Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Editors _ Beta M?

Posted by: tarantino




http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psy-op/message/2544?var=1

QUOTE
I am anarchist prisoner from Russia in Amerikan gulag. Thanx
a lot for your paper, even though I disagree with a lot in
it, it's important to remain oneself in these hard times
without becoming reactionary. In solidarity, fighting for my
idea of better world.

VolodyA! V. Mozhenkov
Federal Correctional Institution Elkton
Lisbon, Ohio


http://www.ainfos.ca/02/may/ainfos00417.html
QUOTE
VolodyA! V Mozhenkov, http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=06429-046&x=0&y=0 DB, FCI Elkton,
Enslaved by USA, LISBON OH 444 32-0010 UNITED STATES


http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=06429-046&x=0&y=0
QUOTE
Name Register # Age-Race-Sex Release Date Location
VLADIMIR MOZHENKOV 06429-046 30-White-M 10-04-2002 RELEASED


http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283
QUOTE
Porn Man Gets Jail

HELENA, Montana (AP) - A Russian man has been sentenced to 51 months in prison for downloading pornographic pictures - some involving children - to a computer at a local college.

Vladimir Mozhenkov was arrested last December after federal agents traced more than 37 pornographic images posted on the Internet to one of Carroll College's computer labs.

Mozhenkov admitted to having child pornography on several diskettes and using computers at the college to distribute child pornography.

At the time, Mozhenkov was a lab monitor working at the college, where he was enrolled. Mozhenkov pleaded guilty in August to possessing child pornography.
He faces deportation after serving his sentence.



Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 6th March 2012, 3:08pm) *
... At the time, Mozhenkov was a lab monitor working at the college, where he was enrolled. Mozhenkov pleaded guilty in August to possessing child pornography.

He faces deportation after serving his sentence.

Anyone know where he's editing from nowadays?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 6th March 2012, 3:39pm) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 6th March 2012, 3:08pm) *
... At the time, Mozhenkov was a lab monitor working at the college, where he was enrolled. Mozhenkov pleaded guilty in August to possessing child pornography.

He faces deportation after serving his sentence.

Anyone know where he's editing from nowadays?

According to his http://www.meetup.com/polylondon/members/9409242/# page, he lives in Moscow. That's why he attends meetings in London.

Posted by: mbz1

Here's a single article http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Beta+M&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects it created.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I'm surprised that the Mainstream Press hasn't picked up on a convicted child pornographer, expelled from the United States, being allowed to ply his trade on a 503c funded servers in Florida myself.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 6th March 2012, 6:16pm) *

I'm surprised that the Mainstream Press hasn't picked up on a convicted child pornographer, expelled from the United States, being allowed to ply his trade on a 503c funded servers in Florida myself.

I'm surprised that no one at WP has jumped on this yet. The longer they wait, the worse it will look when it hits Fox News....

Posted by: EricBarbour

Good find, Tarantino, thanks. I'll write him up, he's not very important but the child porn gives it that
extra smidgen of, um, flair. hmmm.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 6th March 2012, 6:46pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 6th March 2012, 6:16pm) *

I'm surprised that the Mainstream Press hasn't picked up on a convicted child pornographer, expelled from the United States, being allowed to ply his trade on a 503c funded servers in Florida myself.

I'm surprised that no one at WP has jumped on this yet. The longer they wait, the worse it will look when it hits Fox News....


Well David Fuchs is reading as we speak, so won't be long. Possibly.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Ah lovelyy

On donkey punch:

QUOTE

::::::: The double standards of people amaze me. "This image is of poor quality" is a good argument not to use this particular image, but it's not an argument to use no image, and since there are no better images currently, there's simply no argument as far as i can see. And yes, Wikipedia SHOULDNOTBECENSORED, but it's a much broader argument here. What is at stake is whether or not one chooses to report on everything that is encyclopaedic or only on those things which are safe and approved by some PR committee. I believe that we shouldn't stress over how Wikipedia looks like, after all everybody is Wikipedia, if somebody comes here and sees that the image doesn't look good (which i think is false, it's a reasonable quality image) they have all the right in the world to create a better one. The fact that it's a hoax, however, makes a real video unlikely (i wouldn't advise it), so it may actually be quite good to have '''this''' animation. [[User:Beta_M|VolodyA! V Anarhist]] <small>User:Beta_M</small> ([[User talk:Beta_M|converse]]) 17:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donkey_punch&diff=prev&oldid=476150531


Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 6th March 2012, 6:59pm) *
Good find, Tarantino, thanks.

Ditto, thanks for the good work yet again.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 6th March 2012, 7:56pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 6th March 2012, 6:59pm) *
Good find, Tarantino, thanks.

Ditto, thanks for the good work yet again.


Seconded. And here is his article on 'child love' for Anarchopedia (which even the anarchists eventually deleted).

QUOTE

Pedophilia (or paedophilia, originally Greek παιδοφιλια; paidophilia) is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. While the exact definition varies by context, it commonly refers to the medical definition defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. The correct term for an attraction to adolescents is ephebophilia.
Those who meet the criteria set above are classed as pedophiles. Common usage do not follow the strict medical definitions of an adult or teen who is attracted to prepubescent children, but often refers to any adult who is attracted to, or has sexual contact with, any person under the age of consent, or the age of majority (often 16-18 in most western countries).
In many societies and cultures, the term pedophile is highly stigmatized and represents an image of an evil, callous monster. This spurs many self-identified pedophiles to adopt names such as boylover, minor-attracted adult, girllover, and childlover, among others, to assist in differentiating themselves and their values from this stereotype.
While pedophiles have made great contributions to past societies, their influence is often ignored or their attraction to children is greatly played down.
One of the dearest fantasy held in the paedophile sub-culture is that of the fantasy island - the secluded island community where paedophiles and children roam free, enjoying total sexual freedom. The idea behind this fantasy is the suggestion that away from the oppressive teachings of these organised religions, those who feel a sexual attraction towards the pre-pubescent can indulge their basest desires and, in doing so, also achieve some form of enlightenment... that the freedom to establish their much maligned and negated altruism will result in some kind of mass overhaul of opinion amongst the general population.
However, that's why it's called a fantasy. Because it'll never happen. The irrational hatred felt towards paedophiles is something that few are prepared to even acknowledge as being irrational, let alone try to combat.
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=paedophilia&oldid=33996

Posted by: HRIP7

Thanks, Tarantino. It's nice to know that Wikimedia has attracted quality people to Commons, curating their adult media collection, and invigorating the Foundation's Wikilove programme:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=67901160#Hot_sex_barnstar
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&oldid=67973190#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan4&oldid=67980777#The_Hot_Sex_Barnstar

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 6th March 2012, 3:11pm) *

Seconded. And here is his article on 'child love' for Anarchopedia (which even the anarchists eventually deleted).

QUOTE

Pedophilia (or paedophilia, originally Greek παιδοφιλια; paidophilia) is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. While the exact definition varies by context, it commonly refers to the medical definition defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. The correct term for an attraction to adolescents is ephebophilia.
Those who meet the criteria set above are classed as pedophiles. Common usage do not follow the strict medical definitions of an adult or teen who is attracted to prepubescent children, but often refers to any adult who is attracted to, or has sexual contact with, any person under the age of consent, or the age of majority (often 16-18 in most western countries).
In many societies and cultures, the term pedophile is highly stigmatized and represents an image of an evil, callous monster. This spurs many self-identified pedophiles to adopt names such as boylover, minor-attracted adult, girllover, and childlover, among others, to assist in differentiating themselves and their values from this stereotype.
While pedophiles have made great contributions to past societies, their influence is often ignored or their attraction to children is greatly played down.
One of the dearest fantasy held in the paedophile sub-culture is that of the fantasy island - the secluded island community where paedophiles and children roam free, enjoying total sexual freedom. The idea behind this fantasy is the suggestion that away from the oppressive teachings of these organised religions, those who feel a sexual attraction towards the pre-pubescent can indulge their basest desires and, in doing so, also achieve some form of enlightenment... that the freedom to establish their much maligned and negated altruism will result in some kind of mass overhaul of opinion amongst the general population.
However, that's why it's called a fantasy. Because it'll never happen. The irrational hatred felt towards paedophiles is something that few are prepared to even acknowledge as being irrational, let alone try to combat.
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=paedophilia&oldid=33996



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_issues_related_to_love_and_sex

Wikipedia's "Anarchism and issues related to love and sex" article conveniently leaves out information on the views that people such as Beta_M have on children and sex. I wonder how the anarchists would react if a reliable-sourced section on those sorts of beliefs were added to the article. Will they feel embarrassed, ashamed, or offended? Will they try to censor such information? Maybe someone should preform a "social experiment" in order to find out.

Posted by: tarantino

Beta_M has been blocked on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M by Geni.

Posted by: mbz1

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

Beta_M has been blocked on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M by Geni.

Yet it is not blocked on a few other wikis http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Beta+M&blocks=true

tarantino, how you tracked it down, if I may ask please?

Posted by: radek

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

Beta_M has been blocked on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M 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.

If WR was the evil trolls that Prioryman et al makes it out to be, it would sit quiet on this stuff. But it doesn't. It's about time for some damn kudos here. It really is that they are so useless and incompetent that they need someone who doesn't even like them to tell them, "here, this is how you do it right".

Posted by: EricBarbour

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.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th March 2012, 1:51am) *

tarantino, how you tracked it down, if I may ask please?


He identifies as "https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22VolodyA!+V%22&btnG= Anarhist" on his user pages.

http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/anarchopedia-expanding-needs-expand-more-06122007, but the internet collective seemed to have forgotten it until now.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 7th March 2012, 2:42am) *
http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/anarchopedia-expanding-needs-expand-more-06122007 IDed him four years ago, but the internet collective seemed to have forgotten it until now.

"In 2008 he started freedomporn.org & posted up pics of himself wanking off in a pink dress.
warning:http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/File:Volodya_-_pink_dress_cock_02.jpeg"

Posted by: EricBarbour

laugh.gif Put him on Arbcom! They deserve him!

Posted by: tarantino

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

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

Beta_M has been blocked on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M 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 "http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091211/its-the-casting-director-lee-dennison-story/" featuring Ron Livingston.
Image

Posted by: carbuncle

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

Beta_M has been blocked on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M 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 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=67997680&oldid=67845564 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=67997777&oldid=67997680:
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:Deletion_requests/File:Sukumizu_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)

Posted by: radek

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.

Posted by: lilburne

Unblocked on Commons by the image thief and enabler.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABeta+M

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=68000352&oldid=68000328

Posted by: dogbiscuit

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=68004430. 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?title=User_talk:Beta_M&oldid=68000304&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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Note the immediate cry of 'harassment' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68004430&oldid=68003918 .

Posted by: dogbiscuit

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

Note the immediate cry of 'harassment' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68004430&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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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)

Posted by: jayvdb

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?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68004430&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.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

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.

Posted by: jayvdb

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?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68004430&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.

http://freedom.libsyn.com/webpage/petition-save-the-internet 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 ..."

Posted by: dogbiscuit

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

http://freedom.libsyn.com/webpage/petition-save-the-internet 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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.

Posted by: DanMurphy

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?

Posted by: thekohser

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?

Posted by: DanMurphy

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).

Posted by: dogbiscuit

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.

Posted by: lilburne

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?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68004430&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/anarchopedia-expanding-needs-expand-more-06122007

Posted by: dogbiscuit

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?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68004430&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/anarchopedia-expanding-needs-expand-more-06122007

Do I get to use this? irony.gif

Anarchists have rules after all.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

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?"

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

In February 2006, beta_m basically used Anarchopedia to archive the "BoyWiki":

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/List_of_articles_Beta_M_copied_from_BoyWiki_and_pasted_on_Anarchopedia

Edit: Please note that this list doesn't included deleted pages that beta_m might've created.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 7th March 2012, 1:57pm) *

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?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68004430&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/anarchopedia-expanding-needs-expand-more-06122007

Do I get to use this? irony.gif

Anarchists have rules after all.



Didn't you know that? They also ask permission to reuse copyright works too biggrin.gif

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 7th March 2012, 2:04pm) *

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?"

Ah, but that isn't what Beta M is saying on Commons. It is what I would expect him to say, but he http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68009176&oldid=68008603 that he is not the person charged, which I find surprising. Then again, you may be saying that his activities on-wiki are enough to merit a ban, which is a harder case to make.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 7th March 2012, 2:39pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 7th March 2012, 2:04pm) *

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?"

Ah, but that isn't what Beta M is saying on Commons. It is what I would expect him to say, but he http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68009176&oldid=68008603 that he is not the person charged, which I find surprising. Then again, you may be saying that his activities on-wiki are enough to merit a ban, which is a harder case to make.

I note a major revision of his information, and then I presume an admin will hide further information. It makes you wonder who else is being protected in a similar way.

In the end, this came up because he is a self-promoting pornographer, complaining he is being censored, promoting his own porn site, and dishing out awards for people who likewise promote sexual material of dubious nature on Wikmedia.

He is not denying he is the anarchist pornographer, he is denying that he was the person jailed, though the trail from one to another via his own Internet posting seemed pretty complete to me.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 7th March 2012, 2:39pm) *

Ah, but that isn't what Beta M is saying on Commons. It is what I would expect him to say, but he http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68009176&oldid=68008603 that he is not the person charged, which I find surprising. Then again, you may be saying that his activities on-wiki are enough to merit a ban, which is a harder case to make.


QUOTE

While still in prison i've started a zine of poetry... Well, i've just put out 6th issue, and it's mostly too large to spread around through paper form for me. But at this address you can get a .pdf of it and print it out or just read it:
http://indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=333848&group=webcast
Also i can always use more poetry for the future issues, that can be either mailed to me or e-mailed (msg me for that info).
In addition to all this plz check out the web page that i've set up for the zine for now (its at When Gendarme Sleeps (http://gendarmesleeps.narod.ru) ) and let me know of any ideas that you have. Any links that you think i can add and anything else.
Free your mind and seek the truth. VolodyA! V Anarhist 08-04-2003, 09:41 AM http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-21720.html


QUOTE
In the prison i was in Ad Seg ment that you have not been found "True" on your infraction. While in there you are housed in the same part of the SHU as are PC (Protective Custody) people. After you have had the hearing and were given a "sentence" you are moved to D Sed (Disciplinary Segregation) for a turm that was decided on at the hearing. After D Seg you go back to Ad Seg until the bunk in your unit is empty and you can go back to the general population. Also sometimes Ad Seg was used for the transit inmates, especially for those who are of different security level than the prison and they sit there until the transport picks them up. And even sometimes when you arrive at the prison you are placed in Ad Seg, just to be sure. Like they put me there for 2 days to make sure that i wasn't suicidal (the SHU will make you suicidal if you aren't)...
Well i think that's all i have to say. Free your mind and seek the truth. ...............................VolodyA! V Anarhist PS The prison i was talking about is a federal prison in OH (FCI Elkton) http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-14339.html


Note that the website he mentions www.whengendarmesleeps.org/main.html is also linked to on his user page EN user page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beta_M&oldid=11543826

Posted by: carbuncle

Volodya is https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/2007-March/000771.html to non-consensual sexual relationships between children and adults:

QUOTE
Fellow, persons,

Yesterday it was known to me that Freedom Collective is considering to ban me from Freedom
Bookshop because of allegations that i support of childlove movement (sometimes referred
to ask 'paedophilia advocacy'). Because of the content of the e-mail that was sent to me i
believe that it started from an individual from one of the forums that i was recently
banned from (VF.net). I was banned from there after voicing my opinions on the issues of
ageism and childlove movement.

I was requested to clarify my stance on the issue for the Freedom Collective and i believe
that i have done so last night, here is the extract from what i've written:

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To tell you the truth, i don't really know what i believe about the childlove issue in
particular. My relevant beliefs on the issue can be shortly described as following:
1. I believe in freedom of speech.
2. I totally oppose ageism in any shape of form (even when it tries to hide itself as
"protecting our children").
3. I believe that childlove movement members are not allowed to express their views in an
open to discussion forum.
4. I believe that the only way to figure out what childlove movement is all about is to
have an open discussion about the issue.
5. I do not believe in "protectionism". (It isn't directly related to childlove, but many
people confuse this particular belief of mine with lack of support to the victims of
abuse. This is *not* the case.)
6. I did not, nor have any plans to advocate childlove movement through London Anarchist
Forum.
7. I would have tried to discuss the issue to see what people think if given an
opportunity before, but now i am not sure if i would even do that.

Please note that by childlove i by no means refer to child rapists or child molesters. I
am in complete opposition to any form of non-consensual relationships, whether or not they
include children or not, and whether or not they include sex or not.


Let me make it clear:
I am not now nor have been since my politics began developing supporting non-consentual
relationships.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've also voiced my criticism of any type of "no platform policy", while saying that i
respect Freedom Collective's freedom to implement such a policy within their own collective.

The reason why i'm writing this e-mail is because i am afraid that some sort of campaign
has been launched against me, with the goal of tracking down political groups that i am
involved with and "helping them" to ban me. While i do believe that i have nothing to hide
about my politics, even when those politics are unpopular, i am trying to anticipate
further occurrences of the "smear campaign".

Free your mind and seek the truth.
- Volodya

P.S. I hope that Freedom will decide not to ban me, and i will see you all on the 31st.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 7th March 2012, 10:39am) *

Volodya is https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/2007-March/000771.html to non-consensual sexual relationships between children and adults:


In February 2006, Beta_M stated plainly and clearly that he supports the childlove movement "to a large extent":

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=16804&oldid=16803

The following probably reflects Beta_M's views on consent:

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=child_molestation&diff=3916

Beta_M supports the "freedom" to have child-adult sexual relationships, but he doesn't support rape.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 7th March 2012, 4:04pm) *

The following probably reflects Beta_M's views on consent:

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=child_molestation&diff=3916

Beta_M supports the "freedom" to have child-adult sexual relationships, but he doesn't support rape.

I'm not sure if the latter is Volodya's own words - it says "BoyWiki copy". His own words are damning enough.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 7th March 2012, 11:16am) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 7th March 2012, 4:04pm) *

The following probably reflects Beta_M's views on consent:

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=child_molestation&diff=3916

Beta_M supports the "freedom" to have child-adult sexual relationships, but he doesn't support rape.

I'm not sure if the latter is Volodya's own words - it says "BoyWiki copy". His own words are damning enough.


Here are his own words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_5&diff=20459329&oldid=20445787

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 7th March 2012, 3:24pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 7th March 2012, 2:39pm) *

Ah, but that isn't what Beta M is saying on Commons. It is what I would expect him to say, but he http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68009176&oldid=68008603 that he is not the person charged, which I find surprising. Then again, you may be saying that his activities on-wiki are enough to merit a ban, which is a harder case to make.


QUOTE

While still in prison i've started a zine of poetry... Well, i've just put out 6th issue, and it's mostly too large to spread around through paper form for me. But at this address you can get a .pdf of it and print it out or just read it:
http://indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=333848&group=webcast
Also i can always use more poetry for the future issues, that can be either mailed to me or e-mailed (msg me for that info).
In addition to all this plz check out the web page that i've set up for the zine for now (its at When Gendarme Sleeps (http://gendarmesleeps.narod.ru) ) and let me know of any ideas that you have. Any links that you think i can add and anything else.
Free your mind and seek the truth. VolodyA! V Anarhist 08-04-2003, 09:41 AM http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-21720.html


QUOTE
In the prison i was in Ad Seg ment that you have not been found "True" on your infraction. While in there you are housed in the same part of the SHU as are PC (Protective Custody) people. After you have had the hearing and were given a "sentence" you are moved to D Sed (Disciplinary Segregation) for a turm that was decided on at the hearing. After D Seg you go back to Ad Seg until the bunk in your unit is empty and you can go back to the general population. Also sometimes Ad Seg was used for the transit inmates, especially for those who are of different security level than the prison and they sit there until the transport picks them up. And even sometimes when you arrive at the prison you are placed in Ad Seg, just to be sure. Like they put me there for 2 days to make sure that i wasn't suicidal (the SHU will make you suicidal if you aren't)...
Well i think that's all i have to say. Free your mind and seek the truth. ...............................VolodyA! V Anarhist PS The prison i was talking about is a federal prison in OH (FCI Elkton) http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-14339.html


Note that the website he mentions www.whengendarmesleeps.org/main.html is also linked to on his user page EN user page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beta_M&oldid=11543826


http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archive/archive_msg.cgi?file=spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0306&msgnum=1&start=1&end=41
QUOTE

I've spent 2 years and nine months in prison for posession
of child porn. And the fact that there was none of it on my
computer when it was confiscated didn't matter; trust me when
you are arrested for something like that you need a miracle not
to be found guilty (unless you are a judge or a cop).

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 7th March 2012, 5:09pm) *

http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archive/archive_msg.cgi?file=spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0306&msgnum=1&start=1&end=41
QUOTE

I've spent 2 years and nine months in prison for posession
of child porn. And the fact that there was none of it on my
computer when it was confiscated didn't matter; trust me when
you are arrested for something like that you need a miracle not
to be found guilty (unless you are a judge or a cop).


He may be telling the truth about that, just not the http://helenair.com/news/local/article_0e8bacb2-8842-5a6f-9d3e-49016f5a378c.html:
QUOTE
Russian exchange student Vladimir Mozhenkov was arrested in December 1999 after federal agents traced more than 37 pornographic images that were posted on the Internet to a computer in one of Carroll College's computer labs.

When questioned about the images, Mozhenkov -- a computer lab monitor -- admitted to having child pornography on several ZIP disks and to using the computers owned by Carroll College, in addition to his personal computer, to distribute child pornography via the Internet.

Initially, Mozhenkov was charged with possessing child pornography and to distributing the material. The distributing charge was dropped as part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 7th March 2012, 5:09pm) *

http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archive/archive_msg.cgi?file=spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0306&msgnum=1&start=1&end=41
QUOTE

I've spent 2 years and nine months in prison for posession
of child porn. And the fact that there was none of it on my
computer when it was confiscated didn't matter; trust me when
you are arrested for something like that you need a miracle not
to be found guilty (unless you are a judge or a cop).


If he is claiming he is not Vladimir Mozhenkov, http://archivo.po.org.ar/english/808art2.htm he says:
QUOTE
Hello,
My name is Vladimir Vladimirovich Mozhenkov, I live in Russian Federation; and would like to demand that you act immediately in allowing the workers of the Cooperativa Sasetru Gestión Obrera (Sasetru Cooperative Under Workers' Management) to gain access to the plant of Sasetru. I demand the withdrawal of the police from the plant and the expropriation of the tools, machinery and premises in favor of the Cooperativa Sasetru Gestión Obrera.
¡VolodyA V Anarhist
V.V.M.


Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Wed 7th March 2012, 5:20pm) *

If he is claiming he is not Vladimir Mozhenkov, http://archivo.po.org.ar/english/808art2.htm he says:
QUOTE
Hello,
My name is Vladimir Vladimirovich Mozhenkov, I live in Russian Federation; and would like to demand that you act immediately in allowing the workers of the Cooperativa Sasetru Gestión Obrera (Sasetru Cooperative Under Workers' Management) to gain access to the plant of Sasetru. I demand the withdrawal of the police from the plant and the expropriation of the tools, machinery and premises in favor of the Cooperativa Sasetru Gestión Obrera.
¡VolodyA V Anarhist
V.V.M.


There is another report on the matter http://business.avn.com/articles/video/Russian-Student-Coerced-Child-Porn-Confession-33446.html (page has NSFW ads):
QUOTE
Russian student Vladimir Mozhenkov says he was coerced, under threat of arrest, into confessing to using a Carroll College computer to send child porn over the Internet. "I could either speak or get thrown in jail," he testified April 7. "I generally think of (police) as very harsh people. They don't care about you as human being."
The 19-year-old student has asked a federal judge to throw his confession out, as well as evidence said to link him to a Website providing sexually explicit photography of children, according to the Associated Press, which says no immediate ruling came down.

Federal law enforcement in Missouri reportedly downloaded 37 child porn photos from a Website and traced the source to Carroll, a Roman Catholic college. Mozhenkov claims a U.S. Customs agent and a computer expert forced him to talk and was not advised of his right to legal counsel before the coerced confession. He's been in jail in the case since January and faces seven years imprisonment and deportation if found guilty.

If he entered jail in January, and was in jail for two years and nine months, he would have gotten out in October 2002 or thereabouts, and arrived back in Russia shortly after.

He should really cut his losses and go quietly.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

Here's some of Beta_m early pedophile-related revisions to articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Man%2FBoy_Love_Association&diff=5455127&oldid=5367409

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=prev&oldid=5377469

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=prev&oldid=5444827

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophile_movement&diff=prev&oldid=5762168

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophile_movement&diff=prev&oldid=10736587

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girl_Moment&diff=prev&oldid=20127916

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophile_movement&diff=prev&oldid=20127968

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Day&diff=prev&oldid=20128075

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sh%C5%8Dnen-ai&diff=20128166&oldid=18245997

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&diff=prev&oldid=20128207

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolita&diff=prev&oldid=20128273

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophile_movement&diff=prev&oldid=20481077

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophile_movement&diff=prev&oldid=20560657

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophile_movement&diff=prev&oldid=20625732

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

Here are Beta_m's early pedophilia-related talk page revisions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=5444124

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=5464799

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=6565514

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=5742172

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=5759989

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=5793843

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=6145496

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=14450259

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=19707031

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=19871194

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=20459329

Posted by: mbz1

It also created http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds&diff=prev&oldid=441980681

QUOTE
Hello, I believe that your summary, and thus the claim of the reached consensus on [[List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults]] delete is incorrect. While through pure numbers it may appear that '''delete''' has won (D13-K4-M1) i would like to point out that the deletion is not a democratic process where the majority automatically gets its way. In addition to that while keep votes were argumentative, many of delete ones have simply stated their desire to delete

Posted by: Tarc

Here comes Rd232 calling to send the whole thing tumbling down the memory hole;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68018793&oldid=68017826

Posted by: mbz1

Here's an interesting one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=476101112

QUOTE
if we will start caving in to "somebody think of the children" crowd we might as well close the project.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 7th March 2012, 1:19pm) *

Here comes Rd232 calling to send the whole thing tumbling down the memory hole;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68018793&oldid=68017826


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68019182&oldid=68018793

QUOTE
{{comment}} The English Wikipedia arbitration committee has apparently reversed Geni's block of Beta M, a few minutes after Geni's opening of this thread here, with the comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=480636175&oldid=480635994 "Block is already removed on Commons. Block was based on a faulty assumption and did not follow any established policy."] There doesn't seem any Commons policy that applies, and [[:en:Wikipedia:Child protection]] talks about problematic onwiki behaviour or "[editors] who identify themselves as pedophiles". This doesn't seem to apply here. In addition, that policy says "Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel." I would suggest, in view of ArbCom's decision, that we do that here: delete the section and RevDelete old revisions that show it. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=480622687&oldid=463769646 – You're quoting Beta_M, not ArbCom. I don't see any evidence that indicates that ArbCom reversed their decision. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


Rd232 is wrong. Rd232 isn't even quoting an ArbCom decision, and the block hasn't even been removed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ABeta_M

Also, http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=16804&oldid=16803. I don't see any reason to censor and RevDel the discussion. Quoting Beta_M's own words isn't libel.

Posted by: Selina

QUOTE(Selina @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:49pm) *
yeah. really. ESPECIALLY gay males whose bitchiness can be aggression to the power of 10. and this is coming from the one that made http://wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bifemale.svg and http://wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bimale.svg which is on like a gazillion users' pages now - I think I was maybe THE most infamous bi fem on WP (http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak) anyone trying to pull that card-pulling crap on me woul get laughed at tongue.gif

(also was pushing against the paedophiles before anyon in charge actually started doing anything about it: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:LGBT_notice_board/Archive_3#what_belongs_here "Deletion of pederasty-related topics is partisan, and you need to re-check the NPOV policy and guidelines before you (Mistress Selina Kyle, I'm looking at you) continue to remove these topics" .... yeeeaahhh. Thanks, 'Dave'

... I can't find that thread now where people were saying his user page on this Fæ guy's old account used to have childporn artwork on it too?)



QUOTE(Selina @ Sun 29th January 2012, 12:01pm) *
this reminds me of the "Haiduc" paedophile who I argued wit ha few times before giving up (in the previous links), no one listened to me I saw what they were doing because it's exactly the same kind of slimy stuff PR companies do, it was only later WP actually did anything about the paedophiles pushing it (usually as "pederasty") - http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Haiduc - and the articles still tainted - I just gave up on WP, they did a few bans for show when they were getting media attention about the networks of pedo users then continued to do nothing...




I just searched up http://google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipediareview.com+pedophiles+OR+pedophile+OR+paedophile+OR+paedophiles+OR+pedophilia+OR+paedophilia:

http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=30094

http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=15438

http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=34313
QUOTE(MaliceAforethought @ Fri 8th July 2011, 10:14pm) *
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:30:58 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail -pedophilia

Fred Bauder wrote:
> I did, acting as an administrator, block one of these guys
> indefinitely, and got away with it. But I think I was flying under
> the radar, perhaps trading on my status. I don't think I did anything
> wrong and would support any administrator who blocks a pedophile
> advocate. The basis is disruption.

I agree with this completely.

This is a thorny issue, and I have little to add to it. We don't want a
witch hunt. We also don't want a huge press scandal.

It is inevitable that at some point a reporter is going to come to me
and tell me about a user I don't know about, asking "Why does Wikipedia
allow a self-confessed pedophile to edit articles about children?"

And my response is going to be: "O RLY? *block*"

I will use "disruption" as my reason or "useless editor" or whatever
seems to suit the circumstance.

At the same time, other than that [the media], I think our best approach is just
like our best approach with other types of problems:

1. Quiet diplomacy is good
2. Don't ask, don't tell is good


--Jimbo
THAT IS NOT WHAT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS MEANT TO BE USED FOR JIMMY. CHRIST. >:|


Look what you created, Jimbo.

Look what you created...

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Selina @ Wed 7th March 2012, 2:05pm) *

QUOTE(Selina @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:49pm) *
QUOTE
1. Quiet diplomacy is good
2. Don't ask, don't tell is good[/b]

--Jimbo
THAT IS NOT WHAT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS MEANT TO BE USED FOR JIMMY. CHRIST. >:|


Look what you created, Jimbo.

Look what you created...
It annoys me to no end that perfectly respectable people are so often fooled into thinking he's a perfectly respectable person.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=480722742&oldid=480721784:

QUOTE
Thanks - I didn't know had an inactive account. I blocked it too. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 20:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


ArbCom apparently isn't doing enough research into the situation, but both of Beta_M's accounts are now blocked from enwiki with ArbCom's stamp of approval:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ABeta_M

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ABeta_m

Posted by: carbuncle

And it's Derek Coetzee for http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68026198&oldid=68022867!

QUOTE
I was the one who unblocked the user. At the time I was not aware of the evidence Geni presented in this thread, and although I don't think it's grounds for an immediate block, I think it is a concern when the user attempts to directly modify draft policies to reflect their views, etc. In light of their conflict of interest, I would advice them to stick to discussion pages when involved in policy discussions related to child pornography, and to avoid linking offsite resources related to advocacy. I have no problem with them participating in relevant deletion requests, since DRs are closed by admins and a user's opinion there is weighed only according to its merit (and moreover, their opinions expressed thus far in DRs have been consistent with policy and the law). I believe if the user continues to be conscientious about acting in accordance with policy and the law, the need to block them will not arise. However, we should keep an eye on them, and warn them promptly if they begin to engage in any form of advocacy. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I was going to bold the ridiculous parts, but that didn't leave anything unbolded.

Also, the same information that Geni posted in that thread was posted on Beta M's talk page under the heading "I have been blocked" when Coetzee unblocked him, so I don't know how he could have missed it. I wonder what alerted Coetzee to the block in the first place, since there was no unblock request posted. Perhaps a friendly Commons admin might tell us what Russavia revdeleted from the page. The edit summary was "chat log"...

Posted by: EricBarbour

Just an aside: did anyone ever learn more about Rd232? His WP userpage has the big black "RETIRED"
banner on it, yet he's still editing on en-WP fairly often. (That makes him a "liar", maybe?)
And he's a regular pest on Commons.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 7th March 2012, 11:13pm) *

And it's Derek Coetzee for http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68026198&oldid=68022867!
QUOTE
I was the one who unblocked the user. At the time I was not aware of the evidence Geni presented in this thread, and although I don't think it's grounds for an immediate block, I think it is a concern when the user attempts to directly modify draft policies to reflect their views, etc. In light of their conflict of interest, I would advice them to stick to discussion pages when involved in policy discussions related to child pornography, and to avoid linking offsite resources related to advocacy. I have no problem with them participating in relevant deletion requests, since DRs are closed by admins and a user's opinion there is weighed only according to its merit (and moreover, their opinions expressed thus far in DRs have been consistent with policy and the law). I believe if the user continues to be conscientious about acting in accordance with policy and the law, the need to block them will not arise. However, we should keep an eye on them, and warn them promptly if they begin to engage in any form of advocacy. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I was going to bold the ridiculous parts, but that didn't leave anything unbolded.

Also, the same information that Geni posted in that thread was posted on Beta M's talk page under the heading "I have been blocked" when Coetzee unblocked him, so I don't know how he could have missed it. I wonder what alerted Coetzee to the block in the first place, since there was no unblock request posted. Perhaps a friendly Commons admin might tell us what Russavia revdeleted from the page. The edit summary was "chat log"...


Here's what the perfume salesman deleted.

QUOTE
I am also from Russia. What i am not doing is i'm not distributing child pornography, i am distributing [[Special:ListFiles/Beta_M|diagrams and photos]]. Apparently the admin didn't know how to check this. [[User:Beta_M|VolodyA! V Anarhist]] <small>Beta_M</small> ([[User talk:Beta_M|converse]]) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
−

<Anarhist> hi, ppl, i'm being accused by an admin of distributing (or having distributed) child pornography, and thus blocked

<Anarhist> the admin sent me a link to the article talking about a person who's distributed child porn and said that it's me

<Anarhist> i want to know what to do now

<Anarhist> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beta_M my talk page

<Anarhist> i have contacted the newspaper, which has published the article, explaining the situation that it's used in this way.. but of course, i doubt that they'll do much. i've only asked for a clarification to be posted about how common this name is

<Anarhist> my name is in fact similar

<geniice> so your argument is that it isn't you?

<Dcoetzee> Anarhist: Are you stating it isn't you?

<Anarhist> i think that's what i just said

<geniice> Someone with the name VolodyA! V. Mozhenkov has anarchist views here and claims to be in prision (Federal Correctional Institution Elkton):

<geniice> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psy-op/message/2544?var=1

<geniice> A Vladimir Mozhenkov was in prision at that point

<geniice> http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=06429-046&x=0&y=0

<geniice> A Vladimir Mozhenkov was convicted of downloading child pornography back in 2000.

<Dcoetzee> I'll unblock. This is stupid anyway. :-)

<geniice> http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283

<russavia> do you have evidence that this them geniice?

<Anarhist> i've read the article

<Dcoetzee> Anyone is entitled to participate in any deletion request discussion, even if it was that guy.

<russavia> if not, it is a bosh block

<geniice> russavia see what I posted

<Dcoetzee> Anarhist: Moreover, your DR !vote was correct and was the ultimate result of consensus

<Dcoetzee> Anarhist: Which makes me find the block even stranger.

<russavia> where is the on commons reasoning for the block?

<Dcoetzee> I am unblocking now.

<Anarhist> thanks.

* Dmcdevit (~Dmcdevit@ip70-179-48-185.sd.sd.cox.net) has joined #wikimedia-commons

<Anarhist> i support freedom of speech, so i'll keep the discussion in the history of my talk page, but i will remove it from the current version

* sonia (~sonia@wikipedia/sonia) has joined #wikimedia-commons

<Anarhist> geniice, i am willing to discuss my position on that deletion debate if you want

<Dcoetzee> Anarhist: Done, unblocked

Dcoetzee Dereckson DieMathematik Dmcdevit Dragonfly6-7 Dvortygirl

Dcoetzee Dereckson DieMathematik Dmcdevit Dragonfly6-7 Dvortygirl

<geniice> I don't care one way or the other about your position

<Anarhist> Dcoetzee, thanks

<Anarhist> geniice, ok. i find your behaviour strange, but maybe you have your reasons. be well and happy. be free from troubles and worries. and those good wishes go out to all here

* Ludo-- (~Ludo--@wikipedia/Ludo29) has joined #wikimedia-commons

<geniice> this isn't over

* Raymond_ (~chatzilla@wikipedia/Raymond) has joined #wikimedia-commons

<Anarhist> geniice, did i do something to you?

<Anarhist> i have gotten in my share of arguments, so i may have forgotten your nick

<Anarhist> if that makes you feel better, you aren't the first person to find that article, and i was banned from two forums due to it

<Anarhist> most people have managed to see through it very quickly, however.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia&diff=3546727&oldid=3546690

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia&diff=3546737&oldid=3546734

QUOTE
I must wonder. The quote from Beta_M seems to be factually right and is no advocacy, depending on the definition of the terms. Sounds like an very constructed argument to me. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] ([[User talk:Niabot|talk]]) 01:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


Niabot believes that having sex with teenagers isn't pedophilia.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 7th March 2012, 11:13pm) *

And it's Derek Coetzee for http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68026198&oldid=68022867!

http://www.webcitation.org/5wEeBNj9g. That wikimedia lets people like this have any editorial voice on what porn is allowed on their projects, or who is allowed to participate, is a huge mistake.


Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 7th March 2012, 9:26pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 7th March 2012, 11:13pm) *

And it's Derek Coetzee for http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68026198&oldid=68022867!

http://www.webcitation.org/5wEeBNj9g. That wikimedia lets people like this have any editorial voice on what porn is allowed on their projects, or who is allowed to participate, is a huge mistake.


He likes cranes, muffins, and seriously unattractive women. A real winner, this one.


Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 8th March 2012, 1:55am) *

Niabot believes that having sex with teenagers isn't pedophilia.

Niabot is technically correct, at least according to a common scholarly definition which defines pedophilia as sexual interest in prepubescent children (i.e. < 13 years of age).

Of course the first Google link for pedophilia that tells you that is ... Wikipedia. So I thought I had better double-check, which led to me to http://m.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036&RelatedWidgetArticles=true, which – besides backing the Wikipedia article up on the age thing – contains the following passage in its definition of pedophilia:

QUOTE
Generally, pedophiles do not use force to have children engage in these activities but instead rely on various forms of psychic manipulation and desensitization (eg, progression from innocuous touching to inappropriate touching, showing pornography to children). When confronted about engaging in such activities, pedophiles commonly justify and minimize their actions by stating that the acts "had educational value".

A US Department of Justice manual for law enforcement officers identifies 5 common psychological defense patterns in pedophiles: (1) denial (eg, "Is it wrong to give a child a hug?), (2) minimization ("It only happened once"), (3) justification (eg, "I am a boy lover, not a child molester"), (4) fabrication (activities were research for a scholarly project), and (5) attack (character attacks on child, prosecutors, or police, as well as potential for physical violence).

Some of that sounded eerily familar.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

Rd232 sent me an Email asking me to be more "precise" in my terminology. <sarcasm> Alright, let's play it his or her way. Beta_M doesn't support pedophilia; he supports "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia", which aren't even recognized by Firefox's spellchecker. </sarcasm> Nah.

Also, HRIP7's comment above:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=301030

Posted by: melloden

Some of these people are so disgusting and disgustingly wrong that I can't understand how they can even stand existing.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 7th March 2012, 9:14pm) *
Alright, let's play it his or her way. Beta_M doesn't support pedophilia; he supports "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia"...

Well then, there you go! Next stop, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship! yikes.gif

(We've got these new smileys, you see...)

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 8th March 2012, 3:14am) *

Rd232 sent me an Email asking me to be more "precise" in my terminology. <sarcasm> Alright, let's play it his or her way. Beta_M doesn't support pedophilia; he supports "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia", which aren't even recognized by Firefox's spellchecker. </sarcasm> Nah.

I think you mean Niabot, not Beta M. Beta M has expressed support for the "childlove" movement, after all.

Posted by: mbz1

Now Cirt is http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMattbuck&diff=67999929&oldid=67967558 on all talk pages Cirt put it on.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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:Administrators%27_noticeboard/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/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=06429-046&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.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

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:Administrators%27_noticeboard/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/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=06429-046&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).

Posted by: Peter Damian

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:Administrators%27_noticeboard/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/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=06429-046&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.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

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:Administrators%27_noticeboard/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/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=06429-046&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.

Posted by: Selina

This just goes to show why it's really, really, important that all the IRC channels be publicly logged for transparency

— All chat-room activities for WMF should be moved to their own server that does not allow secret channels hidden from the public list (like the admin ones), either...

http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=35687&view=findpost&p=296220

Posted by: HRIP7

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:Administrators%27_noticeboard/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/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=06429-046&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.
You made a typo here. The release was October 4, 2002, according to the source you found and linked, and this is consistent with what I said http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=37062&view=findpost&p=300935.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 8th March 2012, 12:07pm) *

You made a typo here. The release was October 4, 2002, according to the source you found and linked, and this is consistent with what I said http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=37062&view=findpost&p=300935.


Yes, thanks for spotting that. And agree, you spotted it earlier smile.gif

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68046339&oldid=68046262

Prepare for the anti-WR, anti-anti-pedophilia witch-hunt.

Posted by: Selina

QUOTE
keep in mind that not only the absolute truth matter (what is the truth after all?)
rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 8th March 2012, 1:06pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68046339&oldid=68046262

Prepare for the anti-WR, anti-anti-pedophilia witch-hunt.


I'm not getting this. They are strenuously arguing that it is totally irrelevant what you have done off-wiki, even it it is so serious you spend two years in jail for it. Unless it involves contributing to Wikipedia Review, in which case it is totally relevant, and very bad. Have I got that right?

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 8th March 2012, 1:06pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68046339&oldid=68046262

Prepare for the anti-WR, anti-anti-pedophilia witch-hunt.

The main flavour is:

- it's only porn, so where is the problem?

- I see nothing whatsoever to indicate that anything inappropriate has ever been done or said on Commons (now that we've had a chance to clean up after him).

I rather like the "You want to block a person for his views? Did I get that right? --Saibo (Δ) 12:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)" as if it was inconceivable that certain, ahem, "free speech" could be problematic. The desire is then to block other people who are expressing the view that Commons is not acting responsibly. irony.gif

Just a reminder, the trigger to all this was a dysfunctional debate on whether it was appropriate to have bondage photographs of a teenager of indeterminate years and which the defenders of the picture were awarded the "Hot sex barnstar" for ensuring that Commons was maintained as a free repository of pornography.

Posted by: Selina

I'm worried that the anti-pornography stuff some people have been focusing on is going to hurt efforts to get the paedophiles' fingers out of WMF: you can't fight both battles at once, because the former is going to put EVERYONE on WMF against you because "not censored" due to offence is one of the principles that pretty much everyone there agrees on, mixing the two up is going to cause a lot of trouble, it's just like how on the BDSM wiki the admins were defending poetguy even after I told him what he did, because there is this reflex to defend "one of us" that happens so much in human nature. It's the cabalism thing again.

some people really need to think about what is the priority, I think unhappy.gif

This is all real, it was happening back in 2006 even:
http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=37062&view=findpost&p=300955

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Selina @ Thu 8th March 2012, 1:38pm) *

I'm worried that the anti-pornography stuff some people have been focusing on is going to hurt efforts to get the paedophiles' fingers out of WMF: you can't fight both battles at once, because the former is going to put EVERYONE on WMF against you because "not censored" due to offence is one of the principles that pretty much everyone there agrees on, mixing the two up is going to cause a lot of trouble, it's just like how on the BDSM wiki the admins were defending poetguy even after I told him what he did, because there is this reflex to defend "one of us" that happens so much in human nature. It's the cabalism thing again.

some people really need to think about what is the priority, I think unhappy.gif

This is all real, it was happening back in 2006 even:
http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=37062&view=findpost&p=300955



The point is that they will not deal with either issue. If the former serves as an excuse for not dealing with the later so much to the good. Personally I'd drive them into a corner where they end up defending the most outrageous abuses.


Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(Selina @ Thu 8th March 2012, 11:35am) *

This just goes to show why it's really, really, important that all the IRC channels be publicly logged for transparency

— All chat-room activities for WMF should be moved to their own server that does not allow secret channels hidden from the public list (like the admin ones), either...

So says the creator of the ultra-secret Moderators' Forum. stepcarefully.gif

Posted by: mbz1

I found another Russian newspaper (in Russian language) that mentions 19-years old Vladimir (a full name for Volodya) Mozhenkov , a student of Catholic college Carroll (If I made a correct translation) in Montana who was arrested in US for child pornography.

Posted by: Tarc

A shame to see rd232 becoming a supporter/enabler for Wiki-pedophiles. Once upon a time he was a halfway decent admin.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 9th March 2012, 9:03pm) *

A shame to see rd232 becoming a supporter/enabler for Wiki-pedophiles. Once upon a time he was a halfway decent admin.

He only recently came to Commons, contributed only three images, and is trying to run the place according to enwp standards. Almost all his edits are in commons namespace. Bureaucratic, overbearing, officious, criticizing non-native speakers for their English.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Fri 9th March 2012, 3:29pm) *
QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 9th March 2012, 9:03pm) *
A shame to see rd232 becoming a supporter/enabler for Wiki-pedophiles. Once upon a time he was a halfway decent admin.
He only recently came to Commons, contributed only three images, and is trying to run the place according to enwp standards. Almost all his edits are in commons namespace. Bureaucratic, overbearing, officious, criticizing non-native speakers for their English.

I could tell you a lot more about him, but ultimately he's an unimportant twit. The issue is with these idiots banding together to defend the indefensible. Squabbling amongst themselves is only distraction.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 9th March 2012, 9:03pm) *

A shame to see rd232 becoming a supporter/enabler for Wiki-pedophiles. Once upon a time he was a halfway decent admin.

He has now blocked Schosha (Kwork). Just because he had brought Rd232's behaviour up at the admin board.

He is acting like a boss or like mother superior. Insubordination! Must be quelled!

And such a hypocrite: free speech for anybody (including pedophiles), except for those that do not obey the great admin.

Silly little person.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 9th March 2012, 8:03pm) *

A shame to see rd232 becoming a supporter/enabler for Wiki-pedophiles. Once upon a time he was a halfway decent admin.
I agree. I am surprised to see Rd232's name turn up here, as I had positive recollections of him from Wikipedia.

Perhaps he is succumbing to groupthink. There is an echo chamber effect in Wikimedia communities – Wikimedians are always very concerned about contributors' rights, to the extent that they will defend a convicted child pornographer's right to curate adult content on an educational charity's website ...

At the same time they are perfectly happy to be cruel to biography subjects – or image subjects, for that matter, who tell them they really, really don't want their images hosted on Commons.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sat 10th March 2012, 11:29pm) *



Perhaps he is succumbing to groupthink. There is an echo chamber effect in Wikimedia communities – Wikimedians are always very concerned about contributors' rights, to the extent that they will defend a convicted child pornographer's right to curate adult content on an educational charity's website ...


Nope, they are not concerned about contributors' rights, they are only concern about pedophiles-contributors rights and other criminals-contributors rights, but as a long as a contributor is neither a criminal nor a pedophile, no wikipedian is concerned about his rights.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Removes http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=68170776&oldid=68169814 the following question from his talk page


QUOTE

A further question (the freedom loving anarchist has deleted the previous one). Is this your blog? It says "The Official Flog of VolodyA! V A". There is an awful lot about the 'childlove' movement on there.

"Lately i´ve been becoming bold. I´ve started openly promoting childlove movement on open forums, without any reservations that i had before. I don´t feel somehow bad about it, and i do feel that it is a correct thing to do. I think that it is all fine that childlovers set up their own little places and talk to each other, but as was said in one of the podcasts of pedologues (i think it was the third episode) there needs to be a community connection. What happens today is that there is childlove movement, and those who never heard of it… nothing in between at all. " http://66.172.33.102:8888/freenet:USK@X1LyFuoMhnKY7KLK5-RBQ3IHtNJLAUSV~IjzRuxi6Kw,x9otznrH7Y8R42TzfAqDHv5Fda2ojIhqJw7iPRzimz8,AQACAAE/Volodya/27/


Posted by: Selina

Maybe the same kind of organised lettering and petitioning could be used to get some kind of hard and fast rule against pictures of children in sexual contexts being posted on Commons? It didn't solve it on Wikipedia, they just became covert, but with Commons it's also a lot easier to draw the line than with text, I think it'd have a serious chance. Maybe if we tallied up all the times it's been used literally and openly by paedophiles, and sent it a copy to every media organisation there is

Posted by: Peter Damian

Page now protected http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=68174521&oldid=68174516 by Saibo, at Moshenko's request.

Posted by: Peter Damian

And now I have been blocked by 'Mattbuck' for supposed harassment of Beta M.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68175550&oldid=68158913

Posted by: Wikitaka

Beta M has also been uploading tons of porn pics to a website called Freedom Porn; http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Category:masturbation

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 11th March 2012, 3:18pm) *

And now I have been blocked by 'Mattbuck' for supposed harassment of Beta M.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68175550&oldid=68158913

Well, you should be proud to be blocked by an admin http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herbythyme&oldid=65550854#File:Penis_structure.JPG.2C_File:Erected_and_flaccid_Penis.jpg_and_File:Pipi_penis.JPG and from the site that protects convicted pedophiles.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Er, yes. Here he is http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Gallery:malakhgabriel_-_Pink_Pirate as a pink pirate (very NSFW).

So, I try to build content related to the great Western intellectual tradition, but I am sadly blocked, by defenders of this. What has it come to? Har har 'come to' giggle.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 11th March 2012, 7:46pm) *

Er, yes. Here he is http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Gallery:malakhgabriel_-_Pink_Pirate as a pink pirate (very NSFW).



Who "he" ?

Posted by: Wikitaka

Commons is heaven if you enjoy showing your genitalia to the world. What concerns me the most is that there is no way to control whether the depicted persons are adults and to my knowledge there is no such policy.

Posted by: EricBarbour

You'll all be no-doubt-pleased to know that Rd232 has http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=76771 on WR, and is now reading this thread....

Posted by: lilburne

Perhaps he's coming over to the darkside? Oh sorry I miss read that as r2d2.

Never mind, I think I'll just precise the shenanigans going on over at Commons for that Faux News guy.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 11th March 2012, 6:02pm) *

You'll all be no-doubt-pleased to know that Rd232 has http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=76771 on WR, and is now reading this thread....

Apparently somebody led him astray about the workarounds for freemail addresses, otherwise he would have been here long ago.

Though now that he's been dox'd already, I don't see the point in using the anonymized freemail...

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:18am) *

And now I have been blocked by 'Mattbuck' for supposed harassment of Beta M.

You weren't blocked on commons yet?!? Man those folks are slow.

Mattbuck seems like a fun guy.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 11th March 2012, 10:02pm) *

You'll all be no-doubt-pleased to know that Rd232 has http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=76771 on WR, and is now reading this thread....

I did not know Rd232 made an account, but I knew he was reading the thread. Last night I linked to two indefinitely blocked user pages: Beta m and Proofreader77 to prove my point that contributors who committed no crime in a real life are treated worse than the ones who did. After that Rd232 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABeta_M&diff=481239984&oldid=477401372 as Proofreader77's user page was. When I saw it, I removed the links from my post because they were no longer needed.

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:04pm) *

Mattbuck seems like a fun guy.

Then maybe you'd unblock Peter? tongue.gif

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 11th March 2012, 7:16pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:04pm) *

Mattbuck seems like a fun guy.

Then maybe you'd unblock Peter? tongue.gif

I'm not an admin on commons any more, sorry.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:18am) *

And now I have been blocked by 'Mattbuck' for supposed harassment of Beta M.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68175550&oldid=68158913


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3APeter_Damian

Mattbuck decided to remove your talk page access since you called them fascists:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68182443&oldid=68182425

Apparently, you're not allowed to call suppressors of free speech "fascists". Commons' new motto: "All speech is free, but some speech (i.e. porn) is freer than others (i.e. dissension, criticism)."

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:55pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:18am) *

And now I have been blocked by 'Mattbuck' for supposed harassment of Beta M.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68175550&oldid=68158913


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3APeter_Damian

Mattbuck decided to remove your talk page access since you called them fascists:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68182443&oldid=68182425

Apparently, you're not allowed to call suppressors of free speech "fascists". Commons' new motto: "All speech is free, but some speech (i.e. porn) is freer than others (i.e. dissension, criticism)."

I wish people at WMF would understand that letting someone with a child pornography conviction curate adult material on an educational charity's website is bad PR. As is blocking people who post evidence that proves someone advocates pedophilia, which Sue Gardner tells the public Wikimedia has a zero-tolerance policy on.

That zero-tolerance policy is openly ridiculed and flouted by administrators on Commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68051777

On Meta, Sue's quote that Wikimedia has a zero-tolerance policy on pedophilia advocacy has just been removed:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=3557747&oldid=3546718

Ah well. Lunatics, asylum, running. I think it would make a good story, and not just in Fox News; but you've got to start somewhere.

Posted by: Tarc

Beta is, rather sloppily, trying to clean up some of his regular Commons activities. Seems he tried to try to steer deleted cock towards that freedomporn wiki, a website much like that ridiculous wikialpha where most of the contribs are by one user.

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beta_M/penisdeleted&diff=prev&oldid=68174654

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beta_M/nopenis&diff=prev&oldid=68174643

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Wikitaka @ Sun 11th March 2012, 5:24pm) *

Beta M has also been uploading tons of porn pics to a website called Freedom Porn; http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Category:masturbation


There's nothing on that page that trips my kiddy fiddler radar.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

This is a serious question from someone who is not a defender of any kiddy fiddler anywhere, but at which point, after his sentence ended, should someone remain being vilified even though there is no evidence of doing that for which he was punished in the first place?

Now I realise that we can never know if there is paedo porn residing on his computer at this very moment, but there is no evidence of him uploading paedo porn to commons, there is no evidence of him grooming anyone (it seems to me that Commons would be a lousy choice of venue to do that anyway given that there is so little user interaction compared to en.wp).

I also realise that someone who has once been convicted for possession of paedo porn isn't to be trusted, ever. But having said that he does have rights (only because the crime he was convicted of doesn't remove them from him).

What I think I'm trying to say, is why vilify him rather than keep him in plain sight where he can be monitored, rather than to push and push, force him away, only to come back as a sock who is now under the radar.

My own personal opinion is that known kiddy fiddlers should be forced to use their own real names, should have an admin or two monitoring them all the time and should not be allowed to upload porn of any sort.

What I don't believe should happen, at least not in Beta M's case, is form them to be run out of town instantly. Beta M served his time and got deported. He was punished. That should be the end of it. At least until the next time, which I don't believe will occur on Commons.

What I do find slightly alarming though is the fact that he was done for having paedo porn on his computer and for distributing said porn, but only 37 images were found. Usually true paedos will have literally 1000s of images. I get the impression that this guy is an experimenter, rather than a true kiddy fiddler. He's searching for the next sexual 'high'. This is quite obvious looking at his images on that other website.

Anyway, I'm rambling now...so how long should he be punished for after his sentence is complete?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 9:46am) *

This is a serious question from someone who is not a defender of any kiddy fiddler anywhere, but at which point, after his sentence ended, should someone remain being vilified even though there is no evidence of doing that for which he was punished in the first place?

Now I realise that we can never know if there is paedo porn residing on his computer at this very moment, but there is no evidence of him uploading paedo porn to commons, there is no evidence of him grooming anyone (it seems to me that Commons would be a lousy choice of venue to do that anyway given that there is so little user interaction compared to en.wp).

I also realise that someone who has once been convicted for possession of paedo porn isn't to be trusted, ever. But having said that he does have rights (only because the crime he was convicted of doesn't remove them from him).

What I think I'm trying to say, is why vilify him rather than keep him in plain sight where he can be monitored, rather than to push and push, force him away, only to come back as a sock who is now under the radar.

My own personal opinion is that known kiddy fiddlers should be forced to use their own real names, should have an admin or two monitoring them all the time and should not be allowed to upload porn of any sort.

What I don't believe should happen, at least not in Beta M's case, is form them to be run out of town instantly. Beta M served his time and got deported. He was punished. That should be the end of it. At least until the next time, which I don't believe will occur on Commons.

What I do find slightly alarming though is the fact that he was done for having paedo porn on his computer and for distributing said porn, but only 37 images were found. Usually true paedos will have literally 1000s of images. I get the impression that this guy is an experimenter, rather than a true kiddy fiddler. He's searching for the next sexual 'high'. This is quite obvious looking at his images on that other website.

Anyway, I'm rambling now...so how long should he be punished for after his sentence is complete?


If it was ten years ago, then possibly OK. But he is completely unrepentant. Shortly after being released from prison, he started an Internet prison diary, promoting himself as some anarchist hero and a victim of the vicious anti-pedophile Gulag. In more recent posts on his website he has defended the infamous Rookiee of 'Pedologues'. He still sees the suppression of child porn as a brutal act of a totalitarian state against freedom of speech.

I find the idea of him being on Commons deeply problematic.

Plus, the stuff he uploads is complete rubbish. There is simply no intellectual or philosophical value in porn. Get rid of the lot.

Posted by: lilburne

Lets put it this way.

There is this web site where people upload and curate pornographic images in the name of educational value. Within that site there is a social networking system of discussing things on talk pages, IRC channels, and email contacts. The site has no age limits and 15 year old kids and younger are amongst those curating the pornography. The wider community sees no problem with even confirmed 13 year old children editing articles on pornography. The most vociferous defenders of all aspects of pornography are found to have a particular interest in sexualized images of subjects that appear to be of school age. At least one of the people in the mix has been convicted of distributing child pornography and has his own website dedicated to pornography and his right to participate with children on the site is defended.

The web site in question gains a proportion of its revenue from its tax exempt status.



Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:07am) *


If it was ten years ago, then possibly OK. But he is completely unrepentant. Shortly after being released from prison, he started an Internet prison diary, promoting himself as some anarchist hero and a victim of the vicious anti-pedophile Gulag. In more recent posts on his website he has defended the infamous Rookiee of 'Pedologues'. He still sees the suppression of child porn as a brutal act of a totalitarian state against freedom of speech.

I find the idea of him being on Commons deeply problematic.

Plus, the stuff he uploads is complete rubbish. There is simply no intellectual or philosophical value in porn. Get rid of the lot.


To be honest I just put him down a a fuckwitted, narcissistic exhibitionist who is all noise and no signal. But I still think he's best positioned where we can see him.

On matters of porn, well the term itself is subjective and will never be agreed on by everyone.

I do believe that there is a place for what you call "porn" on Commons, but I also believe that it should be of far better quality. All the crappily lit, out of focus, badly composed shit should go.

As for the infinite number of penis pics, well I believe that the uploader should have to state why it's being uploaded, what it's being uploaded for and what benefit to Commons and the project it is. Having to write all that lot out would cut down on the frat boys coming home to the dormitory pissed and thinking it would be a good idea to enshrine their wiener on Commons.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:13am) *

Lets put it this way.

There is this web site where people upload and curate pornographic images in the name of educational value. Within that site there is a social networking system of discussing things on talk pages, IRC channels, and email contacts. The site has no age limits and 15 year old kids and younger are amongst those curating the pornography. The wider community sees no problem with even confirmed 13 year old children editing articles on pornography. The most vociferous defenders of all aspects of pornography are found to have a particular interest in sexualized images of subjects that appear to be of school age. At least one of the people in the mix has been convicted of distributing child pornography and has his own website dedicated to pornography and his right to participate with children on the site is defended.

The web site in question gains a proportion of its revenue from its tax exempt status.


And we know how many 13 year-olds there are doing this how?

And presumably you're also stating that there should be no adult topics on WP on the off-chance that an under-age viewer comes across it, or edits it?

Sorry, but I don't believe that too much information is ever a bad thing, regardless of how old the kid is. In any case, if the kid is making reasonable quality edits then there's a good chance that he's mature enough to deal with the subject matter.

Incidentally, I say this as a father of two.

Posted by: lilburne

We know because there was a big doodah over on ANI and Wales talk page last year about it, the kid eventually got banned for swearing at an admin (can't have that) but the communitah was perfectly happy with him porn editing. We also know that at least one 15 yo admin was categorising the commons porn in 2010.

The issue is that any responsible organisation wouldn't be allowing any of this. The communitah is not responsible, and the WMF is nowhere to be seen. So you are correct a confirmed 13 yo should not be editing porn, and they should not be interacting with anonymous adults on the subject of porn. A system that allows that to happen is flawed.



Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:47am) *

We know because there was a big doodah over on ANI and Wales talk page last year about it, the kid eventually got banned for swearing at an admin (can't have that) but the communitah was perfectly happy with him porn editing. We also know that at least one 15 yo admin was categorising the commons porn in 2010.

The issue is that any responsible organisation wouldn't be allowing any of this. The communitah is not responsible, and the WMF is nowhere to be seen. So you are correct a confirmed 13 yo should not be editing porn, and they should not be interacting with anonymous adults on the subject of porn. A system that allows that to happen is flawed.


It can't be that flawed if only one out of 1000s are found to be editing porn, as for the 15 year-old walking sack of hormones goes I'd be more worried if he wasn't hunting porn down.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:27am) *

And presumably you're also stating that there should be no adult topics on WP on the off-chance that an under-age viewer comes across it, or edits it?

Sorry, but I don't believe that too much information is ever a bad thing, regardless of how old the kid is. In any case, if the kid is making reasonable quality edits then there's a good chance that he's mature enough to deal with the subject matter.

Having access to accurate information on sexual topics is a good thing. Reading about them on WP is a bad thing. Unless you want them to think that scrotum inflation is pretty normal or that the "donkey punch" is a real practice.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:00pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:27am) *

And presumably you're also stating that there should be no adult topics on WP on the off-chance that an under-age viewer comes across it, or edits it?

Sorry, but I don't believe that too much information is ever a bad thing, regardless of how old the kid is. In any case, if the kid is making reasonable quality edits then there's a good chance that he's mature enough to deal with the subject matter.

Having access to accurate information on sexual topics is a good thing. Reading about them on WP is a bad thing. Unless you want them to think that scrotum inflation is pretty normal or that the "donkey punch" is a real practice.


Out of however millions of articles you want to focus on just two?

So when are you going to put both up for AfD so that the community can agree with you?

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 5:46am) *
Anyway, I'm rambling now...so how long should he be punished for after his sentence is complete?


Until he's lying face-down in a roadside ditch, IMO.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:10pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:00pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:27am) *

And presumably you're also stating that there should be no adult topics on WP on the off-chance that an under-age viewer comes across it, or edits it?

Sorry, but I don't believe that too much information is ever a bad thing, regardless of how old the kid is. In any case, if the kid is making reasonable quality edits then there's a good chance that he's mature enough to deal with the subject matter.

Having access to accurate information on sexual topics is a good thing. Reading about them on WP is a bad thing. Unless you want them to think that scrotum inflation is pretty normal or that the "donkey punch" is a real practice.


Out of however millions of articles you want to focus on just two?

So when are you going to put both up for AfD so that the community can agree with you?

Yes, an AfD is clearly the best way to determine if an article is accurate or useful. LOL. We're talking about a subset of those millions of articles, the subset defined by your contention that WP is a valid source of information on sexual topics. I chose two off the top of my head to illustrate what everyone here, including yourself, knows - it is a terrible source of information on sexual topics for a variety of reasons. Give it a rest.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:25pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:10pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:00pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:27am) *

And presumably you're also stating that there should be no adult topics on WP on the off-chance that an under-age viewer comes across it, or edits it?

Sorry, but I don't believe that too much information is ever a bad thing, regardless of how old the kid is. In any case, if the kid is making reasonable quality edits then there's a good chance that he's mature enough to deal with the subject matter.

Having access to accurate information on sexual topics is a good thing. Reading about them on WP is a bad thing. Unless you want them to think that scrotum inflation is pretty normal or that the "donkey punch" is a real practice.


Out of however millions of articles you want to focus on just two?

So when are you going to put both up for AfD so that the community can agree with you?

Yes, an AfD is clearly the best way to determine if an article is accurate or useful. LOL. We're talking about a subset of those millions of articles, the subset defined by your contention that WP is a valid source of information on sexual topics. I chose two off the top of my head to illustrate what everyone here, including yourself, knows - it is a terrible source of information on sexual topics for a variety of reasons. Give it a rest.


You seem to think both articles are neither educational nor useful hence my suggestion about doing away with them. Given your response I take it you've changed your mind?

Why do you think that I think that WP is a terrible source of sexual topics? I'm all for them being there so long as they are accurate, factual and neutral as well as not being a HOWTO.

I'm of the opinion that if it exists then there should be an article on it.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:32pm) *

You seem to think both articles are neither educational nor useful hence my suggestion about doing away with them. Given your response I take it you've changed your mind?

Why do you think that I think that WP is a terrible source of sexual topics? I'm all for them being there so long as they are accurate, factual and neutral as well as not being a HOWTO.

I'm of the opinion that if it exists then there should be an article on it.

Sorry, I'm not playing. You know the answers to your questions. Waste someone else's time.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:38pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:32pm) *

You seem to think both articles are neither educational nor useful hence my suggestion about doing away with them. Given your response I take it you've changed your mind?

Why do you think that I think that WP is a terrible source of sexual topics? I'm all for them being there so long as they are accurate, factual and neutral as well as not being a HOWTO.

I'm of the opinion that if it exists then there should be an article on it.

Sorry, I'm not playing. You know the answers to your questions. Waste someone else's time.


Who's playing? I'm not?

I don't know the answers to the questions. I don't know what goes on in your head, and pretty damn sure you don't know how my head works.

As for wasting your time, you chose to reply. You weren't coerced so as such I can only presume that you are quite happy to waste your own time.

As it happens I truly believe that which I stated above. I'm not saying it to troll any one.

In other words you have your way of thinking about WP and I have mine. You seem to believe that anyone who doesn't share your outlook is wasting your time. Not very open-minded are you?

Posted by: mbz1

Now beta-m posted a link to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68230154 to Freedom_Porn:Donations page (like Commons has not enough porno on its own hrmph.gif ) at AN/U at commons:

QUOTE
Also as an admin on Commons you know very well that you've not posted a page that anybody who would want to make a donation would see, nobody would look through the history to find a page from 2008 (4 years ago). The real donation page is [http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Freedom_Porn:Donations here]. And it's very common for a non-profit group to allow people to donate, this isn't something special, it's not a business model. [[User:Beta_M|VolodyA! V Anarhist]] <small>Beta_M</small> ([[User talk:Beta_M|converse]]) 14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sure a few administrators and users will visit the site. hrmph.gif

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sun 11th March 2012, 7:55pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:18am) *

And now I have been blocked by 'Mattbuck' for supposed harassment of Beta M.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68175550&oldid=68158913


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3APeter_Damian

Mattbuck decided to remove your talk page access since you called them fascists:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68182443&oldid=68182425

Apparently, you're not allowed to call suppressors of free speech "fascists". Commons' new motto: "All speech is free, but some speech (i.e. porn) is freer than others (i.e. dissension, criticism)."


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68250910&oldid=68249755:

QUOTE
I do not see why as admins we should be forced to endure people who simply wish to be disruptive. I stand by my block, and my later revocation of his talk page access when he used the edit summaries to continue to be rude. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:04pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:18am) *

And now I have been blocked by 'Mattbuck' for supposed harassment of Beta M.

You weren't blocked on commons yet?!? Man those folks are slow.

Mattbuck seems like a fun guy.


Image

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0



Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 12th March 2012, 11:41pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sun 11th March 2012, 7:55pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:18am) *

And now I have been blocked by 'Mattbuck' for supposed harassment of Beta M.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68175550&oldid=68158913


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3APeter_Damian

Mattbuck decided to remove your talk page access since you called them fascists:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=68182443&oldid=68182425

Apparently, you're not allowed to call suppressors of free speech "fascists". Commons' new motto: "All speech is free, but some speech (i.e. porn) is freer than others (i.e. dissension, criticism)."


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68250910&oldid=68249755:

QUOTE
I do not see why as admins we should be forced to endure people who simply wish to be disruptive. I stand by my block, and my later revocation of his talk page access when he used the edit summaries to continue to be rude. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Damian has now been http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APeter+Damian by Rd232 – edit summary: No warning, and "harassment" appears to be legitimate questions

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 13th March 2012, 3:22am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:04pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 11th March 2012, 11:18am) *

And now I have been blocked by 'Mattbuck' for supposed harassment of Beta M.

You weren't blocked on commons yet?!? Man those folks are slow.

Mattbuck seems like a fun guy.


Image

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0


He really is. hrmph.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 12th March 2012, 11:00pm) *
He really is. hrmph.gif

Hang on, is that photo saying that they're selling beaded belts for just ten quid? I can't tell if the sign says "10.00" or "19.99."

Because if it's 10.00, then I got seriously ripped off on my last visit to Sausalito.

Posted by: Wikitaka

Wow, take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png.....

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Wikitaka @ Tue 13th March 2012, 2:47am) *

Wow, take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png.....

Come on, that's soooo http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=37062&view=findpost&p=300772

Now, if they could come up with a cold sex barnstar, then that would be really impressive. (As long as it didn't involve corpses, that is... though with WP, I'm sure it's just a matter of time!)

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 12th March 2012, 8:22pm) *

Image

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0



Funny that he wants "free culture" and "free porn", but uses a CC license on his own photos.
And tries to sell the rights to them thru Getty Images. Who in the HELL does that twit think
will pay commercial rates for a photo of his ugly face?.....


Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:56am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 12th March 2012, 8:22pm) *

Image

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0



Funny that he wants "free culture" and "free porn", but uses a CC license on his own photos.
And tries to sell the rights to them thru Getty Images. Who in the HELL does that twit think
will pay commercial rates for a photo of his ugly face?.....


Well the getty images thing is something that flickr put on there, and you have to actively take it fucking thing off. OTOH there are 12,000 photos there of nothing so whether he has link on or off doesn't really matter.

Posted by: Peter Damian

The block is back. Apparently my actions were 'inappropriate' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68264219&oldid=68262576. This WR thread has been referenced.

[Edit] Interesting what Commons admins interpret as 'inappropriate'.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 13th March 2012, 10:39am) *

The block is back. Apparently my actions were 'inappropriate' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68264219&oldid=68262576. This WR thread has been referenced.

[Edit] Interesting what Commons admins interpret as 'inappropriate'.


Screw em!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68267699

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 13th March 2012, 6:39am) *

The block is back. Apparently my actions were 'inappropriate' http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68264219&oldid=68262576. This WR thread has been referenced.

[Edit] Interesting what Commons admins interpret as 'inappropriate'.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3APeter_Damian

Can PierreSelim really be considered an uninvolved sysop in all this?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68014062&oldid=68014045

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68046339&oldid=68046262

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68057429&oldid=68057251

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68059691&oldid=68059378

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk%3AChild_protection&diff=68148519&oldid=68144400

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Child_protection&diff=68150075&oldid=68150026

Posted by: Selina

my... wow...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beta_M?diff=prev&oldid=68158870#Pedophile_fantasy_island

QUOTE
One of the dearest fantasy held in the paedophile sub-culture is that of the fantasy island - the secluded island community where paedophiles and children roam free, enjoying total sexual freedom. The idea behind this fantasy is the suggestion that away from the oppressive teachings of these organised religions, those who feel a sexual attraction towards the pre-pubescent can indulge their basest desires and, in doing so, also achieve some form of enlightenment... that the freedom to establish their much maligned and negated altruism will result in some kind of mass overhaul of opinion amongst the general population.


I have called the two tag-teaming admins out on their crap:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Peter_Damian_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Selina @ Tue 13th March 2012, 10:06am) *

my... wow...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beta_M?diff=prev&oldid=68158870#Pedophile_fantasy_island
QUOTE
One of the dearest fantasy held in the paedophile sub-culture is that of the fantasy island - the secluded island community where paedophiles and children roam free, enjoying total sexual freedom. The idea behind this fantasy is the suggestion that away from the oppressive teachings of these organised religions, those who feel a sexual attraction towards the pre-pubescent can indulge their basest desires and, in doing so, also achieve some form of enlightenment... that the freedom to establish their much maligned and negated altruism will result in some kind of mass overhaul of opinion amongst the general population.



http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beta_M?diff=prev&oldid=68158870

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=pedophilia&diff=32287&oldid=31952

Disclaimer: As I've stated previously on Commons, an anon (most likely not Beta_M) wrote that.

Posted by: mbz1

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68279642

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 13th March 2012, 4:53pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68279642


Yup, I was there.

Isn't russavia a hero? irony.gif

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Wow:

QUOTE
No, it's still libellous. Even if we assume that the user in question was convicted on child pornography charges, that is still a world away from actually raping children. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

...and the child pornography conviction isn't at all relevant for a media depository project? This guy needs to be watched.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:03pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 13th March 2012, 4:53pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68279642


Yup, I was there.

Isn't russavia a hero? irony.gif



Isn't he another porn mongering Russian?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 13th March 2012, 2:22pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:03pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 13th March 2012, 4:53pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68279642


Yup, I was there.

Isn't russavia a hero? irony.gif

Isn't he another porn mongering Russian?

Australian, iirc. No idea about the porn mongering, but he's a top deputy in Fae's posse on the WP dramaboards.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 13th March 2012, 6:23pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 13th March 2012, 2:22pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:03pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 13th March 2012, 4:53pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68279642


Yup, I was there.

Isn't russavia a hero? irony.gif

Isn't he another porn mongering Russian?

Australian, iirc. No idea about the porn mongering, but he's a top deputy in Fae's posse on the WP dramaboards.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=473564491
QUOTE
When I masturbate in public, I don't really feel any different than when I do it in private; can you possibly tell us why when you masturbate in public, it hurts? Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Posted by: Selina

QUOTE(Selina @ Tue 13th March 2012, 2:06pm) *

I have called the two tag-teaming admins out on their crap:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Peter_Damian_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29


http://wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Global_policy_on_child_protectiion
*cheers for carbuncle* and... oddly, Jimbo, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36464&st=240&p=297356&#entry297356 I hope...

Posted by: lilburne

Image

I just love images that are CC-BY-SA licensed.



Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Selina @ Tue 13th March 2012, 7:04pm) *

QUOTE(Selina @ Tue 13th March 2012, 2:06pm) *

I have called the two tag-teaming admins out on their crap:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Peter_Damian_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29


http://wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Global_policy_on_child_protectiion
*cheers for carbuncle* and... oddly, Jimbo, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36464&st=240&p=297356&#entry297356 I hope...



I wonder if the emails to UK politicians have had an effect? I was quite looking forward to PMQs.




Posted by: Ego Trippin' (Part Two)

QUOTE

I suppose that answers the question I had. So there's no evidence that they've ever been advocating for pedophilia at all? It's just that there's this old conviction from more than a decade ago that somehow means they must be blocked? SilverserenC 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


Come on, Seren. You're better than this.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 13th March 2012, 2:45pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=473564491
QUOTE
When I masturbate in public, I don't really feel any different than when I do it in private; can you possibly tell us why when you masturbate in public, it hurts? Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


I know that's a great "gotcha quote", but unless it's part of a pattern I'm going to go with tongue-in-cheek on that one.

Posted by: lilburne

If copyright duration was 14 years as it was way back in 1790s all that Simpson incest stuff would be making its way on to commons as we speak.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE

I suppose that answers the question I had. So there's no evidence that they've ever been advocating for pedophilia at all? It's just that there's this old conviction from more than a decade ago that somehow means they must be blocked? SilverserenC 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


The evidence was what I posted about, and was then blocked for.

A forum search on Prison Talk https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22VolodyA!+V+Anarhist%22+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisontalk.com shows he is active in 2003, which is after his release. Quite unrepentant, indeed, his whole 'anarchist' persona is a reinvention of himself, as a victim of the state Gulag.

Moving on to 2006, the most damning evidence is a freenet page here http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cts=1331669345092&ved=0CDwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2F66.172.33.102%3A8888%2Ffreenet%3AUSK%40X1LyFuoMhnKY7KLK5-RBQ3IHtNJLAUSV~IjzRuxi6Kw%2Cx9otznrH7Y8R42TzfAqDHv5Fda2ojIhqJw7iPRzimz8%2CAQACAAE%2FVolodya%2F27%2F&ei=XalfT_XLH5Lt8QO_rdTNBw&usg=AFQjCNGbFhe5DtB3KhOX-wlKEn-O7BUSyw

He has taken that down in the last 24 hours but you can still see the old version in the Google cache http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2LjNL3VtKwgJ:66.172.33.102:8888/freenet:USK%40X1LyFuoMhnKY7KLK5-RBQ3IHtNJLAUSV~IjzRuxi6Kw,x9otznrH7Y8R42TzfAqDHv5Fda2ojIhqJw7iPRzimz8,AQACAAE/Volodya/27/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

In any case I took a copy. He mentions in 2006 how he was involved with and approved of the child abuser Damien Roberto Andres Cole, a member of Boychat and host of the now-defunct Pedologues podcast (you can read about Rookiee here http://evil-unveiled.com/Rookiee).

This is where he (Beta) makes the comment below. When I asked him if that was his page, I was blocked for it, as we know.

QUOTE

Lately i´ve been becoming bold. I´ve started openly promoting childlove movement on open forums, without any reservations that i had before. I don´t feel somehow bad about it, and i do feel that it is a correct thing to do. I think that it is all fine that childlovers set up their own little places and talk to each other, but as was said in one of the podcasts of pedologues (i think it was the third episode) there needs to be a community connection. What happens today is that there is childlove movement, and those who never heard of it… nothing in between at all.

Posted by: carbuncle

Here's a fun fact: guess who created the WP entry for Carroll College (Montana), the institution which Vladimir Mozhenkov attended as an exchange student when they were arrested?

If you guessed Beta M, you're wrong! It was Beta m (T-C-L-K-R-D) !!

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

History repeats itself:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_6#Paedophile_bans_from_en.wp (Wnt criticizing Wikisposure in 2010. This discussion ended with Tyciol being permabanned from Commons)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FUser_problems&diff=68289937&oldid=68286233 (Wnt criticizing the WR in 2012)

Posted by: Selina

Pff, I see your evidence and raise you my 2005 calling Haiduc out on his crap wink.gif
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:LGBT_notice_board/Archive_3#what_belongs_here
(from http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=36464&view=findpost&p=296124, that in retrospect could've been made a lot better smile.gif) (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=36464&view=findpost&p=297356)


Now: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle

QUOTE
You made some very serious accusations against one of my fellow-administrators: Called him/ implied that he is Xenophobic, is a promoter of illegal rape of children.
(The former, I proved with my diff links in the main thread he links to, the latter is not true by the same diff he links, I said PierreSelim was harassing people who brought up that other people were)
QUOTE
My view of regarding to WikpediaReview (or however they call themselves): Sometimes they have valid points but the manner how they try to achieve their goals on Commons is often very disruptive. You can imagine that I have a lot to do so if they would just keep the discussion on-topic and neutral, I would be very pleased.

I am inclined to block beta m (though, the user could simply create socks and we would need a lot more time identifying them as account creation takes time), if you could present me a summary, neutral fact-based-evidence that he is involved in en:Child pornography or one of our policy-block reasons applies. While doing so, imagine, you were an administrator and have to go with the policy. Please understand that we are not the police. If you have evidence of a criminal act, please contact your next police office and the wikimedia foundation. If you fail to do so; what do I expect? Please redact your comments to somewhat more helpful, less offensive, more neutral. In hope of your cooperation, sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 14:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I linked to Peter's excellent post here: http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=37062&view=findpost&p=302199

Posted by: lilburne

Meanwhile Mattbuck get uppity in a totally hilarious way

QUOTE

As you can see in the above section, Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly referred to another user as a "kiddy fiddler" [36] [37]. To translate, he believes this person rapes children. Even if the user in question has in fact been convicted on child pornography charges, there is a vast distance between possession of images of something and doing the actual thing. I possess many images of Lucy Pinder which I would classify as pornography, but the fact that I have these images does not mean I have had sex with her, one cannot imply anything about my sex life from the possession of the images other than I find those images arousing. The point I am trying to make is that FtO made possibly the most obscene insult possible to a user, and is completely unrepentant about it, going so far as to repeat the insult when I asked him to stop. This sort of behaviour should not be acceptable on Commons, and I call for an indefinite block.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=68298354#Fred_the_Oyster


Oh I think we can sweetheart, I think we can.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:17pm) *

QUOTE

I possess many images of Lucy Pinder which I would classify as pornography, but the fact that I have these images does not mean I have had sex with her, one cannot imply anything about my sex life from the possession of the images other than I find those images arousing.

Dream on, nerd.....

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th March 2012, 12:17am) *

Meanwhile Mattbuck get uppity in a totally hilarious way

QUOTE

As you can see in the above section, Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly referred to another user as a "kiddy fiddler" [36] [37]. To translate, he believes this person rapes children. Even if the user in question has in fact been convicted on child pornography charges, there is a vast distance between possession of images of something and doing the actual thing. I possess many images of Lucy Pinder which I would classify as pornography, but the fact that I have these images does not mean I have had sex with her, one cannot imply anything about my sex life from the possession of the images other than I find those images arousing. The point I am trying to make is that FtO made possibly the most obscene insult possible to a user, and is completely unrepentant about it, going so far as to repeat the insult when I asked him to stop. This sort of behaviour should not be acceptable on Commons, and I call for an indefinite block.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=68298354#Fred_the_Oyster


Oh I think we can sweetheart, I think we can.


QUOTE
...one cannot imply anything about my sex life ...


I've seen his his picture and I rather doubt he has a sex life!

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 14th March 2012, 12:28am) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th March 2012, 12:17am) *

Meanwhile Mattbuck get uppity in a totally hilarious way

QUOTE

As you can see in the above section, Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly referred to another user as a "kiddy fiddler" [36] [37]. To translate, he believes this person rapes children. Even if the user in question has in fact been convicted on child pornography charges, there is a vast distance between possession of images of something and doing the actual thing. I possess many images of Lucy Pinder which I would classify as pornography, but the fact that I have these images does not mean I have had sex with her, one cannot imply anything about my sex life from the possession of the images other than I find those images arousing. The point I am trying to make is that FtO made possibly the most obscene insult possible to a user, and is completely unrepentant about it, going so far as to repeat the insult when I asked him to stop. This sort of behaviour should not be acceptable on Commons, and I call for an indefinite block.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=68298354#Fred_the_Oyster


Oh I think we can sweetheart, I think we can.


QUOTE
...one cannot imply anything about my sex life ...


I've seen his his picture and I rather doubt he has a sex life!


What a hilarious response! It is what I have suspected for quite some time:besides everything else mattbuck is a fool.

BTW here's an interesting thread http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herbythyme/Arc21#Fae, in which mattbuck asked why another admin has withdrawn his support for Fae's rfa on commons. After another admin explained why he did mattbuck said:
QUOTE
It does seem to be going that way. I've been in the trenches of the porn wars, trying to stop people with fatuous reasons (and fat heads) deleting high quality images on the rationale of OMGAPENIS... it's really wearing me down hrmph.gif -mattbuck (Talk) 10:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So what really is wearing down mattbuck? That some editors believe that category of penises has enough images already. But then mattbuck decides to take it easy because
QUOTE
Today, Commons shall not get me down, for my boyfriend is coming over and so I get cuddles. Hope you have a good new year too mate. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 14th March 2012, 12:49am) *

QUOTE

Today, Commons shall not get me down, for my boyfriend is coming over and so I get cuddles. Hope you have a good new year too mate. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)



Ah, I didn't realise he was gay. I just thought he was ugly.

Well there goes the stereotype of the good-looking guy all the girls want but can't have.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

And another one bites the dust....

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster&diff=68300288&oldid=68298882

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 14th March 2012, 1:40am) *

And another one bites the dust....

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster&diff=68300288&oldid=68298882


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68300247&oldid=68300200

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 14th March 2012, 1:40am) *

And another one bites the dust....

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster&diff=68300288&oldid=68298882


Hey, Tyler, cops are supposed to catch pedophiles, not protect them:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25464

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 13th March 2012, 4:35pm) *

Here's a fun fact: guess who created the WP entry for Carroll College (Montana), the institution which Vladimir Mozhenkov attended as an exchange student when they were arrested?

If you guessed Beta M, you're wrong! It was Beta m (T-C-L-K-R-D) !!


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68307388&oldid=68307314

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68310306&oldid=68309714

An individual (apparently an anti-deletionist) named "Vladimir Mozhenkov" also donated to Wikimedia in 2005.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 13th March 2012, 4:35pm) *

Here's a fun fact: guess who created the WP entry for Carroll College (Montana), the institution which Vladimir Mozhenkov attended as an exchange student when they were arrested?

If you guessed Beta M, you're wrong! It was Beta m (T-C-L-K-R-D) !!


http://students.wikia.com/wiki/User:Ethical_Anarhist

According to his Students Wikia userpage, Beta_M attended Kingston University in the UK. Take a look at Beta_m's earliest contributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&contribs=user&target=Beta_m (oldest at the bottom)

http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Beta_m&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=none&getall=1 (oldest at the bottom)

His first article was "Kingston university":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingston_university&action=history

Beta_m's second article was "Carroll College (Montana)":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carroll_College_%28Montana%29&diff=4419458

Beta_m created "Kingston university" because he attended it. What was his motivation for creating "Carroll College (Montana)"?

Kingston University apparently had a student named "Vladimir Mozhenkov":

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22vladimir+mozhenkov%22+%22kingston%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22volodya+mozhenkov%22+%22kingston%22

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE

Also, is there any actual proof that the user in question is this convicted person? Because, as stated here, he says he has documents proving that he was in another country during this period of supposed incarceration. SilverserenC 14:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


We've already been there and SS knows that. The prison sentence was shortened from over 4 years, to two years.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 14th March 2012, 5:27pm) *

QUOTE

Also, is there any actual proof that the user in question is this convicted person? Because, as stated here, he says he has documents proving that he was in another country during this period of supposed incarceration. SilverserenC 14:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


We've already been there and SS knows that. The prison sentence was shortened from over 4 years, to two years.



SS has just been slapped down by Wales who has also informd Russavia that whether Commons likes it or not CHILDPROTECT applies across all projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481884141

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE

Also, is there any actual proof that the user in question is this convicted person? Because, as stated here, he says he has documents proving that he was in another country during this period of supposed incarceration. SilverserenC 14:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's comforting that a furry is in charge of these things.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th March 2012, 11:16am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 14th March 2012, 5:27pm) *

We've already been there and SS knows that. The prison sentence was shortened from over 4 years, to two years.

SS has just been slapped down by Wales who has also informd Russavia that whether Commons likes it or not CHILDPROTECT applies across all projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481884141

Apparently, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481885359 and has told Jimbo to debate it on Meta tearinghairout.gif What is wrong with these people?

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 14th March 2012, 6:48pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th March 2012, 11:16am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 14th March 2012, 5:27pm) *

We've already been there and SS knows that. The prison sentence was shortened from over 4 years, to two years.

SS has just been slapped down by Wales who has also informd Russavia that whether Commons likes it or not CHILDPROTECT applies across all projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481884141

Apparently, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481885359 and has told Jimbo to debate it on Meta tearinghairout.gif What is wrong with these people?


R2D2 is a teenager missing his Wookie (or half his brain).

None of them think that the norms of the society within which they live apply to them when they are on the intertube.

Posted by: Rd232

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 14th March 2012, 6:48pm) *

Apparently, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481885359 and has told Jimbo to debate it on Meta tearinghairout.gif What is wrong with these people?

Always nice when a diff disproves the commentary given to it... I didn't tell him to debate it on Meta, I told him there was a debate going on.

Jimbo seems to have imposed the policy status of WP:CHILDPROTECT by fiat - if he wants that to apply Wikimedia-wide, he and/or WMF can do the same at Meta with a global policy, presumably. In any case, English Wikipedia policy does not apply outside of English Wikipedia, end of.

Posted by: Selina

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th March 2012, 6:16pm) *
SS has just been slapped down by Wales who has also informd Russavia that whether Commons likes it or not CHILDPROTECT applies across all projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481884141


smile.gif boing.gif letsgetdrunk.gif boing.gif smile.gif
( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle )

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Rd232 @ Wed 14th March 2012, 6:59pm) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 14th March 2012, 6:48pm) *

Apparently, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481885359 and has told Jimbo to debate it on Meta tearinghairout.gif What is wrong with these people?

Always nice when a diff disproves the commentary given to it... I didn't tell him to debate it on Meta, I told him there was a debate going on.

Jimbo seems to have imposed the policy status of WP:CHILDPROTECT by fiat - if he wants that to apply Wikimedia-wide, he and/or WMF can do the same at Meta with a global policy, presumably. In any case, English Wikipedia policy does not apply outside of English Wikipedia, end of.


I believe that they have a big OFF button at WMF HQ, and control of the user account privileges.


Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Rd232 @ Wed 14th March 2012, 11:59am) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 14th March 2012, 6:48pm) *

Apparently, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481885359 and has told Jimbo to debate it on Meta tearinghairout.gif What is wrong with these people?

Always nice when a diff disproves the commentary given to it... I didn't tell him to debate it on Meta, I told him there was a debate going on.

Jimbo seems to have imposed the policy status of WP:CHILDPROTECT by fiat - if he wants that to apply Wikimedia-wide, he and/or WMF can do the same at Meta with a global policy, presumably. In any case, English Wikipedia policy does not apply outside of English Wikipedia, end of.

If he or the WMF wants to impose it by fiat (as is their right), then I'm perfectly fine with that. This has gone on for more than long enough. I spend my waking hours on WP dealing with issues of children's privacy - mostly through Oversight - and watching Commons right now and how policy is being watered down by people with their own agendas is just so frustrating. Seriously. I'm a Commons admin and have been there for years now, but I really don't want to set foot in the place anymore. It's utterly out of control at this point.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 14th March 2012, 7:08pm) *

but I really don't want to set foot in the place anymore.

Me neither. It is sickening for me to think that I uploaded thousands of pictures to the site that hosts porno and hate propaganda images.

Posted by: Selina

What language is http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHILDPROTECT in?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 14th March 2012, 12:08pm) *

I spend my waking hours on WP dealing with issues of children's privacy - mostly through Oversight - and watching Commons right now and how policy is being watered down by people with their own agendas is just so frustrating.

Being "frustrated" isn't enough. You should be angry.

Jimbo is just going to wimp out on this. And the Commons freaky-boys are just going to keep flopping
around as if they own the servers. Wikimedia has the off switch, {redacted} Rd232 does not. Remember that.

Who set up Commons originally? Moeller. He's protecting them.
Get rid of Moeller, and a long list of bad practices can be ended.

Posted by: Selina

http://mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia

Posted by: HRIP7

[Mod note: Random Rd232 flames tarpitted.]

Posted by: lilburne

It seems that Commons admin Saibo has a problem understanding Tarc

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68335577&oldid=68335506

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th March 2012, 7:57pm) *



Who set up Commons originally? Moeller. He's protecting them.
Get rid of Moeller, and a long list of bad practices can be ended.


Is he still there? What is his user name?

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

These dipshits defending Beta M/m seem to be hung up on 'he did the crime and he's done his time' or 'we haven't seen him do anything on Commons' or "is a convicted paedophile who has done his time a second class citizen?".

Do they think kiddy fiddling is a part-time job or something? It's a paraphilia, a mental health condition for which there is currently no known cure, or in other words, short of castration, once a kiddy fiddler, always a kiddy fiddler. The can't stop the desire, most don't want to.

Now when it comes to sex I am as liberal, perverted and kinky as they come, but this even makes my skin crawl, but those fuckwits over at Commons seem to think they can control this? What a bunch of arrogant and useless tossers.

And it's always the same characters too, mattbuck, Saibo, niabot, and some others I can't recall at the mo'. Now I know it's far easier to get to be an admin on Commons, but sheee-it, aren't there any quality standards there at all?


Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

It looks like Dcoetzee (T-C-L-K-R-D) is trying to flim-flam his way through an opposition to blocking Beta M: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=prev&oldid=68336722 stepcarefully.gif

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 14th March 2012, 9:29pm) *

It looks like Dcoetzee (T-C-L-K-R-D) is trying to flim-flam his way through an opposition to blocking Beta M: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=prev&oldid=68336722 stepcarefully.gif


Yeah well Dcoetzee is known to have a problem with laws he don't like. I note he's also busy with the broom sweeping everything away.



Posted by: Tarc

There's a lot of data to sift through here, so can someone recap what the path is that firmly connects the person in http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283 to Beta M ?

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th March 2012, 9:38pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 14th March 2012, 9:29pm) *

It looks like Dcoetzee (T-C-L-K-R-D) is trying to flim-flam his way through an opposition to blocking Beta M: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=prev&oldid=68336722 stepcarefully.gif


Yeah well Dcoetzee is known to have a problem with laws he don't like. I note he's also busy with the broom sweeping everything away.


Does this fuckwit not even have a basic understanding of English?

"The term "convicted pedophile" has been floating around a lot in this conversation. There's no such thing - pedophilia (defined as sexual attraction to children) is not a crime. Sexual abuse of children (including statutory rape) and possession/distribution of child pornography are crimes, and a responsible, ethical pedophile does not do these things. I haven't seen convincing evidence that this user (rather than an identically-named person) was in fact convicted for possession of child pornography. "

A "convicted paedophile" means a paedophile who has been convicted, not someone who is convicted of paedophilia.

And WTF is an "ethical pedophile"? I'll tell what one is, it's a paedophile who just thinks about diddling kiddies. Either that or one who drives a Prius on the way to the playground.

What a schmuck.

QUOTE
(rather than an identically-named person)

Who is also Russian, went to the same American university at the same time, the same English university at the same time, was in Montana at the same time, returned to Russia at the same time, is an anarchist with an interest in porn.

Nah, probably not the same person, he's right. irony.gif

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 14th March 2012, 6:48pm) *


Apparently, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=481885359 and has told Jimbo to debate it on Meta tearinghairout.gif What is wrong with these people?


Rd232 ran cover for "Fæ" as well:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Rd232&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20120108171723&type=delete&user=Rd232&page=&tagfilter=

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 14th March 2012, 9:49pm) *

There's a lot of data to sift through here, so can someone recap what the path is that firmly connects the person in http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283 to Beta M ?


The Moscow Times too.

Aren't police mugshots available under freedom of information in the US or some such?

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

Ooh, "Vladimir Mozhenkov" child porn, Google search term.

Guess what site comes to the top of page 1?

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 14th March 2012, 10:04pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 14th March 2012, 9:49pm) *

There's a lot of data to sift through here, so can someone recap what the path is that firmly connects the person in http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283 to Beta M ?


The Moscow Times too.

Aren't police mugshots available under freedom of information in the US or some such?


Local newspaper:
http://helenair.com/news/local/carroll-porn-suspect-says-confession-forced/article_56141069-3674-59c6-b771-9d82b728d9fe.html

Posted by: Text

What does one do if he finds that there's a troublesome user in da house?

He approaces the mischievous dude and tells him to quit his stuff, or he gets booted out.

Vlad be in Jimbo's house and stirring trouble. Wat Jimbo do?

stepcarefully.gif

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Text @ Wed 14th March 2012, 7:02pm) *

What does one do if he finds that there's a troublesome user in da house?

He approaces the mischievous dude and tells him to quit his stuff, or he gets booted out.

Vlad be in Jimbo's house and stirring trouble. Wat Jimbo do?

stepcarefully.gif


Thank you for that remarkable insight, Jar Jar.

Posted by: lilburne

Niabot tries to ingratiate himself

QUOTE

I know how shameful the US treats human rights (is the marketing share for an innocent dead Afghan still 200 USD?), but that can't be the norm for a project that tries to do things better then average. But as i said you have no understanding of human rights and it's implications. It's useless to argument this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=481932076&oldid=481930752


That's the way to do it.

Posted by: lilburne

And in case any one missed it this wasn't about a couple of pics they were running a website:

QUOTE

Federal officers working in Missouri last Aug. 11 down loaded 37 pornographic photos of minors from a website and eventually traced the source to a computer at Carroll.

Customs Agent Chuck Mazzilli of Great Falls and Blue Manzanares, a computer expert with the Montana Air National Guard in Great Falls, interviewed Mozhenkov and two other Carroll students believed to have the computer skills to establish the Web site and supply the photos to those requesting them.

The investigation focused on Mozhenkov because he allegedly was seen near the Carroll computer lab and had no alibi for the night of the crime.

During initial questioning in the office of a Carroll administrator, prosecutors said, Mozhenkov first denied any connection to the Web site before admitting he had supplied the photos. In his own computer in his dorm room, agents found files containing seven photos that allegedly matched those downloaded by the federal officers in Missouri.

http://helenair.com/news/local/carroll-porn-suspect-says-confession-forced/article_56141069-3674-59c6-b771-9d82b728d9fe.html

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th March 2012, 10:46pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 14th March 2012, 10:04pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 14th March 2012, 9:49pm) *

There's a lot of data to sift through here, so can someone recap what the path is that firmly connects the person in http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283 to Beta M ?


The Moscow Times too.

Aren't police mugshots available under freedom of information in the US or some such?


Local newspaper:
http://helenair.com/news/local/carroll-porn-suspect-says-confession-forced/article_56141069-3674-59c6-b771-9d82b728d9fe.html


Yes I've been there but couldn't see any mugshots.

Posted by: Text

QUOTE
Thank you for that remarkable insight, Jar Jar.


Mesa thanks u! twilightzone.gif

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 14th March 2012, 11:12pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 14th March 2012, 10:46pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Wed 14th March 2012, 10:04pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 14th March 2012, 9:49pm) *

There's a lot of data to sift through here, so can someone recap what the path is that firmly connects the person in http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283 to Beta M ?


The Moscow Times too.

Aren't police mugshots available under freedom of information in the US or some such?


Local newspaper:
http://helenair.com/news/local/carroll-porn-suspect-says-confession-forced/article_56141069-3674-59c6-b771-9d82b728d9fe.html


Yes I've been there but couldn't see any mugshots.


It will be too early in internet history. Some states do have the data online, others don't, or its behind a paywall.


Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 14th March 2012, 9:49pm) *

There's a lot of data to sift through here, so can someone recap what the path is that firmly connects the person in http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=13283 to Beta M ?


http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-14339.html

QUOTE
VolodyAnarchist
05-07-2003, 01:02 AM
In the prison i was in Ad Seg ment that you have not been found "True" on your infraction. While in there you are housed in the same part of the SHU as are PC (Protective Custody) people. After you have had the hearing and were given a "sentence" you are moved to D Sed (Disciplinary Segregation) for a turm that was decided on at the hearing. After D Seg you go back to Ad Seg until the bunk in your unit is empty and you can go back to the general population. Also sometimes Ad Seg was used for the transit inmates, especially for those who are of different security level than the prison and they sit there until the transport picks them up. And even sometimes when you arrive at the prison you are placed in Ad Seg, just to be sure. Like they put me there for 2 days to make sure that i wasn't suicidal (the SHU will make you suicidal if you aren't)...
Well i think that's all i have to say.

Free your mind and seek the truth.
...............................VolodyA! V Anarhist

PS The prison i was talking about is a federal prison in OH (FCI Elkton)


http://www.ainfos.ca/02/may/ainfos00417.html

QUOTE
VolodyA! V Mozhenkov, 06429-046 DB, FCI Elkton,
Enslaved by USA, LISBON OH 444 32-0010 UNITED STATES


http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=06429-046&x=0&y=0
QUOTE

VLADIMIR MOZHENKOV 06429-046 30-White-M 10-04-2002 RELEASED


http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archive/archive_msg.cgi?file=spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0306&msgnum=1&start=1&end=41

QUOTE
I've spent 2 years and nine months in prison for posession
of child porn.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beta_M&diff=477401372&oldid=477398832

QUOTE
Wiki-name: Beta_M
Real name: VolodyA! V Anarhist
Government approved name: [withheld]


It seems extremely unlikely there is more than one VolodyA! V.

When http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/anarchopedia-expanding-needs-expand-more-06122007?page=3 was posted, Anarchopedia was registered to Vladimir Mozhenkov.

Posted by: carbuncle

I'd like to add http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophile_movement&diff=prev&oldid=20481077 to what Tarantino posted above.

Beta m added the following to Pedophile movement way back in 2005:

QUOTE
Freenet links
Note: You will need an access to Freenet node to visit these links.
localhost is assumed as the base for the freesite

* Paedophilia - The Radical Case
* naphtala's freesite Freesite of self confessed pedophile.


I think even weasels like Silver Seren will have a hard time justifying adding links to a paedophile's site on Freenet.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 14th March 2012, 8:07pm) *

It seems extremely unlikely there is more than one VolodyA! V.


"VolodyA! V Anarhist" indeed seems like a pretty unique handle.

The only other question I can see cropping up is the age. The Fed site's line

QUOTE
1. VLADIMIR MOZHENKOV 06429-046 30-White-M 10-04-2002 RELEASED


has him age 30 as of 2002, while the articles about the incident

QUOTE
Mozhenkov, 19, has asked U.S. District Judge Charles C. Lovell of Helena to throw out his confession and evidence found in his college dormitory room that allegedly links him to an Internet site providing sexually explicit photos of children.


has it at age 19 in 2000, the Associated Press date of the article.

How is that resolved? I'm just trying to get the ducks in a row here.

As far as I'm concerned the verified links to his advocacy of "childlove" sick.gif is enough to shitcan him from Commons or any WMF project. Having the link to the conviction would be ironclad though.

Posted by: Kevin

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 15th March 2012, 10:19am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 14th March 2012, 8:07pm) *

It seems extremely unlikely there is more than one VolodyA! V.


"VolodyA! V Anarhist" indeed seems like a pretty unique handle.

The only other question I can see cropping up is the age. The Fed site's line

QUOTE
1. VLADIMIR MOZHENKOV 06429-046 30-White-M 10-04-2002 RELEASED


has him age 30 as of 2002, while the articles about the incident

QUOTE
Mozhenkov, 19, has asked U.S. District Judge Charles C. Lovell of Helena to throw out his confession and evidence found in his college dormitory room that allegedly links him to an Internet site providing sexually explicit photos of children.


has it at age 19 in 2000, the Associated Press date of the article.

How is that resolved? I'm just trying to get the ducks in a row here.

As far as I'm concerned the verified links to his advocacy of "childlove" sick.gif is enough to shitcan him from Commons or any WMF project. Having the link to the conviction would be ironclad though.


I would thing that the Fed site calculates from his DOB, and is reporting his current age.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AMattbuck

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck#Blocked (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattbuck&oldid=68358037#Blocked)

Rd232 blocked Mattbuck for making a joke.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 15th March 2012, 12:44pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AMattbuck

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck#Blocked (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattbuck&oldid=68358037#Blocked)

Rd232 blocked Mattbuck for making a joke.


QUOTE

:I don't think sarcastic proposals are going to reduce the dramaz - Dcoetzee
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=68347169&oldid=68345795


Wasn't it Dcoetzee's unblocking of the account, and denial that there was a problem, the root cause of the dramaz?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE
QUOTE

:I don't think sarcastic proposals are going to reduce the dramaz - Dcoetzee
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=68347169&oldid=68345795


Wasn't it Dcoetzee's unblocking of the account, and denial that there was a problem, the root cause of the dramaz?

I'm quite sure that that Dcoetzee and their ilk would say that Geni's block was the root cause of the drama.

Posted by: HRIP7

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 15th March 2012, 12:44pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AMattbuck

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck#Blocked (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattbuck&oldid=68358037#Blocked)

Rd232 blocked Mattbuck for making a joke.

applause.gif

Frankly, at this point I wouldn't mind if someone banned Mattbuck to the outer reaches of the solar system, there to categorise 20 million images of drain covers, identify the precise location where each photograph was taken, establish whether there are any sculptures or other artwork reflected in shiny parts of the metal, and then decide whether these reflections of copyrightable artwork fall under freedom of panorama or not.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 1:50pm) *

QUOTE
QUOTE

:I don't think sarcastic proposals are going to reduce the dramaz - Dcoetzee
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=68347169&oldid=68345795


Wasn't it Dcoetzee's unblocking of the account, and denial that there was a problem, the root cause of the dramaz?

I'm quite sure that that Dcoetzee and their ilk would say that Geni's block was the root cause of the drama.


'cept that Geni's block was endorsed by ArbCom, and Wales told them:

QUOTE

This is a global policy, set by the Foundation, by me, and at least in English Wikipedia, by the longstanding practice of the community. Whatever source of policy you choose to find valid, you will find that this is a valid policy. I'm not going to intervene in commons myself, but I will bring this to the direct attention of the Foundation. People who don't like it are welcome to start their own pedophilia-friendly website on someone else's servers.



QUOTE

If he's still not banned in 3 days time, I'll eat my words.


Whatever Dcoetzee may think his unblock was the cause.


Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Kevin @ Wed 14th March 2012, 9:53pm) *
I would thing that the Fed site calculates from his DOB, and is reporting his current age.


Bingo. I tested that premise on a person with a verifiable d.o.b. and the age reported in the release field was the current age. Thanks.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 1:50pm) *

QUOTE
QUOTE

:I don't think sarcastic proposals are going to reduce the dramaz - Dcoetzee
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=68347169&oldid=68345795


Wasn't it Dcoetzee's unblocking of the account, and denial that there was a problem, the root cause of the dramaz?

I'm quite sure that that Dcoetzee and their ilk would say that Geni's block was the root cause of the drama.


Even more root causes can be found in the actions of Vladimir Mozhenkov and his twisted belief that allowing adults to obtain personal sexual gratification through the exercise of their power over children is in anyway anarchist or libertarian. If he had not collected huge numbers of pornographic images, uploaded some of them to the web and defended similar behaviour, then the US cops would never have nicked him, the people at LibCom would never have acted against him and we would not have this thread. How many of the children pictured gave free and informed consent to their images being used in this way, Mr self-proclaimed anarchist?

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 15th March 2012, 3:58pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 1:50pm) *

QUOTE
QUOTE

:I don't think sarcastic proposals are going to reduce the dramaz - Dcoetzee
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=68347169&oldid=68345795


Wasn't it Dcoetzee's unblocking of the account, and denial that there was a problem, the root cause of the dramaz?

I'm quite sure that that Dcoetzee and their ilk would say that Geni's block was the root cause of the drama.


Even more root causes can be found in the actions of Vladimir Mozhenkov and his twisted belief that allowing adults to obtain personal sexual gratification through the exercise of their power over children is in anyway anarchist or libertarian. If he had not collected huge numbers of pornographic images and some of them to the web and defended similar behaviour, then the US cops would never have nicked him, the people at LibCom would never have acted against him and we would not have this thread. How many of the children pictured gave free and informed consent to their images being used in this way, Mr self-proclaimed anarchist?



Well quite. The relationship is exploitative to say the least, and in 99% of cases involves a power/domination dynamic. Hardly an Anarchist position at all.



Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 15th March 2012, 3:58pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 1:50pm) *

QUOTE

Wasn't it Dcoetzee's unblocking of the account, and denial that there was a problem, the root cause of the dramaz?

I'm quite sure that that Dcoetzee and their ilk would say that Geni's block was the root cause of the drama.


Even more root causes can be found in the actions of Vladimir Mozhenkov and his twisted belief that allowing adults to obtain personal sexual gratification through the exercise of their power over children is in anyway anarchist or libertarian. If he had not collected huge numbers of pornographic images and some of them to the web and defended similar behaviour, then the US cops would never have nicked him, the people at LibCom would never have acted against him and we would not have this thread. How many of the children pictured gave free and informed consent to their images being used in this way, Mr self-proclaimed anarchist?

Yes, that is what reasonable people might say, that the fact of Volodya's distribution of child porn is the reason he was blocked by Geni, but there don't seem to be that many reasonable people making themselves heard at Commons. You would think that most people would be wary of being associated with such a person, but on Voldya's talk page, people are adding their comments about how sorry they are that he is leaving, including inviting him to keep in touch off-wiki:
QUOTE
I'm really sorry for the way this turned out, I'm frankly disgusted by the witch-hunt mentality we seem to have going on. To my mind, no matter what your past, and frankly I don't believe the "evidence", you've been a good contributor here, and I am really sorry to see you go. I hope you have better luck with the next community you choose to join. If you ever want to chat, come and hang out in ## on the AfterNET IRC server. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 4:48pm) *

QUOTE
I'm really sorry for the way this turned out, I'm frankly disgusted by the witch-hunt mentality we seem to have going on. To my mind, no matter what your past, and frankly I don't believe the "evidence", you've been a good contributor here, and I am really sorry to see you go. I hope you have better luck with the next community you choose to join. If you ever want to chat, come and hang out in ## on the AfterNET IRC server. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)



Yah well it was nasty trolls wot did it, planted all that evidence and links all over innertubes way back 12, 8, 6 ... years ago. Just so they could deny mattbuckCommons of some porn in 2012.

*sniff* *need cuddle*

It is hard to credit that that particular ward of lunatics didn't realise that it ceased to be about the fiddler and moved on to exposing their attitudes and reactions to the revelations around about day 2.

Surprisingly WNT manages to come out of it wiser that is the true surprise there. Never encountered Saibo before but what a stupid prick! Niabot just behaves like an arsehole no surprise there. Dcoetzee well what can you say about that ...


Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 15th March 2012, 11:58am) *

Even more root causes can be found in the actions of Vladimir Mozhenkov and his twisted belief that allowing adults to obtain personal sexual gratification through the exercise of their power over children is in anyway anarchist or libertarian. If he had not collected huge numbers of pornographic images and some of them to the web and defended similar behaviour, then the US cops would never have nicked him, the people at LibCom would never have acted against him and we would not have this thread. How many of the children pictured gave free and informed consent to their images being used in this way, Mr self-proclaimed anarchist?


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_5&diff=20459329&oldid=20445787

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/protectionism#Child_sadvocates

Beta_M doesn't believe in "exercising power over children"; he doesn't believe in rape.

QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 15th March 2012, 1:06pm) *

Surprisingly WNT manages to come out of it wiser that is the true surprise there.


I feel that Wnt's conspiracy theory concerning students.wikia.com is silly.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 4:48pm) *

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 15th March 2012, 3:58pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 1:50pm) *

QUOTE

Wasn't it Dcoetzee's unblocking of the account, and denial that there was a problem, the root cause of the dramaz?

I'm quite sure that that Dcoetzee and their ilk would say that Geni's block was the root cause of the drama.


Even more root causes can be found in the actions of Vladimir Mozhenkov and his twisted belief that allowing adults to obtain personal sexual gratification through the exercise of their power over children is in anyway anarchist or libertarian. If he had not collected huge numbers of pornographic images and some of them to the web and defended similar behaviour, then the US cops would never have nicked him, the people at LibCom would never have acted against him and we would not have this thread. How many of the children pictured gave free and informed consent to their images being used in this way, Mr self-proclaimed anarchist?

Yes, that is what reasonable people might say, that the fact of Volodya's distribution of child porn is the reason he was blocked by Geni, but there don't seem to be that many reasonable people making themselves heard at Commons. You would think that most people would be wary of being associated with such a person, but on Voldya's talk page, people are adding their comments about how sorry they are that he is leaving, including inviting him to keep in touch off-wiki:
QUOTE
I'm really sorry for the way this turned out, I'm frankly disgusted by the witch-hunt mentality we seem to have going on. To my mind, no matter what your past, and frankly I don't believe the "evidence", you've been a good contributor here, and I am really sorry to see you go. I hope you have better luck with the next community you choose to join. If you ever want to chat, come and hang out in ## on the AfterNET IRC server. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


I think we had already decided that fattduck was an idiot back when he was defending van Haeften. It requires a degree of wilfulness not to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Beta M is the same guy who the US cops caught. Although various of the nonce-apologists have tried to cover for him and defend him with arguments about sex between 17 and 18 year olds, I have not seen Mozhenkov use such arguments of the "I thought she was 21" or "in country X this person would be above the age of consent" sort. He seems to be just as supportive of pornography about pre-pubescent children who would be below the age of consent anywhere that has one. Despite Fae's attempt to cleanse Wikipedia from the suggestion that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Hay&diff=403601579&oldid=403598891, some of his fellow gay free-porn fans are going the whole hog and defending paedophiles. Perhaps Fae should inform fuckbutt of the party line.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 15th March 2012, 5:32pm) *

Despite Fae's attempt to cleanse Wikipedia from the suggestion that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Hay&diff=403601579&oldid=403598891, some of his fellow gay free-porn fans are going the whole hog and defending paedophiles. Perhaps Fae should inform fuckbutt of the party line.



Hmmm. I don't think its a gay thing. Whilst its true that on flickr one comes across an inordinate amount of gay themed accounts that collect images of naked boys, the consumers of such stuff aren't necessarily gay.

Whilst some are gender motivated, it is more a power thing rather girl child, boy child doesn't matter much. And besides photos of naked boys aren't treated in the same way as photos of naked girls.



Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 15th March 2012, 5:10pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_5&diff=20459329&oldid=20445787

http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/protectionism#Child_sadvocates

Beta_M doesn't believe in "exercising power over children"; he doesn't believe in rape.

Some of the power that adults have over children is knowledge. I haven't seen him exclude that.

When I was about 9, a lorry drew up next to me while I was walking next to a heath. The driver asked me where the nearest toilet was. When I told him, he said it was too far and asked me to keep an eye out while he had a piss. I remember thinking that his piss looked rather odd but I only worked out that there was something out of the ordinary going on when he asked if I wanted a piss. Fortunately he did so before offering me a lift.

I would not say I was coerced into letting him have a wank while looking at me. However, if I had had knowledge of what masturbation was, I wouldn't have agreed to it. So I would certainly consider that the driver abused his power as an adult in manipulating me into doing what he wanted.

Posted by: Peter Damian

What really fucks me off is how everyone is blaming the Wikipedia Review

QUOTE

Blocking Mattbuck on this seems weak and a serious mistake in comparison to some of the unacceptable behaviour and dramah we have seen on-wiki from an apparent traveling circus which has not (yet) resulted in blocks all round. --Fæ (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment was an observation. I would have more to say about this block if Mattbuck were to take the initiative to request an unblock and put forward their case, if they are not bothered then theorizing here just creates more material for WR fueled drama and personal attacks that we are all sick of by now. --Fæ (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I support a prompt unblock as requested. Mattbuck has made a commitment to not post the proposal back that Rd232 found disruptive. If Mattbuck stays blocked then we probably all agree there is a list of at least ten other accounts that should be immediately blocked on the basis of deliberately disrupting Commons consensus processes with much more inflammatory material, some of it reposting or linking to dubious material and far more inflammatory canvassing discussions off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


And what does Fae mean by 'dubious material'?

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 15th March 2012, 12:44pm) *
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...User%3AMattbuck[/url]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck#Blocked (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattbuck&oldid=68358037#Blocked)

Rd232 blocked Mattbuck for making a joke.


I liked the bit where Matt said "I think this should be fairly uncontroversial". Meh! Lotsa cuddles to take away the pain, I think, eh, Matt? Oh god.......

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:10pm) *

What really fucks me off is how everyone is blaming the Wikipedia Review

Just be glad that that loon Wnt didn't single you out and try to convince people that you'd accused others of being paedophiles, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68289917. While I have no doubt at all that Beta M on Commons is the same person incarcerated for distributing child porn and is sympathetic to "childlovers", I'm not convinced that that means that he himself is necessarily a paedophile. And I'm on record here as saying I do not believe that Ashley Van Haeften is a paedophile. All's fair in love and war, I guess...

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:10pm) *

What really fucks me off is how everyone is blaming the Wikipedia Review

QUOTE

Blocking Mattbuck on this seems weak and a serious mistake in comparison to some of the unacceptable behaviour and dramah we have seen on-wiki from an apparent traveling circus which has not (yet) resulted in blocks all round. --Fæ (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment was an observation. I would have more to say about this block if Mattbuck were to take the initiative to request an unblock and put forward their case, if they are not bothered then theorizing here just creates more material for WR fueled drama and personal attacks that we are all sick of by now. --Fæ (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I support a prompt unblock as requested. Mattbuck has made a commitment to not post the proposal back that Rd232 found disruptive. If Mattbuck stays blocked then we probably all agree there is a list of at least ten other accounts that should be immediately blocked on the basis of deliberately disrupting Commons consensus processes with much more inflammatory material, some of it reposting or linking to dubious material and far more inflammatory canvassing discussions off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


And what does Fae mean by 'dubious material'?

I think that Ashley van Haeften, Trustee-Director of Wikimedia UK, is condemning the fact that many of the same people who dislike him came together to call for the ousting of a convicted sex-offender from Wikimedia. He seems to be taking rather a different line on this than Jimbo.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:30pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:10pm) *

What really fucks me off is how everyone is blaming the Wikipedia Review

Just be glad that that loon Wnt didn't single you out and try to convince people that you'd accused others of being paedophiles, like he did with me.



Earlier I said that he may have learnt something. I was premature on that assessment.

QUOTE

For example, what happens if ArbCom blocks someone as a suspected pedophile, but he comes back, sweet-talks them a bit, so they let him quietly slip back in under a new name and edit, and after a while it turns out he did something terrible. Then we're in the same position as the Catholic Church reassigning priests, and because it is a centralized decision, we could end up on hook for the damages! I think it makes more sense to let the whole community watch and decide, no secrets, no leaked no-logged IRC logs, no email-based private consensuses, just people thinking things through right out here in the open. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)



Get this Wnt you stupid dumb fuck! You cannot decide this by public debate it will always turn into a lynch mob, whether the accused is guilty or not. You need trained staff who can deal with the issue away from public eyes. You need to have a clear procedure, and the person that is making the complaint needs to be kept up to date, or at least acknowledged that the issue is being investigated.

Otherwise you get the cluster fuck of dumb fuckwits like yourself that think that they can sleuth out the truth. In 90% of the case you can't and in 90% of those that you can you'll still have ignorant cunts like Niabot, Mattbick, and Saibo picking over the niceties and dreaming up excuses. It needs experienced professionals, doing their jobs.



Posted by: Selina

Dubious material would be the picture of a naked child he proudly displayed on Fæ / Fae (I think after changing from Ash the "æ" is to be less easily googleable I think) / Teahot 's old userpage, which was also found on a NAMBLA pedophile advocacy site, by an artist that one of the most infamous pedophile advocates on Wikipedia (Haiduc who I warned WP about in 2006 and it took 3 years for them to actually ban him) was a big fan of so much that he went to the photographer's grave like a pilgrimage...
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=36464&view=findpost&p=297379
I suspect if it had been a naked girl that it would have been a different reaction, but because most of the editors are guys it's less shock value to them or something like that I guess? just... ugh

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(DanMurphy @ Wed 7th March 2012, 8:41am) *

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?



How is this news when he was pointed as aiding the pederasts on Commons before? I'm surprised people took til now to realize it when I and others pointed it out in the many disputes there. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Teen_Boy%27s_Legs.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=64856413. See how that pic and many young naked boys pics are there (I'm not linking to the child porn, but he did defend it) and have to be kept no matter what? It means he has an obsessed mind.

Look at his contribs and see who he is defending. The whole pedo/peder cabal is quite creepy and prevalent.


The sad thing is that most of them hide behind "homosexuality" and many here on WR enabled that.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:13pm) *

How is this news when he was pointed as aiding the pederasts on Commons before? I'm surprised people took til now to realize it when I and others pointed it out in the many disputes there. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Teen_Boy%27s_Legs.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=64856413. See how that pic and many young naked boys pics are there (I'm not linking to the child porn, but he did defend it) and have to be kept no matter what? It means he has an obsessed mind.

Look at his contribs and see who he is defending. The whole pedo/peder cabal is quite creepy and prevalent.


The sad thing is that most of them hide behind "homosexuality" and many here on WR enabled that.

Whaaaat? WR is full of homophobes, haven't you heard? And, yes, it must be terrible to be obsessed with child porn...

Posted by: Selina

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:13pm) *
url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Teen_Boy%27s_Legs.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=64856413]It's kinda obvious[/url]. See how that pic and many young naked boys pics are there (I'm not linking to the child porn, but he did defend it) and have to be kept no matter what? It means he has an obsessed mind.

Look at his contribs and see who he is defending. The whole pedo/peder cabal is quite creepy and prevalent.


The sad thing is that most of them hide behind "homosexuality" and many here on WR enabled that.

How has anyone on WR ever 'enabled' pedophilia, ever ever? rolleyes.gif It sounds a bit like you're saying that being tolerant to homosexuality = enabling pedophilia always, when any kind of statistics would show you that pedophilia is pretty rare (we just tend to notice them more on the internet because they attract attention)

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 4:13pm) *
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Teen_Boy%27s_Legs.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=64856413.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Teen_Boy%27s_Legs.jpg&diff=63761581&oldid=63701553

This comment from that deletion discussion was particularly cruel. Beta_M doesn't even allow the photographer (who is also the subject of the image since it says "My Leg" on the image description page) to change his or her mind. Beta_M decided that even an useless, easily replaceable image must be kept. Beta_M basically says, "Fuck you. Your image is ours now." The subject might've wanted to delete the image for privacy reasons but was afraid to say it outright. Since the subject was a teen, the subject probably didn't understand free licenses completely. They could've given the poor boy some leeway. This is a problem with using free licenses.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Selina @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:30pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:13pm) *
The sad thing is that most of them hide behind "homosexuality" and many here on WR enabled that.

How has anyone on WR ever 'enabled' pedophilia, ever ever? rolleyes.gif It sounds a bit like you're saying that being tolerant to homosexuality = enabling pedophilia always, when any kind of statistics would show you that pedophilia is pretty rare (we just tend to notice them more on the internet because they attract attention)

Ah. You aren't all that familiar with Ottava's unique perspective on this, are you, Selina? Enjoy.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

What is it with the vociferous defence of Beta M by Saibo, Niabot and Mattbuck all about? In spite of all the evidence, in spite of common sense they continue to defend this kiddy fiddler at all costs?

There must be some deeper meaning, agenda or purpose to this? Surely they must realise that aside from the "think of the kids" angle, the whole point of not letting a known and convicted paedophile edit is to protect the project.

Given that Commons and WMF need a constant supply of donations to carry on doing as it/they does/do, how long do you think it will take for those donations to start to dry up when it is known that a convicted kiddy fiddler is not only known to be active on the project, but is actively being defended by other editors, including administrators. Don't these enablers know that this has the potential to kill Commons? Not only through donations but via lawsuits too.

And they had the gall to indef me because I was uncivil to a known paedophile and his enablers in spite of my contributions there, but they continue to allow the enablers to defend the diddler? It's all fucking crazy.

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:46pm) *

What is it with the vociferous defence of Beta M by Saibo, Niabot and Mattbuck all about? In spite of all the evidence, in spite of common sense they continue to defend this kiddy fiddler at all costs?

One interpretation would be that they're all up to similar things, but have wisely kept it to themselves.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Selina @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:30pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:13pm) *

The sad thing is that most of them hide behind "homosexuality" and many here on WR enabled that.

How has anyone on WR ever 'enabled' pedophilia, ever ever? rolleyes.gif


That could be because I have pictures of my kids naked in the bath.

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:49pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:46pm) *

What is it with the vociferous defence of Beta M by Saibo, Niabot and Mattbuck all about? In spite of all the evidence, in spite of common sense they continue to defend this kiddy fiddler at all costs?

One interpretation would be that they're all up to similar things, but have wisely kept it to themselves.


I have to agree that I had considered this possibility myself.

I wonder if all that wanking to the porn has in some way dehydrated them to the point where they are hallucinating?

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:13pm) *

How is this news when he was pointed as aiding the pederasts on Commons before? I'm surprised people took til now to realize it when I and others pointed it out in the many disputes there. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Teen_Boy%27s_Legs.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=64856413. See how that pic and many young naked boys pics are there (I'm not linking to the child porn, but he did defend it) and have to be kept no matter what? It means he has an obsessed mind.

The comical thing is that he uses the "educational" gambit. How is a picture of a random youth's leg educational? It might be useful to have pictures illustrating the degree of hairiness of legs at different ages or stages of puberty with an indication of the degree of variability within peer groups and between populations that vary by ethnicity, nutrition and whatever other factors might affect the timing of things. But one picture of an individual of unknown age is a waste of time.

QUOTE

The sad thing is that most of them hide behind "homosexuality" and many here on WR enabled that.

Watch out you're going all Santorum again. Certainly WR has done a lot less to facilitate sex abusers than the hierarchy of the Church of Rome.

Posted by: Ego Trippin' (Part Two)

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 15th March 2012, 4:46pm) *

What is it with the vociferous defence of Beta M by Saibo, Niabot and Mattbuck all about? In spite of all the evidence, in spite of common sense they continue to defend this kiddy fiddler at all costs?

There must be some deeper meaning, agenda or purpose to this? Surely they must realise that aside from the "think of the kids" angle, the whole point of not letting a known and convicted paedophile edit is to protect the project.


Count me among those who simply cannot understand where they're coming from. I wish we could chalk their behavior up to the strangeness of their own sexual proclivities, but I don't think that explains it. Silver Seren is a "furry," which I find extremely bizarre, but until now I thought that he was a rational, fairly smart person nevertheless. After reading his comments about this situation, I think there might be something seriously wrong with him -- and with Mattbuck, Saibo, Niabot, Russavia, and the rest. This isn't just a misguided belief in "free culture" and other Wikipedia ideals. There is something that's genuinely off about the way they're thinking about this entire affair, and it's disturbing.

That's really the word that has to be used here. In all my years of participating in and observing Wikipedia, this group of users might be the most disturbing of all those I've seen -- and that's saying something.

(Silver Seren is welcome to defend himself here, of course.)

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:43pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 4:13pm) *
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Teen_Boy%27s_Legs.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=64856413.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Teen_Boy%27s_Legs.jpg&diff=63761581&oldid=63701553

This comment from that deletion discussion was particularly cruel. Beta_M doesn't even allow the photographer (who is also the subject of the image since it says "My Leg" on the image description page) to change his or her mind. Beta_M decided that even an useless, easily replaceable image must be kept. Beta_M basically says, "Fuck you. Your image is ours now." The subject might've wanted to delete the image for privacy reasons but was afraid to say it outright. Since the subject was a teen, the subject probably didn't understand free licenses completely. They could've given the poor boy some leeway. This is a problem with using free licenses.


And who the FUCK is Jameslwoodward to be making threats to kids?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joshb&diff=66148281&oldid=66020006

and we see mattbuck and Beta_M gang banging the kid too.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joshb&action=history



Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(Ego Trippin' (Part Two) @ Thu 15th March 2012, 9:13pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 15th March 2012, 4:46pm) *

What is it with the vociferous defence of Beta M by Saibo, Niabot and Mattbuck all about? In spite of all the evidence, in spite of common sense they continue to defend this kiddy fiddler at all costs?

There must be some deeper meaning, agenda or purpose to this? Surely they must realise that aside from the "think of the kids" angle, the whole point of not letting a known and convicted paedophile edit is to protect the project.


Count me among those who simply cannot understand where they're coming from. I wish we could chalk their behavior up to the strangeness of their own sexual proclivities, but I don't think that explains it. Silver Seren is a "furry," which I find extremely bizarre, but until now I thought that he was a rational, fairly smart person nevertheless. After reading his comments about this situation, I think there might be something seriously wrong with him -- and with Mattbuck, Saibo, Niabot, Russavia, and the rest. This isn't just a misguided belief in "free culture" and other Wikipedia ideals. There is something that's genuinely off about the way they're thinking about this entire affair, and it's disturbing.

That's really the word that has to be used here. In all my years of participating in and observing Wikipedia, this group of users might be the most disturbing of all those I've seen -- and that's saying something.

(Silver Seren is welcome to defend himself here, of course.)


What, my opinion that blocks only exacerbate the potential issues involved in this? That I feel like topic bans would be the easiest method of fixing the problem? I mean, if the users get blocked for violating those, then there's no choice but to block at that point, but you at least tried.

Really, it comes down to two possible situations.

1) The user is going to be using Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or otherwise contact children. Blocking them in a situation like this merely makes it so that they make a new, unknown account that you can't follow now. If you hadn't blocked them, then they could have been observed and, if they tried something illegal, they could be immediately reported to the police or FBI.

or

2) Whatever their past, the user isn't going to use Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or contact children. And, if they aren't, then what exactly is a block accomplishing in this scenario?

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 15th March 2012, 9:41pm) *

QUOTE(Ego Trippin' (Part Two) @ Thu 15th March 2012, 9:13pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 15th March 2012, 4:46pm) *

What is it with the vociferous defence of Beta M by Saibo, Niabot and Mattbuck all about? In spite of all the evidence, in spite of common sense they continue to defend this kiddy fiddler at all costs?

There must be some deeper meaning, agenda or purpose to this? Surely they must realise that aside from the "think of the kids" angle, the whole point of not letting a known and convicted paedophile edit is to protect the project.


Count me among those who simply cannot understand where they're coming from. I wish we could chalk their behavior up to the strangeness of their own sexual proclivities, but I don't think that explains it. Silver Seren is a "furry," which I find extremely bizarre, but until now I thought that he was a rational, fairly smart person nevertheless. After reading his comments about this situation, I think there might be something seriously wrong with him -- and with Mattbuck, Saibo, Niabot, Russavia, and the rest. This isn't just a misguided belief in "free culture" and other Wikipedia ideals. There is something that's genuinely off about the way they're thinking about this entire affair, and it's disturbing.

That's really the word that has to be used here. In all my years of participating in and observing Wikipedia, this group of users might be the most disturbing of all those I've seen -- and that's saying something.

(Silver Seren is welcome to defend himself here, of course.)


What, my opinion that blocks only exacerbate the potential issues involved in this? That I feel like topic bans would be the easiest method of fixing the problem? I mean, if the users get blocked for violating those, then there's no choice but to block at that point, but you at least tried.

Really, it comes down to two possible situations.

1) The user is going to be using Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or otherwise contact children. Blocking them in a situation like this merely makes it so that they make a new, unknown account that you can't follow now. If you hadn't blocked them, then they could have been observed and, if they tried something illegal, they could be immediately reported to the police or FBI.

or

2) Whatever their past, the user isn't going to use Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or contact children. And, if they aren't, then what exactly is a block accomplishing in this scenario?


As I said above, this isn't just about protecting children. It's also about protecting the project. How do you think the reputation of the project will go when it becomes well known that the editors and administrators allowed a known paedophile to continue to edit. Not to mention that he was defended by editors and admins, and other users who protested against it were blocked for doing so?

Then add to that the fact that people like Jimbo turned a blind eye to it and refused to come down to Commons to settle it once and for all?

Posted by: Silver seren

If it was about protecting the project and stated as such by the Foundation, then I would be fine with it.

What I am not fine with is the way CHILDPROTECT is worded as if it is actually protecting children. If it was worded as explaining that this is to protect the project from liability or involvement in such things, then I would be fine.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 15th March 2012, 10:05pm) *

If it was about protecting the project and stated as such by the Foundation, then I would be fine with it.

What I am not fine with is the way CHILDPROTECT is worded as if it is actually protecting children. If it was worded as explaining that this is to protect the project from liability or involvement in such things, then I would be fine.


As I put in the 'Daily Mail' section, I believe that policy is a fuck up from start to finish and has no place being written up, at least not at this point in time. What also worries me is how involved Beta M's enablers are to it. They should not come within a mile of it much less have a say in how it's worded.

The policy is superfluous to requirements as there is already a project wide policy of zero tolerance to paedophiles and child/adult sexual relationship advocates as confirmed by Jimbo and Sue Gardner.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 15th March 2012, 9:41pm) *

What, my opinion that blocks only exacerbate the potential issues involved in this? That I feel like topic bans would be the easiest method of fixing the problem? I mean, if the users get blocked for violating those, then there's no choice but to block at that point, but you at least tried.

Really, it comes down to two possible situations.

1) The user is going to be using Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or otherwise contact children. Blocking them in a situation like this merely makes it so that they make a new, unknown account that you can't follow now. If you hadn't blocked them, then they could have been observed and, if they tried something illegal, they could be immediately reported to the police or FBI.

or

2) Whatever their past, the user isn't going to use Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or contact children. And, if they aren't, then what exactly is a block accomplishing in this scenario?

Your opinions would hold more water if you hadn't publicly doubted the identification of Volodya/Beta M despite knowing that all the necessary evidence was sitting right here. Nonetheless, let me share an observation with you.

You and others suggest that blocking users who identify as paedophiles or advocate paeophilia on WMF projects will only result in those users returning as socks. This, you suggest, is worse because people will not be able to keep an eye on their activities. There are a couple of problems with this argument.

One, it is not inevitable that the user will create a sockpuppet. They may not have access to other IPs after theirs is blocked. They may just not care enough. Two, there is nothing to prevent users under topic bans for advocacy of paedophilia from creating socks so that they can continue to agitate despite the topic ban. This happens all the time with people under topic bans. Just look at Prioryman/Helatrobus/etc. Three, you will be creating a situation where you say it is ok to be a paedophile and it is ok to have paedophiles on WP. Trust me, that is the thin edge of a wedge. They will soon move to working on "balancing" articles about paedophilia.

You may not have been observing WP long enough to know that blocking advocates of paedophilia is a deterrent to others who would follow that route. It also gives people time to clean up after the editor, remove the advocacy, and get more editors watching articles that are particularly attractive targets. It has worked to keep things under control, even if you don't see it.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 6:49pm) *

You and others suggest that blocking users who identify as paedophiles or advocate paeophilia on WMF projects will only result in those users returning as socks. This, you suggest, is worse because people will not be able to keep an eye on their activities. There are a couple of problems with this argument.

One, it is not inevitable that the user will create a sockpuppet. They may not have access to other IPs after theirs is blocked. They may just not care enough. Two, there is nothing to prevent users under topic bans for advocacy of paedophilia from creating socks so that they can continue to agitate despite the topic ban. This happens all the time with people under topic bans. Just look at Prioryman/Helatrobus/etc. Three, you will be creating a situation where you say it is ok to be a paedophile and it is ok to have paedophiles on WP. Trust me, that is the thin edge of a wedge. They will soon move to working on "balancing" articles about paedophilia.

You may not have been observing WP long enough to know that blocking advocates of paedophilia is a deterrent to others who would follow that route. It also gives people time to clean up after the editor, remove the advocacy, and get more editors watching articles that are particularly attractive targets. It has worked to keep things under control, even if you don't see it.



You make a really good point beyond just pedophiles.

I absolutely hate when people claim that we can't block a group of people because it wont "stop them". It is a back way of saying "we must allow them to keep it up but I lack any legitimate reason". I say this because ArbCom blocks many people without care if they might future sock. Hell, you could say that ArbCom makes shady blocks in order to provoke people into socking to use it to justify keeping them gone.

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 10:49pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 15th March 2012, 9:41pm) *

What, my opinion that blocks only exacerbate the potential issues involved in this? That I feel like topic bans would be the easiest method of fixing the problem? I mean, if the users get blocked for violating those, then there's no choice but to block at that point, but you at least tried.

Really, it comes down to two possible situations.

1) The user is going to be using Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or otherwise contact children. Blocking them in a situation like this merely makes it so that they make a new, unknown account that you can't follow now. If you hadn't blocked them, then they could have been observed and, if they tried something illegal, they could be immediately reported to the police or FBI.

or

2) Whatever their past, the user isn't going to use Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or contact children. And, if they aren't, then what exactly is a block accomplishing in this scenario?

Your opinions would hold more water if you hadn't publicly doubted the identification of Volodya/Beta M despite knowing that all the necessary evidence was sitting right here. Nonetheless, let me share an observation with you.

You and others suggest that blocking users who identify as paedophiles or advocate paeophilia on WMF projects will only result in those users returning as socks. This, you suggest, is worse because people will not be able to keep an eye on their activities. There are a couple of problems with this argument.

One, it is not inevitable that the user will create a sockpuppet. They may not have access to other IPs after theirs is blocked. They may just not care enough. Two, there is nothing to prevent users under topic bans for advocacy of paedophilia from creating socks so that they can continue to agitate despite the topic ban. This happens all the time with people under topic bans. Just look at Prioryman/Helatrobus/etc. Three, you will be creating a situation where you say it is ok to be a paedophile and it is ok to have paedophiles on WP. Trust me, that is the thin edge of a wedge. They will soon move to working on "balancing" articles about paedophilia.

You may not have been observing WP long enough to know that blocking advocates of paedophilia is a deterrent to others who would follow that route. It also gives people time to clean up after the editor, remove the advocacy, and get more editors watching articles that are particularly attractive targets. It has worked to keep things under control, even if you don't see it.



If they aren't dedicated enough to try to create a sockpuppet, then there really wasn't an issue. Getting your IP address blocked isn't really a deterrent of anything. I have three different IP addresses I could choose from right at this moment. All the same IP range, but regardless.

And if they create socks while under topic bans, more often than not, the socks will be quickly blocked and a CU run. And, lo and behold, you find out this person was making socks. Now you can block them.

And, actually, it's more creating a situation of "what the heck does pedophilia have to do with editing an encyclopedia?" If someone says that it's because they're editing that topic area, then fine, topic ban. What exactly is the problem now? I mean, it's not like pedophiles should get special treatment in not being allowed to edit Wikipedia. We might as well extend it to murderers, rapists, perhaps anyone who's found to have committed a felony. Then we can set up a committee to scour the internet for other accounts people have on other sites and to link them to the names of convicted felons, to make sure we block all of them forever.

And i'm quite sure more than enough people are watching the articles in question, considering how quickly socks and advocates get blocked from them.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:05pm) *


If they aren't dedicated enough to try to create a sockpuppet, then there really wasn't an issue.



Really? Then why is anyone banned who wont be socking? That doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: HRIP7

[Mod note: By popular request, posts on SilverSeren's list are now in their separate thread http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37241].

Posted by: MZMcBride

The "Beta M" global account has been locked: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=WMFOffice&page=User%3ABeta+M%40global>.

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:29pm) *
The "Beta M" global account has been locked: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=WMFOffice&page=User%3ABeta+M%40global>.
Heh, I forgot that this forum is the last place on Earth that doesn't auto-link. A link for the lazy: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=WMFOffice&page=User%3ABeta+M%40global>.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:30pm) *

The "Beta M" global account has been locked: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=WMFOffice&page=User%3ABeta+M%40global>.

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:29pm) *
The "Beta M" global account has been locked: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=WMFOffice&page=User%3ABeta+M%40global>.
Heh, I forgot that this forum is the last place on Earth that doesn't auto-link. A link for the lazy: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=WMFOffice&page=User%3ABeta+M%40global>.



00:12 on 16 March 2012. How long til the complaints start flooding Meta?

Wait:

(Global account log); 00:12 . . WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Beta M@global": Set locked; Unset (none) ‎(OFFICE action: please contact legal@wikimedia.org with questions.)

then

(Global account log); 00:12 . . WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Beta M@global": Set (none); Unset locked ‎(OFFICE action: please contact legal@wikimedia.org with questions.)

o.O

Posted by: SB_Johnny

But then:

20:13, 15 March 2012 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Beta M@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (OFFICE action: please contact legal@wikimedia.org with questions.)

Cold feet, presumably.

I guess they didn't want Jimmy to eat his words!

Posted by: Ottava

Do we know if WMF Office has multiple users? Phillipe has access, but how about someone high up that might have disagreed and used it without permission? I wonder if a CU on Meta has balls enough to check and then block the person.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:59pm) *
Do we know if WMF Office has multiple users? Phillipe has access, but how about someone high up that might have disagreed and used it without permission? I wonder if a CU on Meta has balls enough to check and then block the person.

No to the second part, but as for the first, I'm fairly certain that is a shared account, or it least it has been in the past. Still, the proximity of the two actions suggests they either don't know what they're doing, at all, or it's a distractionary move, meaning that they're going to e-mail links (to WP'ers who complain) to log-results pages that are filtered so that the recipients see the one action and not the other.

They've done it before.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 8:59pm) *

Do we know if WMF Office has multiple users? Phillipe has access, but how about someone high up that might have disagreed and used it without permission? I wonder if a CU on Meta has balls enough to check and then block the person.

I know it's not popular around here to give thems peeps any slack, but in this case it's https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/WMFOffice that the person using the button just wasn't sure how the button works. wink.gif

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 15th March 2012, 11:05pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 10:49pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 15th March 2012, 9:41pm) *

What, my opinion that blocks only exacerbate the potential issues involved in this? That I feel like topic bans would be the easiest method of fixing the problem? I mean, if the users get blocked for violating those, then there's no choice but to block at that point, but you at least tried.

Really, it comes down to two possible situations.

1) The user is going to be using Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or otherwise contact children. Blocking them in a situation like this merely makes it so that they make a new, unknown account that you can't follow now. If you hadn't blocked them, then they could have been observed and, if they tried something illegal, they could be immediately reported to the police or FBI.

or

2) Whatever their past, the user isn't going to use Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or contact children. And, if they aren't, then what exactly is a block accomplishing in this scenario?

Your opinions would hold more water if you hadn't publicly doubted the identification of Volodya/Beta M despite knowing that all the necessary evidence was sitting right here. Nonetheless, let me share an observation with you.

You and others suggest that blocking users who identify as paedophiles or advocate paeophilia on WMF projects will only result in those users returning as socks. This, you suggest, is worse because people will not be able to keep an eye on their activities. There are a couple of problems with this argument.

One, it is not inevitable that the user will create a sockpuppet. They may not have access to other IPs after theirs is blocked. They may just not care enough. Two, there is nothing to prevent users under topic bans for advocacy of paedophilia from creating socks so that they can continue to agitate despite the topic ban. This happens all the time with people under topic bans. Just look at Prioryman/Helatrobus/etc. Three, you will be creating a situation where you say it is ok to be a paedophile and it is ok to have paedophiles on WP. Trust me, that is the thin edge of a wedge. They will soon move to working on "balancing" articles about paedophilia.

You may not have been observing WP long enough to know that blocking advocates of paedophilia is a deterrent to others who would follow that route. It also gives people time to clean up after the editor, remove the advocacy, and get more editors watching articles that are particularly attractive targets. It has worked to keep things under control, even if you don't see it.



If they aren't dedicated enough to try to create a sockpuppet, then there really wasn't an issue. Getting your IP address blocked isn't really a deterrent of anything. I have three different IP addresses I could choose from right at this moment. All the same IP range, but regardless.

If they aren't dedicated enough to create a sockpuppet it does not mean that there was no issue, it just means that they are not dedicated enough to create a sockpuppet. Surely even you can work that out.

As far as IPs go, not everyone is you, and not everyone has access to three IPs at any given time. Especially if what they are doing is advocating paedophilia. Perhaps they aren't comfortable doing that, say, at the office. Perhaps some people imagine that when WP blocks someone for that, someone with access to that information might be passing that information along to their internet provider and the police, so they might feel like they should find a new hobby.

QUOTE
And if they create socks while under topic bans, more often than not, the socks will be quickly blocked and a CU run. And, lo and behold, you find out this person was making socks. Now you can block them.

Your socking while topic banned theory is a fantasy. People sock for years and get away with it. CUs don't get run for every sock. Even when people know who is behind the sock, they sometimes turn a blind eye if they share a common interest.

QUOTE
And, actually, it's more creating a situation of "what the heck does pedophilia have to do with editing an encyclopedia?" If someone says that it's because they're editing that topic area, then fine, topic ban. What exactly is the problem now? I mean, it's not like pedophiles should get special treatment in not being allowed to edit Wikipedia. We might as well extend it to murderers, rapists, perhaps anyone who's found to have committed a felony. Then we can set up a committee to scour the internet for other accounts people have on other sites and to link them to the names of convicted felons, to make sure we block all of them forever.

What does paedophilia have to do with editing an encyclopedia? I agree with you on this point. It has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia, on the other hand, should ban paedophiles. Not because they are likely to hook up with some child through WP, but because they will use WP to propagate and normalize their ideas, just like any other advocacy group on WP. That's where you get people like Volodya saying that rape of a child is wrong, but "consensual relationships" between adults and children are different.

QUOTE
And i'm quite sure more than enough people are watching the articles in question, considering how quickly socks and advocates get blocked from them.

Your assurances about the right articles being carefully watched do not instill any confidence whatsoever.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 16th March 2012, 2:04am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:59pm) *
Do we know if WMF Office has multiple users? Phillipe has access, but how about someone high up that might have disagreed and used it without permission? I wonder if a CU on Meta has balls enough to check and then block the person.

No to the second part, but as for the first, I'm fairly certain that is a shared account, or it least it has been in the past. Still, the proximity of the two actions suggests they either don't know what they're doing, at all, or it's a distractionary move, meaning that they're going to e-mail links (to WP'ers who complain) to log-results pages that are filtered so that the recipients see the one action and not the other.

They've done it before.


Or someone simply misclicked. The CentralAuth interface is not remotely intuitive (see public picture below) and the WMF staff don't do all that many global account changes to instinctively know how it works.

Image


Posted by: Eppur si muove

FattDuck is still obviously upset today as he had to protect the paedophile's talk page http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=68385158&oldid=68382878 the following this morning

QUOTE
Well the WMF have agreed that the evidence is convincing and the account is now locked. So the threat of returning won't come true, thank God.

More censorship by the self professed anti-censorship parade.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Fri 16th March 2012, 12:38pm) *

FattDuck is still obviously upset today as he had to protect the paedophile's talk page http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=68385158&oldid=68382878 the following this morning
QUOTE
Well the WMF have agreed that the evidence is convincing and the account is now locked. So the threat of returning won't come true, thank God.

More censorship by the self professed anti-censorship parade.


Not so much censorship as damage limitation.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 16th March 2012, 12:57pm) *

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Fri 16th March 2012, 12:38pm) *

FattDuck is still obviously upset today as he had to protect the paedophile's talk page http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beta_M&diff=68385158&oldid=68382878 the following this morning
QUOTE
Well the WMF have agreed that the evidence is convincing and the account is now locked. So the threat of returning won't come true, thank God.

More censorship by the self professed anti-censorship parade.


Not so much censorship as damage limitation.


Their knee jerk reactions will have been fully trained in the last week. I predict increased militant, idiotic, synchronized goose-stepping from the usual suspects when next something is reported from WR.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User_Saibo (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=68408243#User_Saibo)

On Commons, as long as one has the "right" ideology, one can get away with anything without being desyopped. Does Commons really a sysop who's prone to having outbursts and temper tantrums?

Posted by: EricBarbour

If you gents really wanna tear Wikipedia down, it seems to me you could start by finding out who
abusive Commons admins like Saibo and Wnt are. The latter is a complete cipher, except for being
part Chinese (maybe) and in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 15th March 2012, 11:49pm) *




Oh hey! Thanks for clarifying (possibly). smile.gif



By the way, anyone notice how often Mattbuck et al tosses around "witchhunt" when it comes to obvious pedophiles? Mattbuck, Gmaxwell, Saibo, and on and on, all did the same thing anything admits to being a pedophile and others call for their block. Is it really a coincidence? Hell, one could look at the list of those asking for me to be blocked to see that half of them could easily be called the pedocabal for their constant defense of those users.

Posted by: Ego Trippin' (Part Two)

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 15th March 2012, 5:41pm) *

QUOTE(Ego Trippin' (Part Two) @ Thu 15th March 2012, 9:13pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Thu 15th March 2012, 4:46pm) *

What is it with the vociferous defence of Beta M by Saibo, Niabot and Mattbuck all about? In spite of all the evidence, in spite of common sense they continue to defend this kiddy fiddler at all costs?

There must be some deeper meaning, agenda or purpose to this? Surely they must realise that aside from the "think of the kids" angle, the whole point of not letting a known and convicted paedophile edit is to protect the project.


Count me among those who simply cannot understand where they're coming from. I wish we could chalk their behavior up to the strangeness of their own sexual proclivities, but I don't think that explains it. Silver Seren is a "furry," which I find extremely bizarre, but until now I thought that he was a rational, fairly smart person nevertheless. After reading his comments about this situation, I think there might be something seriously wrong with him -- and with Mattbuck, Saibo, Niabot, Russavia, and the rest. This isn't just a misguided belief in "free culture" and other Wikipedia ideals. There is something that's genuinely off about the way they're thinking about this entire affair, and it's disturbing.

That's really the word that has to be used here. In all my years of participating in and observing Wikipedia, this group of users might be the most disturbing of all those I've seen -- and that's saying something.

(Silver Seren is welcome to defend himself here, of course.)


What, my opinion that blocks only exacerbate the potential issues involved in this? That I feel like topic bans would be the easiest method of fixing the problem? I mean, if the users get blocked for violating those, then there's no choice but to block at that point, but you at least tried.

Really, it comes down to two possible situations.

1) The user is going to be using Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or otherwise contact children. Blocking them in a situation like this merely makes it so that they make a new, unknown account that you can't follow now. If you hadn't blocked them, then they could have been observed and, if they tried something illegal, they could be immediately reported to the police or FBI.

or

2) Whatever their past, the user isn't going to use Wikipedia to advocate for pedophilia or contact children. And, if they aren't, then what exactly is a block accomplishing in this scenario?


All right, thank you for clarifying your stance. I thought that you, like the others I mentioned, held the position that Wikimedia sites should not take action against pedophiles like Beta M because they've already done their time in prison. I thought so because of this comment of yours on Jimbo's talk page:

QUOTE

I suppose that answers the question I had. So there's no evidence that they've ever been advocating for pedophilia at all? It's just that there's this old conviction from more than a decade ago that somehow means they must be blocked? SilverserenC 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


Carbuncle has already done a good job of picking apart your actual argument against locking Beta M's account. Your argument that blocking pedophiles makes it harder to track them seems to be reasonable at first glance. However, it follows from your argument that Wikipedia should never block any account, because doing so makes it harder to track the problematic (or ostensibly problematic) individuals behind those accounts. Surely that's not a road you'd like to go down?

Your topic ban idea at first seems to be an okay one. But what would the scope of the topic ban be? "Beta M is indefinitely topic banned from making edits of or relating to pedophilia in any namespace on the English Wikipedia"? That could, perhaps, help to prevent such users' efforts to normalize pedophilia on Wikipedia. However, it doesn't protect underage Wikipedia users from pedophiles. While, as Carbuncle notes, it's probably pretty unlikely that a pedophile would try to seduce an underaged user on Wikipedia, the fact of the matter is that participation in Wikipedia almost inevitably involves contact with underage users since there are so many of them. It is not acceptable, therefore, to allow known pedophiles to continue to engage in Wikipedia and thus come into repeated contact with underage users. It's beyond obvious, or it should be beyond obvious, that minimizing such contact on Wikimedia sites would be ideal. Topic bans alone are not enough to solve the problem.

While I disagree with you, I recognize that I previously misunderstood your position, and I apologize for writing that your comments in this case indicate that there is something psychologically wrong with you. I stand by those comments insofar as they regard the other Commons users mentioned.

Posted by: Silver seren

Well, I don't think kids under 14 (maybe 16) should be editing Wikipedia. Unless they're one of those kids that are in college by age 12, I don't believe they have the mental faculties or verbal communication skills to properly edit Wikipedia.

Posted by: Mooby

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Fri 16th March 2012, 4:38pm) *

Well, I don't think kids under 14 (maybe 16) should be editing Wikipedia. Unless they're one of those kids that are in college by age 12, I don't believe they have the mental faculties or verbal communication skills to properly edit Wikipedia.


If I had a choice between kicking all the 12 year olds off Wikipedia, and kicking off all the pedos, I'd kick off the pedos. Youth is something time can "fix"; pedophilia not so much.

I get the feeling that that preference of mine would disqualify me from becoming a Commons admin, though.

-Mooby

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Fri 16th March 2012, 8:38pm) *

Well, I don't think kids under 14 (maybe 16) should be editing Wikipedia. Unless they're one of those kids that are in college by age 12, I don't believe they have the mental faculties or verbal communication skills to properly edit Wikipedia.

Yes, but they are, and you know that. You also know that WP is widely read by kids and that the WMF is actively trying to make readers into editors. Despite what you think should happen, it appears that those who actually control things have different ideas.

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 16th March 2012, 9:13pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Fri 16th March 2012, 8:38pm) *

Well, I don't think kids under 14 (maybe 16) should be editing Wikipedia. Unless they're one of those kids that are in college by age 12, I don't believe they have the mental faculties or verbal communication skills to properly edit Wikipedia.

Yes, but they are, and you know that. You also know that WP is widely read by kids and that the WMF is actively trying to make readers into editors. Despite what you think should happen, it appears that those who actually control things have different ideas.


There's a difference between readers into editors and elementary school readers into editors. The latter would bring no useful benefit to Wikipedia and, likely, either vandalism or just plain WP:COMPETENCE issues.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Fri 16th March 2012, 4:38pm) *

Well, I don't think kids under 14 (maybe 16) should be editing Wikipedia. Unless they're one of those kids that are in college by age 12, I don't believe they have the mental faculties or verbal communication skills to properly edit Wikipedia.



Just because you don't think they should doesn't mean they wont, and it doesn't mean they wont be preyed upon by those you are currently defending. How does that not bother you at all?


QUOTE
The latter would bring no useful benefit to Wikipedia and, likely, either vandalism or just plain WP:COMPETENCE issues.


There is little evidence that you have usefully edited Wikipedia, as with the vast majority of editors. So you agree that you shouldn't be allowed to edit?

Posted by: Angela Kennedy

QUOTE(Wikitaka @ Tue 13th March 2012, 7:47am) *

Wow, take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png.....


I think this is one of those barnstars Jimmy Wales might be advising the British Government to award each other after they've banned all critics and the opposition?

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Fri 16th March 2012, 9:22pm) *

There's a difference between readers into editors and elementary school readers into editors. The latter would bring no useful benefit to Wikipedia and, likely, either vandalism or just plain WP:COMPETENCE issues.


Except that within the last 18 months some 12 yo had decided that the photo he'd snapped of himself in his underwear aged 10, and uploaded to Commons probably hadn't been his best idea.

Fortunately Alison stepped in and deleted it, but in the meanwhile one of the fuckwits on Commons had started arguing that it had been used, that they didn't have any other photos of 10yo butts in undies, and that he needed to find a replacement of another 10 yo in underwear.


Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo&diff=68567458&oldid=68567253

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Saibo&diff=101060377&oldid=101056783

It would be hilarious if the Beta_M incident were to become the final straw in breaking the camel's back. I could see the headlines now: "Wikimedia bans 'childlove' advocate; German Wikipedians secede and form a fork".

Posted by: Tarc

Only ze Germanz would see child molestation as a human rights issue.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:10pm) *

What really fucks me off is how everyone is blaming the Wikipedia Review

QUOTE

Blocking Mattbuck on this seems weak and a serious mistake in comparison to some of the unacceptable behaviour and dramah we have seen on-wiki from an apparent traveling circus which has not (yet) resulted in blocks all round. --Fæ (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment was an observation. I would have more to say about this block if Mattbuck were to take the initiative to request an unblock and put forward their case, if they are not bothered then theorizing here just creates more material for WR fueled drama and personal attacks that we are all sick of by now. --Fæ (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I support a prompt unblock as requested. Mattbuck has made a commitment to not post the proposal back that Rd232 found disruptive. If Mattbuck stays blocked then we probably all agree there is a list of at least ten other accounts that should be immediately blocked on the basis of deliberately disrupting Commons consensus processes with much more inflammatory material, some of it reposting or linking to dubious material and far more inflammatory canvassing discussions off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


And what does Fae mean by 'dubious material'?


Fae has indicated one fo those undesirables he wants removed from Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=68595787&oldid=68595137. What are the odds that Ashley van Haeften's intervention in that thread has more to do with Petere Kuiper's exposure of his plagiarism than any genuine desire to add to a "collegiate manner "?

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:56am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 12th March 2012, 8:22pm) *

Image

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0



Funny that he wants "free culture" and "free porn", but uses a CC license on his own photos.
And tries to sell the rights to them thru Getty Images. Who in the HELL does that twit think
will pay commercial rates for a photo of his ugly face?.....

Well, his face is not really ugly, but it is a face of a weak person. Weak persons with administrative tools are the most dangerous bullies because they are trying to compensate in cyber space some important things they are missing in real life. They are using wikipedia projects as playgrounds for their sick games.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:08pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:56am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 12th March 2012, 8:22pm) *

Image

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0



Funny that he wants "free culture" and "free porn", but uses a CC license on his own photos.
And tries to sell the rights to them thru Getty Images. Who in the HELL does that twit think
will pay commercial rates for a photo of his ugly face?.....

Well, his face is not really ugly, but it is a face of a weak person. Weak persons with administrative tools are the most dangerous bullies because they are trying to compensate in cyber space some important things they are missing in real life.


Say you were a TV director doing a casting call for a young paedophile for a new TV series. And Master Buck's file came across your desk. I wonder if he'd be on your shortlist?

PS: Poor bastard, only in his 20s with a forehead like that and a pisshead's nose.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:24pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:08pm) *

Well, his face is not really ugly, but it is a face of a weak person. Weak persons with administrative tools are the most dangerous bullies because they are trying to compensate in cyber space some important things they are missing in real life.


Say you were a TV director doing a casting call for a young paedophile for a new TV series. And Master Buck's file came across your desk. I wonder if he'd be on your shortlist?

PS: Poor bastard, only in his 20s with a forehead like that and a pisshead's nose.

Is this the intelligent commentary of the new and improved WR? Can I get the old one back now?

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:47pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:24pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:08pm) *

Well, his face is not really ugly, but it is a face of a weak person. Weak persons with administrative tools are the most dangerous bullies because they are trying to compensate in cyber space some important things they are missing in real life.


Say you were a TV director doing a casting call for a young paedophile for a new TV series. And Master Buck's file came across your desk. I wonder if he'd be on your shortlist?

PS: Poor bastard, only in his 20s with a forehead like that and a pisshead's nose.

Is this the intelligent commentary of the new and improved WR? Can I get the old one back now?


No. Next question.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:55pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:47pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:24pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:08pm) *

Well, his face is not really ugly, but it is a face of a weak person. Weak persons with administrative tools are the most dangerous bullies because they are trying to compensate in cyber space some important things they are missing in real life.


Say you were a TV director doing a casting call for a young paedophile for a new TV series. And Master Buck's file came across your desk. I wonder if he'd be on your shortlist?

PS: Poor bastard, only in his 20s with a forehead like that and a pisshead's nose.

Is this the intelligent commentary of the new and improved WR? Can I get the old one back now?


No. Next question.

Have you investigated the possibility that you and Baseball Bugs are identical twins, separated at birth?

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:24pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:08pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:56am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 12th March 2012, 8:22pm) *

Image

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0



Funny that he wants "free culture" and "free porn", but uses a CC license on his own photos.
And tries to sell the rights to them thru Getty Images. Who in the HELL does that twit think
will pay commercial rates for a photo of his ugly face?.....

Well, his face is not really ugly, but it is a face of a weak person. Weak persons with administrative tools are the most dangerous bullies because they are trying to compensate in cyber space some important things they are missing in real life.


Say you were a TV director doing a casting call for a young paedophile for a new TV series. And Master Buck's file came across your desk. I wonder if he'd be on your shortlist?

PS: Poor bastard, only in his 20s with a forehead like that and a pisshead's nose.


And a lack of http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Putin_on_the_Ritz.jpg&curid=18608117&diff=68730799&oldid=68729947 too it would seem. Either that or a total lack of a sense of humour.

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 6:27pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:55pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:47pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:24pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:08pm) *

Well, his face is not really ugly, but it is a face of a weak person. Weak persons with administrative tools are the most dangerous bullies because they are trying to compensate in cyber space some important things they are missing in real life.


Say you were a TV director doing a casting call for a young paedophile for a new TV series. And Master Buck's file came across your desk. I wonder if he'd be on your shortlist?

PS: Poor bastard, only in his 20s with a forehead like that and a pisshead's nose.

Is this the intelligent commentary of the new and improved WR? Can I get the old one back now?


No. Next question.

Have you investigated the possibility that you and Baseball Bugs are identical twins, separated at birth?

No. Next question.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 10:24am) *

Say you were a TV director doing a casting call for a young paedophile for a new TV series. And Master Buck's file came across your desk. I wonder if he'd be on your shortlist?

PS: Poor bastard, only in his 20s with a forehead like that and a pisshead's nose.

This is just so puerile and spiteful. Matt Buck can be a complete dick on Commons, especially at IfD and I'll be the first to agree there. It's his default setting. But this cheap attack is just uncalled-for and makes you, and WR look bad hrmph.gif

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 7:01pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 10:24am) *

Say you were a TV director doing a casting call for a young paedophile for a new TV series. And Master Buck's file came across your desk. I wonder if he'd be on your shortlist?

PS: Poor bastard, only in his 20s with a forehead like that and a pisshead's nose.

This is just so puerile and spiteful. Matt Buck can be a complete dick on Commons, especially at IfD and I'll be the first to agree there. It's his default setting. But this cheap attack is just uncalled-for and makes you, and WR look bad hrmph.gif


Nah, just me. Selena or Somey will be along and delete all trace of it.

Just think of it as me saying what some people are thinking, me included of course.

I think piousness suits you Alison, whereas puerile humour suits me. I still laugh at farts. I'll bet you don't.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 5:24pm) *
PS: Poor bastard, only in his 20s with a forehead like that and a pisshead's nose.

I don't think the facial colouration has anything to do with alcohol abuse. He's probably just been looking through one of the building's windows/door glass panels at people by putting his mouth against the glass and going "phwammmwpphwa" at them and sliding his face down in a scary fashion. It certainly explains the "Hey that was funny" look. And the general moistness.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:56am) *

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0


It looks like the picture was deleted from flickr account.



Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 9:44pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:56am) *

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0


It looks like the picture was deleted from flickr account.


He must think someone's watching him.

Maybe it's the Bead Belt Fairy?

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 9:49pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 23rd March 2012, 9:44pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:56am) *

© http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbuck007/photosof/ CC BY-SA 2.0


It looks like the picture was deleted from flickr account.


He must think someone's watching him.

Maybe it's the Bead Belt Fairy?


Pity that copies were taken.

Image

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=69629223&oldid=68658358

Beta_M is now defending himself via his designated proxy Saibo.

Stefan4 has provided the following response:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=69630359&oldid=69629223

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

Saibo threatens Tarc with a ban, but disguises the threat as a joke with a strategically-placed emoticon:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=69637246&oldid=69636764

After Tarc dares reply after Saibo gave his or her threat, Saibo follows through on his or her threat to have Tarc banned from Commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=69640486&oldid=69630345

Posted by: Text

Have you taken notice of images such as Hmong-Kinder.jpg? A german dude took that photo while on vacation. Pretty sure the subjects didn't give any consent, and the same goes for their parents.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Text @ Tue 10th April 2012, 6:58pm) *

Have you taken notice of images such as Hmong-Kinder.jpg? A german dude took that photo while on vacation. Pretty sure the subjects didn't give any consent, and the same goes for their parents.

Hmm, good catch there, Mr. Text... Obviously these kids are not white people, so most Wikipedians wouldn't actually see them as having any such rights. Instead they'll claim it's all the kids' fault for walking around outside without any clothes on while there are tourists present.

Posted by: EricBarbour

I see that Saibo is another one of those admins who http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.7.244.27 criticism.....

Posted by: Web Fred

QUOTE(Text @ Wed 11th April 2012, 12:58am) *

Have you taken notice of images such as Hmong-Kinder.jpg? A german dude took that photo while on vacation. Pretty sure the subjects didn't give any consent, and the same goes for their parents.


Cute though.

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th April 2012, 8:08am) *

I see that Saibo is another one of those admins who http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.7.244.27 criticism.....


A particularly slimy example of an admin with a less than virtuous agenda.

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 11th April 2012, 7:44am) *

QUOTE(Text @ Tue 10th April 2012, 6:58pm) *

Have you taken notice of images such as Hmong-Kinder.jpg? A german dude took that photo while on vacation. Pretty sure the subjects didn't give any consent, and the same goes for their parents.

Hmm, good catch there, Mr. Text... Obviously these kids are not white people, so most Wikipedians wouldn't actually see them as having any such rights. Instead they'll claim it's all the kids' fault for walking around outside without any clothes on while there are tourists present.

Oh dear! The one time Ottava might be able to say something sensible, he's not here! dry.gif

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 10th April 2012, 5:27pm) *

Saibo threatens Tarc with a ban, but disguises the threat as a joke with a strategically-placed emoticon:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=69637246&oldid=69636764

After Tarc dares reply after Saibo gave his or her threat, Saibo follows through on his or her threat to have Tarc banned from Commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=69640486&oldid=69630345


The whole thing is just absurd, esp the "locked isn't banned" argument.

Saibo never actually articulated a block reason for me, just vague-waved a hand at some diffs of me saying things he didn't like.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 10th April 2012, 5:33pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=69629223&oldid=68658358

Beta_M is now defending himself via his designated proxy Saibo.

Stefan4 has provided the following response:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=69630359&oldid=69629223


Well he sort of has to explain how it is that in 2003 someone with his same name was saying that they' had been in an American Jail for 2.75 years for child porn, who's post signature links to a website, that Beta_M associated himself with on his user page in 2005.