Beta M?, Former US Federal prisoner Options Rating

[Peter Damian]

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 earlier.

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

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68046262

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

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Thu 8th March 2012, 1:06pm

[Selina]

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

[Peter Damian]

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

[dogbiscuit]

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

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.

[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

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

This post has been edited by Selina: Thu 8th March 2012, 1:46pm

[lilburne]

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

This is all real, it was happening back in 2006 even:
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.

[Detective]

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.

[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.

[Tarc]

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

This post has been edited by Tarc: Fri 9th March 2012, 8:04pm

[pietkuip]

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.

This post has been edited by pietkuip: Fri 9th March 2012, 11:35pm

[EricBarbour]

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.

[pietkuip]

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.

[HRIP7]

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.

[mbz1]

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.


This post has been edited by mbz1: Sun 11th March 2012, 5:10am

[Peter Damian]

Removes http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68169814 the following question from his talk page

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@X1Ly...AAE/Volodya/27/

[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

[Peter Damian]

Page now protected http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68174516 by Saibo, at Moshenko's request.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 11th March 2012, 12:23pm

[Peter Damian]

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68158913

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 11th March 2012, 3:24pm

[Wikitaka]

Beta M has also been uploading tons of porn pics to a website called Freedom Porn; (NSFW)