified? Or would we have a moral right to demand a re-examination?

(2) Was Fae in fact being completely open? For example, he did not say anything about BLP problems. My examination of his edits suggest he did not actually accept the results of the RfC, and never believed he had been guilty of BLP violations (such as 'outing' members of a gay bathhouse).

This is more or less why I didn't support his "statement" there. His premises might be true enough (RfA messed up, Fae was "sort of" open about it). But the conclusion don't fallow (everything's ok then).

[RMHED]

What I don't understand is why he's not open about it now, when everybody knows what happened. I just don't see the point.

As was demonstrated most clearly at the Commons RFA and at in the discussions about that plagiarized map, Van Haeften seems to be almost a compulsive liar. It makes no difference what account name he uses or which topics he avoids, his personality is unchanged.

So to paraphrase, you're saying that Van Haeften has a strong creative streak and a stable personality.

This post has been edited by RMHED: Mon 30th January 2012, 11:10pm

[Cla68]

That's just sad.

Exactly. No PHP, fucking amateur.

I see no reason to malign Van Haeften's technical background. Instead I will offer this sample of his javascript coding. It was used by Fæ on Commons to identify changes by people on his naughty list (Pieter Kuiper, Fred the Oyster, and Ottava Rima, in this case). When someone on Commons noticed it, Fæ had it deleted and replaced it with one that didn't have that snippet.

On WP, Ash used to have a similar script that identified both friends and foes. If I recall correctly, the foes were identified by the addition of a little spider image.

You should add this to the RfC.

[lilburne]

(2) Was Fae in fact being completely open? For example, he did not say anything about BLP problems. My examination of his edits suggest he did not actually accept the results of the RfC, and never believed he had been guilty of BLP violations (such as 'outing' members of a gay bathhouse).

So what was the justification for him doing that? What was the agenda there?

[Fusion]

Here is that edit. Boothroyd inserted that "the Conservatives have been consistently ahead throughout 2008"; the opposite of what The Daily Mail claimed.

This is no good. You are citing a primary source, and one that is not a reliable source. That is worthless. You should source everything to reliable secondary sources. A British national newspaper, for example, would be a reliable secondary source.

[Vigilant]

What I don't understand is why he's not open about it now, when everybody knows what happened. I just don't see the point.

As was demonstrated most clearly at the Commons RFA and at in the discussions about that plagiarized map, Van Haeften seems to be almost a compulsive liar. It makes no difference what account name he uses or which topics he avoids, his personality is unchanged.

So to paraphrase, you're saying that Van Haeften has a strong creative streak and a stable personality.

Compared to the average wikipedia functionary, sure.

[Vigilant]

Makes you wonder if this list should be reviewed, given that he shouldn't have passed RFA

[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. >:|

So I was just looking at what schools this guy has been writing about after I read that he has worked for schools... and... found him covering up (making an edit summary of "vandalism") an account called "Anonyous Whistleblower" posting in gory detail to the article that pupils are warned not to to talk to the Police and that staff open students' bedrooms: wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_School_at_West_Heath?diff=prev&oldid=410341394 (09:56, 27 January 2011) ... and.... he removed this: The vice-principal of Diana, Princess of Wales's former school has admitted possessing indecent photos of children, BBC News, Thursday, 22 April 2010

I looked further into the history and the bit before the bit complaining about staff going into pupil's bedrooms using their key seems to have been posted before the paedophilia incident stuff happened... there's a rather angry rant on the talk page about it: wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_New_School_at_West_Heath#Issues_section

If not for your bureaucracy someone might have seen it and actually done something.

It was removed by someone who had no edits other than editing this page, probably someone that worked at the school.Revision as of 2006-07-06T15:00:50

When I was at the school I brought up with the Ofsted inspectors the issue of boarding staff abusing the master key for reasons other than emergencies to enter students' rooms without knocking and so on, and they did not listen either. So Wikipedia was the only option, and even you did not listen.

If not for your bureaucracy someone official might have seen it and actually done something about the situation before this happened
[..]
Puts the rules about not being able to lock your door etc[2], set by the head of boarding (the same Mr Whillock in the articles) in a whole different light NOW

mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/william-whillock-vice-principal-at-the-new-school-in-west-heath-guilty-of-child-porn-offences

02/06/2010 at 1:53 pm
I worked under this man for 2 years and left due to an internal investigation in which l questuoned this mans work practices. That was seven years ago he was totally exonerated of all allegations even though l had evidence. This l believe is a total cover up by the school who have no record of this on file and this time police had to use my paper work which l had kept. This is a high profile school and the public need to know how neglectful they have been to allow this man to continue working in such a responsible position when it could have been prevented seven years ago.I ask you how many other young girls were his victim.Please contact me on [redacted - HLM] if you would like more information. Brigitte Mourmouris

[..another comment..]
18/10/2010 at 12:15 am
i have been at the new school for about 4 years now and still am. bill willock was trusted by all. but wat happend was very shocking i couldnt belive it at first but its true..
and yes their are male staff like bill left in the school i no it for sure. i went to mrs wells about it and she did nothing. ment to be helping us students but ur not ur just making our problems worse…

so someone actually posted on Wikipedia warning about paedophile-enabling behaviour at the school about 4 years before it was found out and Wikipedia didn't do anything just covered it up? NONE of the other editors noticed it going on that page for years? Nice... Reminds me of dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344281/Facebook-suicide-None-Simone-Backs-1-082-online-friends-helped-her.html

Kinda looks like there may be some kind of paedophile ring for years, with the school and allegations repeatedly being removed in the Wikipedia history over years... someone should seriously investigate that omg... Sevenoaks, like London, is a place where there's lots of fat old men with lots of money...

[EricBarbour]

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

--Jimbo

Yet another suitable item for his tombstone.

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

I wonder how many of the AN/I lynch-mob fell for ridiculous misrepresentations like this one, by Prioryman (ChrisO)?

How can it be an "error" if he had to go out and search for this information in the first place? It wasn't disclosed to him. I'm frankly irritated by the way some people seem to be describing this as an "error" or "mistake". It was nothing of the sort. It was a premeditated act. He went out looking for this information, found it and posted it. That was entirely intentional. He's described it as an "oversight" but that's merely a justification for an unjustifiable act. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Time and time again these people were unable to recognize the simple fact that the purpose of Carbuncle's post was plainly not to harass Van Haeften, nor to serve up his phone number and address on a platter to nutjobs, but to definitively make the connection between the Ash and Fae accounts once and for all. This should have been plain to everyone who bothered to look at the WR thread in question and saw that it was titled, "The Smoking Gun." It is incredible that it flew over so many heads.

Then again, most of the people voting in the ban discussion probably reached their decision based not on the facts before them but on their wiki-political positions on the Fae RfC and, on a deeper level, WP:BADSITES. This is most evident in this comment by HJ Mitchell, as he does not disguise the fact that his opinion is rooted in his deep dislike of WR. I respect him more than the others because he came out and said it.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

If the shoe were on the other foot, if DC's and Fae's roles were reversed, Prioryman and company would be arguing just as violently on the other side of the debate. It's all gaming the system.

[thekohser]

Kinda looks like there may be some kind of paedophile ring for years, with the school and allegations repeatedly being removed in the Wikipedia history over years... someone should seriously investigate that omg...

Do we really want Wikipedia to be the place kids go to report that there's pedophiles at work in their school?

Good God, what is so difficult about calling the local police?

[Cla68]

If the shoe were on the other foot, if DC's and Fae's roles were reversed, Prioryman and company would be arguing just as violently on the other side of the debate. It's all gaming the system.

In the ad hominem hall of fame should reside the names of several Wikipedia editors who attempt to use the tactic time and time again in attempts to win arguments, such as Prioryman, Mathsci, and Will Beback.

[carbuncle]

If the shoe were on the other foot, if DC's and Fae's roles were reversed, Prioryman and company would be arguing just as violently on the other side of the debate. It's all gaming the system.

I'm not sure about the "and company", but Prioryman definitely would be. Of course they would never discuss another WP editor off-wiki...

[SB_Johnny]

Okay, this is an interesting worldview...

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Okay, this is an interesting worldview...

Can anyone tell me off the top of their head how many of the people who are shrieking about private eyes and stalking and so on with regard to Fae were fully in support of it when Will Beback was doing it to TimidGuy?

[No one of consequence]

so someone actually posted on Wikipedia warning about paedophile-enabling behaviour at the school about 4 years before it was found out and Wikipedia didn't do anything just covered it up? NONE of the other editors noticed it going on that page for years? Nice... Reminds me of dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344281/Facebook-suicide-None-Simone-Backs-1-082-online-friends-helped-her.html

Kinda looks like there may be some kind of paedophile ring for years, with the school and allegations repeatedly being removed in the Wikipedia history over years... someone should seriously investigate that omg... Sevenoaks, like London, is a place where there's lots of fat old men with lots of money...

If you have some special way of determining which unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing are credible, by all means let us know. Otherwise, it is very difficult to tell whether a claim of Bad Things Happening is vandalism, libel, revenge, or truth.

Wikipedia is not the place to post such allegations, ever.

[Cla68]

Okay, this is an interesting worldview...

Can anyone tell me off the top of their head how many of the people who are shrieking about private eyes and stalking and so on with regard to Fae were fully in support of it when Will Beback was doing it to TimidGuy?

Wnt also posted a vigorous defence of Cirt. If you're someone who wants Wikipedia to fail, you should be hoping that the WMF puts Wnt in charge of it.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Wed 1st February 2012, 10:47pm

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Okay, this is an interesting worldview...

Can anyone tell me off the top of their head how many of the people who are shrieking about private eyes and stalking and so on with regard to Fae were fully in support of it when Will Beback was doing it to TimidGuy?

Wnt also posted a vigorous defence of Cirt. If you're someone who wants Wikipedia to fail, you should be hoping that the WMF puts Wnt in charge of it.

There is a consistency in Wnt's anguished rants, which is that in both cases he objects to any sort of probing that would tend to reveal corrupt practices on the part of his Wiki-Allies. But it would be interesting to check whether he was similarly outraged at the treatment of TimidGuy.

This gives me an idea for the upcoming awards pageant. Stay tuned.

[iii]

Can anyone tell me off the top of their head how many of the people who are shrieking about private eyes and stalking and so on with regard to Fae were fully in support of it when Will Beback was doing it to TimidGuy?

This is a fantastically meta-comment. The Wnt claim that sleeper-agents are working to control content on Wikipedia is indeed a rather special sort of deranged and self-important conspiracy theory that deserves a place in the catalog of why Wikipedia sucks, but the connection you make to the Will Beback campaign can be done in two separate ways: one) the claim that there is nefarious action on the part of Beback and company to hunt and stalk his chosen enemies and two) the claim that TimidGuy is a sleeper agent for the transcendental meditation movement.

I'm sorry, is this better suited to Wikipedia Review Review?