Beta M?, Former US Federal prisoner Options Rating

[mbz1]

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

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

Well, you should be proud to be blocked by an admin who is concerned about speedy deletion of the images of yet two more penises and from the site that protects convicted pedophiles.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sun 11th March 2012, 7:20pm

[Peter Damian]

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

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

[mbz1]

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

Who "he" ?

[Wikitaka]

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

[EricBarbour]

You'll all be no-doubt-pleased to know that Rd232 has created an account on WR, and is now reading this thread....

[lilburne]

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

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

[SB_Johnny]

You'll all be no-doubt-pleased to know that Rd232 has created an account on WR, and is now reading this thread....

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

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

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

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

Mattbuck seems like a fun guy.

[mbz1]

You'll all be no-doubt-pleased to know that Rd232 has created an account on WR, and is now reading this thread....

I did not know Rd232 made an account, but I knew he was reading the thread. Last night I linked to two indefinitely blocked user pages: Beta m and Proofreader77 to prove my point that contributors who committed no crime in a real life are treated worse than the ones who did. After that Rd232 templated Beta M's user page as Proofreader77's user page was. When I saw it, I removed the links from my post because they were no longer needed.

Mattbuck seems like a fun guy.

Then maybe you'd unblock Peter?

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sun 11th March 2012, 11:14pm

[SB_Johnny]

Mattbuck seems like a fun guy.

Then maybe you'd unblock Peter?

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

[Michaeldsuarez]

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

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...%3APeter_Damian

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68182425

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

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Sun 11th March 2012, 11:58pm

[HRIP7]

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

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...%3APeter_Damian

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68182425

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

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

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68051777

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

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546718

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

[Tarc]

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

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68174654

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68174643

[Web Fred]

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

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

[Web Fred]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 12th March 2012, 10:08am

[lilburne]

Lets put it this way.

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

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

[Web Fred]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Web Fred]

Lets put it this way.

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

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

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

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

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

Incidentally, I say this as a father of two.

[lilburne]

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

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

[Web Fred]

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

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

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