QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 8th March 2012, 8:50am)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 8th March 2012, 8:42am)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 8th March 2012, 8:36am)
Mozhenkov is arguing on Commons that the guy who went to prison in 2000 cannot be him, and the Wikipedians seem to have accepted that.
QUOTE
The article clearly can't be talking about me, it's simple for me to add 51 months to the year 2000 and show where i was then,
even well before then
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...d/User_problems 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The word 'even' is telling. For he only served 23 months of the sentence and was released in October 2004
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServl...429-046&x=0&y=0. So he could show where he was
even as far back as November 2004. All this information was in the WR thread that was linked to in the discussion. But of course Wikipedians don't want to read WR.
Reading between the lines is that his defence is that promoting consensual under-age sex is not pedophilia therefore the allegations of him being a pedophile are false. He does not deny promoting consensual under-age sex. Wikimedians are too excited to worry about the niceties of the distinction (i.e. there isn't one).
No, his defence (in this case) is that he is not the very same person who was convicted in 2000 and sentenced to 51 months in prison. He says he can provided documentary evidence of his whereabouts before the time of release implied by the 51 month sentence. He is relying on the fact that no Wikipedian will check the actual date of release, and the fact that he only served half the time.
Not disagreeing to that specific point, it is more the general "I am not doing anything inappropriate on Commons" bit that people are accepting I was referring to. Of course, Commons admins are being deliberately dense on this point, and when it is undeniable, they are hiding behind the lack of Commons policy in dealing with inappropriate content. It is again interesting to consider what would happen if WMF tried to impose a more appropriate policy wording to ensure that Commons is compliant with US law.
Still like to see what whitewashing through revision deletion has been going on on Commons (and is the use of the tools within policy on Commons, because it is clearly happening).
It seems to me that Beta_M only got noticed because of his stupid barnstar and had been operating quite happily. It has highlighted that there is a pretty strong community who are watching each other's backs and managing Commons to their own ends.