James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophile

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophile

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:14 pm

Documented here in depth.

Daniel Giles Shimmin is a childhood friend of James Forrester that Forrester knew through computer gaming.
Forrestor actively protected Shimmin's Demiurge1000 (T-C-L)'s account.
Shimmin was eventually SanFranBanned for child engangerment and grooming issues which we also documented here on WO.

Why is Forrester still employed by the WMF?

He breached his duty as an employee of the foundation by knowingly protecting a pedophile in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Why doesn't the WMF give a shit about the harm to the children that Forrester enabled through his affirmative defense of this pedophile Shimmin?

What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Kumioko » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:27 pm

Frankly Forrester is a dipshit and he always has been. He never should have been hired in the first place (along with several others including James Alexander).

I can't explain why he's still employed now though other than what I have said before. For all their words and statements the WMF really doesn't give 2 shits about the community. But really, this shouldn't shock anyone here.

User avatar
Moral Hazard
Super Genius
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Nom de plume: Kiefer Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Moral Hazard » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:34 pm

Unless something has changed, this posting should be in the "Wikipedians too embarrassing for public viewing" section, methinks.

Maybe Vigilant can remove his initial comment?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson (T-H-L) Cryptonomicon

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:53 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:Unless something has changed, this posting should be in the "Wikipedians too embarrassing for public viewing" section, methinks.

Maybe Vigilant can remove his initial comment?
I disagree.

He's a paid, senior employee of the WMF and this needs a light shined on it.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:02 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:Unless something has changed, this posting should be in the "Wikipedians too embarrassing for public viewing" section, methinks.
Probably.

The way we left this in the other thread (which is in that forum and therefore requires registration to view) is that maybe this could be made into a blog post, if someone can state the whole business in a way that makes sense to the general public. But so far I don't think we've come across anything substantive to back up the assertion that Forrester really did actively protect Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) (or if we have, I haven't seen it), and without that, all we really have is guilt by association.

Maybe what we could do is redact Demiurge's real name from this thread, but then leave it out there to see if that motivates someone to remember a relevant incident of some kind...? Preferably something that could be archived, cited and linked to?
Last edited by Midsize Jake on Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Original version referred to the wrong James (sorry - see below)

Katie
Gregarious
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:47 pm

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Katie » Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:34 pm

ArbCom allows a pedophile I've read about, and which I've alerted them to for that matter, to continue editing. Same with the WMF, I had also alerted them to two or three pedophiles on Wikipedia (one I had already reported to ArbCom, and the second one I hadn't - I think I also reported a third one to them). The Wikipedia community is utterly terrible when it comes to child protection in general. I cannot wait for the day something like the BBC reports on this, because that would appear to be the only way to change things.

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3034
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Anroth » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:01 pm

Only just caught up with this - Demiurge's identity wasnt a secret. He was globally banned a couple of months after a number of editors (who shall remain nameless *cough*) starting making complaints to the WMF and his local police station in tandem.

Generally if you want the WMF to take issue over a safeguarding action, copy them in on email reports to the police and see what happens ;)

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:19 pm

Anroth wrote:Only just caught up with this - Demiurge's identity wasnt a secret. He was globally banned a couple of months after a number of editors (who shall remain nameless *cough*) starting making complaints to the WMF and his local police station in tandem.

Generally if you want the WMF to take issue over a safeguarding action, copy them in on email reports to the police and see what happens ;)
Spill.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3034
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Anroth » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:22 am

Vigilant wrote:
Anroth wrote:Only just caught up with this - Demiurge's identity wasnt a secret. He was globally banned a couple of months after a number of editors (who shall remain nameless *cough*) starting making complaints to the WMF and his local police station in tandem.

Generally if you want the WMF to take issue over a safeguarding action, copy them in on email reports to the police and see what happens ;)
Spill.
Exactly as I said tbh, no real drama. Once it was clear Arbcom were actively protecting Demiurge1000 and after numerous reports to the WMF about the clear and obvious grooming going on (you are probably familiar with most problematic from here but Kiefer could probably provide more examples and the details of the early complaints), it was fairly obvious that from a purely safeguarding point of view something had to be done off-wiki. I know at least two editors (beside myself, and incidentally neither was Kiefer, but I wouldnt be surprised if he did something either) who saw the intentional and deliberate attempts to communicate with a minor despite that minor's parent's wishes as well in scope of needing official action.

In my case mostly because I am involved in running/admin a number of game-related communities that have young children participating so I am used to having to deal with all sorts of problem people. Usually in the form of a swift and unhesitant ban stick, but if we know the identity of the person we a)warn the parents, b)warn the person in no uncertain terms what will happen if they continue, and c)(if it continues) notify the police.

Fortunately the UK police etc have become much more pro-active in the last ten years on grooming. Especially online. While at the time I dont recall any specific laws (we now have stuff like this the police were certainly happy to receive reports....

I have no idea if it was just the volume of complaints to the WMF that finally got through, or it was the fact that people were getting concerned enough to go to the police and the WMF wanted to avoid being accused of a coverup (ha, turns out at least one of their employees was) or they did actually get a query from the police that tipped it. It could have been just co-incidence he was banned when he was.

I do know when I asked an ex-arb member who I trust what they had heard, it was precisely zero. So I suspect it was getting squelched both by arbcom and the WMF at the time, and only when it threatened to get more public was action taken. The WMF as we know is a highly reactionary body.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:37 am

Excellent.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3034
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Anroth » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:45 am

I should make it clear I had no idea of the Forrester connection, and I dont think anyone else did at the time. But it probably does explain why the WMF was being remarkably slow-moving. But then again, its always been slow-moving when it *should* do something until its forced to. I know I just assumed it was their usual heel-dragging, so I wouldnt be surprised if everyone else did too.

User avatar
rhindle
Habitué
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
Location: 'Murica

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by rhindle » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:55 pm

As I said in the non-public thread, this could be quite a blog post. As Jake said, however, there needs to be some more confirmation about this connection(in addition to written in laymen terms). Maybe some brave WMF staffer(current or former) could even anonymously confirm this for the post.

User avatar
Smiley
(Not a cat)
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 5:59 am

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Smiley » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:57 pm

Good work, Anroth.

There's a certain media outlet what might be interested...
Daily Mail wrote:HAVE YOU BEEN WRONGED BY WIKIPEDIA?
If so, please tell us your story by sending an email to wikistories@dailymail.co.uk
Probably best coming from someone else, but wouldn't hurt to drop 'em an email or two.

If that address defunct, try: letters@dailymail.co.uk

User avatar
Moral Hazard
Super Genius
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Nom de plume: Kiefer Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Moral Hazard » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:55 pm

As I have mentioned before, one of our UK members declared having an obligation under UK law to notify appropriate authorities and then did alert at least one authority.

I never received any further information, to my knowledge.
Last edited by Moral Hazard on Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson (T-H-L) Cryptonomicon

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:06 pm

I sounds like the easiest way to get an answer is for James Forrester to answer a couple of simple questions:

1) How do you know Daniel Shimmin?
2) Were you aware that Daniel Shimmin was Demiurge1000?
3) At what time were you aware of Daniel Shimmin being Demiurge1000?
4) Were you aware that Demiurge1000 was grooming children on en.wp?
5) At what time were you aware that Demiurge1000 was grooming children on en.wp?
6) Did you ever intervene on Daniel Shimmin's behalf?
7) When, why and under what circumstances did you intervene on Daniel Shimmin's behalf?
8) Did you intervene on Daniel Shimmin's behalf under the color of authority of your position at the WMF?

WMF's legal counsel should have already asked James Forrester these and other questions...

Edit update:
9) Who else at the WMF was aware of the Daniel Shimmin/Demiurge1000 connection and who else intervened on his behalf.

I suspect strongly that there are others at the WMF who share some liability with Forrester...
Last edited by Vigilant on Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
C&B
Habitué
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm
Location: with cheese.

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by C&B » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:09 pm

Although 3 through 8 all rather depend on the answer to 2, do they not :) I don't know the case history enough as to whether it's something the dogs in the street all know.
"Someone requests clarification and before you know it you find yourself in the Star Chamber."

User avatar
Moral Hazard
Super Genius
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Nom de plume: Kiefer Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Moral Hazard » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:13 pm

Midsize Jake wrote: so far I don't think we've come across anything substantive to back up the assertion that Alexander really did actively protect Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) (or if we have, I haven't seen it), and without that, all we really have is guilt by association.
I had also confused James Alexander and James Forrester.

James Alexander had a forum thread, upon his leaving the WMF for Twitter:
viewtopic.php?p=231677#p231677
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson (T-H-L) Cryptonomicon

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:19 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote: so far I don't think we've come across anything substantive to back up the assertion that Alexander really did actively protect Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) (or if we have, I haven't seen it), and without that, all we really have is guilt by association.
I had also confused James Alexander and James Forrester.

James Alexander had a forum thread, upon his leaving the WMF for Twitter:
viewtopic.php?p=231677#p231677
Yeah. I've had to watch my typing around this topic because I've made the same mistake around the names and then had to go back and correct it.

Here's the triptych for identifying shitty WMF employees named James:

1) James Forrester, soft mouthed pedophile enabler.
2) James Alexander, dipshit who refused to get rid of an alleged rapist from Trust and Safety

When you've got so many malign, incompetent dipshits in the WMF, it's easy to get them confused.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
C&B
Habitué
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm
Location: with cheese.

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by C&B » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:33 pm

The pair of em makes me think "brother from another mother" shit :D

Same smarming, supercilious smirk, a well-fed look of self-entitlement.
"Someone requests clarification and before you know it you find yourself in the Star Chamber."

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:35 pm

C&B wrote:The pair of em makes me think "brother from another mother" shit :D

Same smarming, supercilious smirk, a well-fed look of self-entitlement.
Same litter.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3034
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Anroth » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:56 pm

Meow

If anyone is interested, the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire has a piece on what happens when people groom online. Which illustrates why you have to be eternally... vigilant ;)

Granted its overly sensational (as is the usual case for VicDerby stuff) and it paints Roblox in a much worse light than it is. Its actually a great game for children and the things listed are a rare occurance.

User avatar
C&B
Habitué
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm
Location: with cheese.

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by C&B » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:00 pm

Vigilant wrote:
C&B wrote:The pair of em makes me think "brother from another mother" shit :D

Same smarming, supercilious smirk, a well-fed look of self-entitlement.
Same litter.
Remind me not to play "spot the difference" with you again, Vigilant ;) ha!
"Someone requests clarification and before you know it you find yourself in the Star Chamber."

User avatar
Smiley
(Not a cat)
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 5:59 am

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Smiley » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:13 pm

Forrester shouldn't mind a few questions. We know how deeply committed he is to "transparency", "engagement", and "reform".

At least, he was in 2010:
James D. Forrester
Transparency & Digital Engagement | Efficiency and Reform Group | Cabinet Office
020 7276 5589 | 3rd Floor, 22 Whitehall, London SW1A 2WH

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:28 pm

Anroth wrote:Meow

If anyone is interested, the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire has a piece on what happens when people groom online. Which illustrates why you have to be eternally... vigilant ;)

Granted its overly sensational (as is the usual case for VicDerby stuff) and it paints Roblox in a much worse light than it is. Its actually a great game for children and the things listed are a rare occurance.
That was a very hard read.
'Life-destroying'

But according to both Sarah and Iain, more needs to be done to protect children.

Sarah says her son is still "in a very bad way".

"He's broken, and so are we. It's life-destroying," she says.

"I'll never be able to take those pictures and words out of my mind."
This is the shit you're enabling, James Forrester, by protecting sexual predators like Daniel Shimmin.
You've got a lot to answer for, you fat little shit.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Giraffe Stapler
Habitué
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 5:13 pm

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Giraffe Stapler » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:45 pm

I don't understand the confusion. Obviously different people.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophil

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:42 pm

C&B wrote:Same smarming, supercilious smirk, a well-fed look of self-entitlement.
That probably helps or helped them to fit in with the WMF culture.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
spartaz
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 3:38 pm
Wikipedia User: Spartaz
Wikipedia Review Member: Spartaz

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophile

Unread post by spartaz » Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:41 pm

I notice James is no longer a product owner but is now a software engineer on the latest staff list. Is that a downgrade do you think and what was the reason for the change? His user page says it happened in 2018 - which shows how much attention I pay to anything.
Evil by definition
Badly spelled by crappy tablet
Humbugg!

User avatar
Osborne
Habitué
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophile

Unread post by Osborne » Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:44 am

After such successful endeavours as the Visual Editor, he's still the "I'm the expert" team leader.
Ever wondered why the WMF creates failed project after failed project? You're looking at the right person.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: James Forrester of the WMF actively protected a pedophile

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:26 pm

spartaz wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:41 pm
I notice James is no longer a product owner but is now a software engineer on the latest staff list. Is that a downgrade do you think and what was the reason for the change? His user page says it happened in 2018 - which shows how much attention I pay to anything.
Other than being invited to develop his career elsewhere, I can't think of a downgrade that would make much difference. Some stuff from the WMF works well enough, but I doubt that he can claim much of the credit for it.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

Post Reply