Wikipedia has purged Yaniv's article. -

[gobbogobb]

Pssst. That was a joke.

 

[Positron]

An IT manager with a mathematics degree in 1986 from Imperial College London[1], van Haeften stepped down as Chair of Wikimedia UK after falling out with Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales after an “unnecessarily hostile” discussion between them about the inclusion of explicit material on Wikipedia.

Fifty bucks on that "explicit material" being child porn.

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

wikipedia was created and funded with jimmy whales porn sites money, weird they turned into troon sjw patrols

To be fair pretty much everywhere that isn't here or like 4chan has turned into that.

 

[fuzakeru na]

please donate to wikipedia to help fund Jimmys whores

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Telegraph article on Ashley van Haeften vs Wales

Chairman of Wikipedia charity banned after pornography row

The chairman of the charity that promotes Wikipedia in Britain has been banned from editing the online encyclopaedia, following a series of clashes over the inclusion of pornography.

www.telegraph.co.uk

http://archive.md/Iomj

ED's article on 'bureaucratic fucks' has a section on him, including some of the horrid porn he uploaded

Former Bureaucratic Fucks - Encyclopedia Dramatica

encyclopediadramatica.rs

Larry Sanger's blog entry on him

The Saga of Wikimedia UK and its Chair – Larry Sanger Blog

larrysanger.org

 

[Kaede Did Nothing Wrong]

Telegraph article on Ashley van Haeften vs Wales

Chairman of Wikipedia charity banned after pornography row

The chairman of the charity that promotes Wikipedia in Britain has been banned from editing the online encyclopaedia, following a series of clashes over the inclusion of pornography.

www.telegraph.co.uk

http://archive.md/Iomj

ED's article on 'bureaucratic fucks' has a section on him, including some of the horrid porn he uploaded

Former Bureaucratic Fucks - Encyclopedia Dramatica

encyclopediadramatica.rs

Larry Sanger's blog entry on him

The Saga of Wikimedia UK and its Chair – Larry Sanger Blog

larrysanger.org

lol holy shit you weren't kidding, that example is fucking horrid.

I found an archive of his infamous self-portraits all these articles are referencing. very encyclopedic.

Spoiler: NSFW

edit-
here’s another guy who showed up to help push the Yaniv article deletion:

user Drmies is apparently one of wikipedia's more notorious admins, since you find articles talking shit about him just by googling his name. he's on the arbitration committee (arbcom) which is supposedly one of the most powerful positions you can hold.
some wiki forum talking mad shit

Everything you need to know about Drmies can be summed up in the revelation that he actually achieved academic tenure in part by pointing the university board to his Wikipedia activities, as if somehow they constitute academic research. He knows they don't, not by a long chalk, but of course he wasn't about to tell them.

Like all Wikipedians, he operates on the principle that knowledge is power, specifically knowledge of how Wikipedia really works, how practice and convention differ from policy and common sense, can be used for personal advantage. As can social bonds and patronage. Basically all those things from feudal times that civilised society dropped as bad ideas, for their inherent capacity to corrupt.

here's a long article. tl;dr, essentially banning a guy for disagreeing with another admin.

One piercing example of Wikipediocracy's (WO's) ineffectiveness as a critic site of Wikipedia (WP) is the damning and disturbing case of Drmies' handling of Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (MMAR) and Brad Dryer. In short, it has looked the other way, perhaps even aided, the rise of a corrupt and belligerent administrator to the highest level on WP. This despite knowing Drmies (hereafter "he," though he has varied his online gender identification) was a proven liar and all-round scum bag. This article is long, but well worth a read if you're a deeply embedded critic. He's an admin and arbitrator on WP. A bad one. Many many people have their own horror stories, and consequently, he hates critic sites, as they're the only places where people can discuss his actions without being blocked by him or one of his allies. He's well known for being a bit of an ass, he has a poor sense of humour and very little dispute resolution skills. He's the sledgehammer who cracks nuts, the vinegar spoiling the honey, etc, etc. Basically, on WP, if he's your mate, you're doing OK, but if he's your enemy, you're screwed. He is a great example of Wikipedia's poorest admins - whether you are wrong or right in policy or fact has very little effect on how long you will last if you go to the mat with him.

This story begins with the tale of WP user Mighty Morphin Army Ranger - who was drawn to purported WP criticism website WO after he was abused and taunted by Drmies on WP. His main complaint was that Drmies lied about the nature of his edits, falsely claiming he had inserted unverified information and indeed had misrepresented sources (in WP, such logical contradictions in accusations are normal). This falsehood was basically excused by AN/I because of the insider/outsider phenomena - MMAR was not an established editor, while Drmies was a trusted admin. Even though he's well aware of it, Drmies has never even acknowledged the falsehood, let alone apologised for it. Through the various machinations which will be familiar to Drmies' enemies, MMAR's career on WP was brought to a shuddering end by admins known to be close allies of Drmies, his talk page blocked and only allowed to appeal through UTRS, which is WP-speak for being shipped to the USA's Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

MMAR stuck around on WO, and having remembered the awful way Drmies had treated him, posted a forensic analysis there about a subsequent Drmies-related case of character assassination - the alleged racist hounding of admin Malik Shabbaz off of Wikipedia by user Brad Dryer (since renamed Bad Dryer). This incident evidently terribly upset Drmies, and led him to make all sorts of claims about how Brad was a racist and Malik was entirely innocent. This narrative was all a load of crap, all debunked in a thread in WO's private forum (evidently WO believes it's too embarrassing for Drmies to have his lies discussed out in the open internet), but it has of course been accepted on Wikipedia as fact. Wikipediocrats weren't even all that interested - it wasn't the sort of easy sound-bite they like, it required lots of reading to figure out just how false the whole thing was. They didn't even bat an eyelid when Malik himself popped up in the thread to accuse MMAR of talking rubbish without actually pointing out a single thing he had said which was untrue.

The plain truth of the incident was this. Having worked tirelessly in the Israel-Palestine area, Malik was a stressed out admin, who had either been acting poorly for a while, or was gradually melting down. Over a trivial edit dispute, Malik launched an unprovoked and arrogant attack on Brad, oozing superiority and self-entitlement, in a way that admins seem to get away with a lot (especially Drmies). Brad jabbed back, using a phrase, "sonny boy," which has two meanings, one innocent, and one racist. Despite having no evidence Brad intended the racist usage, Drmies constantly and loudly pronounced Brad to be a racist. Before anyone could blink, Malik became outraged and committed suicide by admin (resigned), and Brad was reflexively blocked by another notorious cowboy admin, because blood must have blood (Brad had at no point been allowed to even give his side of events). The fact that the context and other factors made it obvious it was most likely the innocent usage, Brad was eventually unblocked, once other typically Wikipedian bureaucratic stumbling blocks had been cleared.

These things all happened months ago, but at the time, with one one or two noted exceptions, they were largely ignored by WO's membership, either because it was all a bit too "inside baseball," but also because of how far down the line WO has gone as far as cosying up to WP and letting die-hard Wikipedians defend their own on their forum by taunting and trolling editors like MMAR.

Consequently, in the subsequent Arbcom elections, Drmies was unbelievably elevated to the high position of an arbitrator, essentially Wikipedia Supreme Court Judge. Not once did anyone from WO think to challenge him on his false statements against MMAR, which spoke to the very heart of his character, even though many of WO's members are WP users in good standing and would be perfectly allowed to ask him such questions. No, their interest in the elections was largely focused on fighting other battles, and weirdly, because a lot of disgruntled Wikipedians are WO members, this manifested on WO in actively drumming up support for Drmies (because he's seen as someone who could bring it back to the good old days of machismo, bullying and tribalism). Now, you could argue this is the evident triumph of a devious hasten-the-day strategy, but in reality, you'd be wrong - the hasten-the-day camp is all but non-existent on WO now.

And then Drmies blocked Brad for personal attacks and harassment over an unrelated dispute, having presumably see his name pop up in lights in an administrators noticeboard report. There's not been a word from Drmies about his obvious INVOLVEMENT withe respect to Brad, before or after the block (honestly, his prior statements alone are so strong, no reasonable person would sign off on the idea he was not compromised as far as acting as an admin on Brad in any future incident). He had "invited" people to discuss this block , but now that he is an arbitrator, even if he suspected anyone was about to take him to task over it, he must be confident in his standing now that he can pretty much connive his way out of the situation, knowing that the prior incidents happened months ago, and require a hell of a lot of reading to digest.

This will all most likely be quickly forgotten on Wikipedia as an open and shut case - even before the first block, Brad had been painted by some as a POV pusher and likely sock, and the same is being alleged now, so even if the block is INVOLVED and horribly abusive and shows an arbitrator to be a real nasty piece of work, it will likely stand, under the well established Wikipedia doctrine of "the ends justify the means."

The lack of notice taken by Wikipedians to these things is to be expected, but you would expect a so called critic site like WO to at least make sure people are aware of these things? Their role is to inform the outside world that these sorts of abuses are allowed to happen on WP even after Wikipedians have been informed of them. As of right now, there's been no mention of it on WO's public forum. It may have been mentioned in the secret forum, but you can see how much impact that had from the way Drmies was able to ignore it before. Just to remind you - this is an ARBITRATOR getting away with an involved block on someone he clearly hates, and has wanted to block for a while now. While the "inside baseball" characterisation could at least have been forgiven when Drmies was just an admin, now that he is an arbitrator, evidence of blatant abuse like this by one of Wikipedia's most trusted and powerful users, is just an open goal, begging to be put away.

This case will definitely be forgotten now - the same admin which declined Brad's unblock request, has also just closed the case on AN/I, so discussion of Drmies' pretty obvious motive for the block will now not be possible without much wailing about the picking up of dropped sticks. A final attempt at having the block reviewed was subsequently filed on AN, but this just led to more lies - a second admin denying Brad's unblock request claimed he had been "indeffed in the past for making racial comments at another editor. They were unblocked after apologies and promises." Someone who was there (which this admin was) would know that's a lie - Brad specifically denied it was meant as a racially-charged comment. All this was documented in the thread on WO, as well as all being public record in WP's history logs.

In an amusing post-script, Malik Shabazz has just recently made his way back onto Wikipedia, having previously made all sorts of loud noises about never setting foot in the place until justice was done. You can see from his talk page all the people who were ecstatic to see his return. Including, hilariously, the admin who has also just declinedBrad's unblock request.

 

[Blood Bath & Beyond]

It's actually pretty impressive that Yaniv's spergery is so intense as to draw out into open view new and exciting cows such as Fae and Drmies. I feel like after reading this thread and looking more into the Wikipedo drama that maybe they and/or Wikipedia as a whole may need its own official thread, not necessarily about dumb articles, but about the people writing and editing the articles. It looks like there is more popcorn in the talk section than the pages themselves.

 

[instythot]

Nblund, one of the more active wikipedos trying to block anything mean about poor lil Jonny, of course has to blame a movement from 5 years ago as the reason why people are being so gosh darn mean!

https://archive.md/kGYZZ

Oh god, Wikipedia is citing Gamergate as a reason for deletion? Is Ryulong going to get involved in the Yaniv trashfire? Can he, please?

 

[Amya Spedonym]

It's actually pretty impressive that Yaniv's spergery is so intense as to draw out into open view new and exciting cows such as Fae and Drmies. I feel like after reading this thread and looking more into the Wikipedo drama that maybe they and/or Wikipedia as a whole may need its own official thread, not necessarily about dumb articles, but about the people writing and editing the articles. It looks like there is more popcorn in the talk section than the pages themselves.

Rejoice, for your needs have been anticipated!

 

[Blood Bath & Beyond]

Rejoice, for your needs have been anticipated!

Too bad that thread looks pretty much dead, but maybe we can inject a little life into it yet.

 

[MuuMuu Bunnylips]

Considering Wikipedia defends troons ("Oh, ya have'ta call 'em 'she' even if they have dicks; you might hurt their fee-fees otherwise) the place has pretty much no value to me.

 

[Cloacan]

It's actually pretty impressive that Yaniv's spergery is so intense as to draw out into open view new and exciting cows such as Fae and Drmies. I feel like after reading this thread and looking more into the Wikipedo drama that maybe they and/or Wikipedia as a whole may need its own official thread, not necessarily about dumb articles, but about the people writing and editing the articles. It looks like there is more popcorn in the talk section than the pages themselves.

Talk pages are frequently quite juicy. Also check the archive sites for archives of talk pages for more hidden drama - those pages expand and contract over time. After you've seen so many thousands of them it can become depressing though, as Wikipedia is revealed to be a shady partisan outfit for pretty much its entire life.

 

[Save the Loli]

Talk pages are frequently quite juicy. Also check the archive sites for archives of talk pages for more hidden drama - those pages expand and contract over time. After you've seen so many thousands of them it can become depressing though, as Wikipedia is revealed to be a shady partisan outfit for pretty much its entire life.

The best talk pages are the ones about random Indian castes, where Pajeets go on long diatribes in broken English about how their caste was so glorious and was kangz and sheeeit only to have the mean Wiki admins smack them down.

 

[Kaede Did Nothing Wrong]

Nblund, one of the more active wikipedos trying to block anything mean about poor lil Jonny, of course has to blame a movement from 5 years ago as the reason why people are being so gosh darn mean!

https://archive.md/kGYZZ

Nblund has been doing his thing long enough to get mentioned on ED. also he seems to be the first to post discussion about Yaniv story to the Biographies of living persons noticeboard (step 1 in process of deletion I think). relevant parts in table of contents are "BC Trans waxing case," "Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists" and "Talk pages relating to "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons"". here is the sample of how the exchanges went down:

The details nblund so desperately wants to remove from the article is what has made the waxing cases notable to begin with, period full stop. The waxing cases are about the allegation that salons refused service based on gender identity where the salons argue they refused service based on the presence of presumed physical testicles. The sources have not indicated the salons refused service due to gender identity- the complainant did. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There's still more gentler ways to talk about the objections to handling male parts than what the phrasing had but respecting concerns of both sides. Maybe "....cultural and religious objections of handling trans women's private areas in their Brazilian waxing services." (again, should be clear without descending into more explicit terms). --Masem (t) 18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources do not indicate the issue is about handling trans women's private areas. The sources indicate the issue is about handling gentically male genitals. There's no reason to be gentle here. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally, when one says "trans woman" we're usually talking pre-transition, so it will be fairly obvious to the reader what the situation is. The language that was being added was far too graphical, and entirely unneeeded to get the point across. --Masem (t) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And, notwithstanding the question of whether discussion of a trans woman even should be anything to do with the state of her surgery, I'll reiterate that digging into the trousers of a WP:BLP is absolutely beyond the pale. Simply put, WPRIVACY should forbid intrusion into such a specific detail. Particularly in a way that allows Wikipedia to present a veneer of transphobia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between reporting the case, including the allegations of the case, and "digging into the trousers." I don't think anyone wants to do the latter. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

so the facts of the case merit censored discussion, and after censoring there's no case to talk about!

one of the dudes here who dove in on Yaniv's defense was fellow tinc cabal member Simonm223. who's got a stereotypically predictable twitter and is a trash-tier fantasy fiction author.

"heh, city life? you couldn't survive in my world, kiddo."

 

[Don Herbert]

Too bad that thread looks pretty much dead, but maybe we can inject a little life into it yet.

This might not be exactly what you're looking for, but is active.

 

[Kaede Did Nothing Wrong]

ok I have only 1 more thing to add. there was a deletion review for the Yaniv article on the 10th. I just found it now because wikipedia is so goddamn impossible to navigate. tl;dr- everyone saying overturn is dismissed as an off-site brigade or a sock puppet.


the article Rhododendrites cites is the one in null's OP here. whereas Yaniv's defenders were coordinated in removing (including some literally wearing "cabal" badges in their bios), people who heard from an outside source, like news, threaten to warp the site's objectivity.

anyway this made for a fun wiki case study. moral is, bureaucracy isn't about nuanced resolution dispute, it's about forcing people to play with rules that you'll win by.