Noting a moderators' discussion and Fae's lack of ability to discern between sarcasm, flowery phrased writing and possibly failed attempts at humour, it would be helpful if people used a little self-restraint in their comments on Fae related issues.

Simply put, Fae's actions are idiotic enough to provide entertainment as they stand and giving him excuses obscures the message. So can we keep things simple for this simple person? As implied in this message, that does not mean treating him with kid gloves, but trying to avoid allusions that can readily be deliberately misconstrued. This may not be easy because everything is about Fae, but bear with us if the moderators take an action intended to focus on his nonsense rather than your posting prowess.

This post proves that you people are not getting what's really going on here.

It's all about the DRAMA! No matter how we frame discussions of this person, it's going to be used for major drama, regardless of the presence of any actual pertinent content.

In other words, if we post that Fae does his shopping at Sainsbury's, he's going to counter with "OMG!!! I'm being discriminated against! I would NEVER set foot in a Sainsbury's! I do ALL, repeat ALL of my shopping at Tesco..." etc, etc, etc, ad naseum.

The point is that the drama is what generates interest. I've been observing this phenomen for over ten years nows (way back in the Dark ages of mp3.com, BB fights over nothing mean increased downloads on artist pages and therefore more income....at least it meant something concrete back then....). There is no way around this, except ignoring all comments made by Fae on all forums.

....Anything else is just a waste of time. Been there, done that....Sorry to be so blunt.

i know that, you know that, Wikipedians know that, just trying to fathom if Fae knows that.

That seems to be rather Fætalistic. I still think he may come become wiser.

+1.

Fae never fails to provide fresh material.

[mod note: Off topic stuff moved to the off topic area by yours truly]

I'm gonna start saying pointy, non-sensical things and put a pink triangle next to it and when someone calls me out on the pointy, non-sensical stuff I'll accuse them of homophobia.

Or how about an anti-nazi symbol? If someone has a problem with what I say I'll accuse them of racism.

It's sooooo funny.
It's all about him, all the time.
Thank goodness BaseballBugs, known AN/I troll, is here to calm things down.

Good times, good times.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... n_of_libel

What a screechy little queen.

Edit:
No knowing how big the little pile of poo will grow
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... ir_actions

It's truly amazing to me that anyone could elect such a delusional [person].
mod note: toned down as per request

Could you tone that down please. You know, tar, same, brush and all that. The link was useful, though. Nor do I have a problem with 'delusional fuckwit'.

No that wasn't the problem. The bit after 'screechy' was the problem.

'banshee' would fit.

Let's not turn into commons, wherein false civility is placed on a pedestal and honest discourse is devalued.

Yes I know but we will only get into trouble and I will get blamed as usual.

Everyone who voted for him yesterday must be really proud of their choice. Just how a trustee of a respectable roganisation should behave.

Formal statement:
We are each only responsible for our words herein.

. . . by way of your association with the "violent pedophile" Greg Kohs, our evil overlord and controller of all our thoughts and actions from his base in the Castle of Copyright atop Mount Comcast. Frankly, I'm surprised that the "Commonists" and their Frei Kultur allies haven't also accused him of being a Nazi.

Funnily enough, I didn't have a problem with the queen bit, that did seem appropriate (especially when you read the content of the links where someone on Wikipedia made essentially the same comment) mainly because of Fae's emphasis that this is about homophobia, when it is really just that we think he is extremely dishonest (which I think is a far worse issue for a representative of any organisation). I do think there are times when it is not very helpful to allow aggressive name-calling and as such it is sensible as moderators to tone something down (while trying to avoid playing the WP:POINT game).

It could be entertaining to count up how many times Fae has repeated his complaint on Wikipedia and Commons. It is an object lesson on how Wikipedia as a community is fundamentally flawed, because it just cannot move on. It also makes me wonder if Fae will turn his homophobia campaign against his fellow Wikipedians, because if they are not taking his side when he is so clearly right, then homophobia can surely be the only explanation.

I suspect that there is a formula where you can attribute points to every minor or major misdeed, together with a factor of how "in" the miscreant is at the point of time and another factor for the target of the misdeed being "in". When the sum of these gets to X, the miscreant is formally out of favour and likely to be banned. We note that even SlimVirgin was able to overcome her massive "in" factor and accrue enough misdeeds. The important point is that there is no decay over time, no misdeed is ever wiped off the slate.

I seriously doubt that would amount to much. He is probably pulling his REAL manipulation in private correspondence to
people who really matter, like the other WMUK principals. SlimVirgin was always at a disadvantage in this, because she
insists on living in the Canadian hinterlands, and never shows up at meetings or parties of WP people. Same thing for
other "insiders" who fell from grace, like Will Beback and Cirt.

Ever looked at hundreds of photos of Wikipedia meetups in London? I have. There are two people who appear
at virtually EVERY meetup, every year: David Gerard and James Forrester. No one would dare to block them, no
matter what they did--and few people have abused civility over the years like Gerard.

He clearly does message people a lot, but whether he is any more successful is another matter. No doubt the contents of the emails will come out at the inevitable ArbCom dramafest. I would expect face to face meetings to be more successful - which may be one of the reasons why Fae is so keen to ensure PD is banned from meet-ups.

The arbcom case will probably have to address the past account that keeps rising from the Ashes as well, as it seems to be a cat that refuses to stay in the bag.

A round of tit-4-tat talk page reversions and name calling.

It is a bit silly claiming all your articles in your counts on your page and then denying that you are the account who wrote them. I'm not surprised though that they are considered very poor, he does seem to be Mr Stub, and nobody picked up on the apparent plagiarism from the Welsh wiki I noted elsewhere, which if that is an example of his editing standard you then have to question his value to the project as an editor.

Funny sequence here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =492693239

How does he even keep these things straight?
He's got soooo many lies going on and he's trying so hard to keep them all straight that it becomes a transaction tax for talking.

Funny, funny, funny

He couldn't write his way out of a pair of speedos.

And that porn actor clearly faels notability.

It struck me that Fae claims the protection of Discriminated Against Gay Activist, but a lot of his stuff brings the gay community into disrepute - not just his own rantings, but this enthusiasm for porn. It doesn't reflect well on the gay community to encourage the stereotype that gay people are gay because they want to spend their time shagging. The gay couples I am most familiar with are remarkably like straight couples, sex is a private thing - to the extent that the majority are just people, they are not defined by their bedroom activities, and would probably be as affronted that this is the image of gay life being put forward as much as straight people would not identify with enjoying a quiet spit roast after a night on the town.

Just take a look at the articles that User:Ash (which EVERYONE knows is Ashley van HaeftEn)
http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/ind ... oredirects

I've just realised that at least one of these links directly to pornographic sites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Rhymes .

Ash, i.e. ASHLEY VAN HAEFTEN, who is chair of the Wikimedia UK Board, put those links there http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =351258230 .

Letter to MP I think (I already had an encouraging reply from Claire Perry re her campaign and Wikipedia). Great stuff.

It makes one wonder that if you took out:
* gay porn edits
* pointless greetings and warning
* AN/I and related drama boards

What would be left that Ashely van HaeftEn actually does on wiki[mp]edia?
What would qualify him to be GM of WMUK with that kind of track record?

Really, really astonishing.

To the wiki[mp]edia readers:
Is this REALLY the best you've got?

That's easy -- plagiarizing coastline maps.

And writing an article glorifying his boyfriend. Plus the project Simon works on.

Surprised he hasn't removed this though http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=71177335

I was more struggling with:

Where did he say that?

Edit: Corcoran actually said “These fragments are the first direct evidence of the original version of the Gregorian Code,” said Dr Corcoran. Which does make sense.

Ah right. That is a misquote and a clear misunderstanding of Corcoran's statement. I'm sure he meant well.

Edit: Corcoran actually said “These fragments are the first direct evidence of the original version of the Gregorian Code,” said Dr Corcoran. Which does make sense. Fae says "the first original evidence yet discovered of the Gregorian Codex" which doesn't make sense, as you say.

Which makes Ash aka Fae aka Ashley van HaeftEn either a bad editor who cannot properly use and interpret sources or it maekes him a charlatan who is deliberately inflaeting someone's article, with which he has a COI, on wikipedia.

Either way, he's PERFECT GM material.
Good job, WMUK!

61 edits to that article.
By far the largest number by any editor.
Completely involved.

How did this NOT come up at his RFA?
How is he allowed to keep the bit after hiding this?

Come on wikipedia, at least pretend to try to keep your house in order with your own rules...

Just, wow.

Oh, ^^^^ this ^^^^

It bothers me that there are a whole raft of POV-pushers on WP that are, well, pushing an agenda which states that being gay and male (it's mostly males) means you must also be into BDSM, or into gay porn in a big way, or into using crisco for interesting purposes, or dressing up as bearded nuns in pink spandex on the weekends, etc, etc. It just adds fuel to the stereotype that "gay = promiscuous = freakish" and, goodness knows, there are enough people out there that are pushing that particular meme already. They don't need their biases confirmed by Wikipedia.

The vast majority of gay men that I know (and being LGBT myself and living in Silicon valley, I know plenty) are largely boring people who are in long-term relationships, some are married (pre Prop 8 ), pay taxes, mow their lawns and generally get on with life just like anyone else. Many of my gay friends would bristle if they were associated with the whole bathhouse sub-culture, gay-porn-fan thang. Those are just a subset of the greater gay population, is all. They do exist, of course. But what I see on WP is that the loudest voices - "Hey look at me, I'm hella GAY!!!" - tend to be in that subset. I don't know why ....

That is correct. Wikipedia is set up for, and openly encourages, attention-seeking and abusive behaviour.

And despite the appearance of things becoming more "stable" there, I would submit that it is becoming
worse. The LGBT area is only a microcosm, and getting rid of Shankbone and Benjiboi didn't actually
fix the deep systemic problems. Things continue--more quietly than before.

Umm, on this one I think you're just looking for stuff to pick on. This is overall a decent (though thin) article, on a notable person and given Wikipedia's usual standards the wording error here is fairly minor.

And with that, I give you the hamlet of Fire Island Pines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Islan ... ines_Scene . Note the credit on the second photo and the dedication.

(Back to lurking/ruminating on this whole mess).

Benjiboi = "photography connoisseur"

Precisely.

To each their own. I disagree, obviously.
He wrote a ton of promotional stuff in that article that cannot be gotten from the sources.
He did it to an article about his boyfriend.
Smells funny.

Not really. First there really can't be a "ton" of promotional material as the whole thing is 921 characters + quote (which, true, does not belong in the lead) + bibliography. I'm not seeing anything that is unsourced that should be, that error about "direct" vs "original" aside. If you accept that Corcoran is in fact notable this is a pretty standard, in fact bland, BLP. Wish they were all like this.

There's plenty of stuff to criticize Fae about but this particular one is definitely stretching it.

I just found the "yet" in that sentence so grating as it was nonsensical and that whole sentence was just reeking of puffery. The original seems just about right - and of course it is something to be proud of, no problem with that-, after all PhD research is about doing original things, so it would be rather unsurprising to come across someone so qualified who hadn't got a claim to something original. It just jumped out as an example.

Perhaps, but I still don't like it. Favoritism of this type is bias, even if Corcoran is notable.
There are thousands of academic people just as notable as Corcoran, or more so, and they
aren't in Wikipedia. Remember that article about William Connolley?



Remember, I tried to write an article about Dave Lovelace's cartoon series (which is bloody well
notable, it's been on cable TV many times), with references, and I was pilloried for it.

His cartoon series now has a Wikia wiki and an ED article.....but if you posted a Wikipedia article about it, you'd probably be banned.
Go ahead, try it.