Beta M?, Former US Federal prisoner Options Rating

[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: Wed 7th March 2012, 9:14pm

[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: Wed 7th March 2012, 11:23pm

[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: Thu 8th March 2012, 1:56am

[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: Thu 8th March 2012, 3:26am

[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: Thu 8th March 2012, 3:22am

[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!

(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: Thu 8th March 2012, 5:01am

[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: Thu 8th March 2012, 12:14pm

[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.