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

[Selina]

edited my (second or third, whatever) post with more links, I need to use the preview button more, forget how fast the replies here fly sometimes

[Web Fred]

Looking at the history of ANI it seems there are some shenanigans going on with an IP user. I can't see what the revdeleted posts are. Anything interesting?

[carbuncle]

Well wasn't the email to you in response to you asking the question wrt to the so called blackmail attempt? IOW the backmail was before you posted the email and thus could have had nothing to do with giving away Fæ's dox to nasty persons unknown.

No the email was in response to the "threat" made to User:Ash which caused them to state that they feared for their "safety" and was part of the reason why they were "leaving Wikipedia". I was never able to establish what that threat was or who made it. There was a suggestion that it was made here, but I could never find anything that could be interpreted as a threat.

[carbuncle]

Looking at the history of ANI it seems there are some shenanigans going on with an IP user. I can't see what the revdeleted posts are. Anything interesting?

The IP posted a Google search string which would bring up the WHOIS info that I posted here. The search terms were something extremely tricky like "Ashley Van Haeften WHOIS" or similar. I suppose it was revealing the name of the domain that caused people to get uncomfortable.

[Web Fred]

Looking at the history of ANI it seems there are some shenanigans going on with an IP user. I can't see what the revdeleted posts are. Anything interesting?

The IP posted a Google search string which would bring up the WHOIS info that I posted here. The search terms were something extremely tricky like "Ashley Van Haeften WHOIS" or similar. I suppose it was revealing the name of the domain that caused people to get uncomfortable.

{{strange thing, the first version of this post disappeared}}

That doesn't look tricky to me.

Thanks anyway, I was trying to figure out what happened from the user's talk page but wasn't getting anywhere. Being a nosey bugger it was getting frustrating. I still don't see why they blocked him/her though.

Fae's real name had already been mentioned earlier on in the thread, and a domain name is hardly personal information.

I've also just noticed that the unblock was declined by our prostitution loving lawyer Fred Bauder, what a small world.

[lilburne]

Well wasn't the email to you in response to you asking the question wrt to the so called blackmail attempt? IOW the backmail was before you posted the email and thus could have had nothing to do with giving away Fæ's dox to nasty persons unknown.

No the email was in response to the "threat" made to User:Ash which caused them to state that they feared for their "safety" and was part of the reason why they were "leaving Wikipedia". I was never able to establish what that threat was or who made it. There was a suggestion that it was made here, but I could never find anything that could be interpreted as a threat.

Oh I see it was the prior claim of blackmail, too many to keep up with.

Personally whilst you seem to be mostly concerned about his old editing and referencing. I still think that Fæ's real problem is always going to be the WMFUK status along with the WP admin status in association with that misguided old user page image, coupled with the bondage image uploads, and the association with the swimming pool changing room images.

It has nothing to do with him being gay, or bi. The same would apply, and perhaps more so, if the image was of a female.

As for blame that lies directly with WMFUK and the belief that what happens on WP will have any bearing in the RL. When you are dealing with educational organisations and Government departments other considerations come into play. The people responsible for the organisation may come under scrutiny. I know, WP and responsibility, but there you go.

[Selina]

Nothing wrong with bondage between consenting adults though. But putting pictures up of naked little boys is the glorification of paedophilia and children cannot CONSENT to having photographs taken of them like that... It's an old photo but that doesn't mean it's still not abuse that some creep got that child to hold up that fish and say "make the fish suck on it"...

I think a lot of the reason there isn't a backlash to is actually because it's a male child and the users are mostly male, it's less shocking to them - but if he was parading around a picture of a naked little girl instead I bet there wouldn't be such apparent apathy

[Web Fred]

Well wasn't the email to you in response to you asking the question wrt to the so called blackmail attempt? IOW the backmail was before you posted the email and thus could have had nothing to do with giving away Fæ's dox to nasty persons unknown.

No the email was in response to the "threat" made to User:Ash which caused them to state that they feared for their "safety" and was part of the reason why they were "leaving Wikipedia". I was never able to establish what that threat was or who made it. There was a suggestion that it was made here, but I could never find anything that could be interpreted as a threat.

Oh I see it was the prior claim of blackmail, too many to keep up with.

Personally whilst you seem to be mostly concerned about his old editing and referencing. I still think that Fæ's real problem is always going to be the WMFUK status along with the WP admin status in association with that misguided old user page image, coupled with the bondage image uploads, and the association with the swimming pool changing room images.

It has nothing to do with him being gay, or bi. The same would apply, and perhaps more so, if the image was of a female.

As for blame that lies directly with WMFUK and the belief that what happens on WP will have any bearing in the RL. When you are dealing with educational organisations and Government departments other considerations come into play. The people responsible for the organisation may come under scrutiny. I know, WP and responsibility, but there you go.

Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, isn't the bondage, the sexuality or even the WP and Commons editing, but simply can he do the job properly or not?

[Vigilant]

Well wasn't the email to you in response to you asking the question wrt to the so called blackmail attempt? IOW the backmail was before you posted the email and thus could have had nothing to do with giving away Fæ's dox to nasty persons unknown.

No the email was in response to the "threat" made to User:Ash which caused them to state that they feared for their "safety" and was part of the reason why they were "leaving Wikipedia". I was never able to establish what that threat was or who made it. There was a suggestion that it was made here, but I could never find anything that could be interpreted as a threat.

Oh I see it was the prior claim of blackmail, too many to keep up with.

Personally whilst you seem to be mostly concerned about his old editing and referencing. I still think that Fæ's real problem is always going to be the WMFUK status along with the WP admin status in association with that misguided old user page image, coupled with the bondage image uploads, and the association with the swimming pool changing room images.

It has nothing to do with him being gay, or bi. The same would apply, and perhaps more so, if the image was of a female.

As for blame that lies directly with WMFUK and the belief that what happens on WP will have any bearing in the RL. When you are dealing with educational organisations and Government departments other considerations come into play. The people responsible for the organisation may come under scrutiny. I know, WP and responsibility, but there you go.

Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, isn't the bondage, the sexuality or even the WP and Commons editing, but simply can he do the job properly or not?

Ultimately, it's about the lulz...

[Web Fred]

Nothing wrong with bondage between consenting adults though. But putting pictures up of naked little boys is the glorification of paedophilia and children cannot CONSENT to having photographs taken of them like that... It's an old photo but that doesn't mean it's still not abuse that some creep got that child to hold up that fish and say "make the fish suck on it"...

I think a lot of the reason there isn't a backlash to is actually because it's a male child and the users are mostly male, it's less shocking to them - but if he was parading around a picture of a naked little girl instead I bet there wouldn't be such apparent apathy

I'm not sure the background you are giving to that image is altogether correct. I also don't think the lad is as young as his face would imply. His well-hung anatomy and scrotum size would point to him being 15 or 16 give or take. And in those days, and at that age he would have been no innocent.

In any case it's a nice picture that I see as non-sexual in tone. No more so than a Titan nude anyway,

Ultimately, it's about the lulz...

I save them for Ottava and Kohs.

[Selina]

in those days, and at that age he would have been no innocent.

oh god please can we not go there, this is the whole paedophilia/"pederasty"/"young boy lover" thing all over again. ickickick.

you said you had kids earlier in the food regulation for schools thread, would you really feel happy with someone who obviously found a picture of a child arousing to have access to Special:Emailuser with the many many many children on WP?

[Web Fred]

in those days, and at that age he would have been no innocent.

oh god please can we not go there, this is the whole paedophilia/"pederasty"/"young boy lover" thing all over again. ickickick.

I have no interest in boy-loving being straight as I am. And when I said innocent, I didn't mean it in the way you suggest.

But pretty much any kid image can get a paedo off. Many get their kicks from kid's swimsuit pics in catalogues.

I'm still not convinced that images of this type were taken by, and for, paedos. Not everyone sees naked bodies as a sexual thing. You seem to be projecting fears that have been stirred up my the media over the last few decades. In some people it's a knee-jerk reaction.

And yes I agree, the thought of a paedo jacking off to this is very much an ick-ick thing. That, however, does not make the image itself an ick thing.

This post has been edited by Cunningly Linguistic: Sun 29th January 2012, 7:28pm

[Vigilant]

Looking at the history of ANI it seems there are some shenanigans going on with an IP user. I can't see what the revdeleted posts are. Anything interesting?

The IP posted a Google search string which would bring up the WHOIS info that I posted here. The search terms were something extremely tricky like "Ashley Van Haeften WHOIS" or similar. I suppose it was revealing the name of the domain that caused people to get uncomfortable.

So, being a nosy bugger and not being able to resist the puzzle aspect of this, I did a bit of digging around.

Not surprisingly, Ashley has no concept of how personal information is used and stored online. Despite his background in software, of a dubious nature related to CMM and AGILE (two of the biggest hokkum points in engineering), he is as naive as anyone I've ever seen online.

Within 5 minutes of google searching I was able to verify the ash, teahot, ashleyvh connection.
Within 10 minutes, the Fae connection was incontrovertibly made.
Within 15 minutes, I have his home address, telephone number, CV.pdf and a list of every neighbor on his street.

A paternal name registered as .com without using a privacy registrar?
while posting nearly nude photos of yourself?

And the cv....


Ashley. Dude. Seriously?

Who talks about themselves in the third person except Bob Dole?
What kind of moron puts "Change Agent" as a fucking job title?

If I received your resume, even without the CMM/Agile shit, even without your grievous google history, I'd roundfile it for the above two items anyway.

Kids these days.

This post has been edited by Vigilant: Sun 29th January 2012, 7:29pm

[lilburne]

Nothing wrong with bondage between consenting adults though. But putting pictures up of naked little boys is the glorification of paedophilia and children cannot CONSENT to having photographs taken of them like that... It's an old photo but that doesn't mean it's still not abuse that some creep got that child to hold up that fish and say "make the fish suck on it"...

I think a lot of the reason there isn't a backlash to is actually because it's a male child and the users are mostly male, it's less shocking to them - but if he was parading around a picture of a naked little girl instead I bet there wouldn't be such apparent apathy

I'd give the benefit of the doubt regarding the motivation for using the image. It could well have been for the shock value as some one said here, or even for the lulz. The problem is that the connections can be drawn, and that WMFUK has no ability to filter its candidates for suitability for ranking positions within the organisation.

You are spot on with the naked little girl observation. On flickr the picture collectors are predominately of the naked little boys, one will come across accounts with 100s of faved photos of that sort. Rarely does one see a collections of naked girls, I guess those get reported far quicker. Mostly the accounts that favour girls mix them in wearing beach wear in amongst Adult porn.

[carbuncle]

I'm still not convinced that images of this type were taken by, and for, paedos. Not everyone sees naked bodies as a sexual thing. You seem to be projecting fears that have been stirred up my the media over the last few decades. In some people it's a knee-jerk reaction.

Really? Google the photographer, Wilhelm von Gloeden. One of the first links that comes up for me is to nambla.org. WP states that one of his models became his lover at the age of 14. Let's not argue over whether or not that makes him a paedophile.

Van Haeften put the image on their WP user page. They were making a point. They knew that some people would be offended by that particular image of a nude adolescent (more so than, say, an older nude male). I believe they were saying "I can do this. You don't like it. You can't stop me from doing it. Nyah nyah".

[Web Fred]

I'm still not convinced that images of this type were taken by, and for, paedos. Not everyone sees naked bodies as a sexual thing. You seem to be projecting fears that have been stirred up my the media over the last few decades. In some people it's a knee-jerk reaction.

Really? Google the photographer, Wilhelm von Gloeden. One of the first links that comes up for me is to nambla.org. WP states that one of his models became his lover at the age of 14. Let's not argue over whether or not that makes him a paedophile.

Van Haeften put the image on their WP user page. They were making a point. They knew that some people would be offended by that particular image of a nude adolescent (more so than, say, an older nude male). I believe they were saying "I can do this. You don't like it. You can't stop me from doing it. Nyah nyah".

I wasn't aware of the history of the image or of the photographer, but I get your point. But only because I did the shock value pic first, although I didn't use an under-age model it must be said.

[Peter Damian]

Fae, is arguably one of the top Wikipedians in the UK. He represents the UK in the Houses of Parliment and talks to major institutions on behalf of the movement. He enjoys the trust of everyone who knows him. There appears to be a group of editors who are creating a witch hunt for the smell of a conspiracy. Fae has many supporters who do not like to lower themselves to debating with these people. We also spend a lot of time editing rather than debating trivia. If we allow good editors and people who fly the flag fot the movement to be driven from our midst then the process is wrong. Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473877882

Victuallers = Roger Bamkin, chair of WMUK. Also chipping in on that page is Martin Poulter, a director of WMUK.

[lilburne]

Fae, is arguably one of the top Wikipedians in the UK. He represents the UK in the Houses of Parliment and talks to major institutions on behalf of the movement. He enjoys the trust of everyone who knows him. There appears to be a group of editors who are creating a witch hunt for the smell of a conspiracy. Fae has many supporters who do not like to lower themselves to debating with these people. We also spend a lot of time editing rather than debating trivia. If we allow good editors and people who fly the flag fot the movement to be driven from our midst then the process is wrong. Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=473877882

Victuallers = Roger Bamkin, chair of WMUK. Also chipping in on that page is Martin Poulter, a director of WMUK.

See he's got firm grasp of the issue:

If we allow good editors and people who fly the flag fot the movement to be driven from our midst then the process is wrong.

but has yet to see that the process that is wrong is the way that they select officers. He may well "represent the UK in the Houses of Parliment and talks to major institutions on behalf of the movement." and he may well be a jolly good chap, but those parliamentarians would certainly raise an eyebrow at the immaturity if nothing else of the Wilhelm von Gloeden pic.

They really need to get more organized. It won't be long before they have CEOP hammering on their door about putting a PANIC BUTTON on all the pages.

[DanMurphy]

So it was Lar who secretly vouched for Mr. Van Haeften's RFA.

No one seems to have a problem with the "secret, self-selected, trust us, really" vetting system. And then there's the whole weird internal thing where the actions of an account are considered, rather the judgement and qualifications of the person operating the account.

[Peter Damian]

And then there's the whole weird internal thing where the actions of an account are considered, rather the judgement and qualifications of the person operating the account.

And there you are holding the essence of Wikipedia in your hand. They argue that because it is completely transparent and that all you can see is the actions of the account, nothing else matters.

The bit about the secret vouching however rather fucks it up, though. "You should trust those whom you are supposed to trust", as one administrator put it.