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?"

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/List_of_ar...on_Anarchopedia

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

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[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

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

Anarchists have rules after all.

Didn't you know that? They also ask permission to reuse copyright works too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[carbuncle]

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 seems to be saying 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.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[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?"

Ah, but that isn't what Beta M is saying on Commons. It is what I would expect him to say, but he seems to be saying 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.

[Peter Damian]

Ah, but that isn't what Beta M is saying on Commons. It is what I would expect him to say, but he seems to be saying 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.

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...8&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/i...hp/t-21720.html

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/i...hp/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=...&oldid=11543826

[carbuncle]

Volodya is totally opposed to non-consensual sexual relationships between children and adults:

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.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Michaeldsuarez]

Volodya is totally opposed 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?titl...804&oldid=16803

The following probably reflects Beta_M's views on consent:

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?titl...ation&diff=3916

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

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[carbuncle]

The following probably reflects Beta_M's views on consent:

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?titl...ation&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.

[Michaeldsuarez]

The following probably reflects Beta_M's views on consent:

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?titl...ation&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=...&oldid=20445787

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[tarantino]

Ah, but that isn't what Beta M is saying on Commons. It is what I would expect him to say, but he seems to be saying 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.

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...8&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/i...hp/t-21720.html

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/i...hp/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=...&oldid=11543826

And here VolodyA! V Anarhist said

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).

[carbuncle]

And here VolodyA! V Anarhist said

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 whole truth:

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.

[HRIP7]

And here VolodyA! V Anarhist said

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, here he says:

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.

[HRIP7]

If he is claiming he is not Vladimir Mozhenkov, here he says:

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 here (page has NSFW ads):

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.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=5367409

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=18245997

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

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

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

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

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

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=5444124

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=5464799

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=6565514

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=5742172

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=5759989

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=5793843

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=6145496

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=14450259

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=19707031

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=19871194

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=20459329

[mbz1]

It also created List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults

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

[Tarc]

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68017826

[mbz1]

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

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

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68017826

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68018793

{{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=...e=User%3ABeta_M

Also, Beta_M is a self-identifying "childlove" advocate. I don't see any reason to censor and RevDel the discussion. Quoting Beta_M's own words isn't libel.

[Selina]

yeah. really. ESPECIALLY gay males whose bitchiness can be aggression to the power of 10. and this is coming from the one that made wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bifemale.svg and 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 (*still* banned for my involvement in this site) anyone trying to pull that card-pulling crap on me woul get laughed at (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

(also was pushing against the paedophiles before anyon in charge actually started doing anything about it: 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?)

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") - 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 google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipediareview.com+pedophiles+OR+pedophile+OR+paedophile+OR+paedophiles+OR+pedophilia+OR+paedophilia:

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=30094 Commons and Pro-Pedophilia

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=15438 Boy Scouts are for spanking?, More from Wales talk

wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=34313 Self-identified Pedophile blocks (2007)

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...

This post has been edited by Selina:

[SB_Johnny]

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.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=480721784:

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=...e=User%3ABeta_M

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User%3ABeta_m

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[carbuncle]

And it's Derek Coetzee for the win!

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"...

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[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.

[tarantino]

And it's Derek Coetzee for the win!

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.

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/InmateFinderServl...429-046&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.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546690

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546734

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.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[tarantino]

And it's Derek Coetzee for the win!

Dcoetzee advocates for the legalization of consensual incest. 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.

[Tarc]

And it's Derek Coetzee for the win!

Dcoetzee advocates for the legalization of consensual incest. 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.

[HRIP7]

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 this paper, which – besides backing the Wikipedia article up on the age thing – contains the following passage in its definition of pedophilia:

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.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[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

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[melloden]

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

[Somey]

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, WP:RFA! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yikes.gif)

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

[carbuncle]

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.

[mbz1]

Now Cirt is replacing "hot sex barnstar" (made by Volodya) with "Special Barnstar" on all talk pages Cirt put it on.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[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.

The article clearly can't be talking about me, it's simple for me to add 51 months to the year 2000 and show where i was then, even well before then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...d/User_problems 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The word 'even' is telling. For he only served 23 months of the sentence and was released in October 2004 http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServl...429-046&x=0&y=0. So he could show where he was even as far back as November 2004. All this information was in the WR thread that was linked to in the discussion. But of course Wikipedians don't want to read WR.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

The article clearly can't be talking about me, it's simple for me to add 51 months to the year 2000 and show where i was then, even well before then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...d/User_problems 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The word 'even' is telling. For he only served 23 months of the sentence and was released in October 2004 http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServl...429-046&x=0&y=0. So he could show where he was even as far back as November 2004. All this information was in the WR thread that was linked to in the discussion. But of course Wikipedians don't want to read WR.

Reading between the lines is that his defence is that promoting consensual under-age sex is not pedophilia therefore the allegations of him being a pedophile are false. He does not deny promoting consensual under-age sex. Wikimedians are too excited to worry about the niceties of the distinction (i.e. there isn't one).

[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.

The article clearly can't be talking about me, it's simple for me to add 51 months to the year 2000 and show where i was then, even well before then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...d/User_problems 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The word 'even' is telling. For he only served 23 months of the sentence and was released in October 2004 http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServl...429-046&x=0&y=0. So he could show where he was even as far back as November 2004. All this information was in the WR thread that was linked to in the discussion. But of course Wikipedians don't want to read WR.

Reading between the lines is that his defence is that promoting consensual under-age sex is not pedophilia therefore the allegations of him being a pedophile are false. He does not deny promoting consensual under-age sex. Wikimedians are too excited to worry about the niceties of the distinction (i.e. there isn't one).

No, his defence (in this case) is that he is not the very same person who was convicted in 2000 and sentenced to 51 months in prison. He says he can provided documentary evidence of his whereabouts before the time of release implied by the 51 month sentence. He is relying on the fact that no Wikipedian will check the actual date of release, and the fact that he only served half the time.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

The article clearly can't be talking about me, it's simple for me to add 51 months to the year 2000 and show where i was then, even well before then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...d/User_problems 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The word 'even' is telling. For he only served 23 months of the sentence and was released in October 2004 http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServl...429-046&x=0&y=0. So he could show where he was even as far back as November 2004. All this information was in the WR thread that was linked to in the discussion. But of course Wikipedians don't want to read WR.

Reading between the lines is that his defence is that promoting consensual under-age sex is not pedophilia therefore the allegations of him being a pedophile are false. He does not deny promoting consensual under-age sex. Wikimedians are too excited to worry about the niceties of the distinction (i.e. there isn't one).

No, his defence (in this case) is that he is not the very same person who was convicted in 2000 and sentenced to 51 months in prison. He says he can provided documentary evidence of his whereabouts before the time of release implied by the 51 month sentence. He is relying on the fact that no Wikipedian will check the actual date of release, and the fact that he only served half the time.

Not disagreeing to that specific point, it is more the general "I am not doing anything inappropriate on Commons" bit that people are accepting I was referring to. Of course, Commons admins are being deliberately dense on this point, and when it is undeniable, they are hiding behind the lack of Commons policy in dealing with inappropriate content. It is again interesting to consider what would happen if WMF tried to impose a more appropriate policy wording to ensure that Commons is compliant with US law.

Still like to see what whitewashing through revision deletion has been going on on Commons (and is the use of the tools within policy on Commons, because it is clearly happening).

It seems to me that Beta_M only got noticed because of his stupid barnstar and had been operating quite happily. It has highlighted that there is a pretty strong community who are watching each other's backs and managing Commons to their own ends.

[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...

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

This post has been edited by Selina:

[HRIP7]

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.

The article clearly can't be talking about me, it's simple for me to add 51 months to the year 2000 and show where i was then, even well before then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...d/User_problems 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The word 'even' is telling. For he only served 23 months of the sentence and was released in October 2004 http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServl...429-046&x=0&y=0. So he could show where he was even as far back as November 2004. All this information was in the WR thread that was linked to in the discussion. But of course Wikipedians don't want to read WR.

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.