Wikipediocracy

linkhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... %A6_(2019)[/link]

Whether the supporters outnumber the opposers or not, we can be sure the real winner will be drama.

I hope they give him the bits.

They'll live to regret it, I guarantee.

Maybe what the RfA needs are examples of some of the twisted stuff he's uploaded.

10920 wrote:Maybe what the RfA needs are examples of some of the twisted stuff he's uploaded.

I've still got a copy of the pic that he posted to commons where he is receiving anal sex.

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=341&start=750#p9811

Aaaaaaand it's our fault...

@Tuvalkin: unfortunately it has been drawn to my attention that this RfA has been posted about off-wiki as of 5th October. This may help explain the odd pattern you have noticed. Claims such as destroying other editors, are peculiar. It would be super if folks could dial down the rhetoric, I am not a political candidate nor a criminal. This request for sysop tools is to serve the community better and for the benefit of our joint cause of open knowledge. Nothing more. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You're a bully and a liar, Ashley.
Every single time you've been given the slightest amount of authority, you abuse it.

I can only conclude that Ashley's kink requires periodic public humiliation to go with the private. The outcome is irrelevant. The process is his joy.

DanMurphy wrote:I can only conclude that Ashley's kink requires periodic public humiliation to go with the private. The outcome is irrelevant. The process is his joy.

Occam's and Hanlon's razors say he's power hungry and stupid with an inability to learn from his past, but I prefer your theory for the lulz.

Comment - One might argue that the "odd" aspect of this vote is the way that it was 11-0 at the end of 7 hours and 15 minutes. No opinion about this candidate. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm....

Question Along similar lines as Jianhui67's question above: could you provide links to a few recent examples where you have de-escalated or defused a conflict between yourself and another user or users? – BMacZero () 03:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:Aaaaaaand it's our fault...

@Tuvalkin: unfortunately it has been drawn to my attention that this RfA has been posted about off-wiki as of 5th October. This may help explain the odd pattern you have noticed. Claims such as destroying other editors, are peculiar. It would be super if folks could dial down the rhetoric, I am not a political candidate nor a criminal. This request for sysop tools is to serve the community better and for the benefit of our joint cause of open knowledge. Nothing more. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You're a bully and a liar, Ashley.
Every single time you've been given the slightest amount of authority, you abuse it.

Pretty funny. The RfA had no chance regardless. See the previous six.

But yeah, it's obviously WO's fault because Fae is such an exemplary candidate that the RfA would've passed with flying colors otherwise.

Vigilant wrote:

Question Along similar lines as Jianhui67's question above: could you provide links to a few recent examples where you have de-escalated or defused a conflict between yourself and another user or users? – BMacZero () 03:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Along with the pictures, we could provide over 100 examples of times Fae has either escalated or directly precipitated a conflict on various Wikimedia projects.

To make conflict out of whole cloth, one might say.

It is currently 17 for, 18 against, so the tide has turned. I don'tknow what criteria they use onCommons, but they can't possibly promote someone who gets less than 50%. I like the latest support and comment:

Support because, well, Fæ. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
* What I'm afraid of, Jeff G., is that you have summed up many of the oppose votes also...athough in less words. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Colin helpfully compiled a list of the most recent glaring examples of his drama-mongering. Even if I had never heard of Fae before right now (don't I wish) that list would be more than enough rationale for an oppose.

Beeblebrox wrote:Colin helpfully compiled a list of the most recent glaring examples of his drama-mongering. Even if I had never heard of Fae before right now (don't I wish) that list would be more than enough rationale for an oppose.

Why do people like Ashley last on wiki projects?
Why can't you guys cut your losses and toss the terrible ones overboard?
Why do you guys, as a 'community', always seem to pick the wrong side of things?

I've seen it sooooo many times that the answer seems non trivial now.

Part of the problem is that there isn't just one "community". The people on Commons are often different from those on WP and the climate is very different there. I suspect that if the community on WP doesn't like someone, that could be regarded as a plus point over on Commons. Fae my be a good example.

Vigilant wrote:

Comment - One might argue that the "odd" aspect of this vote is the way that it was 11-0 at the end of 7 hours and 15 minutes. No opinion about this candidate. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm....

And the first vote came from:

"QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their]"


Fae must've whipped out the Queer Cabal for this one.

Vigilant wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:Colin helpfully compiled a list of the most recent glaring examples of his drama-mongering. Even if I had never heard of Fae before right now (don't I wish) that list would be more than enough rationale for an oppose.

Why do people like Ashley last on wiki projects?
Why can't you guys cut your losses and toss the terrible ones overboard?
Why do you guys, as a 'community', always seem to pick the wrong side of things?

I've seen it sooooo many times that the answer seems non trivial now.

Commons "community" is critically broken, much more so than en.wp. They tolerate all kinds of trollish behavior and downright craziness. I tried at one point to be a voice for sanity over there, it didn't go well, so now I just upload images and occasionally open deletion discussions, but that's about it except for when something like this comes along. I suppose I should care more but I don't.

Beeblebrox wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:Colin helpfully compiled a list of the most recent glaring examples of his drama-mongering. Even if I had never heard of Fae before right now (don't I wish) that list would be more than enough rationale for an oppose.

Why do people like Ashley last on wiki projects?
Why can't you guys cut your losses and toss the terrible ones overboard?
Why do you guys, as a 'community', always seem to pick the wrong side of things?

I've seen it sooooo many times that the answer seems non trivial now.

Commons "community" is critically broken, much more so than en.wp. They tolerate all kinds of trollish behavior and downright craziness. I tried at one point to be a voice for sanity over there, it didn't go well, so now I just upload images and occasionally open deletion discussions, but that's about it except for when something like this comes along. I suppose I should care more but I don't.

So let's talk en.wp only.

Ashley's history is long, vile and corrupt.
He's still allowed there.

Beeblebrox wrote:Commons "community" is critically broken, much more so than en.wp. They tolerate all kinds of trollish behavior and downright craziness. I tried at one point to be a voice for sanity over there, it didn't go well, so now I just upload images and occasionally open deletion discussions, but that's about it except for when something like this comes along. I suppose I should care more but I don't.

Yes, even Jimbo badly came a cropper when he tried to intervene in Commons. It's a good question how much Commons matters. As long as it has the photos you need, who cares if it has say 1000 unnecessary penis pictures or even child porn? I suppose it could embarrass the WMF, and if that becomes a serious problem maybe T&S will take justifiable action.

Poetlister wrote:I suspect that if the community on WP doesn't like someone, that could be regarded as a plus point over on Commons. Fae my be a good example.

This is for sure a real thing. Commons and Meta have both had this issue. For a while there is was really bad at meta, but it seems to have gotten better in recent years. (partially because they did in fact eventually remove some admins that were openly hostile to en.wp but that took way longer than it should have)

I understand a little resentment at feeling pushed around by the biggest project with the most users and the most global attention, but in a sane community you wouldn't see being censured by another community as a plus.

Vigilant wrote:

10920 wrote:Maybe what the RfA needs are examples of some of the twisted stuff he's uploaded.

I've still got a copy of the pic that he posted to commons where he is receiving anal sex.

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=341&start=750#p9811

Give him the "undelete" button and pass the popcorn.

Support, I can't think of a single user who would make a better sysop than Fæ. This is not to say that I think that they are perfect, I have seen them behave in ways that I disagree with and I also do hope that they won't let their activity as an administrator distract from their awesome imports. --Donald Trung


Really?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spec ... ions/Gamma

Just one example.

Vigilant wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:Colin helpfully compiled a list of the most recent glaring examples of his drama-mongering. Even if I had never heard of Fae before right now (don't I wish) that list would be more than enough rationale for an oppose.

Why do people like Ashley last on wiki projects?
Why can't you guys cut your losses and toss the terrible ones overboard?
Why do you guys, as a 'community', always seem to pick the wrong side of things?

I've seen it sooooo many times that the answer seems non trivial now.

Commons "community" is critically broken, much more so than en.wp. They tolerate all kinds of trollish behavior and downright craziness. I tried at one point to be a voice for sanity over there, it didn't go well, so now I just upload images and occasionally open deletion discussions, but that's about it except for when something like this comes along. I suppose I should care more but I don't.

So let's talk en.wp only.

Ashley's history is long, vile and corrupt.
He's still allowed there.

When we were kids, both of my sisters figured out that if we had some kind of fight, I'd be the one to get in trouble if they cried enough. It didn't always work, my parents weren't stupid, but it worked just often enough that they kept at it.

Fae figured out this same thing. Fae and Laura Hale should write a book together about how to emotionally manipulate online communities through playing the victim.

Fae also seems aware that they are on perpetual thin ice on en, and is topic banned from their main areas of interest. That may be mitigating their behavior somewhat, but just to be clear I for one would rather they were just gone from the project.

Beeblebrox wrote:

Poetlister wrote:I suspect that if the community on WP doesn't like someone, that could be regarded as a plus point over on Commons. Fae my be a good example.

This is for sure a real thing. Commons and Meta have both had this issue. For a while there is was really bad at meta, but it seems to have gotten better in recent years. (partially because they did in fact eventually remove some admins that were openly hostile to en.wp but that took way longer than it should have)

I understand a little resentment at feeling pushed around by the biggest project with the most users and the most global attention, but in a sane community you wouldn't see being censured by another community as a plus.

How do you get rid of an admin on Meta? Is it easier or harder than on ENWP?

Beeblebrox wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:Colin helpfully compiled a list of the most recent glaring examples of his drama-mongering. Even if I had never heard of Fae before right now (don't I wish) that list would be more than enough rationale for an oppose.

Why do people like Ashley last on wiki projects?
Why can't you guys cut your losses and toss the terrible ones overboard?
Why do you guys, as a 'community', always seem to pick the wrong side of things?

I've seen it sooooo many times that the answer seems non trivial now.

Commons "community" is critically broken, much more so than en.wp. They tolerate all kinds of trollish behavior and downright craziness. I tried at one point to be a voice for sanity over there, it didn't go well, so now I just upload images and occasionally open deletion discussions, but that's about it except for when something like this comes along. I suppose I should care more but I don't.

So let's talk en.wp only.

Ashley's history is long, vile and corrupt.
He's still allowed there.

When we were kids, both of my sisters figured out that if we had some kind of fight, I'd be the one to get in trouble if they cried enough. It didn't always work, my parents weren't stupid, but it worked just often enough that they kept at it.

Fae figured out this same thing. Fae and Laura Hale should write a book together about how to emotionally manipulate online communities through playing the victim.

Fae also seems aware that they are on perpetual thin ice on en, and is topic banned from their main areas of interest. That may be mitigating their behavior somewhat, but just to be clear I for one would rather they were just gone from the project.

So, why does it take so long and so much effort on en.wp to get rid of someone, like Ashley, like Merkey, who is obviously ill suited to the place and that you know will be back at the dramah boards in short order?

Vigilant wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:Colin helpfully compiled a list of the most recent glaring examples of his drama-mongering. Even if I had never heard of Fae before right now (don't I wish) that list would be more than enough rationale for an oppose.

Why do people like Ashley last on wiki projects?
Why can't you guys cut your losses and toss the terrible ones overboard?
Why do you guys, as a 'community', always seem to pick the wrong side of things?

I've seen it sooooo many times that the answer seems non trivial now.

Commons "community" is critically broken, much more so than en.wp. They tolerate all kinds of trollish behavior and downright craziness. I tried at one point to be a voice for sanity over there, it didn't go well, so now I just upload images and occasionally open deletion discussions, but that's about it except for when something like this comes along. I suppose I should care more but I don't.

So let's talk en.wp only.

Ashley's history is long, vile and corrupt.
He's still allowed there.

When we were kids, both of my sisters figured out that if we had some kind of fight, I'd be the one to get in trouble if they cried enough. It didn't always work, my parents weren't stupid, but it worked just often enough that they kept at it.

Fae figured out this same thing. Fae and Laura Hale should write a book together about how to emotionally manipulate online communities through playing the victim.

Fae also seems aware that they are on perpetual thin ice on en, and is topic banned from their main areas of interest. That may be mitigating their behavior somewhat, but just to be clear I for one would rather they were just gone from the project.

So, why does it take so long and so much effort on en.wp to get rid of someone, like Ashley, like Merkey, who is obviously ill suited to the place and that you know will be back at the dramah boards in short order?

Other than what I've already mentioned, I'd say for basically the same reason it is so difficult to change entrenched policies even when they clearly don't work.

Poetlister wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:

Poetlister wrote:I suspect that if the community on WP doesn't like someone, that could be regarded as a plus point over on Commons. Fae my be a good example.

This is for sure a real thing. Commons and Meta have both had this issue. For a while there is was really bad at meta, but it seems to have gotten better in recent years. (partially because they did in fact eventually remove some admins that were openly hostile to en.wp but that took way longer than it should have)

I understand a little resentment at feeling pushed around by the biggest project with the most users and the most global attention, but in a sane community you wouldn't see being censured by another community as a plus.

How do you get rid of an admin on Meta? Is it easier or harder than on ENWP?

Well, in the two cases I'm thinking of, one of them made a series of questionable actions, and when their fellow admins told them they needed to back off they freaked out and eventually threatened to become a horrible vandal if they weren't immediately desysopped. Clearly this was someone very unsuited for the role. His actions were all in defense of a user trying to spread drama onto meta after being banned at en.wp, and this guy just hated en.wp. (I believe he had been blocked form it as well if I recall) Not much later they tried to just ask for their tools back and were met with a resounding "no"

In the other case, a community-based desysopping process was used, basically a reverse RFA. Their RFAs are structured differently, with lots of threaded discussion. At the end of the week it went to a 'crat chat, five 'crats agreed there was consensus to remove the bits, and that was that (more or less). This admin basically acted in concert with the one from the first example, and about a year later did some more truly stupid, abusive stuff, including trolling me and stalking me on Meta and Commons. I am glad to report that not being an admin seems to have agreed with them they don't seem nearly as nasty these days

Beeblebrox wrote:In the other case, a community-based desysopping process was used, basically a reverse RFA.

Thank you. The whole post was interesting, but especially that sentence. Basically, that's what we need on ENWP; someone nominates an admin for a reverse RfA and if there is a clear majority for a desysop, maybe at least 65%, the crats agree to desysop. Now who could successfully propose that as a new policy?

Poetlister wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:In the other case, a community-based desysopping process was used, basically a reverse RFA.

Thank you. The whole post was interesting, but especially that sentence. Basically, that's what we need on ENWP; someone nominates an admin for a reverse RfA and if there is a clear majority for a desysop, maybe at least 65%, the crats agree to desysop. Now who could successfully propose that as a new policy?

I guess anyone could "successfully propose" the idea, but there's not a chance in hell that the proposal would be successful.

Too many admins subscribe to the idea that all admins become unpopular because they do such a difficult job. The truth of course is that most of them are unpopular because they're arseholes.

Eric Corbett wrote:

Poetlister wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:In the other case, a community-based desysopping process was used, basically a reverse RFA.

Thank you. The whole post was interesting, but especially that sentence. Basically, that's what we need on ENWP; someone nominates an admin for a reverse RfA and if there is a clear majority for a desysop, maybe at least 65%, the crats agree to desysop. Now who could successfully propose that as a new policy?

I guess anyone could "successfully propose" the idea, but there's not a chance in hell that the proposal would be successful.

Too many admins subscribe to the idea that all admins become unpopular because they do such a difficult job. The truth of course is that most of them are unpopular because they're arseholes.

And whenever anyone proposes something, it turns into a shitshow. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... iteria_(2)

I've tried in the past myself to put forward a community-based desysop process. It was a mess. I'm out of the "giant policy RFC" business for now.

I worked on an idea for a 'bottom up' way of setting up recalls with teeth by making use of existing processes; the 'voluntary recall' and a 'voluntary editing restriction' to turn it into a 'binding voluntary recall'. I got consensus for the idea of enforceable voluntary editing restrictions ie self-imposed conditional bans at RFC on Enforceabilityof logged voluntary editing restrictions and wrote a draft of how such a thing might work but never got a chance to put it to the test.

I like the 'bottom up' method because it avoids rehashing community desysop yet again. Since admins/candidates must voluntarily sign up it will not solve problems with existing problematic admins but it would not be hard to build social pressure for new admins to be 'encouraged' to sign up to a binding recall procedure during RfA. It might even be worth the hassle of going through another RfA just to force the conversation by signing up to it at the beginning of the RfA -- it would be a case of the community having to say why one could *not* use a voluntary editing restriction to say "if I get recalled by /voluntary recall process/ and I do not resign 'under a cloud' then block me until I do so" and how such a statement is materially different from "I will not edit /bad topic/ and if I do block me".

--
Jbh

When asked why his admin rights were taken away on Wikipedia, Fae says

I resigned the tools, they were not removed. You can read the English Wikipedia Arbcom case, but not everything that happened is written on those case pages and the events they are about were so very long ago most have been forgotten by everyone, with probably nearly half the parties mentioned or talking part no longer contributing to these projects.

A look at the Arbcom case shows that Fae is not lying, but neither is he telling the full truth. He resigned the tools in the middle of the case to avoid having them "taken away".

As Fæ likely would have had his administrator status revoked as a result of this case, his resignation of tools is considered as "under controversial circumstances", and they cannot get the tools back without first standing for a fresh request for adminship. Should they run for RfA again, they must publicly link to the statement on their user page announcing the accounts they have used previously.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

not everything that happened is written on those case pages and the events they are about were so very long ago most have been forgotten by everyone

Forgotten? That's an exceedingly forlorn hope. Nobody forgets things on Wikipedia.

Ashley van Haeften wrote:(ec) There were three parties named in the case. I was banned from the English Wikipedia as you can read in the case if you wish, my appeal against it was successful.

You were caught attempting to suborn a WMF employee.
You were kicked out of WMUK after being forced out of the Chair and then off the board.
You were stripped of your admin bit.
You were indef banned.
You appealed a year later and they took pity on you and saddled you with an edit restriction.
That was lifted even later.
You failed an RfA.

You never accept that you were at fault.

Ashley van Haeften wrote:The harassment included threats against me and my family that resulted in a police investigation into the harassment.

The 'threats' you mention were a distribution of pictures that you uploaded to commons.
That's what sent you shrieking to the police.

Ashley van Haeften wrote:As for the two other parties to the case, Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs) was banned and remains banned from that project, for their creation of an off-wiki "attack site" targeting me with disgusting homophobic abuse, and Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) was "admonished" for their actions against me, and vanished from all projects in 2013.

MichaelDSuarez didn't create ED.
He just updated your article, with pictures you put out into the commons.
You're a lying little shit, Ashley.

Ashley van Haeften wrote:Being the target of coordinated homophobic abuse is taken more seriously in 2019 than it was back in 2011/2012, with English Wikipedia's Arbcom and the WMF having improved their understanding about it. --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

And yet, you're still not an admin on en.wp.
And you have a edit restriction for the very topic you were hammered with at ARBCOM.

That is A Litany of offences! If those Commonsers could read that...

Briefly reading this DR about a Flickr source, I would presume that any uploads from that stream need careful assessment and based on already deleted content probably should be blocked as a mass upload source.

Given Ashley's Flickr washing past, this is a bit hypocritical.

Commons doesn't use the counter like en does, but by my count it is currently 19 supports and 26 opposes.

I don't think it's likely they'll recover from that in the next four days. Really, if at any time after the first day an RFA is "underwater" like this it's time to just walk away. (not that I expect Fae to do the smart thing when there's more drama and victim-playing to be had)

C&B wrote:That is A Litany of offences! If those Commonsers could read that...

I expect that quite a few of them know most of it. They don'tcare, and indeed may think he's a hero for sticking it up people on ENWP.

Vigilant wrote:I've still got a copy of the pic that he posted to commons where he is receiving anal sex.

y tho

SCAF wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I've still got a copy of the pic that he posted to commons where he is receiving anal sex.

y tho

For moments where Ashley tries to bully someone.

As he did right before he got topic banned again on en.wp.

SCAF wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I've still got a copy of the pic that he posted to commons where he is receiving anal sex.

y tho

This is actually a fairly common practice - if you feel like you're spending too much time on your computer and it's affecting your social life and/or personal productivity, just use it as your wallpaper image.

Put it on the front of Your Door to stop the bills coming in?!

final tally 23-29, 44%.

I'm sure we all look forward to attempt number 8.

Beeblebrox wrote:final tally 23-29, 44%.

I'm sure we all look forward to attempt number 8.

Surely this one isn't finished yet. He'll demand a recount, excluding the 29 votes cast by homophobic bigots.

Beeblebrox wrote:final tally 23-29, 44%.

I'm sure we all look forward to attempt number 8.

That a project's most prolific contributor only gets 44% reflects as poorly on the project as it does on the contributor.

Maybe it reflects on the contributions too - perhaps copying files from one place to another is not that big a deal?

Silent Editor wrote:

Beeblebrox wrote:final tally 23-29, 44%.

I'm sure we all look forward to attempt number 8.

That a project's most prolific contributor only gets 44% reflects as poorly on the project as it does on the contributor.

Maybe it reflects on the contributions too - perhaps copying files from one place to another is not that big a deal?

Being a prolific contributor is not necessarily evidence that you will be a good admin, as has often been pointed out in RfAs onWikipedia. I think that there is abundant evidence that Fae would not be a good admin; that he got as many support votes as he did may be due to respect for his contributions. And surely the great majority of photos on Commons have been copied from elsewhere.

When it closed:

Support = 23; Oppose = 29; Neutral = 1 - 44% Result. Unsuccessful.

eagle wrote:When it closed:

Support = 23; Oppose = 29; Neutral = 1 - 44% Result. Unsuccessful.

Hasn't that been said already?