Open main menu

Contents

WarningEdit

Hello Bali ultimate, This is a warning for your edits with an admin request. Please do not ever add personal information again as you did this time, or you will be blocked on this project indefenitely.Romaine (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This account is solely used to attack a person and releasing personal information not relevant for this project. Romaine (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
A number of points, Romaine. Firstly, you've blocked this account indefinitely and removed email and talk page access. This gives the editor here little to no recourse/right of reply to your question. This editor is an editor in good standing on the English Wikipedia and has been contributing there for over three years. It's a little harsh. Also, the 'personal information' he/she was posting is freely and publicly available, courtesy of the subject. Please reconsider your actions here - Alison 03:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I am going to restore email and talk page access to allow for an unblock request if Bali ultimate wishes. If one is posted, I would strongly consider granting it, per Alison's comment. NW (Talk) 03:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Even the block is totally outrageous. Stop defending people who hide behind claims of 'harassment' to cover up their actions on the wiki. This kind of thing really needs to stop. Peter Damian (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Look the cover up is continuing here. Peter Damian (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please unblock meEdit

... or explain the rationale for the block. My name is Dan Murphy, a professional journalist for a newspaper called the Christian Science Monitor. My involvement with wikimedia projects has always been as a volunteer (and lately largely focused on meta issues of governance and editorial standards, though i haven't done much good). Though my professional work focuses mostly on international relations and the middle east, I intend to write a lengthy piece on wikimedia governance in the next few weeks. My block here is as clear an example of the strange culture that persists on wikimedia projects as one could hope for (and an indictment of the quality of wikimedia's admins). There is no question that User:Teahot = User:Ash = User:Fae and that all three accounts are attached to the same person, Wikimedia UK Board Member Ashley Van Haeften. There is no question that Mr. Van Haeften was caught faking sources in encyclopedia articles. There is no question he then "vanished" claiming homophobia, harassment, and threats to his personal safety. There is no question that he didn't vanish at all, simply changed identities to avoid scrutiny and with behind the scenes help from wikipedia friends, obtain both en.wiki adminship and the board membership. There is no question that when he obtained the board seat and freely disclosed his name and the account it's linked to that he had bondage pictures he had uploaded to commons of his own free will deleted out of process -- no public discussion. I of course welcome giving people the freedom to change their minds about potentially embarrassing pictures of no educational value. But this is a courtesy Mr. Van Haeften seems unwilling to extend to others -- nor does he seem moved by arguments that pictures of penises, flaccid or engorged, should be handled with special care, especially when licensing and anonymity can be so tricky. As a simple user of the internet, i am a stakeholder in wikimedia's many projects, since they exist at the top of the search engine ecosystem (and crowd out alternatives). I've also thought about wikimedia writ large, and engaged with it, far more than the average bear. I think the points i've made are absolutely pertinent to Mr. Van Haeften's qualifications (low) to govern commons, particularly with its recurring issues of potentially unlicensed pornographic pictures, abuse of children, and the like. Instead I've been blocked and my comments expunged for stating some obvious truths.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bali, welcome to the world of Wikipedia governance. It usually takes a while for new editors to meet it. We've all heard that "Wikipedia isn't censored"; in fact, objectionable images are celebrated and protected under the banner of anti-censorship. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is censored, in the most venal way. Find an image of a man sucking his own wiener and you'll find a hundred frothing at the mouth anti-censorship fundamentalists thumping their chest in self-righteousness about its educational value, but ask an inconvenient question of the wrong person and not only will you be censored, but banned till eternity. Best regards, hope your article goes well. --PumknPi (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi can you please contact me at edward AT logicmuseum.com. I am polishing off my submission to the UK charity commission and there is material that may interest you. At the same time, I would be interested in what you are writing for the Christian Science Monitor. Good luck and hope the block is temporary. Peter Damian (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Almost certainly won't be writing it for my paper (want to do a more expansive magazine style takeout than we typically do). I'll email soon, perhaps later today.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any good justification for you being blocked, but I don't see justification for your above assertions about Van Haeften either. To say that he was "caught faking sources", if it's based on this huge and apparently unproductive discussion, seems unreasonable. When someone with over 20,000 edits makes a few where he doesn't line up the right fact from the right source, I think it's an excusable error. I mean, we're talking about allegations like he said a bathhouse had three floors but the source he cited didn't mention it. It's not like he was making stuff up. If people deliberately misrepresent sources, as was alleged in the Noleander ArbCom case at Wikipedia, that's one thing, but simply leaving out the source for a trivial fact is something minor indeed. Remember that Wikipedia allows people to include entirely unsourced details as long as they are "not likely to be challenged".
I think you need to bear in mind the sharpening conflict between inclusionists and deletionists on Wikipedia, and trust me, while it may seem silly to say that a picture of autofellatio is educational, it's a whole lot worse to deal with deletionists who will take you to the administrator's noticeboard and even Jimbo Wales' page because you had the nerve to quote two sentences without misrepresenting what they said. And after all, the autofellatio image is sort of educational; before stumbling across it I'd never really known whether it was just a joke. If we allow a vocal group of deletionists to keep drumming people off the island, the time is going to come when anyone who has ever tried to do a good thing for Wikipedia will be left branded with nine kinds of nonsense about them all over the internet. Please, if you're going to write an article, don't make it one-sided. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So you are a journalist?Edit

Who could have thought after reading how you're swearing like a sailor.I am not sure that what you wrote about Hawkeye has any merits or it does not, but surely it could have been said about your conduct towards me. BTW how do you feel being blocked unfairly or was it a fair block?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A journalist swearing is actually rather in character. As for "fairness" -- I don't really care. Wikimedia is free to try to avoid scrutiny, I am free to scrutinize, very little will change. I think my story will be a better read for my "block" so in that sense i'm grateful. I'm simply tired of transparent, childish tactics used to game content on wikimedia projects, and in this case I've come up against someone who was granted a rather stunningly large degree of authority despite clear issues having to do with judgement, research ability, and honest evaluation of sourcing. Here in commons he's basically said what's good for the gander is not good for the geese.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you please tell me what do you mean under "honest evaluation of sourcing"? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure. What i mean is that he claimed material was in a book that was not, in fact, in the book. He also couldn't tell the difference between say, an academic work, and a free weekly that consisted entirely of porn movie reviews and ads for male escorts, which raises questions about his academic judgement.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. I wonder what do you think about gwen gale writing two articles about herself, making false statements in her RfAs, deleting her own talk history, responding to canvassing and posting block while heavily involved?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Another question. Your comment on commons that made you blocked were deleted. Have you disclosed anything but the user's prior user names?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Question one (Gale) - Don't give a damn and don't know anyways (and will spend not one iota of energy looking into it). Question two: I disclosed nothing but two of Ashley Van Haeften's past user names (there are of course more, but it hasn't been necessary to bring them up yet).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I asked about gwen because she is not any better than fae in many ways. If you have nothing personal towards fae, as I believe you do not, you should be interested in gwen's story too. Her wikipedia story would have made a good addition to the story you're going to write about fae.
If you disclosed nothing, but two user names, you should probably get unblocked, because somebody did it again in his request, and this user is not blocked.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Getting anyone to take action against editors who habitually misrepresent, misattribute and/or plagiarize is nearly impossible on en.wp. It's one of those things that's supposedly against the rules, but there is no tradition of enforcing it, probably because most adminstrators aren't writers or academics, and don't themselves understand the prevailing ethics or why breaches thereof are so damaging to the enterprise. Even en.wp's ArbCom has had a recurring problem with plagiarists in its ranks. Had Ash simply ignored the RfC, he probably wouldn't have passed RfA, but he probably wouldn't have been banned, either67.168.135.107 02:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Block shortened to two weeksEdit

I have reviewed the situation, and I have shortened the block to two weeks based upon the rationale below, which I suggest that you read very carefully, and acknowledge that you fully understand and will comply with in future, for failure to do so will likely result in you being reblocked.

Wikimedia Commons is a special project which although connected with Wikipedia thru the WMF, has it's own special COM:SCOPE (read this and understand it in its entireity). Whilst here on Commons, it is advisable to take heed of COM:MELLOW; whilst it is only an essay, it is a good indication of behavioural standards that many admins, myself included, expect of editors. Particularly important in that essay is the leaving of disputes from other projects on those projects -- do not import disputes with other users to Commons, because this does not nothing to help promote a collegial environment amongst editors here.

I have reviewed the diffs which have been deleted by User:Romaine, and I can see nothing in them which is outing Fae, because the information is readily available elsewhere on Commons. To block you indefinitely would also mean blocking other editors indefinitely for posting the same information, and that is obviously not warranted, nor covered by our blocking policy. This does not mean that Romaine has acted inappropriately or has not used judgement in good faith, because they have and I don't doubt them.

What is covered by our blocking policy, however, is harrassment. You have zero previous edits on this project, and your first edits here were to Fae's RfA. Because you don't have previous history here it is fair to assume that you are either following Fae's edits on this project, or you have arrived here at this project as a result of off-Commons discussion. Either way, thus far I see that your presence on Commons has been purely to import disputes from other wikis, and to create a somewhat hostile environment for a long-standing editor, in this instance Fae. Given that your comments above do not address these issues in particular, I am not willing to unblock you completely, but am blocking you for a period of two weeks as a preventative measure against further such behaviour.

If you have serious concerns relating to other editors on Commons, you may, after your block expires, raise those issues at COM:VP, whereby they can be discussed and looked at by the community-at-large. Contrary to your comments and insinuations, no editor is protected on this project, and no editor is above Community consensus. However, as you have not recognised that your behaviour thus far on this project is also problematic, I would sincerely suggest that you steer well clear of Fae entirely, otherwise I can foresee that you may well be reblocked in the future. russavia (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, this is pathetic. Bali ultimate is an honest man. Fæ and his irc meatpuppets are a bunch of liars.67.168.135.107 09:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have seen these claims about IRC more than once, not just from this same anon IP account. If you know of some meatpuppets I suggest you name them so that they can speak for themselves. Repeating unsourced allegations does not make them true, or indeed the various other claims and distortions about me that have been reposted in several on and off-wiki sites. -- (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So if I understand Russavia -- it was inappropriate (in you, a wikimedia admins words) to comment on Mr. Van Haeften's request for enhanced powers here because I am not part of your little "community?" My vote (which discussed his past Wikimedia record and argued that it should be disqualifying) was stricken/vanished, and I'm admonished to comment no further because that is "harassment?" I am not here to harass. My motivation is alarm at that lack of transparency on this highly trafficked website, and a conviction that people like Mr. Van Haeften are harmful to the mission of creating quality encyclopedia content. Mr. Van Haeften is about to be given a lot of power over what pictures are retained on commons, quite literally power over what millions of people will see thanks to they way the search indexes work. I comment as a member of that broader community, and have been repeatedly told by the small group of insiders here to "shut up." Do you really not understand how this comes off to outsiders?Bali ultimate (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, by your own reasoning above my earlier comments should be restored.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sarkasm like because I am not part of your little "community?" made me immediately stop reading. Mr. Kuiper requested an unblock on COM:AN/B. I am not inclined to follow this request. I have nothing against raising concerns about a user here but the way it was done was the wrong one IMHO. If you have further problems with users or see a danger, please report it at COM:AN/U using a neutral, fact-based language. Thank you. Regards -- RE rillke questions? 13:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You have strange reasons for not reading further. And whatever you think about the somewhat confrontational tone of Bali ultimate, the block is clearly a disastrous public-relations strategy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that i'm impervious to social engineering attempts? I came here as a member of the human community (the big wide world) not as a member of the insular set of overlapping cliques in this tiny community. You are now reinforcing the impression that special, different norms of discourse and behavior are demanded here and that "deviation" is a high crime. I'm apparently now a blocked person whose public comments have been suppressed (i'm savoring that word at the moment) because of what you take to be sarcasm (my comment about the "little community" was in fact in deadly earnest). I suppose it's preferable to be accused of sarcasm (lowest form of wit it may be) than "harassment" so, thanks. Onward!Bali ultimate (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This block, of any length, is totally out of process. The blocking rationale is that Bali outed Fae? C'mon, we all know who he is, so what is this block supposed to be preventing? Other than more skeletons popping up from Fae's cupboard of course. Two weeks? That makes it well past the RfA end date, how convenient. This is out and out a punitive block, and all the admins who have done this should be ashamed of themselves. Had this been on en.wp I'd be asking for desysopping or at the very least an RfC, but as it's commons and we're desperately short of admins I'd suggest that their shame is enough.

So will some admin with balls (metaphorical ones of course) overturn this against the rules block. Bali should be free to add his 2c-worth to the discussion. After all Fae himself tried outting an IP editor, yet I don't see his block. You can't have one rule for one and another rule for another. Unblock Bali now, or block Fae for the same length of time for the same offence. You can't have it both ways. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not out 67.168.135.107 and I withdrew my question about the user's possible ban status on Wikimedia Commons. The IP was recently blocked on Wikipedia for 1 year due to being used by a banned user. The IP contribution history appears to be single purpose hounding. This is a poor comparison, any Wikimedia Commons administrator would find the behaviour of this IP address of serious concern. -- (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
No you didn't, but you attempted to by repeatedly asking who he/she was. And this IP was only blocked two days ago for harassment, not because of being a "banned" user. And who was the IP harassing? Well strangely enough User:Ash. That strikes me as a bit of a coincidence. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The block log includes "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (checkuserblock: banned user)" which I assume that the blocking admin had good reason for mentioning. -- (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies you are quite correct. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an admin would be so quick block Bali ultimate for 2 weeks for "bringing problems from other wikis/communities" (paraphrasing Russavia's comments above) to an RFA on Commons. Which has happened before with people from nlwiki and/or dawiki, iirc. What an odd block. Killiondude (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it should be overturned? NW (Talk) 23:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It's as if an executive defecated on the rug in the middle of the office New Year's party, and his employees are stuck asking one another if someone should clean it up.67.168.135.107 00:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Well you get the tissues and I'll go bonk the secretary, she's well rat-arsed. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
PS: Will some Admin with cojones just unblock Bali now please. The RfA is dead, now this block is just being punitive. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Bali ultimate".