The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

15 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Beta M?, Former US Federal prisoner
Rating  4
tarantino
post Wed 7th March 2012, 3:42am
Post #21


the Dude abides
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,440
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 11:41pm
Member No.: 2,143



QUOTE(radek @ Wed 7th March 2012, 1:53am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 6th March 2012, 7:31pm) *

Beta_M has been blocked on wp and commons by Geni.


Reading through all this I got one question:

Why is Wikipedia Review doing so much of Wikipedia's dirty work???

Paolo, Beta M and that's just recent, going back further Essjay, Mantanmoreland etc.


Don't forget "The Lee Dennison Story" featuring Ron Livingston.
Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Wed 7th March 2012, 3:47am
Post #22


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 7th March 2012, 1:31am) *

Beta_M has been blocked on wp and commons by Geni.

Hmmm, that's not how things are supposed to work. These types of things are usually "contact ArbCom" blocks, which can only be appealed to ArbCom. I wonder if Geni just took it upon himself to do this?

It looks like Volodya isn't going to go quietly:
QUOTE
I have been blocked

This is rubbish, i have been blocked for "unacceptable behaviour. Have emailed user with a more detailed reason" by User:Geni. I have checked my e-mail, there's an e-mail from that user accusing me of distributing child pornography and suggesting that it is linked to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sukumizu_Girl.jpg. I believe that this is an attempt to stack the votes. The interesting thing is that in the meanwhile the DR has been closed as a clear keep.

After reading the e-mail again i have come to the conclusion that this is an attempt to get me to disclose my identity. To be fair here's the contents of the e-mail:

geniice@gmail.com
I believe this to be you:
http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283
that being the case your involvement with
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...kumizu_Girl.jpg
Is unacceptable. given the issues involved I won't be posting a public block reason. If you wish to appeal you may do so via email or on your talkpage or since I have blocked you on en as well you may appeal to arbcom.
However I will forward my evidence to anyone you appeal to or if you appear on your talk page I will post it there.

I am also from Russia. What i am not doing is i'm not distributing child pornography, i am distributing diagrams and photos. Apparently the admin didn't know how to check this. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Wed 7th March 2012, 4:07am
Post #23


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 6th March 2012, 8:29pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Tue 6th March 2012, 5:53pm) *

Why is Wikipedia Review doing so much of Wikipedia's dirty work???

I wouldn't call it "their dirty work", so much as I would call it "public embarrassment". If WR people really
WERE doing their dirty work, these little problems would be communicated to the Wiki-Fools privately,
and the cover-up would be done quietly. That's how they want it.

Instead, by having people post the atrocities on WR, the Fools look all the more like fools. In public.
Plus, I document the whole thing for posterity (think about a book). Instead of being just
another quietly-covered-up disaster, it adds to the pile of public disasters and embarrassments.

Geni is (IMO) an evil little shit. You should see his block record. He's a homeopathy freak, and why the
pro-science WP contingent tolerates him is a bizarre mystery. He's been there since early 2004,
so he's part of the "landscape". Like a sewer treatment plant that leaks into the river occasionally.


Geni might be an evil little shit, that can be up for debate. But the fact that s/he is a grade-A moron has been established beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Wed 7th March 2012, 6:56am
Post #24


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Unblocked on Commons by the image thief and enabler.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...e=User%3ABeta+M

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68000328

This post has been edited by lilburne: Wed 7th March 2012, 6:59am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Wed 7th March 2012, 10:08am
Post #25


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



This is going to be fun. Wikipedia might just about cope, Commons should be entertaining. bash.gif furious.gif tearinghairout.gif twilightzone.gif slapfight.gif

What was the deleted edit and who was censoring Commons to cover up something that the user says he is happy to be public information? censored.gif

QUOTE
I belive he has a conviction for downloading child pornography from 2000. The evidence involves his real name but here's a link to where he posted the evidence onwiki before it was deleted: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...000304&unhide=1


Actually, it appears the conviction was for what is normally considered a worse crime, it was for distributing child porn.

QUOTE
The revision which was deleted was deleted without me asking for it, i don't mind if it'll be undeleted.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Wed 7th March 2012, 10:16am
Post #26


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Note the immediate cry of 'harassment' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68003918 .
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Wed 7th March 2012, 10:30am
Post #27


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:16am) *

Note the immediate cry of 'harassment' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68003918 .

Rather more up my street is that Free Speech is invoked as well. That should get the unthinking mob going around nodding wildly.

Censorship, free speech, harassment - and nobody will consider that the guy is openly using Wikimedia to promote his unusual personal views on child pornography.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Wed 7th March 2012, 10:49am
Post #28


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



You're right, this is going to be entertaining.

QUOTE
I don't care about what they've done off-wiki [...] --Prosfilaes (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Wed 7th March 2012, 10:56am
Post #29


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:30am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:16am) *

Note the immediate cry of 'harassment' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68003918 .

Rather more up my street is that Free Speech is invoked as well. That should get the unthinking mob going around nodding wildly.

Censorship, free speech, harassment - and nobody will consider that the guy is openly using Wikimedia to promote his unusual personal views on child pornography.

My guess is that he ran a Freenet node and child porn may or may not have landed on it, but he got done for it anyway. Whether or not he is into child pornography is by the by from a legal perspective if it was found on his hard disks. If he was smart he would have encrypted the data on his hard disk, and he may have chosen to do time rather than provide the key.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Wed 7th March 2012, 11:13am
Post #30


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:56am) *

If he was smart he would have encrypted the data on his hard disk, and he may have chosen to do time rather than provide the key.

If he was smart he wouldn't be spending his time writing wiki's telling everyone he was into child porn and proud of it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Wed 7th March 2012, 11:21am
Post #31


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:56am) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:30am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:16am) *

Note the immediate cry of 'harassment' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68003918 .

Rather more up my street is that Free Speech is invoked as well. That should get the unthinking mob going around nodding wildly.

Censorship, free speech, harassment - and nobody will consider that the guy is openly using Wikimedia to promote his unusual personal views on child pornography.

My guess is that he ran a Freenet node and child porn may or may not have landed on it, but he got done for it anyway. Whether or not he is into child pornography is by the by from a legal perspective if it was found on his hard disks. If he was smart he would have encrypted the data on his hard disk, and he may have chosen to do time rather than provide the key.

This does not sound good:
"It does not matter if you are Anonymous in USA or a Buddhist in China, whether your sexuality is criminalised by “your” government or you speak out against crimes of ‘your” government ..."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Wed 7th March 2012, 11:49am
Post #32


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 7th March 2012, 11:21am) *

This does not sound good:
"It does not matter if you are Anonymous in USA or a Buddhist in China, whether your sexuality is criminalised by “your” government or you speak out against crimes of ‘your” government ..."

Neither does:

QUOTE
Author: My name is VolodyA! V Anarhist, i am politically anarchist, ethically vegan, spiritually buddhist, religiously agnostic, artistically poetic, sexually perverted, and queer gender-wise. But this podcast is not about myself, but rather about my ideas.

My bolding.

Anyway, he is who he is, and more interesting is how Commons reacts. It seems someone has already been laundering his history as it is too embarrassing even for Commons.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Wed 7th March 2012, 12:28pm
Post #33


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
I've never heard of Wikipedia Review before; but what what i'm reading now it looks like an awful group of people.
VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


QUOTE
Only a passing comment but W Review is the pits - why any intelligent person would want to be there I have no idea. For those UK based it makes our gutter press look quite reasonable...! --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


Time for me to contact the Indianopolis Children's Museum http://www.childrensmuseum.org/blog/wikipedia , who work with Wikimedia Commons, to seek their views on this.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DanMurphy
post Wed 7th March 2012, 12:41pm
Post #34


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed 4th Jan 2012, 1:12pm
Member No.: 73,922

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



So to review: A major defender of the porn on Wikipedia commons is a convicted child pornographer, who makes videos about the unfair persecution of pedophiles by "the man." The convicted child pornographer has a voice in attempts to change image policy surrounding pornography, its filtering, and the protection of children. The convicted child pornographer is unblocked, and this forum is attacked by other Wikipedia Commons/Administrators as a "horrible site" for... pointing out that he's a convicted child pornographer.

Do I have this right?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 7th March 2012, 12:53pm
Post #35


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(DanMurphy @ Wed 7th March 2012, 7:41am) *

So to review: A major defender of the porn on Wikipedia commons is a convicted child pornographer, who makes videos about the unfair persecution of pedophiles by "the man." The convicted child pornographer has a voice in attempts to change image policy surrounding pornography, its filtering, and the protection of children. The convicted child pornographer is unblocked, and this forum is attacked by other Wikipedia Commons/Administrators as a "horrible site" for... pointing out that he's a convicted child pornographer.

Do I have this right?


Dan, are you going to publish this in the press, or am I, or both of us?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DanMurphy
post Wed 7th March 2012, 1:00pm
Post #36


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed 4th Jan 2012, 1:12pm
Member No.: 73,922

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 7th March 2012, 12:53pm) *

QUOTE(DanMurphy @ Wed 7th March 2012, 7:41am) *

So to review: A major defender of the porn on Wikipedia commons is a convicted child pornographer, who makes videos about the unfair persecution of pedophiles by "the man." The convicted child pornographer has a voice in attempts to change image policy surrounding pornography, its filtering, and the protection of children. The convicted child pornographer is unblocked, and this forum is attacked by other Wikipedia Commons/Administrators as a "horrible site" for... pointing out that he's a convicted child pornographer.

Do I have this right?


Dan, are you going to publish this in the press, or am I, or both of us?

I still haven't written the van haeften piece. For which i have no excuses but sloth (the work week has been a laugh riot of war talk, syrian massacres, and pessimism about egypt and libya). I've trying to be "writerly" with the thing. At any rate, i'm gong to the Sierra Nevada foothills for a week tonight to see my girl and will do it while there. This will get a mention, but only a small one because it will distract/confuse from Mr. Van Haeften's tale. (I did tweeter about this at Mr. Wales this morning though).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Wed 7th March 2012, 1:22pm
Post #37


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(DanMurphy @ Wed 7th March 2012, 12:41pm) *

So to review: A major defender of the porn on Wikipedia commons is a convicted child pornographer, who makes videos about the unfair persecution of pedophiles by "the man." The convicted child pornographer has a voice in attempts to change image policy surrounding pornography, its filtering, and the protection of children. The convicted child pornographer is unblocked, and this forum is attacked by other Wikipedia Commons/Administrators as a "horrible site" for... pointing out that he's a convicted child pornographer.

Do I have this right?

Nearly, but that falls into the trap of suggesting this is some sort of ad hominem attack. I think I would say that the point is not pointing out he is a convicted child pornographer, self-professed pervert and so on, but that he is actively promoting pedophilia on Wikimedia and there are other Wikimedians who don't like it that this is thought to be any sort of problem at all. It's not like there is room for a fuzzy AGF grey area here.

I still would like to know who is deleting edits on Wikimedia to hide his inappropriate activities.

I bet Jimbo is staying well away from this and will be calling on his talk page patrollers to hide this away. Probably time to getting on to embarrassing Sue about the problem not just being image filters but the administration of Commons is in the hands of people who actively support the collection of child pornography.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Wed 7th March 2012, 1:28pm
Post #38


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:30am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:16am) *

Note the immediate cry of 'harassment' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68003918 .

Rather more up my street is that Free Speech is invoked as well. That should get the unthinking mob going around nodding wildly.

Censorship, free speech, harassment - and nobody will consider that the guy is openly using Wikimedia to promote his unusual personal views on child pornography.


Note from tarantinos link the Anarchists drummed him out pretty quick.
http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/anar...d-more-06122007
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Wed 7th March 2012, 1:57pm
Post #39


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 7th March 2012, 1:28pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:30am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:16am) *

Note the immediate cry of 'harassment' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68003918 .

Rather more up my street is that Free Speech is invoked as well. That should get the unthinking mob going around nodding wildly.

Censorship, free speech, harassment - and nobody will consider that the guy is openly using Wikimedia to promote his unusual personal views on child pornography.


Note from tarantinos link the Anarchists drummed him out pretty quick.
http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/anar...d-more-06122007

Do I get to use this? irony.gif

Anarchists have rules after all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Wed 7th March 2012, 2:04pm
Post #40


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



Carbuncle, you are going down the wrong track. In the end, the issue for Wikimedia (wearing a Wiki hat) is not who he is, but what he did on Wikimedia, what his fellow apologists are doing, and what tracks have been covered up. They are using the "what happens off Wiki, stays off Wiki" line but Genil clearly is saying that the line was crossed, and the evidence of this has been deleted, and Beta_M is even saying "Yes, I did these things, where is the problem?"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

15 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th 6 17, 7:09am