Beta M?, Former US Federal prisoner Options Rating

[tarantino]

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

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

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

Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator

Name Register # Age-Race-Sex Release Date Location
VLADIMIR MOZHENKOV 06429-046 30-White-M 10-04-2002 RELEASED

From the St. Petersburg Times, November 17, 2000

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.

[TungstenCarbide]

... 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?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[carbuncle]

... 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 MeetUp page, he lives in Moscow. That's why he attends meetings in London.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[mbz1]

Here's a single article http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index....cts=noredirects it created.

[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.

[carbuncle]

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....

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Peter Damian]

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.

[Peter Damian]

Ah lovelyy

On donkey punch:

::::::: 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=...oldid=476150531

[TungstenCarbide]

Good find, Tarantino, thanks.

Ditto, thanks for the good work yet again.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Peter Damian]

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).

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?titl...lia&oldid=33996

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[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?t...ot_sex_barnstar
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...ot_Sex_Barnstar
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_tal...ot_Sex_Barnstar
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...ot_Sex_Barnstar

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

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?titl...lia&oldid=33996

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

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[tarantino]

Beta_M has been blocked on wp and commons by Geni.

[mbz1]

Beta_M has been blocked on wp and commons by Geni.

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

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

[radek]

Beta_M has been blocked on wp and commons by Geni.

Reading through all this I got one question:

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

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

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".

[EricBarbour]

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.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[tarantino]

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

He identifies as "VolodyA! V Anarhist" on his user pages.

These anarchists IDed him four years ago, but the internet collective seemed to have forgotten it until now.

[TungstenCarbide]

These anarchists 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"

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Put him on Arbcom! They deserve him!

[tarantino]

Beta_M has been blocked on wp and commons by Geni.

Reading through all this I got one question:

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

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

Don't forget "The Lee Dennison Story" featuring Ron Livingston.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/RonLivingstonMay10.jpg/240px-RonLivingstonMay10.jpg)

[carbuncle]

Beta_M has been blocked on wp and commons by Geni.

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

It looks like Volodya isn't going to go quietly:

I have been blocked

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

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

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

I am also from Russia. What i am not doing is i'm not distributing child pornography, i am distributing diagrams and photos. Apparently the admin didn't know how to check this. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[radek]

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.

[lilburne]

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

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

This post has been edited by lilburne:

[dogbiscuit]

This is going to be fun. Wikipedia might just about cope, Commons should be entertaining. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/furious.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/twilightzone.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/censored.gif)

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

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

The revision which was deleted was deleted without me asking for it, i don't mind if it'll be undeleted.

[Peter Damian]

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

[dogbiscuit]

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

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

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

[Peter Damian]

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

I don't care about what they've done off-wiki [...] --Prosfilaes (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[jayvdb]

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

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

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

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

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[jayvdb]

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

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

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

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

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

[dogbiscuit]

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

Neither does:

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.

[Peter Damian]

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)

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.

[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?

[thekohser]

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?

[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?

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).

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[lilburne]

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

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

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

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

[dogbiscuit]

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

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

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

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

Do I get to use this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/irony.gif)

Anarchists have rules after all.

[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?"