There was no consensus for a block of Beta M at Commons nor were significant problems found with the contributions by Beta M at Commons. Some were concerned regarding assumed activities of Beta M outside of Commons, some voices were concerned about a witch hunt taking place here, some suggested to move this to Meta and/or to let this be handled by an office action. At the end, Beta M was locked globally per Commons:Office action - see section #Global lock below.
This is going to be a slightly long one. Some of the links will also take you to some of the less salubrious parts of the web. And yes I tried to do this in a less public manner but alas that failed.
Beta_M goes by the name VolodyA! V Anarhist (see his userpage for confirmation). He also goes by the name ethical_anarhist (see anarchopedia). Beta_M seems to have an interest in under aged sex. Over on anarchopedia he mass coppied stuff from boywiki (a site that covered the interests of Boylove movementfor example. As ethical_anarhist he can be found posting some unfortunately titled podcasts much the same under the name VolodyA! V Anarhist
As such it has pornographic and sexual content, unfortunately this means that government disallows you to view it unless you are at least 18 years old.
Please only proceed if you are at least 18 years old or United States of America government has ended discrimination by age in its jurisdiction.
Bolding mine. We also have this edit (since deleted) where he removed any suggestion that there might be a moral reason why child pornography doesn't fall under wikipedia is not censored. I haven't done anything like a full review of his edits these are just the first ones I found in an initial skim.
So we have an editor with an unfortunate interest in under aged sex that they haven't left at the door when editing commons. As a result the user needs to be banned from editing.Geni (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this user has blocked me. The block has since been lifted as it was deemed to be uncalled for. The revision which was deleted was deleted without me asking for it, i don't mind if it'll be undeleted. I request that this discussion be closed and that User:Geni will be instructed to back off. This user's (who is an admin) actions begin to border on harassment. I have made steps in the direction of trying to talk out the differences, only to receive an answer "I don't care one way or the other about your position" and "this isn't over". At this moment i no longer believe that the actions of this user are "free speech", and i request that after this discussion is closed the contents will become visible for admins only. Thanks for your time. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i don't know the procedure, i'm not an admin. What do i do to speed up the process. It's driving me mad, i've spent a better part of the day on this as it is... I've also been blocked on English Wiki, but that doesn't bother me that much, i'll deal with it later. I have been really contributing much to Commons, and it's a shame that admins allow themselves such behaviour. Can somebody please let me know what is the policy here? Do i wait for this to close? Do i go somewhere else? Please answer. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see anything there on Commons that's disruptive. I don't care about what they've done off-wiki. He offers a link to Freedom Porn to editors who have uploaded explicit pictures to Commons; I don't see the problem with that. Yes, it has a disclaimer that disagrees with certain completely ineffectual rules the government has put into place while following them. I fail to see why that's criminal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the problem? What he does on Commons seams fine to me. What he does elsewhere is not our issue. Despite that i can't find any issue elsewhere as well. That is his opinion. Thats all. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係11:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding enwiki, they have a policy that anyone who is a paedophile be immediately banned without recourse to appeal. I fully accept VolodyA has an interest in human sexuality, and to my mind an unfortunate attitude of reflexive {{Vk}}ing, though that has been getting better recently. Generally I find him to be a productive user - he was initially warned about advertising for that anarchistwiki, but this has also stopped. I am honestly unsure what to do here, the evidence seems pretty conclusive to me, but I don't really see that Volodya's behaviour here is problematic. Everyone has some bad edits, we learn better. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of Wikipedia Review before; but what what i'm reading now it looks like an awful group of people. The link that mattbuck has provided isn't even worth responding to. It's along the lines of "this person talks about paedophilia, thus this person rapes children". 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 (i had reasonably extensive traveling at that time, and i still have that passport with all the stamps), but of course i don't want to post that on the private forum like this (or over at Wikipedia review). I also have other things to show, but of course, they would be compromising my identity, and these people have shown that there're not going to stop in their harassment. Also there's an issue of "guilty until proven otherwise" which i really dislike. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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...!
As to the issue - if Arbcom/Foundation think there is a real issue then the account should be locked on Meta as an "Office" action. --Herbytalk thyme12:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact i can show evidence to that fact. But i'm unsure as to how i would go about doing that, without opening myself up to abuse. One option would be to agree to have some independent admin. For example, i would propose mattbuck. He currently believes that the evidence is against me, if we can agree that 1) if i provide him with enough information to reverse that belief and he posts publically here; and 2) he will promise to delete all the scans of documents and other info that i'll provide to him; then we can consider the issue squashed. I am a bit scared, because i would be putting my faith in a person who has stated already that the evidence on WR is convincing (something i believe to be rubbish), but i have seen mattbuck's administration skills and i think that it's possible to show to him what is going on (although if we can agree on a person who knows russian, it would be awesome). However, no proof will be provided if powers that be will then reserve the right to reject the mediation. Neither will the proof be provided if i believe that the person is acting in bad faith and simply is using the position of power to get the information that would compromise my identity or will share the information with anybody else. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respect Mattb however if there is an issue with proving your identity in such a matter I would suggest you consider doing so with the Foundation staff. --Herbytalk thyme14:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will only be disclosing my documents to a person that i believe would not do evil. I am willing to take a first step (a very risky one at that), but if there's nothing coming my direction, i'm not going to play any games. I'm being drug through the mud here for the reason of having voted the Keep on the DR that an admin has had some interest in. Maybe i'm making a mistake with being polite, too many people start assuming it means psychological weakness and that they can bully me. This isn't the case. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are very serious charges which may result in consequences for both you and User:Geni. Sorry to ask again, but can you simply confirm that you are not the person charged? A simple statement such as "I am not that person" would be better than statements about documents. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not and cannot be a person from that article. There were things which WR have dug up, which is me, so i can't say "none of that is me". Is that sufficient? It's just that i am afraid that i'll say "this isn't me" and then somebody will post proof that something on there actually is (which some of it would be), and then since it appears like i've started lying none of what i say will be believed. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote against that. A person has a right to say what one wishes, including something which isn't true. However, the fact that the admin has blocked me without discussing, and then after i was unblocked still brought it up everywhere else, should result in some sort of a separation ruling. For example Geni should not comment on the threads that i'm active on (but can comment on the same page in a different trend as long as one isn't cross-pollinating the issues), and should definitely not bring up any block requests against me. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite troubling to see that a Commons admin participates in a witch-hunt orchestrated from Wikipedia Review. Could you not to bring their crap to Commons? What about the real life identity of Beta_M, his real life activity, his opinions on whatever topic, all these things look highly irrelevant for me. Trycatch (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is going way too far in my opinion. Either there are real proof, and I believe commons sysops are not competent (I mean it's not the competent juridiction for that kind of matter, criminal court of your country is), either it's starting to feel like an angry mob starting a witch-hunt. Both cases, I feel it's not the good place to discuss about that if we don't have proof of disturbance in Commons itself. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a lot of actual disruption to this from users that believe that Israel has a divine right to rule and from users that believe that Israel should just be pushed into the sea. But we don't go around digging up their outside political opinions and banning them from the project preemptively. As far as I can tell, Beta M has never expressed support for pedophilia on this project.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe 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 "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. Rd232 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appear to have completely misread that en.wp situation - mea maxima culpa. However it's still true that there's no Commons policy on this, and that there isn't any really problematic onwiki behaviour that's been documented. And the English Wikipedia tries to handle discussion of these matters privately via its ArbCom, and there are excellent reasons for that. Rd232 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may be no Commons policy on this, but the global policy Meta:Pedophilia is likely to be relevant here: "Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply pointing to what would be the relevant policy if someone were to make such a case. I agree with Rd232 that there are good reasons not to have that type of discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such "global policy". Did you notice the banner on Meta:Pedophilia: "The following is a proposed Wikimedia policy. The proposal is under discussion. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"."? --M5 (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll have to do something about that. Perhaps you would prefer this quote from Sue Gardener: "Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false". I think even the pedants will notice that she refers to the "Wikimedia community" here, not just Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She was talking about "identifying and deleting any such material", no one argues with that. Blocking of good-faith users for alleged off-wiki activity is a wholly different matter. --M5 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBeta_M as a Commons contributor. I am not aware of any disruptive behaviour from his side on Commons and his activities off-wiki are not really our concern. If there are concerns that his behaviour elsewhere violates the law, this is a matter for the police and not for us. Furthermore, Wikipedia policies do not apply here. That said, this discussion contains references to a few deleted revisions on Commons and I don't know if there was anything disruptive in any of those revisions since I can't see them. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So far as i can see we have no true evidence that Beta_M is the same person, as mentioned in the links. We have no policy on how to react and we have no a single fact that would show that he is disrupting the project. Why the hell can you get blocked for something like this? I was called child porn uploader as well, when will i get blocked? I don't know why it is that way, but every time i see people from EN:WP acting up at Commons i could smash my head at the table and weep out of pity. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係23:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Geni is a Commons admin as well as an en.wp admin. Anyway, in the absence of policy or demonstrated problem, it's hard to see what can be done here. Dcoetzee's comment above seems like a reasonable conclusion, but I'm still wondering if we shouldn't delete this entire section in the way the English Wikipedia policy suggests ("Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel."). Of course, we could consider broader questions, like... Is there really no relevant Commons policy? Should there be one? Should there be some way to discuss these issues privately when they arise, to protect the privacy and reputation of the user? That would look something like a (limited) ArbCom, which Commons hasn't wanted, but there are times when the ability to discuss serious issues non-publicly would be useful. Possibly this could be linked with discussions at Meta (m:Requests for comment/Global requests committee) - though whether we'd really want Meta to handle this is debatable. It would probably be very difficult to reach any conclusion on these broader issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try. Rd232 (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who attempt to use Wikimedia projects to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked. Please tell me where on Wikimedia Beta_M has done any of these and I'll ban him myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that ArbCom's decision turns on the last point, "identify themselves as pedophiles", which as written may be an offwiki identification. Rd232 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When on earth did i identify myself as pedophile? I, once again, see idiotic illogical statements like "this user advocates the use of the term boylove, therefore the user is a paedophile". The simple fact is that when a few years back WP community has decided to move "childlove movement" article into "pedophilia activism", it did so against its own policies, there were no secondary sources for that name, it wasn't called that by anybody, in fact Wikipedia coined the term which is a farce. Then there is my edit of the policy (sorry i don't remember it, it would be a while ago), from what i recall the proposed policy was being rewritten by several users multiple times a day, people would try to talk rewrite in the way that they thought would bring the policy closer to consensus, and i've removed parts which had at least 50% votes against on the talk page. It's cherry picking, anybody who was dealing with that policy whose goal was to have something useful at the end has removed something from the proposed text. If what i did was considered vandalism, then why wasn't i informed of it then? I'll tell you why, because nobody thought so. People only see it like that in retrospect, and any action taken out of its context like that can be seen suspicious. I give somebody a challenge, look at my contributions (it's simple, they are all there in the logs), don't just look at one or two that are posted here, but really look at them. You'll see that there are whole days that i spend contributing to commons. Ask whether these are contributions of somebody who's edit warring to publicly advertise one's paedophilia? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know very little about these things, and don't want to. But on a purely linguistic level: paedophilia means "child love" (paedo=child, compare paediatrician; philia=love), and you were quoted above posting offwiki "I [Beta_M] to the large extent support childlove movement.". Rd232 (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: English Wikipedia's ArbCom appears now to have endorsed Geni's English Wikipedia block of Beta M: block log. Also, there is now (thanks to Delicious carbuncle removing a "proposed policy" tag this evening) a Meta policy on Pedophilia, at m:Pedophilia. So there may now be a policy basis to block on Commons as well. Rd232 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would a unilateral removal of a template on Meta really turn something into an official policy? Wouldn't it be necessary to have an RfC or a vote on it first? The policy also gets a lot of criticism on the talk page. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question More importantly. Is there any evidence that Beta_M did anything like this? Currently it looks like as if any measurement is taken to ban a user from the project. (see previous question) As if inside a private trial the judge, flirting with the prosecutor, would shout out the death sentence, because he can do so, while in the background some ugly creatures pulling the ropes to make an example, while thinking about the moral profits they could make. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係01:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
did anything like what? ...maybe somebody should ask en.wp ArbCom what exactly was the basis for their decision. Rd232 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People, please stop and think. You're getting bogged down in technicalities, which is exactly what the intention was. I understand that i myself am the one who in such discussions would drag everything in but the kitchen sink, but the issue that is raised here is not about the validity of the tag on meta, not about whether or not i talk on my podcast criticising Mediawiki's policies, not even about the existence or non-existence of Commons policy. The question that was posed: Should User:Beta_M be banned. Now, with that said, and i know that i have gotten in some arguments with people on DR and RfC pages, but even those people... Will the project benefit from banning me? Am i disrupting this project in any way? After this issue is settled, then we can discuss policies all we want, my understanding was that they were never bureaucratic tools, they are there to help the process (i.e. there are policies because there's consensus, not there is consensus to follow the policy). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without regard to your case specifically, the policy is not the result of consensus, but has been imposed by the WMF. It is also long-standing practice (although the parts about advocacy of paedophilia are more relevant to Wikipedia than Commons). I suggest you direct your energies to addressing your block on the English-language WIkipedia, since it is likely that the block may lead to a request for your account to be globally locked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then i guess that i'm screwed then. I've left Wikipedia a long time ago, and now i was doing only some minor edits there. That's exactly because the community there is horrible. I will also not discuss anything behind closed doors, that is why i didn't respond to Geni through e-mail, i didn't respond to Geni when one has tried to get me to talk privately on IRC. This is not the way to deal with blocks. Blocks affect the whole community, and others have a right to see most of it. Ok, some facts are misrepresented and it's a negative thing, but the community benefit of having these discussions in a place that even a new user sees them would be enormous. Do you think somebody comes to this place knowing all the policies? No. People learn when they come across them. How is somebody suppose to know about things like ArbCom? I've never heard of it until 2 days ago, and now i'm told that it's a group of people who will be making a decision about a global block. I have no interest in talking to them, because they aren't the community that i was trying to benefit with my contributions to commons. I can care less of ArbCom, and if this community accepts their opinion without even knowing what that opinion is, that's it then. Anyhow. I got to leave now. Maybe i'll write a statement for ArbCom, but i'll post it here as well. And i'll be posting all communication with them on a public medium. This shit has got to be dismantled, even if i'll be the one who ends up being a fall-person due to it. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 04:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's done partly behind closed doors partly in order to protect you from your full identity being revealed. If you really want it done openly, the evidence presented may include: your full name, your locations over a number of years, your university courses, your student identification numbers, photographs of you, your votes on minutes of university meetings, your past contributions to wikimedia before creating your current account. Do you really want that all presented on-wiki? That is what could happen if you insist on both denial of Geni's claim and conducting the investigation in public. --99of9 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? Is arbcom Stasi 3.0 or what? And is your suggestion really meant that way? And, still, where is the problem which Beta_M is (claimed to be) for our wiki? That must be already public actions by Beta_M since he cannot do anything here which is not public. Link it! --Saibo (Δ) 12:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These things are all available on the world wide web, it's just that publicly assembling them in one place on wikimedia is a very bad idea. I think he is better off discussing it in private with arbcom. Regarding your request for links, at this stage I'm not arguing for or against a block on Commons. --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The media story says that Vladimir Mozhenkov is in jail. So how Beta_M could edit Commons if he is Vladimir Mozhenkov? Like Niabot, I don't see any proof that Beta_M has committed something wrong, and it looks like a witch hunt. More over, setting a policy of Wikimedia wide blocks based on a comment by Sue reported by Fox News is not a good idea. Just my 2 Rs. of common sense. Yann (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is from 2000 and the person in the article got a 51-month sentence. Anyone getting a 51-month sentence in 2000 would have been released by now. --Stefan4 (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I failed to check that date. But then blocking someone here now for what allegedly happened 12 years ago is even worse. Yann (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've actually looked at the site, I think the problem is overstated. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like just an ordinary amateur porn wiki, and he was suggesting an alternative outlet to users whose low-quality pornographic uploads were deleted, just as enwiki redirects people to Wikia, etc. Although I think randomly spamming his site in particular is not a good idea, it suggests we might want a page Commons:Alternative outlets similar to en:Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, and a list of some more notable porn wikis for avid low-quality penis photographers could be included. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martin and Dcoetzee, I finally can see what is the ground for this discussion. If Beta_M did wasn't good I think we should start to write a policy and warn him. I kinda agree with Dcoetzee. If the consensus we reached is that it's unacceptable, then a long block with an explanation is needed. One way or another the disruption of yesterday is not acceptable, and clearly prevented us working on that matter calmly (I'll make a seperate thread for that). PierreSelim (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One additional problem is that it never was or is a policy. Delicious carbuncle"made it a policy" one day ago [1] without any consensus and despite the criticism from the community, because the wording is vague, doesn't correspond to various definitions of the terms (e.g. pedophilia) and laws in different countries. From my point of view it is not even close to be a policy and all we see is an orchestrated witch hunt. :( --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係10:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bull-fucking-shit. Yes, he spammed that website. Months ago. And he was warned for it. And he stopped. He's human, he made wikimistakes in his early career here. It happens. As an example, I was banned on en.wp a few years back for 3RR violation, but the emphasis there is years ago, no one should come along today and say "he violated 3RR back in 2006, we should ban him!". -mattbuck (Talk) 11:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original ban by Geni. Geni had it right, and judging from the private wiki the editor spammed here his views have not changed. Completely inappropriate for curating adult content on a Wikimedia project. --JN46612:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He just wants to remove any sexual content and to drive away any related contributers. Thats his current mission. The end justifies the means. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係12:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse a user account here with the president of the United States job. I still see no evidence of continued distruption/damage to this wiki here. Spamming might be a problem, but it is apparently an old case and it might even benefit this wiki (so AGF really is justified) if some low quality uploaders do not upload here anymore. In enwiki nothing is made public and not even a block reason is stated. Here some believe shit made up by WR (who - in topic and users - only appear here if there is a chance to "break" something in our wiki. And others streightly join the circus and first decide that the person needs to be blocked and then search for policies matching (and if there are no policy it is tried to make them policy). The process (how this block request runs) here is really disgusting and by no means according to the court standards I am used to (innocent until proven guilty especially). Where is the block reason except that you do not like the person? --Saibo (Δ) 12:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user was blocked by someone who is an admin here and on the English-language Wikipedia, not by Wikipedia Review (WR). The news reports were published by newspapers and news websites, not by WR. The crimes were prosecuted by the state, not by WR. The crimes were committed by a Russian exchange student in Montana, USA, not by WR. The META:Pedophilia policy was created by META user in response to statements by the Executive Director of the WMF (which owns and controls this website), not by WR. Your anger seems misplaced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Yann. No user is to be banned for RL activities happened years ago. A temporary block for spamming of private weblinks could be considered, but only for actual events which do not seem to be the case (although it is certainly better if uploaders of low-quality homeporn material will gain knowledge of freedomporn.org and then upload their pics there and no longer on Commons). - A.Savin12:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult situation. If the person behind the account was convicted and jailed from 2000 to 2002, there shouldn't be a problem with him being online, provided that the court hasn't given any restriction to his access. Since he paid his debts with justice, he's now a free person like many others. The only real problem according to policy would be his improper usage of the site to push a certain point of view. Is the person doing this? Damru Tespuru (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This guy was apparently arrested for distributing kiddie porn, not for evading his taxes. Do you really want a person who was apparently gaoled for having photos of naked kids on his computer to edit a project which has no age requirements — which means that can be edited by kids — and which deals with photographs — a good number of which consist of nothing but amateur porn — ? The mind boggles, really... Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, any solid proof of that ? Moreover, if it's him, he served his time. Now please find an import of this user that is problematic, because it seems to me that you are doing a w:Fear, uncertainty and doubt (I've not found any porn images uploaded on commons by Beta_M). --PierreSelim (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i support this. If it was him, then he paid the price already. In his active time he did nothing that would be illegal or disturbing, which suggests that he learned his lesson. So what? Is he now a human second class and that for the rest of his life? Sorry, but your comment... I won't comment on it, because it would contain a lot of disturbing words. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have two of them and i love them like any other father should do. So i would bid you to stop your provocative wording, which is inappropriate for this discussion. I have good faith in many people, but reading comments from people like you makes me angry. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係17:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that it would make sense to lock out a large group of people (pædophiles) from Commons only because a different large group of people (children) hasn't been locked out from Commons. Besides, I would guess that most Commons users are at least 15 years old anyway, which is what the law requires for making sexual contacts. Of course, if it is discovered that a user uploads child porn to Commons or uses Commons to attempt to establish a sexual relation with someone younger than 15, it would of course be a reason for a block. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the identification is correct, what does a ban achieve? Prevent upload to Commons of child porn? There's no evidence of that ever being issue. Prevent contact with children using Commons? There's no evidence of that either, and the ease with which sockpuppets can be created means banning doesn't achieve that much. As Pierre has said (I think), real evidence of illegal or dangerous activity should be taken to the authorities, because there isn't much that Commons can really do about it. The only thing it can do reasonably effectively (we hope) is effectively deal with child porn materials, and if someone's uploading them, then naturally a ban may be part of that. That's not the case here. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be any real evidence of disruption of the project. (There was the linkspam issue - User_talk:Beta_M#Please_stop_adding_links - but that seems resolved.)
There does not seem to be any real evidence of illegal activity. (not counting attempts to identify the user with a person convicted for illegal activity in 2000, which is of debatable relevance to the present)
There does not seem to be any applicable policy that would permit a ban in the absence of these.
Unless there's more evidence forthcoming, there's no direct conclusion that can come from this; the English Wikipedia's decision and policies don't have effect here, and it seems increasingly unlikely that there will be consensus to act on the basis of current information and policy.
Comment my summary wasn't intended to get s/o !votes. It was a summary of the position, plus some possible things we can do, so that if this thread is closed with "no block/ban", then there are clear steps which can be pursued by those willing to put in the effort. Rd232 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that we need to have a discussion on whether Beta_M should be allowed to participate in any deletion discussion concerning material that can be considered child porn. Although Beta_M isn't uploading CP; he's still advocating for CP to be kept on Commons: [2], [3], [4]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a topic ban would be conceivable. But DRs are decided on merit, not numbers, so if his contributions in DRs are not disruptive or very different from those of others, it may be hard to make a case for it. Rd232 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking again here to consider a block for Michaeldsuarez. You are now calling Beta_M to advocate for CP (child porn). The two first images were deleted for copyvios, the last one was kept by mattbuck. that is enought really. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That section looks more like a section suggesting that it is stupid to have notices saying that you can't use a web site if you are too young. Many web sites have such notes on web sites deemed inappropriate for children, although the definition of "inappropriate" varies from country to country: in some countries it is pornography (age limit: 18 years), and in other countries it is alcohol (age limit: 20 years). Of course no one will be stopped by those notices since too young users just would lie about their age, so I don't see why criticising the notices would be controversial. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the term "child sadvocates" alone (if you google it) suggests signing up to the "childlove movement", aka pedophilia, world view. But what links that page with Beta M? Rd232 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Create a bookmark, javascript:if%20(location.href.indexOf('\?')%20==%20-1)%20location.href=location.href+'?useskin=monobook';%20else%20location.href=location.href+'&useskin=monobook';, and click on it to display the "history" tab. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the page Michaeldsuarez is talking about. "ASP should realise that most of child pornography is produced by children and thus a blind statement as seen above hurts more children than "protects". Perhaps a stronger statement that opposes child rape and sexual abuse should be put in place of this one." Where Beta_M talking about "giving children the "freedom" to make porn" on this page? This smear campaign needs to be stopped. Trycatch (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't what you just quoted and this make it obvious that Beta_M favors decriminalization? Beta_M has already said that he "to a large extent" supports the childlove movement. What's so hard for you guys to understand? You guys can't put two and two together? This isn't a smear campaign. These are the facts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you are linking to is not disruptive behaviour on Commons and does not appear to be associated with Commons in any way, so I would say that it doesn't have anything to do with whether the user should be blocked here or not. As far as I can see, the linked page only shows a political opinion of the user, and doing so is one of the basic principles of freedom of speak, regardless of whether you support the views or not. There is no evidence that such behaviour has occurred on Commons. If the user breaks against any policies on Freedom Porn or Anarchopedia, this is a matter for those web sites, and if the user breaks against any applicable laws, this is a matter for the police or any other relevant authorities – not for us. I think that the user's contributions to Commons tend to be constructive and I think that the project would benefit from him remaining active here. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about last century real-life of anybody. But linkspamming on Commons for a porn site should clearly be stopped. Linkspamming on Commons for a site were child porn is belittled should definitely be stopped. Users who - on Commons - advocate for or even belittle childporn should be blocked indefinitely. I can hardly understand why there is such a long debate on this. --Martinatalk23:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the linkspamming did stop, some time ago, after warning. And no evidence has been given of the user advocating for child porn or pedophilia on Commons. Also, there is a debate because there is no policy for this. Rd232 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, I can already read myself, and am getting to another conclusion than you. Child porn is criminal internationally, like murder or theft are, and we do not need a rule for any of these aigainst promoting or belittling. --Martinatalk11:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again: no evidence has been given of the user advocating for child porn or pedophilia on Commons. There is basically a disagreement between those who are willing to ban people for appearing to support pedophilia even if they have only expressed those views offwiki and done nothing in that direction on Commons, and those who do not want to ban people just for their views, however unpleasant. That is why English Wikipedia created a policy for the situation, and why I suggested above that someone should try to the same on Commons (or on Meta as a global policy). I suspect that the wider Commons community might support such a policy, even though the more vocal users alone might not. But someone needs to draft it (Commons:Child protection), manage the drafting to keep things moving, deal with people who will want to derail the proposal before it's ready to be formally proposed to the community, and then propose it and manage the big community discussion of the proposal. That's a lot of work. Anyone want to volunteer? Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Banned without evidence of disruption or harassment or other policy violation? Banned just for offwiki-expressed views? Rd232 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now the discussion has started on the administrator's noticeboard it would require an consensus between the administrators to ban him. However the consensus is the opposite, administrators don't want to ban him, they want to discuss if his previous so called spamming was a good idea, and if we should create a Commons:Alternative outlets page similar to en:Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. If you insist we can create a subsection where the administrators make their decision clear (and we close after we reach some kind of clear consensus). --PierreSelim (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper: just ban him? But then he will come back with new accounts. Maybe he already has 300 accounts nobody knows about. As usual, Internet has no defense against potential malefactors (if you want to call Beta M a "malefactor" for wasting his time here at Commons). Damru Tespuru (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So should we ban people, who belittles copyright infringement via e.g. using some Pirate Party userbox? Probably yes, because copyright infringement is a crime almost universally in the world. There is a big difference between advocation to break the law, or advocation to change the law. If the first is problematic and probably unlawful in the most of countries, there is nothing wrong if somebody dislikes current laws and advocates to change them. Trycatch (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"belittles" is almost a meaningless word here; find a better one. But my main point: advocating to break the law is not against the law per se. In order to make advocating to break the law illegal, additional laws must be passed, to make that advocacy illegal. This is done eg with "conspiracy to [do something]"-type laws. Rd232 (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've simply repeated the word "belittle" after Martina Nolte, I've used it in the same sense as Martina. After little research I have to agree with -- even advocating to break the law generally is not a crime. So barely advocating to change the law is even more "not a crime". Trycatch (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If our administrators really decided not to ban this user, this discussion now is becoming an academic one. But just to make sure what kind of community I'm working with: Commons is a platform where people, who for example could promote that murder should be allowed or that violation should be allowed or that "childlove" (child porn/child abuse) should be allowed, "consensually" are welcomed? Because having such an opinion (free speech!) is not criminal by itself and because such opinions are not desturbing the project? I personally feel extremly disturbed by working with people who advocate for child porn. Evidence has been given enough. --Martinatalk23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Commons is a platform where people..." can do what they want (as long as it's legal in Florida, where the servers are) unless the community agrees otherwise. It's a blank slate, and if you want to ban certain things being written on the slate, then you'll have to advocate for it. On this issue, Commons:Child protection is that way. If you prefer carte blanche for the community to ban any view it doesn't like, then start Commons:List of banned views, with a policy header like "X people voting will be sufficient for a view to be added to this list; any user expressing it on or offwiki will be banned." On the plus side, in most other internet communities you wouldn't have the chance to shape their inclusion policies like this. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not a political project, so politics is preferably not discussed on Commons, be it pædophilia/childlove (why can't people decide on whether Greek or English should be used?) or any other political ideology. Most countries (well, democracies at least) typically have constitutions stating that you may not discriminate people for their opinions, religion or political views, so it might even be illegal to ban a user for expressing such opinions. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"(why can't people decide on whether Greek or English should be used?)" - the correct term is pædophilia (however spelled). "Childlove" is only used by those advocating for the acceptability of paedophilia. Rd232 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're both English terms - one of Greek origin, one of Anglo-Saxon origin. But as I said, the Anglo-Saxon origin one is only used by those advocating for the acceptability of paedophilia. Rd232 (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't handle working with people with different beliefs, you are welcome to leave. But all our projects are built of people of widely varying opinions, and going after every deviant one would tear us apart. (Personally, it's not the lone people with bizarre views that scare me; it's the common ones that get traction and do all the damage.) Instead of starting a witch hunt, we should try to work together neutrally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a matter of beliefs. Its a matter of someone with an actual criminal conviction not staying away from areas related to that conviction.Geni (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prosfilaes, nice try and good examples for what exactly is not the point which we're discussing about. You picked up some (completly legal) photos that do not state any of my personal beliefs about the depicted topic. And - in difference to the actual user case in debate - I do not spam links to a website where I advocate for undressing children in public or for spraying grafittis or for leaking, as I do not advocate that directly here on Commons. Having a personal view or belief is one thing, misusing Commons to propagat it is just another. --Martinatalk20:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan4: Note that we are entitled to ban users for any or no reason, since we are not the government, and this is not an issue of employment, etc. I understand that some good users are uncomfortable working with people who hold these types of views. By itself, I don't think this is enough. Just to give one example, if a user grew up in a patriarchal society, they may be uncomfortable interacting with female users as equals. The same is true of users who grew up in insular, racist societies, or people who hate kids and don't like interacting with young users. Some people don't feel comfortable interacting with convicted users editing from prison, but there's been no move to block rehabilitation programs that include Wikipedia editing. If the user remains compliant with policy and avoids grooming and advocacy, I see no immediate reason for a block, but there's no reason we can't monitor the user closely. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and there are also half-way measures available to us. For example in Dcoetzee's example of a convicted user editing from prison, we might decide to impose a topic ban on subjects related to their conviction. --99of9 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I have no problem with blocking users for disruptive behaviour on Commons, regardless of reason. I have seen numerous cases where users have been blocked on English Wikipedia for uncivil discussions over political issues such as the political state of Kashmir, and I certainly don't oppose this. Grooming on Commons or uploading of child porn to Commons would certainly be reasons to block a user, but I am heavily opposing blocking users for disruptive behaviour outside Commons in a situation completely unrelated to Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) A topic ban was actually proposed above (as I expect you saw), but there was no evidence for editing behaviour in the topic being a problem, and discussion rapidly veered away from the topic ban. If someone wants to try proposing it again, perhaps in a new subsection, I've no problem with that. Rd232 (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking in general terms, there is an argument to be made that users should be judged based on their activities on Commons. In the case at hand, however, we have a user who has been indef-blocked on the English-language Wikipedia. Since Geni's block was upheld and the user reblocked by an ArbCom member, I believe it is safe to assume that they were blocked for violations of the en:Wikipedia:Child protection policy there. It seems sensible, given Sue Gardener's statements on the subject, to take that into consideration. Does the block there hold any weight here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, blocking policy should not be based on guesswork. Currently, there has been no statement from the English-language Wikipedia as to why the user was blocked, so it is not possible to tell whether there is any reason to block him or not. Normally, you are innocent until proven otherwise. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it keeps coming back to this: there is no policy that would currently permit banning Beta M for the views he has expressed off-wiki, and his actions onwiki do not appear to merit a block. There are however some users who will not be satisfied until they are able to ban users who express such views, as English Wikipedia can (under en:Wikipedia:Child protection). Indeed, some of these users seem willing to set the precedent that it is acceptable to ban people for their views even when policy doesn't exist to confirm that the community supports such action; in principle, with that precedent set, a handful of users could ban anyone for any view. There is no consensus here for setting such a precedent, and nor is there likely to be.
Therefore I propose:
closing this thread
interested editors go to Commons:Child protection, where I have started a first draft of a relevant policy.
interested editors can also go to m:Pedophilia, but a process for getting a global policy agreed will take much longer.
Why should this quickly be closed? I don't need a written policy against promotion for child porn, may it be openly and/or between the lines and/or by linking (own) "childlove" advocating external websites. I also don't need a magnifying glass to find evidence for all of these. We're not talking about a "political" issue (see above) or "opinion" but about moral minimum standards on Commons and the working atmosphere in our project. To me it is incomprehensible that we ban people for saying asshole but should be ready to let others "collegues" promote childporn. For closing this topic I'd like to see at least a kind of admin consensus.--Martinatalk00:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The promotion activities stopped six weeks ago, and as far as I know there was no direct link with child porn. Morality is not political? Well that's a point of view... As for your "asshole" comparison: I don't think we do ban people for saying "asshole", but we do ban people for disrupting the project and for abusing and harassing other users. What we don't do is ban people because they used the word "asshole" in a forum post somewhere on the internet (unless perhaps there is some connection with Commons harassment). Anyway, you may not need a policy, but without one, you're just not going to get agreement on any action. I've mentioned the proposed policy to Jimbo by the way, because he enforced the policy tag on the English Wikipedia policy. Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you want to ban people who express certain views offwiki - but that just means they'll come back under another name, and you won't even know about those views when you interact with them (which might make a big difference in some contexts). Arguably, it's better to know, and have some sort of chance of keeping an eye on them and have a better chance of seeing where they might be crossing certain lines, than driving them underground where no-one knows who they are. At the end of the day, in a community this size, there are going to be people - many people - with views that you or I or many others consider horrible. And as long as those views aren't expressed within the community, there's nothing we can do about them, because we don't know. And if we ban people when we happen to come across knowledge of views from other sources, they'll very likely just create a new account. It may still be worth doing, but it's not worth doing on an ad hoc basis because a handful of users think it a good idea. The whole community needs to support the principle. I suspect they might, but that needs a policy to support it. Rd232 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beta_M has never promoted paedophilia on Commons or elsewhere on Wikimedia. We should not ban him for activities outside Wikimedia (preferably not outside Commons). Let's close this, there's no consensus for blocking. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote: "We need to actively go out and search for some parts of human sexuality that we are not yet representing and to urge everybody who wishes to contribute to do so." He believes that most child porn is produced by children. Conclusion: he urges children to upload their sex photos to Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not talk about the opinion that green is nicer than blue. We also do not talk about an opinion that somebody expressed in his private kitchen. By linkspamming his website he actively outed himself as advocator for childporn. With not one single word he denied that. Nor did he hold out in prospect that he would no longer mix in topic related discussions on Commons or that he will not agitate in this direction on Commons (i.e. deletion discussion concerning material that can be considered child porn). Quite the contrary: He's simply claiming "free speech". An advocator of childporn should, of course, stay underground, we should not give him any platform for spreading his ideas and pushing "certain lines" each week and month a bit further. --Martinatalk02:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, by your logic, if I were to post a link to livejournal, I would be "outing" myself for everything I've ever commented on there? (I confess, it's a lot of McFly slash fiction.) Beta_M is not pushing any lines "further each week", and he has not done anything wrong on Commons. We should not ban someone for things they did wrong outside of Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a rhetoric question and wresting my words, but I nevertheless give you a serious answer. If this "livejournal" (? - what ever that might be) would be your site and you'd be its main contributor (especially of the issue in discussion, see above regarding "child sadvocates") and you'd promote it on Commons: Yes, this would be like expressing the content and opinions of that site directly here. (By the way described you can even adopt opinions of others as your own. If for example I would promote such a car sticker by linkspammig through Commons everybody would know that I would explicitly oppose "childlove movement" and I think - and hope - that I would quickly be stopped to push this POV on Commons.) --Martinatalk20:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has no NPOV policy, How could we inforce that having millions of pictures (that are POV) ? I believe only the spamming would get you a warning to stop (as it was said to Beta_M). --PierreSelim (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images always are POV and water is wet, of course. But POV pushing for replacement of animal testing by using child abusers instead, would be abuse of Commons for promotion of morally declinable and legally forbidden practices - and still I hope that this would be stopped. Like I hope that Commons will not tolerate active advocates of "childlove".--Martinatalk20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Commons' job to adjudicate between different views - even bizarre and unpleasant ones. That's the baseline; if the community wants to make exceptions to that, it can. Probably it can. There's a possibility of US anti-discrimination laws limiting what this US-based website can legally do. It can make an exception, if it wants, to ban people who suggest "replacement of animal testing by using child abusers", say. But that principle needs to be properly established and reasonably wide community support demonstrated, and not just invented and implemented by a handful of people in a corner of the site when they encounter a user they want to get rid of. Rd232 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I think Martina's point is that the promotion of a particular website, even if trying to be helpful (done like this it's certainly not exactly "linkspamming") carries certain implications if the promoter is responsible for the site and for most of the content. By directing people to a place where they may be exposed to particular views, the promoter is not just promoting the website, but promoting those views as well; and the link is stronger the more responsibility they have for the site. I think that's a valid argument, to say that this is indirectly promoting those views to those specific Commons contributors invited to go to the site - even if that wasn't the intention. As to Beta M's relationship with the site: well he did create the About page, for example. Rd232 (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a user among us who promoted a website where he advocates childporn and paedophilia, who - in a sister project - spreaded paedophile jargon (boylover, girllover and childlover instead of "paedophile"), who - on Commons - propagated for childporn (We need to actively go out and search...), all links can be found above. We do not yet have a policy like Commons:Child protection, but we have Commons:Blocking policy to protect the project and his community against "behaviour that has the potential to damage the Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere". The policy lists some common reasons for user bans, but these are not exclusive at all. Nor is it necessary that this behaviour is illegal (childporn and paedophilie is internationally illegal, while advocating for paedophilie and childporn in most countries is not illegal). Bans are covered even if a behaviour only has the 'potential of damaging.
If Commons is a home for paedophiles and gives them a platform to propagate for their "movement" the damage for the project is that other contributors who cannot work in such an atmosphere and environment are driven away. Additional damage is done if Commons gets known in public as giving paedophiles or "childlove" advocators a voice. Both are relevant reasons for a user block.
Rd232, we are not in a small, dark, private "corner" of the project but on the central site where user blocks are dealt with, and were bans that are not clearly covered by the above mentioned "common reasons" are discussed a bit longer and then decided (in general by more than one admin). I still don't see a formal problem on that as long as there is a group of admins who see a (potential) dmage and are willing to use their buttons to protect the project against it. --Martinatalk23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC) (added 00:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
He is blocked for harassement on Beta_M (talk·contribs) talk pages. He also stated twice commons administrators were fascists (here [5] and here [6] in the diff summary). I think he has gone a bit too far, a 3 days block seems to be Ok, if you disagree you might want to open another section to discuss about Peter Damian's case. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, all he did was ask Beta_M if a blog that is online under his name, and where he said comparatively recently that he was advocating childlove, was his. Isn't that a fair question, under the circumstances? The "fascist" references were obvious sarcasm. --JN46618:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why as admins we should be forced to endure people who simply wish to be disruptive. I stand by my block, and my later revocation of his talk page access when he used the edit summaries to continue to be rude. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not see why as admins we should be forced to endure people who simply wish to be disruptive." - the user in question was not obviously intending to be disruptive, and minor post-block rudeness, even in edit summaries, is not a reason to revoke talkpage access. Rd232 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rd232. I wish you would simply stay out of arguments in this topic area, Mattbuck, and let other admins handle them. --JN46602:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave this open a little longer. I have been thinking hard about this, and would like to make a comment, but want to look through the contribution history more before commenting. --99of9 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I proposed close on those terms because the discussion didn't seem to have anywhere else to go. I'm quite happy for the proposal to stay open a while, in case anyone might have more evidence or reasoned argument (as opposed to emotion). I'd also welcome people heading over to Commons talk:Child protection. Rd232 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i didn't read this for a couple of days, i don't want to restart the flame war, but i wanted to post this so that people that i actually do interact with on here will be able to see this. I do believe that we should go out and document every aspect of human sexuality that exists out there. I believe that the current representation of BDSM is so small, that it's shameful (in fact when i've written about going and and seeking stuff, i was thinking mostly along the lines of DS for example, which is a very difficult topic to represent). Another example of me uploading on topic content is what i've done with Queer Review, i think that it will greatly help those who are searching inside of themselves to understand their sexuality. Somewhere above there was a post about discussing things behind closed doors, i've said that i don't want to do that, but the reply is probably correct, if everything about me would be posted in the open forum, that would be a scary thing. So at this moment i don't know what i will do (i want to do something that won't only benefit me, but will be ethical, and sometimes it's important to take a stand and say "i won't participate in something i find wrong, even if non-participation will exclude me from something". While reading what i wrote above, do not misunderstand it for an apology. I just want to set the record straight in the only two things that i think were potentially valid criticisms of me. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still intending to comment on the other issues here, but since this one has recently been raised by Rd232 and Martina, I'll post this section of my comment now
I was the one who asked him to please stop adding links (advertising freedomporn). When he argued about this, in order to decide how hard to press my objection to his disruption...
I asked him directly: "Do you have an interest in any way in the particular site that you have been advertising?"
His answer (in part, my emphasis): "yes i do, not a financial or other reason, but psychological one (i want it to develop, it gives me happiness)"
I took his word for it, and didn't bother investigating the site.
In fact, it seems to me that the real situation is that he is thesite maintainer (though in later revisions this has been somewhat anonymized), and accepts donations.
Now, I'm glad he stopped advertising, but I'm seriously unimpressed by what appears to be a flat out lie to an administrator questioning his disruptive conduct (or at least intentional deception). --99of9 (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have even less of a financial reason to support Freedom Porn than i do to support Wikimedia Commons. Both projects that i support accept donations, this isn't a lie. To call it "deception" is an act of purposefully stating what you believe not to be the case. Can i ask you two questions: Do you have financial benefit from supporting Commons? Does Commons accept donations? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have received financial benefit. But I have never linkspammed on behalf of commons on a site that does not allow advertising. And I have never denied financial benefit when asked a direct question by someone investigating my behaviour. The latter two things are what I'm complaining about in your behaviour. --99of9 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the link i've posted? Well, actually it's a lie, the site did receive donations, from me. This is newspeak trying to consider *non-profit* site being mentioned to people who honestly are likely to be looking for something like that (but accidentally thinking that Commons is a more appropriate place) a form of financial gain. One of the things which may happen in the future on Freedom Porn is that we'll allow people to get subscriptions, but even then i've been arguing all the time that all the content must be made available to everybody without any payment needed, and the only thing that subscriptions (if they will ever become available) will give the people is a more pleasant viewing experience and the knowledge that they are supporting a worthy cause. But this isn't now, and it's not me. You sound like those people who believe the Jimbo Wales owns Wikipedia just because he's started it. We don't require copyright transfers, we don't receive the money from downloads, we don't even put adverts on the site, we're just some people who make erotic photos, videos, poetry, books, stories, audio recordings... etc. etc. etc. For free!!!. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Jimbo would answer truthfully if I asked him if he had an interest of any kind in wikimedia. (And in case it's not clear, the truthful answer would not be: Yes, but only a psychological interest.) PS How non profit you are now has no bearing on whether you have an interest in the organization. Is this a registered non-profit, or can you just change the rules or sell it an any time? --99of9 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also as an admin on Commons you know very well that you've not posted a page that anybody who would want to make a donation would see, nobody would look through the history to find a page from 2008 (4 years ago). The real donation page is here. And it's very common for a non-profit group to allow people to donate, this isn't something special, it's not a business model. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if you have covered up that any donations would go directly into your account, the fact is that you would receive direct financial benefit. Frankly, you appear to own the entire site, so it is ludicrous to claim you do not have an interest beyond the psychological in it. I hear porn sites are worth serious money if they get big enough, so obviously attracting kindred spirits is also in your long term financial interests. --99of9 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure any donations will have been minimal, and I believe Beta_M that he did not advertise his site here for financial reasons, but out of belief in his philosophical cause, and because he was hoping to find kindred spirits. However, this said, I am really not comfortable with Beta M curating sexual content here. I believe it is a net negative for Wikimedia. I posted some general comments on Foundation list. [7] --JN46619:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with you. However I didn't ask why he advertised, I asked whether he had an interest in any way in the site. He did, in many ways, but he denied that it was any more than a philosophical alignment. In fact that is his own site. --99of9 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: based on what I later found out, I've changed my mind regarding Beta M (mostly worked through in "My Statement" below). This doesn't mean I'm joining up with DC, but I guess he's not wrong every time. Wnt (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the second time in a month that I've seen Delicious Carbuncle falsely painting an editor as a pedophile.[8] To summarize a long and unpleasant exchange, a respected Wikipedia user was harassed into retiring; a few days after his account was blocked as retired, an image by w:Wilhelm von Gloeden here on Commons was changed from a cropped PG version to a full photograph. The full photograph, to be sure, is one of those inconvenient cases no side wants to admit the existence of, namely, an instance of child pornography that should clearly pass the Miller Test due to its educational, historic, and artistic importance. The photograph then appeared in history versions of the retired user's userpage, and in Internet Archive results. But even after I'd pointed out that DC's allegations about this editor were unfounded, that his user page never really had a picture of a naked child, but only an image that looked perfectly innocent, he continued going on, despite fairly clear evidence that von Gloeden was a very significant figure in gay history, claiming that this user was somehow improper for referencing Gloeden at all. In a thread he started asking whether Wikipedia prohibits "personal attacks", yet, because some people said that DC's comments on WR which to me sound pretty clearly anti-gay were anti-gay. Now compared to the low relevance of that (Wikipedia editors are not, or should not be, at risk of being punished for anti-gay comments elsewhere), consider that the policy DC wants to enforce here, w:WP:Child protection, actually bans discussion of allegations of pedophilia in public forums! Now either WP:CP applies or it doesn't - either he has no basis to ask for this editor to be banned, or else he has no right to spray these allegations around here. (Actually I disagree with both provisions of WP:CP; it has made the way clear for this kind of sorry spectacle on WP and Commons alike)[reply]
Now maybe I'm just biased ... it's possible ... but I don't believe any of this.
I trust Mattbuck to evaluate Beta M's evidence that he could not be the person mentioned. I encourage him to get together with this editor and do that, no matter what anyone else here says about it, because it is important to confirm that this allegation is not true so that people can then consider what to do about the person who made it.
A pattern of voting to keep illegal child pornography indeed would be disturbing. But we should note that the diffs given do not reference any files deleted for being illegal child pornography. Indeed, if it were illegal child pornography it had better not be just deleted, because letting 1000 admins have free access to their own little private collection of illegal child porn could cause Significant Legal Problems for Commons! I actually raised the question on the Admin noticeboard here about one of those images, the Hotel Kerada thing, simply because I didn't want there to be any risk we were keeping something that was going to cause us legal troubles. No, every one of those files has been targeted by a small group of people with a general anti-porn agenda, but they're by no means illegal.
Protesting laws that prohibit people under 18 from viewing pornography is not child pornography or pedophilia, but just common sense. How many kids don't look at porn soon after puberty? The age restriction is merely a backdoor scheme to try to harass the freedom of the press.
Some vague comment by "beta M" that appears favorable to pedophilia in the context of a hypothetical anarchist society is by no means reason to consider him tarred forever and ever as unfit for human company. I am truly appalled at the suggestion. At its best, anarchism is a quest to restore the archetype of the Garden of Eden, pure innocence without shame, where many things that seem intolerable will be very different. The Revelation of John describes a world in which, before the end can begin, there will be no oppression, no war, no want, no disease. And in a world without disease, without murder, without poverty or dependence, without judgmental people, where everyone feels confident of the love and respect of everyone else, even rape will no longer seem so terrible. Obviously, that is not today - but we know that crazy, literally Utopian things, like cities without walls, like societies without chattel slavery, where an insult doesn't have to lead to a duel - we know those things are possible. And anarchists have the right to dream of things that are just as outlandish for our future.
I ran [9] and [10] and [11] and [12] and I see no hits about this user; all the "child porn advocacy" alleged here turns out to be voting against censoring perfectly legal files because somebody doesn't like them. The only thing you have is that one edit from an anarchist Wiki six years ago in which he is not writing an article about himself. Even the "child protection" policy does not call for a comprehensive background check/witch hunt for any expressed tolerance of pedophilia ever on any web site.
So going through all this evidence, I come up with nothing at all that stands up to scrutiny. I can't prove the innocence of someone I don't know, but I can say that if you keep letting the same Inquisitor keep running around smearing people as pedophiles because he disagrees with their choice to keep Commons uncensored, and doing what he says instead of using your own policies, eventually he'll be telling you all what you can see and can't see, who you can allow to edit and who you have to ban - lest you yourself become his next target. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally hate conspiracy theories, but i have to wonder if this "incidences" aren't related to the new efforts to impose a filtering system (no matter how it does look like) on the projects. Every time it starts to flame up again something similar happened. Do I read to much into this? Who knows...
Wnt, this is even crazier than your usual rants. I never accused User:Fæ of being a paedophile, here, on English-language Wikipedia, on Wikipedia Review or anywhere else, nor do I believe the accusation is justified. I have tried to make clear that my interest in the instant case (which was brought here by the original blocking admin, not by me) is in the project-wide "zero tolerance" policy (Sue Gardner's words, not mine) toward paedophilia advocacy. And once again, you are calling me a homophobe based on comments which were clearly and explicitly about bondage, not about homosexuality at all, as I have taken pains to explain to you already. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, people who do not want Commons to get a platform for pedophilia advocacy do NOT automatically have "a general anti-porn agenda". You think Beta M is not advocating and will not advocate for childporn and "childlove" on Commons? Were did he say that? He's talking a lot here, but saying nothing concrete. I did not see a single word from him that he would stay away or even restrain his activities on Commons related to these topics. He only wrote that "two things ... were potentially valid criticisms" and even there it remains unclear what exactly he could mean. --Martinatalk23:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I've run some searches and added a bullet-point about it above. I see no evidence that this editor ever advocated childporn etc. on Commons. Wikipedia does not (or should not...) ban people just because once upon a time they were "soft on pedophilia" somewhere on the Web. That one link, to an anarchism Wiki, should be evaluated in the context that anarchists do not actually have any mechanism for establishing an age of consent (i.e. no legislature), and therefore must consider non-traditional standards for deciding what constitutes abuse of children. There's one age of consent in New Jersey, another in Yemen, but for anarchists, those countries have no legitimacy. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a problem? I have more problems with the fact that ARBCOM blocked him without leaving any comment for the true reason. At the same time you could ask: How can we be sure that user XYZ does not advocate...? Let us block them all (including me and you) because "we" can't be sure. My general problem for this case is that we don't have a single proof for anything. Thats why it is very comparable to a witch hunt. I'm not writing this to support pedophiles. I'm writing this to make clear that no one should be found guilty without a proof. Additionally, if someone did something in the past, "paid the price" already and seams to have changed, how could i make him a human of second class because of that?
Martina: I might invite you to a personal discussion whenever you like. I guess we can agree on many points, but there are still some things that should be sorted out, preferably in native language. ;-) --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom on enWP doesn't interest, accusations on WR do not interest. Look at his linkspam for a site where he's at least main contributor, if not owner, advocating for paedophilia, and look at his advocacy, both here on Commons. We don't have to guess and he's even not saying anything himself against this reproach. He only claimed "free speech". It would be much easier to discuss this difficult issue in my/our own language but not possible here, and, sorry, we know us personally and I respect you much, but: personal communication doesn't help in this case cause it's not a conflict between you and me. --Martinatalk23:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, that bit of "advocacy" that you linked there has no apparent relationship to sex with children and is in fact a statement I would fully agree with (Commons needs more good, legal contributions from more people in the areas of anatomy, sexuality, and the pornography industry). I've seen only one edit by this user so far on Commons that raised concerns for me, and even that merited no more than a warning. If he were engaging in advocacy and ignoring warnings, I would be the first to call for some kind of topic ban. I do agree that a clear statement from the user that he will not engage in advocacy here would be helpful. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That file - both the one from your link above and apparently also the one that was in use at the Japanese Wikipedia (If they wanted to have a say about it, they bloody well should have learned English...) was not deleted as "child pornography", but due to a made-up notion that any small photo must be a copyright violation. This despite the fact that the typical 2006 digital camera had a low resolution and zero zooming capability. (This general phenomenon - that any porno image can be called a possible copyright violation and banned once the mob gets after it - is a highly successful WikiGaming maneuver I've dubbed the "Dirty Sanchez") I couldn't say for sure what the model's age was, but I thought it very plausible that she was over 18 - in any case, that photo was online all through the great Jimbo porn purge, and while Larry Sanger was calling on the FBI to investigate child porn on Commons. And even so I asked admins to look at it in a noticeboard thread, and nobody up and deleted it out of belief it was child porn; rather they were also skeptical. Disagreeing with people who want an image deleted is not proof that you're a pedophile.Wnt (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both are deleted and cannot be seen by simple users like me. But doesn't matter. An image from adorable-teens - of course! - showed an adult and "We need to actively go out and search ... and to urge everybody who wishes to contribute to do so." has nothing to do with that image. And the user who wrote that has nothing to do with the paedophile advocating site he linkspammed. Dream on. --Martinatalk00:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a stretch to me. There are plenty of pornographic websites with "teen" in the name which are populated entirely by media of 18- and 19-year-olds (or models they claim are 18/19). I agree that the user has clearly advocated in favor of pedophiles off-wiki, but the user also appears to independently support the production of (legal) freely-licensed pornography, and I believe the linked statement is better interpreted in the context of this latter advocacy. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let him make a clear statement himself on what he meant and on what he will do (or not) on Commons in future. I've read his long blablas several times but I didn't see even a hint of distancing. --Martinatalk01:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His nature as an anarchist might lead to this behavior. I have some good references in my past that did the same. For an anarchist it would be the same to distance yourself from something (acknowledging to refrain from something) as it would be for an priest to acknowledge that he has never believed in god. Combined with the pressure that everything you say now will be used against you in future, even if off-wiki, it's very understandable to me. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係01:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If Beta M were foolish enough to make the slightest concession to these people, it would be brandished about like an official topic ban, with the lynch mob stalking his every edit trying to find a way that it violates what he 'promised'. And the moment they found something, or claimed to find something, we'd be right back here with this exact debate replayed in triplicate - once to cover what we've just said, once to argue whether he 'promised', once to argue that he broke his promise. Wnt (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've heard no evidence that this website of Beta M's is advocating pedophilia. I haven't gone through it (I think it's irrelevant) - I assume if it had any kiddie porn some of these caped crusaders would have figured out how to dial 911 by now. What it has is a statement that people shouldn't have to be over 18 to view porn, which is what many sites believe de facto when they require a perfunctory statement that someone is over 18, and that is exactly what Commons believes in altogether when we serve images without requiring people to promise they're over 18 to look at them. And it is the right way, and it is not pedophilia advocacy! Wnt (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read on that site but you know what's not written in there? Great. :-) If you are >18 and want to judge based on facts have a look at protectionism#Child_sadvocates and further. --Martinatalk01:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the prosecutors had a chance to present any pro-pedophile statement, and all they actually did present was an irrelevant notice. If they want to find something "incriminating" on the site that's their responsibility. Innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent!!! Wnt (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the site meanwhile? He explicitly supports the "childlove movement" theoretically and explains why he cannot go further on his website in practice cause the site would then be closed (and he pursued), invites children to become active, and links to an unambiguously related website. What is not advocating in that? There's no way to play that down. --Martinatalk02:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read it partially. [15] All i found so far is a diary of his actions to build up a forum where he could speak about child pornography related topics in a neutral way without being bashed/accused by others. I will read the rest tomorrow, but till now i got the opposite impression, as mentioned inside the quotes. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係03:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright - I see that the Google webcache has some interesting content that was subsequently deleted. Nonetheless, this stuff could be purely anarchistic fervor. The offending blog also says "Today toad_ has claimed that i am one of “those who advocate "child love"”. I am at a loss. If somebody would accuse me of being anti-pædophile i would understand that, i would disagree with that, but i would understand that i am the only person who has sent in the critical comments to Pedologues (a podcast dealing with pædophilia amongst other issues), i am the person who has written up critique of childlove movement on Anarchopedia and i am planning to expand it. I am also a person who has been arguing that distribution of child pornography is anti-social. But just because i don't jump to conclusions and listen to all sides of an argument, i am being bashed." This is a comment dated 2008, a cached version from before this Wikipedia dispute. What this is, is a perfect example of why we shouldn't have a bunch of wannabe private eyes out there dredging up comments from four corners of the Web and trying to decide whether someone was "promoting pedophilia" on personal sites that are none of our business in the first place. You want to chase down pedophiles all over the Web, go join the police force! The fact is, this is the same sort of a witch hunt as McCarthyism, just with a different political belief. And seriously, considering how many millions of people Stalin killed, could you really claim that Communists in 1953 were less of a threat than people who don't believe in jailing pedophiles who "love" children instead of "raping" them? Yet today we call McCarthy wrong, because it was simply the wrong way to go about things. Wnt (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the lighter side, here we have Wikipedia CFO Daniel Mayer quoting Vladimir Mozhenkov as a "personal favorite" donation comment in 2005. ;) Of course, I don't know for a fact that this is the Vladimir Mozhenkov released in 2002...[16] Apart from showing that clearly no Wikipedia official should be quoting contributors without running an extensive background check, I also wonder if the donation record includes Mozhenkov's Wikipedia username... (if we had any decency we wouldn't even look into such things, but I guess that horse has left the stable) Oh, note that [17] and [18] indicate Beta M joined in February 2010. If this person were Beta M, it probably wouldn't be his first account. Wnt (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He also went by Beta_m on en-wiki. --05:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, after a half eternity I found out that Vladimir Mozhenkov donated £9.45 to Wikipedia (and £0.55 to PayPal in honor of their divine and eternal suzereignty over all things financial and internet) at 2:18:37 EST on 2/18/05; this is 7:18:37 GMT on 2/18/05, I believe. During that general period of time the original beta m was quite active,[19] but that day, he did not edit until much later on. Scant evidence, but what we don't see is a direct line-up with the other edits... (Isn't this kind of Wikistalking creepy? And that's what we've come to...) Wnt (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The end of the paragraph you quote from, Wnt, reads "I will close with the fist in the air greeting to all the childlovers and a big fuck off to all the idiots." Why didn't you quote that bit as well? Censorship, from you? --JN46615:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to be accused of exceeding Fair Use. ;) Seriously, the meaning seemed ambiguous to me; in any case, my comments here have been superseded by what I've subsequently been finding (see below under Beta M's "My statement"). Wnt (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those following this discussion who are unaware, User:Delicious carbuncle posted a message at en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Global_policy_on_child_protectiion [sic] regarding this dispute, which was closed after about 4 hours since it devolved into a flame war. Jimbo said: "This is a global policy, set by the Foundation, by me, and at least in English Wikipedia, by the longstanding practice of the community. Whatever source of policy you choose to find valid, you will find that this is a valid policy. I'm not going to intervene in commons myself, but I will bring this to the direct attention of the Foundation. People who don't like it are welcome to start their own pedophilia-friendly website on someone else's servers." The Foundation has taken no action thus far. I have no problem with Delicious carbuncle raising this to Jimbo's attention, and of course the Foundation has the right to enforce any policy they desire. But I hope they'll engage with the community on the matter. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a policy to have "zero tolerance" for pedophiles, but that doesn't even touch the question here - who gets to brand editors as pedophiles? Does Delicious carbuncle's mere accusation have the force of Law? Is that the official policy from on high? Wnt (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You got it wrong. Jimbo and WMF have zero tolerance not only for paedophiles, but also for paedophile advocators and their friends. And that's exactly the issue here. --Martinatalk01:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some song and dance here about either allegation, but nothing approaching proof. The question still stands - who evaluates it? Wikipedia Review? The English Wikipedia's ArbCom? Or does Commons have the right to look at the evidence for itself and say hey wait a minute, where's the beef?Wnt (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dcoetzee, the issue I raised on Jimbo's talk page was about the project-wide policy, which is only tangentially related to the case at hand. I make no claim that it applies to Beta M and I have made no accusation here, despite what a user with a peculiar fondness for me would like you to believe. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you were trying to resolve the issue of what the global policy is/should be and have made no claim with respect to Beta M except for factual information about the conflict. I'm linking your post only because it discusses and links to the present discussion, and because others involved in this discussion may have an interest in it. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that on Jimbo's talk page two separate things are being discussed, and unfortunately JW is not being forthright in making certain things clear to editors. What is stated in the foxnews.com article is indeed policy. We will delete any child pornography on sight, and I believe it is required to be reported to the authorities. And this is covered in the 2012 terms of use.
en:WP:CHILDPROTECT is a completely different policy which discusses further issues. JW may have the authority to make that policy on English Wikipedia, but he does not have the authority to make it policy at Commons, or even at the WMF. It is also my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong, that the WMF does indeed not have the authority itself to make this project-wide policy -- either it does not have the authority, or it does not have the will do so. It is essentially left in the hands of individual projects to implement these policies, and a proposed policy is now being worked on for this project at COM:Child protection.
It is disappointing that JW will not come to Commons to discuss this, but is instead misleading editors on enwp as to what the go actually is. russavia (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF can and does write policy. The non-free media resolution is a good example of WMF overruling the community; meta:Terms of use/draft is another example where the WMF works proactively with the community to improve a shared policy document. If Commons is to avoid the WMF board stepping in, the Commons community will need to enact a policy that is "good enough". If Commons does nothing, despite the obvious problem, the WMF board can and should step in. John Vandenberg(chat)10:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the WMF can set project-wide policies such as the Terms of Use. And if the WMF feels that an editor is a danger to the community or projects, or is putting other editors at risk, they can block someone directly; though this rarely happens (and to date has only happened on single wikis, not as a global block). Hopefully we can agree on community policies that will suffice. --SJ+14:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: Long message, if you don't have time to read all of it, please don't, i'm not going to go in circles arguing.
I am writing this trying to summarise once again what has been happening, what i believe, and how i think the situation should develop. The main goal is to clear everything up to those who've joined us recently but also to raise some new points. So what i should start with is the chain of events (i omit what has happened on English Wikipedia when it's not relevant):
2012-03-07 05:05 User:Geni sends me an e-mail informing me that i was banned by him on Commons and Wikipedia. In the e-mail this admin states that the ban is due to my {{Vk}} vote on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sukumizu_Girl.jpg which he found inappropriate due to the fact that he believes that i am a paedophile. User:Geni makes a threat in the e-mail that he will reveal the personal information about me if i dear to appeal.
2012-03-07 ab. 6:00 I e-mail St. Petersburg Times informing them that their article is causing a serious situation for me due to the fact that non-Russian people do not realise how common my given name is (it would be as common as Michael would be in the U.S.A.), I request of them to append a sentence to that article to that effect... they haven't responded or done anything as of yet.
2012-03-07 06:15 Right away i go out join #wikimedia-commons on FreeNode and ask what i should do, while i write my question User:Geni tries to initiate a personal chat with me, but i don't notice it.
06:25 As the result of the chat i am unblocked on Commons.
06:27 At the end of the chat i post the following question to Geni "geniice, i am willing to discuss my position on that deletion debate if you want", i get the following reply "I don't care one way or the other about your position" and "this isn't over"
06:37 An admin then posts on my talk page "So I think a block is entirely uncalled for, and would admonish the blocking admin for this rash action."
2012-03-07 09:06 Within hours i find out that User:Geni has lied about not being interested in my position. In fact what he was interested in was in twisting my position to suit him, because he goes out and starts searching for the words that he can find which are associated with my name which can when taken out of context imply that i am a paedophile.
09:06 User:Geni violates the policies of Wikipedia, which he is trying to import here, but publishing some of the private information about me on the public forum.
09:25 At that time i did not ask for any action toward that admin apart from somebody to tell him to "back off"
2012-03-07 12:14 and 14:15 I realise that if the situation won't be diffused quickly trolling will start, i offer what seems to be a sensible solution: The whole community agrees on a mediator, i will provide private information (legal documents) to that mediator, this will happen under the following conditions: (a) The community makes it clear that once the mediator clears me, the discussion is over and will be nothing to appeal (if mediator won't be convinced, then, of course, we can keep dragging it) (b) No information which i will provide to the mediator may be shared with anybody under any circumstances (c) No information which i will provide to the mediator may be kept under any circumstances (d) The mediator will promice to post one's opinion as to whether or not these documents place me in different countries during the incident in question.
I think that some information can be provided at this time and be made public. I have (will have, right now it's not in my posession, but i can get it) one document which is a legal document of one country which places me in that country in the beginning of 2000 for the duration of about 3 years. I have another document which is a legal document of the other country which places me in a different country after that for some period of time, but before 2004. This would imply that the article which has been dug up overlaps with me being in two different countries, neither of which is the U.S.A. I may also provide a few proofs of some other short time trips to other countries at that time.
It should be noted that nobody has accepted my offer at mediation until very recently, when the reason behind my offer is almost mute (the disruption was allowed to take place for about a whole week). The only positive thing that has come out of this disruption is that the "Nudity, out of scope" deletion crowd had almost no time to do their mass deletion requests for a few days; but i'm unwilling to pay the price for something so trivial.
Now, i'm faced with the proposal to make a statement, which is hipocritical. I am to promice that i will stay away from discussions which deal with child pornography, which is a play on words, since people who demand it have such a broad definition of (i.e. a depiction of child nudity, a depiction of somebody with less than average breasts, arguing against ageism, arguing against putting children in prison, arguing that people have a right of free speech, etc.) To that i say "Dream on". There is a more reasonable proposal (sent to me via an e-mail by an admin) that i should "promise not to advocate for any childlove organization or cause"; but it only seems to be reasonable at the first glance (i believe that particular admin was acting in good faith, and didn't try to get me on a technicality, so it's not a criticism of that person). Let's say i will give that promice, and then i go on to argue against ageism or vote on the DR of the image depicting March-December relationship (if you don't know what it is, see http://www.agelesslove.com/) in some way, i can then be accused of violating the topic ban which was de facto established, and for some reason others aren't asked to do the same.
I can promice you this: I will do my best to continue to contribute to Wikimedia Commons within the established community-developed guidelines, I will do my best to continue to help to develop those guidelines so that others may find contributing to it a more pleasant experience and so that people who are searching for educational material will likely find it here. In other words i will keep doing what i did, and since there was nothing wrong with my contributions in the past if you are really interested in good contributions and not in lynching somebody, that should be more than enough for you.
I present as the proof of my good contributions:
the fact that after the whole week of digging through everything the most disrupting edits were putting a link to a sexual site on talk pages of those who upload sexual images and once being bold and removing parts from a proposed guideline which weren't reaching a consensus at the time.
the fact that through this whole week i have managed to remain much calmer than even those who were attacking me, despite the fact that almost all the rules were suspended when it came to this case for the first two days.
Now, if that is not enough for anybody, then i believe that the reasons for asking for a statement are two-faced, and why would i humour that person or group?
With that said, i have been calm and patient, but now it's time to be rude to some people.
I believe that User:Geni should be blocked indefinitely for violating the same rules that this user is trying to bring to Wikimedia Commons. I believe that this needs to be done because:
This user is an administrator, thus lack of knowledge of good tactics is not a valid defence. Also this person was given all the opportunities that one can expect from the regular contributor and more.
I have provided this admin with the opportunity to question my views, which would end the disruption to my life and to Commons. Admin has publically stated that one isn't interested in my real views while posting speculative data on the public forum.
I have provided all within the community with the opportunity to clear my name, which this admin has ignored allowing the disruption to continue.
This admin knew that the effects of posting such comments would disrupt the normal processes of Wikimedia Commons, and has stated that "And yes I tried to do this in a less public manner but alas that failed."
Trying to stay within the guidelines and finding that you didn't get your way is not a valid reason for breaking the policy of not disclosing private information. An admin should have known that. It's like somebody saying that they can't advertise on this site while staying within guidelines, so they magically now have a right to ignore these guidelines.
Upon finding that there were no policies to get his way, the admin chose not to propose the policy, but to use the force of vigilante, disrupting the whole Community for a period of already a week, and seriously disrupting my life.
The admin has tried to impose the rules of Wikipedia onto Commons, while simultaneously breaking several Wikipedia rules. This person did not even bother to promice to never do this in the future.
The admin has used administrative tools on a person, whose vote in the deletion request was not to his liking, the admin has admitted that this is the case.
If the administrators will chose to ignore this request i will request that we change the policy to show that: (1) It should be stated clearly that the admin has a right to block a person indefinitely for voting keep. (2) It should be stated that admin can expose the person's private data without getting into trouble for this. (3) It should be stated that an admin does not have to assume good faith. (4) It should clearly be explained why if these same actions would come from a regular contributor who does something like this by mistake one is banned, but admin doesn't even lose the admin priveledges.
The last statement may read as if i suggest that admin priviledges should be revoked. This is not the case. A complete ban is required to stop this from happening again to somebody who has less nerves than i do. This individual, who believes that not getting his way authorises him to try to destroy somebody's life will still have tools needed to do that while being a regular editor (in fact him not being able to ban somebody and give that person a threat not to appeal may cause him to believe that he's somehow authorised to have the private information disclosure as a legitimate first step).
I certainly understand your reasons for not wanting to volunteer for a topic ban. I'm not willing to support a block for User:Geni though. I was myself the one who urged him to start a discussion here about his concerns. I was aware of the privacy concerns, but in the absence of a private mailing list, I felt like there was no other effective way to engage the Commons community on this matter and reach a consensus decision. The alternative was to appeal to some other body like the Foundation or the Board who would impose an external decision on us (if history is any indication, very much out of line with our own decision here) - Commoners would be furious and the same discussions would promptly erupt here, but with a whole additional level of drama. The privacy measures proposed at Commons:Child protection I believe are a good start, but it may be that a Commons private mailing list (for privacy-sensitive matters only) has become essential. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a notice: I'm not really in favor of private lists. At least not in the way it is handled at EN. The result of such a conversation should be made public (if blocked, why blocked, in detail, without personal information). --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係10:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if blocked, why blocked, in detail, without personal information - if you can square that circle on a topic like this, do let us know how. Rd232 (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second Rd232's comment that this can be tricky. But I agree that a reason should be given, and relevant policy pointed to. --SJ+13:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be thorough, could you tell us about your role with Students Wikia? [20] I notice that you've sent some Wikipedia contributors in that direction. [21]Wnt (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Since Wikia co-founder Angela approached "Ethical Anarchist", I guess that "Ethical Anarchist" was basically the person "in charge" of the wiki. If requests.wikia.com were still around or if community.wikia.com/wiki/Students hadn't been deleted, I could've told you whether "Ethical Anarchist" was the one who requested the wiki's creation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, while I was not initially convinced by the mere title of that WR thread or later even by the unsourced information at [22], I'm not seeing many favorable interpretations regarding [23], which appears to have been up for quite some time. While I could have made an argument for situations where an editor with this background could be welcome (official censorship prosecutions are, in my opinion, an unreliable judge of character) the combination of this concern and an apparent effort to recruit high school students to a different Wiki administered by himself is very disturbing. Being jerked around by someone who knew the facts would come out is unexpected, and almost as annoying as ArbCom's Father-Knows-Best routine. If the Wiki was deleted (somehow I recall February 8 but now I'm not even finding a record of the deletion at [24]) it means that someone was there before us, and could have leveled with us about all this from the beginning. Wnt (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I appreciate your research, and I'm very glad that there's no evidence of wrongdoing ... the problem is, I can vividly picture ways in which simply being the project founder, without special powers, would provide a tremendous advantage in arranging for certain types of wrongdoing that we would not see on a log. I haven't elaborated on my fears because, no matter what this editor's situation may be, this discussion is probably being read by half the pedophiles on or banned from Wikipedia, and I don't want to give them ideas. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before I found this stuff, I'd written my notion of what an acceptable COM:Child protection policy would be; it is based closely on the proposed Wikimedia terms of service, which are likely to be adopted soon and would affect Commons. This prohibits "Soliciting personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18 for an illegal purpose or violating any applicable law regarding the health or well-being of minors." Now there is no doubt in my mind that w:User:Beta M is w:User:Beta m, nor that Beta m solicited minors to join the Wikia site he administered. To the best of my knowledge (I could be wrong) this would give him access to things that qualify as "personally identifiable information"). Now if Beta M is truly Mozhenkov, with this prior conviction, we now need to ask, was this information solicited for an illegal purpose? I think that under the circumstances, reasonable people may well decide that the preponderance of the evidence is that someone convicted over child porn seeking children's e-mail addresses and perhaps other information would more likely than not be thinking of doing something illegal with them. This is especially true if the sentence - as so many of them do - would prohibit Mozhenkov from contact with children and require him to register as a sex offender, were he not expelled from the country. (That might also qualify under "any applicable law") So by the standards I decided on, it looks like the balance is tipping against Beta M. Wikimedia isn't a suicide pact - we can't put ourselves in a situation where we would tell somebody's parents, well, OK, we have this pedophile, and he's had your kid join a website, but are you sure he started a chat in email or on Freenet or wherever and are you sure it was about sex? All we need is to reach that point where we think it's genuinely, honestly likely that there's something bad intended. Wnt (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're right, but arranging meetings with kids for an illicit purpose is itself illegal. It wouldn't be done out on the wiki leaving a record for Google to index. It might be done at least on TOR or IRC or email, for example. We can and should be tolerant and understanding, but when we see someone with this kind of background actually leading kids off into the woods, that's where I'd say we have to draw the line. Even if it really really is just bird watching. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the more I consider the Students Wikia evidence the more flimsy it seems. All contributions at a Wikia wiki are public, as they are here. Wikia site founders have no special access to private user information (only Wikia itself has that access). Why on Earth would he "lead them off into the woods" just so he can contact them privately, when he could do that perfectly well right here using Special:Emailuser, in the place he's recruiting them from, without leaving a trace? I do believe Student Wikia should be monitored, but this is speculation and insinuation in place of logical presentation of evidence. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to students.wikia.com/wiki/User:Ethical_Anarhist, Beta_M attended Kingston University, so his motivation have creating that article is obvious, but why did Beta_M create "Carroll College (Montana)"? Did Beta_M created it since he attended it? If so, then how many individuals named "Vladimir Mozhenkov" could've possibly been attending it? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've created articles about things I have not personally been involved in... Does this mean you now want to ban anyone who creates articles about schools (etc) as paedophiles? If so, please read our SCOPE, and you will see we do not accept articles here. Please go ply your wares on en.wp. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly commented on Students Wikia on my talk page. While I agree that recruiting child users to his wiki is a red flag, as a Wikia wiki I don't believe he has access to their personal information, and so in the absence of further evidence of abuse or advocacy occurring on Students Wikia I'm not yet shifting my position on blocking him. I reviewed his contribs on Students Wikia and they seemed clean unless I missed something. But we should keep an eye on this project. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have several times offered to have appoint somebody as a mediator so that i can clear myself. It appears to me that people are too interested in playing Sherlok Holmes even Wnt has joined the game now. I know that it won't make any difference now, but i'm going to collect all my information and send it to User:Saibo, i will quit, because i believe that this community has gone fucking insane. I mean i'm being accused of arranging to meet children somewhere now. WTF is wrong with you people? I have been calm long enough, but all the admins are too busy being nice to the pieces of shit who go around slandering me "It's the emotional issue" "We shouldn't drag everybody through the blocking procedure" that's what they say. Well, what about me? Why the fuck are you dragging me through the deletion procedure that doesn't even exist? Oh, and i'm sure you'll have no problem with telling me that i'm being too emotional right now. Why the fuck are you accepting emotions of other people, but somehow my emotions are irrelevant? Anyhow, i don't have the possession of one of the documents that i need to send, but i hope to be able to get it today. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I don't feel like a villain, a traitor to the inclusionist cause over this; but even so, what I've found seems pretty hard to explain in any way other that you're the person they say. And you haven't responded to these arguments, haven't offered any refutation or explanation regarding the claims that you're this person, even though you were here, editing the whole time. Is that profile for "ethical anarhist" I found not something started by you? Was it hacked? Why did you start an article for Carroll College so quickly if you didn't go there? And so forth. The problem I have is, I've just honestly stopped believing that you are telling me the truth about who you are(n't), and that has made me perhaps overly suspicious about other things. Believe it or not, I actually feel very sympathetic for this Mozhenkov - I don't believe in censorship laws, and I don't believe that prison is a good institution, and I don't believe that people in his situation are unsalvageable. But I can't be entirely and uncritically trusting, either. Wnt (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Block under consensus that Commons does not want convicted paedophiles as usersedit
The following, severe accusation by SilkTork is not backed by alongside evidence (→ libel/slander). See section #SilkTork. Don't make such accusations without evidence yourself. --Saibo (Δ) 14:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Annotation of the annotation: Evidence is presented throughout this page. In addition, en:User:SilkTork is a member of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee which banned the user concerned. Rd232 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence presented does stand up to scrutiny as showing a highly probable link between this user and a convicted paedophile who is interested in publishing and distributing his views on perverted sexual behaviour. I share some of the concerns expressed above that the user has not broken any rules on Commons; however, I think there would be consensus that Commons do not want convicted paedophiles as users, and are prepared to block such people when discovered before waiting for the Foundation to do it. As such it would be useful to get a show of hands of those who support a block - policies come out of consensus, and this is the place to show that consensus. SilkTork (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there was any evidence that the user promoted pedophilia at Commons than i could follow this request. But until now he is a user like you and me. Thats why i have to note No Block as the conclusion. Now blame me for sticking to the facts. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係14:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No organisation that I am aware that puts adults and minors together (such as schools, scouts, chat websites, etc) allows known convicted paedophiles. That's the way it is. This person is a convicted paedophile. We have underage users on this site that this user can email under pretext of Commons business. It's not just about this user being topic banned or agreeing not to promote paedophile activity, it's about the very real danger of this user exploiting underage users. It's a sad but true fact of life. I recognise your hesitation - believe me, I went through it myself, but the reality is that having a convicted paedophile on Commons is inappropriate and unacceptable on several levels. SilkTork (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What will you gain from blocking him at this point? Will it prevent other to do so, right now? What would be the intention? We don't pay him to have conversations with children, we ensure that he doesn't do it at this place. Thats all we can do. If we go after the policy and block him, then we would say right out: "He did it again." What isn't the case. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I comment below, what we gain is protection for the underage users of this site. This man is a convicted paedophile, and it is known that paedophiles will take advantage of being part of a group to exploit under age members - which is why organisations which put adults in contact with minors do not allow convicted paedophiles to take part. The question here is not if this user should be permitted to continue being a member of the Commons community, but if the community has the consensus to block the user, or should wait for the Foundation to do it. SilkTork (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We won't. Everyone can create an new account, even blocked users can do. But right now it is a good time to prove your accusations that everyone found guilty to have possessed child pornography can no longer be part of a community or respect the law. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係15:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, as a teacher and local authority worker I am familiar with the restrictions in the UK on convicted sex offenders - we have to be checked by the police. I forget that not everyone is aware of this. See here for the UK rules. SilkTork (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a school. Neither physically, nor meant to be "child safe". It is much more comparable to a public place, where banning users only costs them repetition (if they ever had any), especially if we consider the slogan: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If that isn't true anymore, then we should either change the slogan as soon as possible or show more respect and live up to it. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another difference between Commons and schools is that schools wouldn't be decorated with pornography on the walls, but pornography is allowed on Commons (as long as it is in scope). --Stefan4 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I do find the evidence somewhat compelling, but as has been repeatedly stated, he does not seem to have done anything wrong on Commons, and, assuming the given evidence is accurate, he served his time for it. I don't particularly like the idea of convicted paedophiles editing Commons (kudos on the spelling btw) but I also don't feel we should care what people have done in their pre-Commons past, so long as there is no disruption to Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See comments above. If Commons were an adult only site I would agree with you - but we allow underage users. The known behaviour of paedophiles is that they will use trusted situations (such as being a fellow member of a website) to exploit minors. This may range from soliciting inappropriate pictures to initiating real life contact. SilkTork (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but support, but wait - I continue to oppose blocking a user solely based on past crimes or present predisposition; we have no policy that says we should research whether users are criminals and block them, nor which crimes merit a block. That said, however, I must support blocking him if w:User:Beta m was indeed a pedophile using a Wikimedia site to funnel children into a "Students Wikia" site he controls, where he might have had extensive access to personal information, possibly for an illegal purpose. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is starting to look like it may be the preponderance of the evidence, and that is sufficient for a site like this to make a decision. Still, this is uncertain, and most unfortunate, as this is a productive Commons contributor; he deserves fair opportunity to respond before we rush to judgment. [overly speculative scenario deleted] I think continuing the discussion longer could be productive. Wnt (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, because I have seen information that was emailed to ArbCom, but I assumed much of it has been linked to in earlier parts of this discussion. The information I have seen involves this user's real name, the reports on the child pornography case in which he was involved, his prison details, and a post he made from prison. Much of that, unfortunately, cannot be repeated here because of our outing rules. I was very hesitant at first, but on examination the evidence is compelling. I do understand (if it's not already linked above) that most of the evidence is available on Wikipedia Review. SilkTork (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the evidence is present at Wikipedia Review, which is by the way an huge load of garbage, then i didn't found it. I read the conversations from prison, the report at the russian news paper and anything else that came up so far. Still, even while reading trough all this stuff, we have no evidence that he used any of the Wikimedia projects for what he is accused of. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係15:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So please edit your initial comment to make it clear that you got no evidence that this user is a "convicted paedophile". Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 15:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a person is convicted of possessing child pornography, labeling that person a pedophile is perfectly apt. Why do you have such a problem with this? Tarc (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Where is the evidence that the user about you are discussion was "convicted of possessing child pornography"? --Saibo (Δ) 16:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saibo, there are links scattered around this page, as well as a link to a WR thread where this has been discussed. I will not reinvent the wheel for you. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note the lack of COM:OUTING; w:WP:OUTING isn't a Commons policy, so we can talk (or at least I have, in the thread above). To be brief, the evidence at WR is confusing and tenuous; they cite an anarchist board that gives an apparent WHOIS report without a source link [41] But looking myself I found this "ethical anarhist" profile with that name. That's the same handle used at Wikia [42] - besides "anarhist" being distinctive, beta M invited kids to go edit on this Wikia project he ran. The story about his IRL conviction is widely documented, though in scanty detail, e.g. [43]. Last but not least, there's the point Michael Suarez made that Beta M/m's first articles were about two colleges, both of which were attended by this Mozhenkov.
Now I fully recognize that any innocent person who annoys a hacker could readily be found guilty of child pornography. Unsolicited child porn has been delivered to a porno BBS ('Amateur Action') by a postal inspector so Tennessee could prosecute them five minutes later. Kids of the same age, "sexting" over telephones, have been tried for making "child porn" of themselves. Businessmen have been caught up in company politics, their voluminous stashes of Usenet porn sorted through so their prosecution for a few images could be arranged. Censorship laws are not just. But in this case we've also seen lots of ambiguous statements seeming friendly to pedophiles, including the "fist up to childlovers" and "βM = boy man" claims the WR people have made. And in this context, when I see kids getting invited off a WMF project to a project being administered by this man, well, that's crossed the point of no return as far as I'm concerned. Wnt (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does "βM" (or "Beta_M") mean "boy man"? Where did you find this? Is it another example of special "childlove movement" jargon?
To summarise, I think that the following can be concluded:
One Vladimir Mozhenkov was convicted for possession of child pornography in 2000.
One Vladimir Mozhenkov, possibly the same one, was listed as registrant for the anarchopedia.org domain name in 2008, according to the WHOIS quote on the anarchism forum.
Beta_M has many administrative positions at eng.anarchopedia.org (bureaucrat, check user, developer, sysop), but, unlike some other users, doesn't have a steward flag.
Given these three points, I think that it is hard to believe that Beta_M and the man mentioned in the St. Petersburg Times article are different. However, the question I want answered is the following: is Beta_M's behaviour disruptive to the Commons project? I'd say no; I've seen no evidence of this on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my fault. Vladimir appears to be a common Russian name. For example, one Vladimir was recently "elected" president of Russia, and I keep seeing the name everywhere when a newspaper writes about something Russian. Not sure how common the surname is. There seems to be one person with the name who is involved in the automotive industry.[44] --Stefan4 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read #My_statement? There Beta even mentions this fact that his name is common. However, I think it is clear to us that even if the link between 1 and 2 would be strong and if 1 would be proven then there would not be a problem and no reason for a block. This is a comment to remind all here, in general: Due to no consequences that whole discussion is grossly disrespectful and should not happen like this in a civil society. Just imagine your name would all over this page... --Saibo (Δ) 02:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry. The discussion is so long and it is easy to overlook previous statements since there are so many of them. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there could be more than one man with this name. But what a coincidence that one man with this name was uploading child porn from the Carroll College computer room [45] and one of our beta M's first edits was to start an article about that same college.[46]Wnt (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may add certainty, indeed. But it still can happen by chance and Beta_M actively denied (if I read correctly) in #My statement that he is that person. However, it does not matter to me if he is or not is: the outcome, regarding Geni's original request would be the same for me. Not so for those users here making accusations without evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 14:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A point has been reached where Beta_M would have to show some convincing evidence to the Foundation that he was not the person convicted in 2000. Without this, I would support the block.--Ianmacm (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my provocative wording, but does this mean that you support the statement that anyone convicted once in relation to child pornography is a human of second class? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係15:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, my decision is Block per SilkTork, and this would be changed only if Beta_M showed that the claim about the 2000 conviction was wrong.--Ianmacm (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer the question, although you put words into my mouth. If it keeps you happy, I do not "support the statement that anyone convicted once in relation to child pornography is a human of second class".--Ianmacm (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that would mean that you see him as human of second class, that does not have the same rights as any other. That he is a dangerous human of second class is the only argument inside the reasons given by SilkTork. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係17:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like SilkTork, I am a UK citizen, and anyone with a conviction related to child pornography is banned from working with children. The "rights" argument would not apply in this situation, and WMF has a similar position.--Ianmacm (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have the opposite position, strengthened by the facts that they are physically divided and any action is clearly visible in our logs, which is a situation hardly comparable to a school where a convicted pedophile would teach private lessons. What do we do now? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係17:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niabot, for the record...that is my own personal opinion of the matter, and the reason I support a block. I cannot speak for others who also support. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First off, i'm concerned about having just a "highly probable link" in regards to something involving pedophilia. If we can't be certain about the connection, then I am not comfortable with supporting any sort of action like this. Second, I have seen no evidence presented that the user has been using Wikimedia sites to distribute or otherwise support pedophilia. All this comes down to is that, more than ten years ago, the person who we have not confirmed is this user was convicted of possessing pedophilic material. That's all. I see no evidence that suggests any sort of malfeasance or attemps to groom children or anything of that sort, so I don't see what this is supposed to be preventing. Of course, if there was proof of such a thing, i'd also be against a block, because all that would do is make a person create a new, unknown account and now we have an unknown person doing things like that. It's much better to observe such users and, if they do things that are illegal as such, report them to the police. That would actually be a preventative measure. Silverseren5 (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence that he has attempted to use any WMF project to approach children. External sources mentioned in the discussion are very old and much may have changed since then. And a question: it says that he is/was studying in the United Kingdom. Don't many countries ask for criminal records and refuse long-term visas if you are a convicted criminal? It is suggested elsewhere that Beta_M is from Russia and Russians visiting the United Kingdom need a visa as far as I know. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An incredibly bloated discussion on a single user, but still no real argument out there, what benefit for Commons a ban of Beta_M would provide. - A.Savin17:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The term "convicted pedophile" has been floating around a lot in this conversation. There's no such thing - pedophilia (defined as sexual attraction to children) is not a crime. Sexual abuse of children (including statutory rape) and possession/distribution of child pornography are crimes, and a responsible, ethical pedophile does not do these things. I haven't seen convincing evidence that this user (rather than an identically-named person) was in fact convicted for possession of child pornography. Even if they were, while I don't want to minimize the real damage that supporting producers of child pornography does, possessing such a work 12 years ago doesn't imply they are a danger to our child users, which is presumably our central concern here. The user has no record on any WMF project of soliciting child users or engaging in advocacy (beyond the one edit I mentioned before, which merited no more than a warning). Whether or not the user is a pedophile, we should support responsible contributors who comply with policy. By all means, if the user begins to violate policy or the law, I would be the first to call for a block / contact law enforcement. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No evidence has been presented that the user is a convicted pedophile. There is some (reportedly incorrect) evidence that the user has been convicted of possession of child pornography, but that's not the same thing. (Case in point: around here, if you have sex with a 17-year-old, that's perfectly legal, but if you take a picture of the act, it's the crime of "creation of child pornography".) --Carnildo (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not seen firm evidence of the allegations above. (I have seen no private evidence, though there have been implications that some exist.)
However, when people advocate behavior that we find harmful to our projects or our fellow editors, we are not obliged to wait until they cause demonstrable harm here; we can ask them to take their energies elsewhere without malice. For example, unlike the physical world, there are many places online open to participation by pedophilia advocates; our projects need not be one of them; en:wp among others considers the admission of pedophilia or statements supporting it to be grounds for a ban.
People who once committed crimes victimizing children are human, and may change. But where there is reason to suspect editors of an interest in inappropriate relations with younger users, we can be more wary of their participation -- and hold them to higher standards of behavior and transparency -- in order to make the wikis a safe space for all editors. This is a rare instance of off-wiki behavior that is worth considering when defining community boundaries.
If an editor were convicted of distributing child porn, ten years later unrepentant and active in some online fora advocating for childlove, in others collecting erotic images, and in still others working with young students and organizing their work on wikis; and sporadically active on wikimedia projects on topics related to pedophilia and sexuality; I think that would be sufficient reason to ask them not to edit our wikis.
We currently have no good way to see if users 'use WMF projects to solicit' young users, since we do not demand that users share their age, nor track how they use "contact" links or unstructured personal data to contact others off-wiki. Soliciting can be subtle: a friendship formed in one place, transferred to another. If we had a community group focused on protecting editors in this way, I expect they would be watching the user in question here closely at the moment, to see if the allegations made above are accurate. Indeed, the current and former wikipedians who started recent threads about him could be seen as a group of strongly pro-child-protection community members, making such an evaluation.
Some have said this is for the WMF to resolve. That is true in part: the WMF presumably has any private information related to this case, and must decide whether a global policy is at stake. A user whose participation is considered harmful could be blocked globally. It is also relevant for each wiki to determine what local policies apply to the matter, since they are always a first resort for resolving community matters. So it is good to have this and relateddiscussions here. --SJ+23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that it doesn't make any sense to block users for the reason of child protection. If a user really had such evil intentions and would be blocked - what would come next? Everyone can create a new account directly after being blocked. All you could loose is reputation (if you had any) associated with that account. But thats it. So i have to put up the questions:
Can a block of an account protect children at the projects? I say: No!
Would it be a solution? I say: No!
What would be the benefit for the projects? This question is up to you, since i can't find any benefit other than proudly claiming that we hunt down and blocking "harmful people", which would be direct lie. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed the film but would hate to live in that world. I do not think we should judge people by what we imagine they might do. I mean only that the community can ask someone to leave for reasons other than proven past harm to other editors. Projects can pass policies that do not allow pedophilia advocates to edit. Possible reasons to do so which involve no crystal ball include internal identity-setting (declaring that such behavior and advocacy is not welcome, even at low frequency), messaging to readers (that the project and its policies are not guided by such advocates), and messaging to future editors (that the project is a safe space for children, and not for such advocates). --SJ+05:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that a block would protect any children either; users wishing to approach children could definitely do so using sockpuppets. And if a user constantly changes his username because of checkuser reports or sockpuppet investigations, wouldn't this just make it harder to check that the user doesn't do anything wrong? The page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems had to be semi-protected because of sockpuppet problems (IP edits) yesterday. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-emptive blocks can be justified in cases where harmful action can be reliably anticipated. But the concept that any pedophile is inevitably driven to solicit child users is a fiction - the law-abiding pedophile exists, and even presuming Beta M is a pedophile, none of us can see inside his head to see which sort he is. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand with the argument about sockpuppets; I've even used it in the past. But still, quixotic or not, admins on these projects block people who do certain behavior in the hope that they'll stop it. Linkspamming is some kind of offense; in theory, some editor could be blocked for it. When that editor has this kind of documented history, and when the links were posted on pages for high schools or people editing them, that is a situation where linkspamming is more than the usual nuisance. Unlike Jimbo Wales, for the sake of promoting greater understanding and improving public safety, I think our project should allow pedophiles who have vowed not to harm children to identify themselves honestly and edit responsibly, under the scrutiny of the various amateur private eyes who can view their activities; but we still don't have to stand by and do nothing when they deal with us dishonestly and children in the project are being invited out into their home territory. People on these projects (especially WP) get blocked so often for such asinine reasons, we can't possibly turn around now and say it's futile to do so. At least, not starting with this issue! Wnt (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Block. His long comment above clearly shows that he doesn't want to go a millimeter away from his "conviction", in contrary. He announces to work on our policies. --Martinatalk00:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Block. Provided that there is clear evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the user is actually convicted of child pornography, otherwise (if such evidence does not exist) I am against the block. Also noticing pathetic behavior of some users like Jaen466 who are here just to advocate that their frequent opponent in a deletion debates be blocked.--В и к и в и н др е ц и01:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns of SilkTork and others. However, we at Commons are just prepared to block someone for breaking one of our policies — but nobody claimed that in this case. We have currently no policy which considers previous convictions nor do we have the organizational means to handle that (evaluation of non-public evidence etc). And I personally do not think that we should move into that direction at Commons. Jimbo Wales stressed that en:WP:CHILDPROTECT is policy across all Wikimedia projects. This is something I would like to see implemented. However, if it comes to a particular case, it does not make sense to block users on base of CHILDPROTECT on all projects individually but to globally lock them at Meta. Hence I suggest to take this to Meta and to prepare Meta to handle such cases. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if CHILDPROTECT were global policy, it doesn't seem to direct apply to this case in its current form. The user did not self-identify as a pedophile, but is suspected to be one based on off-wiki evidence. There's no known contacting of child users and very little that could be construed as advocacy. CHILDPROTECT does not mention prior convictions, and deliberately doesn't mention identification that is not self-identification. It seems they would have to extend it in some manner to apply a block here (or else just come to an independent consensus on this case). Dcoetzee (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to dive into this case, but there were some weblinks floating around which are supposedly linked with this user where someone with the same name identifies himself as having been convicted for possession of child porn. CHILDPROTECT as I read it does not require that the self-identification takes place in one of the projects. The challenge is, of course, to get sure of that identifying link which, in my opinion, is best left to a committee that evaluates the available evidence. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion breaks down into two parts. 1) Is this user a convicted paedophile? 2)If he is, does Commons have the mechanism or will to remove him, or would Commons rather WMF do it?
For the first part, there are people who have hesitations regarding the evidence, and I understand that as I also had hesitations. Because of outing rules, the evidence cannot be presented here - however, the evidence is available online, and is convincing as the user has a strong internet presence, and has given various links to his past and to his identity. The combination of his real name, his nickname, his interest in child sex, and his interest in anarchy all link up; in addition he has made statements regarding being in prison which link up, including one statement in which he gave the name of the prison. These are multiple links over many years which cross reference. After examining the evidence I have no doubt.
For the second part, I felt that people here would rather maintain control over Commons themselves, and be responsible for maintaining standards. If there is no will for that, and people would prefer WMF taking the decision to block a user in these circumstance, that is fine. Once people have done their own checking of the evidence and feel comfortable that the user is the same as the one convicted of child porn offences, the question is, does Commons deal with this themselves or does Commons leave it to WMF? I would prefer Commons deal with it, and that is the reason I am here. But if there is no will, then I will support WMF doing the block, and will let WMF know that is my feeling as an individual user. SilkTork (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We will deal with this issues, as we did, even without any policy. But we won't block someone for his association with a certain topic off-wiki. If we have evidence that he does on-wiki, then we would/could/should block him. Anything else will only lead to this kind of witch hunt, which doesn't make any point. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係09:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: To handle such a case an Arbcom or something similar is required, i.e. a set of elected users who have the trust of the community to check evidence and to implement WP:CHILDPROTECT in non-obvious cases. As long as such a committee is not present, such cases end up in a mess as can now be observed here at this page: either as a public witch hunt and/or a collection of outcries not to connect publically users with possible convictions and assumptions about sexual preferences. This is undesirable. However, as users in conflict with CHILDPROTECT are to be banned globally anyway and not just on individual projects, it seems straightforward to me to handle this at Meta where global locks are executed. If WMF feels some urgency in this case as long Meta is not prepared for that, it is perhaps best to handle this through an office action and then to encourage the whole community to establish at Meta the structures which are required to handle such cases by the community, perhaps by creating something like a global Arbcom. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure a global policy makes sense. For example, pedophilia advocacy is a big problem on enwp, but not here, for the simple reason that we are not an encyclopedia and so not an effective channel for spreading viewpoints. Conversely, uploading child pornography has only really ever been a problem at Commons, not on local projects. It's also quite obvious that culture differs between projects, noting the clear lack of support for a child protection policy identical to that of enwp's. Can one small team hope to accommodate all projects and their diverse needs and viewpoints? Also, as I noted above, CHILDPROTECT as it exists today does not seem to directly apply here. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a will for it, ArbCom can be requested to act for the Commons community. My stance is that ArbCom has no jurisdiction here, and ArbCom should not get involved unless the community itself requests it. The Foundation can and will act here if required - though my feeling is that the community should have the opportunity to govern themselves. If the consensus of the community is that they would rather leave governance to someone else, then so be it, but the opportunity should be given first. It's just a question of getting procedure right, and giving projects the opportunity to govern themselves if they wish. There is also the option as AFBorchert indicates of Commons creating a body like ArbCom who can view private material, and who have the consent of the community to make binding decisions. There are various options. My preferred option is that each community governs itself, and when two or more major projects block a user, then the stewards can enact a global block. We can govern ourselves without the need for the involvement of the Foundation. Though there has to be a will for it. A Wiki community shouldn't be forced to govern itself - though it should be offered the opportunity. SilkTork (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcoetzee: According to en:WP:CHILDPROTECT, everyone who identifies himself as pedophile is to be blocked. As Jimbo Wales pointed out, this policy shall be implemented globally which has not happened yet. But either the community establishes such a global policy at Meta or the WMF board of trustees passes a resolution enforcing this. If it is similar to WP:CHILDPROTECT, it is obviously not restricted to individual projects or in regard to actions or contributions on individual projects. Instead, users that are in conflict with CHILDPROTECT, would have to be locked globally. I do not see much space here for diverse needs and viewpoints. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: I do not see how Arbcom of en-wp can be requested on Commons as en-wp Arbcom was not elected by the community of Commons. In case of a global Arbcom at Meta, all members of all communities could elect it. This would be an important difference. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you have any evidence that this user is a pædophile, i.e. sexually attracted to pre-pubertal people (less than 13 years old or whatever), as specified in the article linked to from en:WP:CHILDPROTECT? Some person was convicted for possession of child pornography, true, but it could have been pictures of post-pubertal people (who were still younger than 18 years old). It might not even have been the same person. Besides, even if it were the same person and the people depicted were pre-pubertal, it happened 12 years ago, so the person may have changed his opinion since then. I don't think en:WP:CHILDPROTECT applies here; the requirements don't seem to be fulfilled. Besides, I'm not happy about the idea of losing a user who makes many constructive posts to Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'cept if you bothered to look rather than dream up possible scenarios and excuses you'll find that: The person arrested was nabbed because federal police in Missouri discovered a website with child porn, downloaded 37 images as evidence, tracked down where the computer was that was hosting the website in Montana, travelled there with computer forensic experts, and arrested the people running the site. Then they found some of the images on disks of one of the people arrested who admitted to having supplied the images for the website. Think they went to all that trouble over photos that might have been of a 17 year old? John lilburne (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: First of all, an ad hoc poll absolutely lacks the ligitimacy for deciding about an account's future. Secondly, I feel that this case needs a more care- and thoughtful approach, preferably via ArbCom. To everyone: Do not abuse this poll for your own issues and policies; it's not fair to those who have to carry the consequences.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realise that Arbcom has already imposed an indef block on this user? But that is on en-wiki, and we have no equivalent of arbcom on commons. --99of9 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Block We do not need terrible child pornographers here on wikipedia. Child Pornography is not free speech in any sense of the term. --WngLdr34 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noticeboard disruptions and cross wiki problemsedit
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This section is about disruption. It is not about the user being discussed in the section above, nor is it a place to discuss general principles or opinions. Closing since, as of now, no action is going to be taken in relation to the users discussed here. Re-open if necessary. Rd232 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday Geni came here with a serious matter, and I think he was right to do so:
He put a block on a user, and tried to keep the matter low profile, it was kind to him
As his action has been reverted, I believe it's a good place to discuss about it
Now, at least 3 users came here to comment with very serious accusations and engaged in a witch hunt here (pedophily). Thoses users are active on en-wiki, and not very much here. I think it's not acceptable at all. Either they have proofs, and they must show thoses proofs to competent authority (not us we are not a court neither a police office, it doesn't mean we tolerate pedophily), either it's just a witch hunt Both way their disruptions clearly prevented the administrator to understand the problem. I made it clear yesterday in that thread that it was going too far [47], but the disruptions continued here, one of this users even modified a draft of policy that wasn't approved to make us believe it was on metawiki. Sorry I don't find this constructive, your wasting our time.
Before acting I think one should always keep in mind that not only the absolute truth matter (what is the truth after all?), but the form is paramount important: Ex falso sequitur quod libet.
Delicious carbuncle, already warned in his commons talked page many times that we prefer not to engage in conflict here [48], and he is the one who modified the meta policy on pedophily [49]. This last move is not bold, it's acting when being part of a conflict to proove you are right. It's not what we do on Wikimedia projects. As he seems to prefer engaging in conflict rather than contributes to Commons, I suggest either:
a 6 months block on Commons
or a very last warning before a ban on Commons.
Michaeldsuarez, already warned last year not to call people pedophile on his Commons talk page [50]. He was warned and continue, I believe we should do something: either a block (less than previous user) or a last warning but this is not acceptable neither, but not as disruptive as previous user.
Tarc, comes out of nowhere to help both previous users in their disruption, I think a warning would be good.
If thoses users state they will stop this behaviour, we can avoid the blocking part of this request but remind them that we will not accept such behaviour in the futur. Whatever the decision is, I'd like to point out this nice essay (it's not a policy) COM:MELLOW. Sadly yours --PierreSelim (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is that trolling? Weren't the previous incidents about interpreting actions? That's different from quoting statements. Rd232 (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would call it gaming the system, moreover giving the link again here to an external wiki (outside of wikimedia sphere) is a kind of provocation, as I started this talk I will not use my tools against thoses users, but really I don't believe they are here to contribute peacefully and for the good of our project. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want my comments on something so serious to be baseless. I didn't want the next reply to be "What evidence?" That's why the link is there. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a double negative? You just told me to don't think of not using it, which is basically a command to use it without hesitation. I'm not "trolling"; I'm just helping you to improve your English so that people can understand you a little better. I haven't call anyone here a pedophile since Trycatch told me to stop. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really see what the users have done wrong here. There is a very messy situation (which English Wikipedia has a well-defined process for), spilled over onto Commons because the user is active here, and Commons has no process for it or policy for it. So it's very difficult to make a decision, but because of the subject matter, tensions are very high. But the input the users have provided has not really been disruptive here, and the Meta policy issue is a matter for Meta (and it's not like there was any attempt to deceive on the policy issue). Rd232 (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the tensions are very high, I believe their actions here are trully not constructive (and that's why they have already been warned), to me it's not a coincidence. Now for the meta thing I'm speaking of tricking us here to believe it's a meta policy. In the end, If I opened this thread is also to get opinion like yours, I hope it will be constructive. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how their contributions are unconstructive; this is a discussion about a possible ban, and they provided evidence and comments about that. As I said it's a problem because of a lack of policy; if we had a clear policy on this, we might be able to say that certain contributions are or aren't relevant to a discussion. The fact that English Wikipedia acted as it did also makes a difference to how we should evaluate those contributions, as they're clearly focussed on arguing for taking the same action as another project has, for the same reasons. As for the Meta policy, Delicious carbuncle apparently thought it was policy, and changed it when it was pointed out it was only a draft. I noted the change here. (I missed the recent change back to "proposed policy", BTW.) Rd232 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow to again quote Sue Gardener: "Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false". It seems clear that this is policy, regardless of how the META page is tagged. It was originally labelled as policy, but changed to draft. I changed it to reflect what happens in practice, but it will likely take someone from the WMF to make it stick. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...'The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material...." - as it should be. And if you point out any such material, I'm sure it will be dealt with. Rd232 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can quote Sue if you want - but Sue is Sue and not us. Sue also tried to install a image filter and was bashed by us. --Saibo (Δ) 15:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious carbuncle, imagine that there is a thread where people talk about somebody who commits copyright violation, and i come and say "I would like to remind everybody that uploading child pornography isn't permitted, due to the fact that the servers are in Florida, USA". That would be an accusation that this person has uploaded child pornography, wouldn't it? Now, imagine that there's a thread of somebody who's accused of spending time in prison for downloading child pornography in college and i say "The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material [child pornography]", and magically this becomes no longer an accusation. My upload log is public, there is nothing even erotic in it, there's nothing about children in it. Why do you want to bring this up? I think that you are getting engaged in this debate and forget that you are actually talking about a real person (me) and not about some abstract user name. I am going to hold no grudge, but i believe that you've made a mistake with that last post. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit sad that the barnstar was replaced. Blocking Beta_M for the quotations on English Wikipedia seems to be a serious violation of the freedom of thought. I'm not aware of any disruptive behaviour from his side on Commons so I see no reason for a block. I'm not sure exactly what he has done on English Wikipedia (apart from being inactive) as I haven't had any contact with him on that project, so I'm not able to tell if that block is justified. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not taken a position here in regard to the circumstances of your case. The framing of the issue is not mine, and I am simply responding to the claims that there is no applicable policy. I believe that these types of discussions are damaging to the project and help neither the accuser nor the accused. I contacted someone from the WMF yesterday to try to calm the situation but they appear to have done nothing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I stand behind what I said earlier. Any person involved with or expressing any sort of advocacy on behalf of "childlove" (what a nauseatingly PC term that is) should be removed from the project. Period. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section is about whether to take action against you and some other users; the section about Beta M is above. The fact you post in this section declaring "childlove" a "PC" (en:political correctness) term (a frankly offensive claim, since it's pedophiles' attempt to normalise pedophilia, and no-one else uses it) along with ignoring the debate above about lack of policy basis for any action suggests you would like to resurrect the debate about whether your contributions here are constructive. Is that right? Rd232 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Rd232 I don't see any reason not to act with this list of users canvassing the discussion above on Beta_M. Yes they have repeatively claim accusation on user, Micheal seemed to have been very provactive yesterday on your attempt to summarize the situation, even after adminstrators clearly claim there was no consensus to block this user. In this subsection he also mocked a user for his bad english (what a constructive attitude on an international project!). As we resurrect this thread, I believe that we don't have a consensus to block any of this user, however if no admin disagree I'd like to warn thoses users that's it's not welcome (and might lead to a block if repeated again in the futur). --PierreSelim (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that a warning would be helpful, even if it were necessary; it would probably just inflame things further. Michael was active yesterday after proposing a topic ban, which was a perfectly reasonable suggestion in context. And the "double negative" English issue can be read as explanation as well as mocking, so I'd AGF. Rd232 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think you are right, I'm ok to close this without actions. You are probably right with the "double negative", as I'm not native english speaker I just might have read it wrong (moreover I was requesting actions against this user, this may also explain the lack of AGF, but it's my fault). However I think it's good thing to have explain my concerns. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
After discussing the original block with User:Mattbuck, I am reducing the block to time served. However, this unblock comes with a warning to Peter Damian. It would be strongly advisable for him to stay away from User:Beta_M's talk page in future, as it is obvious that the editor sees such interjections as unwelcome. However, harassment, trolling and intimidation of editors on this project[51][52] should not be tolerated, and future recurrences of such behaviour could result in blocks. In general, I am fully aware of the relevant issues in this particular case, and we will all agree it is an emotive one, and one in which the vast majority of us will agree on major principles. As editors, we are all expected to act within project policy and behavioural guidelines; virtual lynch-mobs will not be tolerated, as all sense of decorum goes out the window, as has clearly occurred in this thread. No-one is afforded "protection" on this project, so I encourage editors to review our policies and guidelines, and act within them. If a policy or guideline does not exist, then proposals may be made. In this case, discussion is here and should not continue on this noticeboard, nor by way of what could be construed to be harassment or intimidation. russavia (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]
Peter Damian (talk·contribs) was unblocked without discussion by Rd232 (talk·contribs). He was blocked for harassing Beta_M (talk·contribs) on his talked page (you can just check the history [53]) forcing Saibo to protect this page to stop the harassement [54]. Meanwhile he found it interesting to say to call the admins of commons facist police[55].
He was blocked by Mattbuck for 3 days. To this Peter Damian, repeated his facist claim in the diff of his user page [56] which got him removed from his user talk page access.
Now Rd232, have decided to remove the block without discussion.
In the light of this thread on wikipedia review it seems clear that few users have thought it would be good to continue on Commons what the fight they have started on another website. I have reblocked Peter Damian until a decision is reached here. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote 2: The link is provide to show the source of all this, i.e. it's hard to say the fight comes from elsewhere without linking to the source. I think no one has been warned or blocked for this thread yet (even if I don't like few posts out there it's not our problem). --PierreSelim (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Observation to the sidenote: views expressed offwiki are blockable, unless they involve adult child sexual relationships, in which case they should be celebrated. Have I got that right? John lilburne (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Damian is blocked for what he has done here. The link just shows he is involved in a discussion about this offwiki and he brings the dispute here. Read again my message please, he is blocked for harassement by mattbuck, and removed right to use his talk page for using it as a way to pursue the previous disruption. Calling people fascist when you are harassing people on their talk page was not a good idea. I cannot make it clearer, this link just enlight how a group of people brings their offwiki opinion here, which leads to a dispute. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point? Every body brings their offwiki opinions here. There are people here that bring there porn must be liberated and readily accessible everywhere, and there are people here that bring their porn must be banned opinions here. Others are bringing paedo advocates not welcomed, as opposed to peado advocate are welcome opinions. The question of whether a particular opinion is currently held is hardly harassment. John lilburne (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: He is also ban from enwiki for [57], which is not the point here, but shows the appeal of this user to drama and harassment.
I saw the posts on Beta_M (talk·contribs). To be fair, originally Peter was referring to the admins of Anarchopedia, not Commons admins, and was doing so mockingly (pretending to assume Beta M's point of view). However, the user ignored the usual policy that a user may remove any message they wish from their talk page (see e.g. en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User_talk_pages, I assume it works similarly here). This edit, which you already linked above, reading "The anarchist emails the fascist admin police to put the defenders of free speech in wiki jail. Very appropriate." is a completely inappropriate response to a user making it clear that he will address the issue that was raised. This kind of tone makes it clear that Peter is more interested in assaulting the user personally than resolving the concerns he originally raised. I think a limited-time block was most appropriate. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the user ignored the usual policy that a user may remove any message they wish from their talk page" - diffs? As far as I can see he posted a different question. And the tone doesn't show "more interested in assaulting the user personally than resolving the concerns", it's a laconic aside. Anyway the posts weren't "raising concerns" (asking for action), they were asking questions (asking for information). Rd232 (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following, severe accusation by Mistress Selina Kyle is not backed by alongside evidence (→ libel/slander). See section #Mistress Selina Kyle. Don't make such accusations without evidence yourself. --Saibo (Δ) 14:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock - Reality check - A convicted paedophile / pedophile is editing the commons, uploading child pornography and using the Commons as a platform for a propaganda campaign to "change attitudes" towards supporting child abuse (as "adult-child sexual relationships"), promoting illegal activity.
And instead of any action whatsoever, you shoot the messenger and block the one who brought this to attention?
You suggest that "the wider Commons' community's views on this may be different from those of users who choose to come here"[58] and yes, it is just that. You are in your own little world, where you have convinced yourself, as if its a religion, that just because something has free copyright means that its promoting freedom, even when it is promoting the illegal rape of children. Take a break from the computers for a while, step back, and think, please, of the question you have to ask yourselves, in all seriousness: What would your mothers say? Qu'est-ce que vos mères dire, PierreSelim (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes)? --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure my whereabouts are relevants to the subject but I go out quite often which allows me to contributes quality pictures to our project like European robin, wheelchair basketball, rugby union for last week-end. I have a quite nice collection of mallard ducks prooving I like to go out for walks ... and please do not involve my mum in the discussion (for the record as lots of mum she is proud of her son). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that other peoples' whereabouts is relevant to their contributions here, this is not the first time you have attacked other users editing from Wikipedia.org referring to them as 'from en-wiki' and trying seemingly to tar them as 'invaders': [59][60][61][62]. You need to drop the hostility towards people trying to contribute constructively to discussions on basis of what country they are from, and read through wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia — wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism — wikipedia.org/wiki/World citizen — [63] (that site is in America yes, but I am not originally from America, and its about someone German. You get the idea?)
I didn't say anything about your mother, and you know that. I asked you to think about what would your mother would think if she knew what you were doing, because I am sure you have not told her of this? What do you think she would think if she knew you were chasing down and banning people who blow the whistle about people attempting to subvert a very large and influential website to advocate abuse of children?
There was no warning given that the behaviour should stop, never mind that it might be considered harassment and result in a block.
The questions appear legitimate and relevant to a current discussion.
Removal of talkpage access for a couple of minor digs at admins is unwarranted, and removal of email access was entirely unexplained (possibly an error).
It is longstanding practice that blocks and bans and behaviour elsewhere are considered irrelevant (though it may provide information that helps identify problems on Commons).
Comments offwiki may help explain intention. In this case, as far as I can see, it supports the view that the user was acting in good faith. Other Commons edits around the time on related matters also support that.
PS I removed the block "without discussion" (I did email mattbuck, but didn't get a reply until after I'd unblocked) because (i) both the original block and the reblock to remove talk and email access were obviously bad (ii) there's quite enough discussion of these issues around already, and in the circumstances an AN discussion of a 3-day block of a WR member (hello, everyone) would almost inevitably involve drama out of all proportion to the issue. Both blocks (and the talkpage protection, come to that) were a severe overreaction to the perceived problem; more discussion would only compound that. Rd232 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rd232, it was your opinion I was waiting for. I've put the block back because I think it at least as to be discussed. As Dcoetzee said "a limited-short" block is appropriate and it's what I support, (3 days was a good choice IMO). You may however have some points (no warning, email block), I however disagree on the good faith, and I don't think someone used to enwiki needs to be recalled not to call others fascits. Now the block has lasted 2 days... --PierreSelim (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An active advocator of paedophlie is protected and his opponent is blocked for asking him?! Could you please adjust your measurements? --Martinatalk13:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour here is not appropriate either Martina. Please keep the discussion on the topic, don't try and bring other topics into this. Oh, and stop slandering other contributors. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "behaviour" in her comment, if you look at her userpage her first language is not english, she is from Germany. On a site that is shared by people multi-lingual people you should check things like that before jumping to conclusions, it is obvious when she said "measurements" that it was a mis-translation from the oddness of its placing in the sentence, presumably she meant something like "out of line", that PierreSelim not "measuring up" to appropriate behaviour for an administrator, and she is perfectly within her rights to express that opinion. --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue with Martina's post was the continual slandering of other users with accusations of being paedophiles. This thread is (well, was) about one topic, a 3-day block I implemented on a user for what I saw as disruptive behaviour. The topic should remain about that one user's behaviour, it should not drag in other topics from this page. If she believes Pierre is out of line or not an appropriate person to be an administrator, that's fine, that was not what I was warning about. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that doesn't make it much better, because she has not wikipedia.org/wiki/Slandered anyone, a slander is an untrue statement made to insult, Beta M (talk·contribs) is a literal convicted (in America) pedophile and given that its become public knowledge, is she not allowed to comment on that? Are you creating your own unwritten rules where editors' biases are not allowed to be mentioned in discussions even when they are relevant?
She didn't even directly say it either, she said he was engaging in "active advocator of paedophlie" which was again, a fact based on looking at his contributions here, or at the very least an opinion on his contributions that she as well within her rights to comment on... --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, you are out of order, it was a perfectly justified, albeit slightly misworded, question which you have responded to not by giving a straight answer, but by making threats, puffing your chest out and doing whatever you can so as not to answer the question. I also suggest that if you don't know the proper meaning of words like "slander" then you shouldn't use them. So again, why is the kiddy fiddler protected but the messenger blocked? A straight answer with no posturing please? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is as it has always been is that I disagree in principle with people being blocked for things they did on other projects or on external sites. Again, please let's get back to the matter at hand, the blocking of Peter Damian. This should be looked at on its own merits, and people should not be dragging other issues in to cloud this one. You however have just called an editor a paedophile, that is not acceptable here. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't talk bollocks. The fact he's a paedophile is a matter of public record therefore it's neither slanderous not libellous and as such should be acceptable. Not being blocked for things done on other sites is fine if it's doing a bit of Jimbo slaggin or other harmless fun, but when someone is openly professing that "child love" should be both acceptable and the norm then that is something that is brought to Commons along with the user. Now much as you'd like it to be so you can wriggle out of this situation unscathed this is not clouding the issue, in fact it goes right to the heart of the matter. PD was blocked, not for "harassment", which in this case is just a euphemism, but for trying to get to the bottom of this. Something you buggers with the broom should have been doing yourselves. Now usually I have a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to PD as I find him to be a self-justifying meddler, but in this instance he is correct (although he didn't do himself any favours with some of the comments he left) and he got blocked for it. Once again this is another admin clusterfuck by the same team of porn defenders. Incidentally, I don't respond well to threats from spotty Herberts half my age, if indeed your last sentence was a threat. Now this situation needs clearing up fast because as soon as the mainstream press get a hold up this you are up shitcreek without a dildo. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now this situation needs clearing up fast because as soon as the mainstream press get a hold up this you are up shitcreek without a dildo. I'd be surprised if that ttrain hasn;t already left the station and that there aren't several tabloids pouring over these page currently. Also with Jimbo just getting an appointment with the UK Prime Minister that a couple of hundred MPs aren't watching here too. John lilburne (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He and Mattbuck (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) are out of control and abusing their administrator powers in attempts to win personal arguments, treating Commons like a battleground and administrative powers like a threatening weapon in what should be fair and neutral discussions - where are the Bureaucrats here? Why are they not de-sysopped already? You only have to look at the history of their contributions and their blocks to see their warring behaviour towards anyone they disagree with. --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I am abusing my powers to win arguments. In this case, I saw disruptive behaviour which had no purpose other than to be disruptive and inflammatory, so I blocked. When the behaviour continued through the talk page, I revoked privs. I should not have revoked email privilidges, and for that I apologise. I do not block people to try and win arguments, because I avoid blocking people I am directly involved with. I may ask someone else to look at it, but I am not going to ban when I have a conflict of interest. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am abusing too, If I opened this section, was to have a review by other admins of my actions, now only few participated:
mattbuck did not disapproved, but as he was the first to block, it was not his comment I was waiting for.
Dcoetzee stated a short time block was appropriate (not sure how to understand this, is 3 days short or too long?).
Rd232, disapproved, as he was the admin that unblocked, I was waiting for his comment, and I think I am still open for discussion with him, as I previously stated the block is 2 days old now ..., if it can bring peace to lift it I'm not against but I'd like to have the opinion of another admin
You are misusing the word "disruptive" to mean "controversial" - stop it, that is in particular something common on Wikipedia that should definitely not be brought over here, I'd agree on that. (unlike the battle you two are fighting to prevent any child protection policy being put onto Commons...[64][65]).
Disruption is meant to mean activities that are actually disrupting the wiki, as in stopping editing happening, etc - it's not meant to be like one of those 1984 style euphenisms of "unsuitable" or "inappropriate" or "refusing to "take direction"" for giving out orders:
Or the implied administrator-based threats to other users in discussions if they continue to disagree with you - as both of you seem in the habit of doing given the diffs that have been given and your blocking histories with the rest of your other comments on talk and commons pages towards people... --Mistress Selina Kyle (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not trying to prevent a child-protection policy being put into place, I simply don't believe we should be blocking people when they do nothing wrong on Commons. Again, please stop importing arguments into this thread, let's try and focus on the Peter Damian issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone has the feeling that he stepped in poop he should not pick it up to throw it around. It's that simple and my conclusion to this case. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係14:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If these kind of deliberate trollish comments being thrown into discussion on the administrators' noticeboard are normal here, then no wonder the administrators on Commons and Meta are regarded as even more of a ghetto/wild-west environment than some of the worst abusive administrators on Wikipedia...
(e/c) Again, I am not trying to fight the implementation of a child protection policy, I am simply saying that if we ban people it should be for their actions on Commons, not for off-wiki activities. I am not trying to use threats to "win" an argument, I am trying to stop people making accusations against other users which are completely inappropriate. If someone were to level the same accusations against you, Selina, I would want them blocked as well. Commons should be a place where we can get along, and that won't happen so long as people are hurling mud at each other. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Thank you for your non sequitur, but it still leaves the question unanswered. Which is hardly surprising when you, as another of the Porno Protection Brigade, shows up. Now given the circumstances where a kiddy fiddler is protected but the identifier is vilified it's very difficult for me to show any respect whatsoever to those who supply the protection, produce the block and help create this very damning situation. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might call us the "Porno Protection Brigade". But that doesn't matter, since I'm only interested in neutrality. I would act the same way if someone would start to go on a rampage against any other topic as well. Since you do this Crusade against Porn I'm automatically part of this issue. That you use the term "kiddy fiddler" to attack an accuse an user speaks for itself. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係16:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "might", I actually did call you the PPB. And you get me wrong. I have no problem at all with porn or even porn on Commons. Not even the hardcore variety. What I do object to is low quality, out of focus, badly lit, home-spun shots by drunken/horny exhibitionists. I think there should be a cull of all low technical quality sexuality related images no matter what their content. And the number of penis pictures needs to be drastically reduced. But that is by the by. The PPB seems to be intent on keeping any nude/sexual related image no matter how shitty the quality is. But back on topic, I don't use the term "kiddy fiddler" to attack Beta M, I use the term to describe him. There's a difference. Now I presume you've rolled up in order to take the conversation off topic and attempt to turn we 'disruptors' into the bad guys. May I say what a crappy job you're making of it. And once again the simple little question goes unanswered. All very telling I must say. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's still libellous. Even if we assume that the user in question was convicted on child pornography charges, that is still a world away from actually raping children. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mattbuck & Co., when you're standing at the bottom of a very, very deep hole, it's time to put down that shovel. For the record, Unblock, per sentiments expressed by Martina above. --JN46615:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least it would not be the same as the gender gap movement would do. They dig the hole, grab a ladder (WMF), go up and throw some not proven guilty innocents inside it (ARBCOM), while searching for rocks to finish it. At least this is the impression you get from this case, when digging a little bit deeper as the greensward. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
As you can see in the above section, Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly referred to another user as a "kiddy fiddler" [68][69]. To translate, he believes this person rapes children. Even if the user in question has in fact been convicted on child pornography charges, there is a vast distance between possession of images of something and doing the actual thing. I possess many images of Lucy Pinder which I would classify as pornography, but the fact that I have these images does not mean I have had sex with her, one cannot imply anything about my sex life from the possession of the images other than I find those images arousing. The point I am trying to make is that FtO made possibly the most obscene insult possible to a user, and is completely unrepentant about it, going so far as to repeat the insult when I asked him to stop. This sort of behaviour should not be acceptable on Commons, and I call for an indefinite block. Note to all you who were complaining about me earlier, I am involved, which is why, despite my dearest desire to, I am not blocking him myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely oppose an over-reaching indef block. Fred has a flair for colourful terms, but that's not a reason to block someone, especially if they've only said it twice. You need a long history of unwarranted attacks (not tit-for-tats, those don't count IMO cause both sides are just as guilty) and user problems before calling for something like that. Fry1989eh?00:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said wikt:kiddy fiddler. According to Wiktionary, there are at least two meanings of that, one of which is "child rapist" and the one of which I was not familiar with, since "one who fiddles a kiddy" certainly strikes me as someone who at least touches a child, not some who just thinks about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's alot of things you can call someone that are "most high" in my opinion, child molestor does not hold that pedestal alone. But yes, I consider Fred's choice of words as linked above part of a longer history of colourful responses certainly not deserving of an indef block. Fry1989eh?00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, accusation of child rape is very low and yes accusing someone of saying something they didn't say isn't acceptable. So have you stopped beating your wife? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said it; you may not have meant it to be interpreted that way, but that is a valid interpretation of what you said. If you speak carefully and precisely, these problems won't happen.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It must be at least 4 decades since I was last called out for calling someone names. Firstly young master buck seems to be going for his Boy Scout's hyperbole badge. If he can point me to anywhere I've said Beta M was a "child rapist" I'd be happy if he's oblige. If he can't then I suggest he shut the fuck up, grow up and figure out another way to protect a convicted paedophile. Beyond that I have no interest in his little tantrum. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite block is not called for. Tensions were high during this discussion and I don't expect this to be representative of the user's ordinary manner of discussion. However, I agree that the meaning of the term was clear, and the user must refrain in the future from referring to anyone as a "kiddy fiddler". Even if the user had been convicted of sexual abuse of a child, we should state this in neutral terms and try to maintain calm and fruitful discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing the Wiktionary entry it seems that the term is sometimes used to refer merely to a pedophile who may or may not molest children, so mattbuck's interpretation seems a bit rushed. I still think it was unproductive, however. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "fiddler" British slang for "rapist"? I've never heard the term used in this way before (or in any sexual and/or negative way, tbh). --SB_Johnnytalk00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not outside the term "kiddy fiddler", no. But the implication here is clear - a kiddy fiddler is one who fiddles with children, ie molests them, ergo child rapist. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck: I had to experience this on Jimbos talk page as well as i asked for any proofs, only leading to get called an "Enabler" in the sense of of a user "...that support and defend the pedophiles..." [70], which is gratefully ignored by the English speaking adminship. [71] Something is wrong with these guys. Maybe we should allow to call anyone a pedophile or pedophile supporter? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係00:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off to bed. Just let me know in the morning if mattbuck and his fellow members of the Porn Protection Brigade have managed to come up with any more bullshit and bollocks, well maybe not the latter, I wouldn't want them getting over excited what with their tastes and all... Night all. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
← Enough. Everyone is going back and forth and is obvious that opening thread after thread is not going to change the way Fred behaves (as evident by his block log on en.wiki and his multiple socks there). As such I have indef blocked him as he is unable to take part in a collaborative community environment without engaging in personal attacks, childish name calling, and continual disruption; and his actions are counter to the collegial atmosphere of Commons. Now please, lets move on to more productive things. Tiptoetytalk01:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're blocking him by evidence in enwP? Do we have totally different values? Since days I hear "external behaviour doesn't count" (and internal behaviour is not obvious enough) and now this?! Gosh. --Martinatalk01:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That block should be undone immediately for two reasons. First, we have an admin agreeing that the call for a indef block is completely over-reaching. Second, on Fred's talk page, Tiptoety admits he has trouble working with Fred, so there's a conflict of interest. Fry1989eh?01:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, by my logic an admin could not block someone they don't work well with unless they have concensus from fellow admins. Don't mince my words Mattbuck. Fry1989eh?02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fry1989, the meaning of my comment on Fred's talk page is that I had warned him before, and attempted to counsel him to prevent him from being blocked but it has failed. Not that I am constantly in disagreement with him, or can't work with him. An admin who issued a warning and then later blocks an account is by no means involved. Tiptoetytalk02:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not just on enwp. Fred's behavior has been raised on this noticeboard before, and in this thread he was officially warned to be civil. On another occasion he was chastised for his tone in another matter he feels strongly about. The list goes on and on. I'd be happy to undo this block myself if he didn't have a clear track record here on Commons, but he does. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you do, I'm suggesting Tiptoety undo it himself until he has concensus, rather then unilaterally doing it himself when there was no clear decision either way, and a fellow admin who disagrees with an indef block as appropriate. Fry1989eh?02:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely for incidents such as this that the policy on the English-language Wikipedia notes that accusations of this sort are a blockable offence. You may wish to consider including this in your own version of the policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he has been blocked twice before on Commons (and one of those got extended), and yes, they were similar issues. My read is that this user has a reactive personality and is not very good at choosing diplomatic words, but is also capable of contributing constructively. My view on incivility blocks is that they should gradually be ramped up so that they hurt more and more until the message finally gets through that this is not acceptable, and the penalty is bigger than any possible benefit from venting. Regarding this particular incivility, it is clearly an attacking word so is clearly blockable, however it is not uncommon (even in law) for those convicted of distributing CP material to be identified as being part of the abuse cycle/chain. Regarding whether beta_M was in fact the man convicted, others have made that accusation, there is evidence, and it is not unreasonable for people involved in that thread to state that they believe that it is true. --99of9 (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, ignoring this users actions at en.wiki, his actions here and his response to the block, hurling more demeaning insults at Tiptoety, is unacceptable. If he apologized for his insults, then I would consider an unblock, but not without some recognition his conduct is unacceptable in a collegial setting. MBisanztalk03:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I am not suggesting removing the block, just giving it some fixed length for a cool down period. 2-4 weeks? --99of9 (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is indefinite not infinite. I'd be happy to unblock when and if Fred can prove he has a plan to improve his behavior, until then, he should stay blocked. Tiptoetytalk03:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like admin support to it not being an indefinite block is growning, despite Mattbucks posturing. Only goes to furthur my argument that Tiptoety was wrong in unilaterally indefing Fred without consensus first. Fry1989eh?04:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, please do not read my opinion as being in support of your position. We need a block in place now, and now have space to discuss whether and how much the term should be reduced. Tiptoety called it as he saw it, and has been endowed by the community with the tools to make that kind of call. --99of9 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read it quite clearly. I didn't say you didn't support a block of some sort, I said you don't support an indef. Am I wrong? Fry1989eh?04:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You heard me. You're the one who asked for an indef in teh first place. You're also the one who misconstrued my views on blocking policy when an admin has a previous involvement with the user, and then replied to me about Fred digging another hole, a subject irrelevant to what I was talking about. Fry1989eh?04:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on Fred here and not the legitimacy of Tiptoety's action. If you feel like Tiptoety was impulsive, and that becomes a pattern, we can bring it up at another time. For now, we should consider the terms under which we're willing to see Fred return to active editing, or the time to reduce the block to, if we think he just needs a cooldown. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I never said Fred shouldn't be blocked, I've only said that an indef is wrong, I'm hardly trying to turn this into something it's not, I'm simply keeping to the same point I have had since I first replied. But yes, I think it was absolutely impulsive and unreflective of the discussion and where it was heading. Fry1989eh?04:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misstate my position. I believe it should be indefinite until such time as Fred says "Tiptoety, I am sorry I insulted you." If he never says that phrase, then the block should never be lifted. MBisanztalk04:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment neutral on whether Fred should be blocked or not. If he is to be blocked I think we should find something between 1 week and 2 weeks: he recieved already 2 block for uncivility, the first one was 3 days but the second was only 1 day. Well, we are not yet to an indef block case. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the user's contributions, and i believe that Commons should try to do something to keep this user active. Seeing how this user was misinformed and has acted rashly i believe that one can potentially learn and stay civil. I want to stress that the discussion was started by an admin, and it's possible that the user felt that this was an appropriate behaviour because of this. I assume good faith where possible, and urge for there to be no indefinite block. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 07:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since Fred is hardly the only one to make this accusation recently, it seems arbitrary to single him out for sanction. Indef-block is patently over-reacting - and if it were warranted, it should be done by consensus, which there hasn't been yet (making the block clearly premature at best). Beyond that, yes, there are long-term civility problems (though I think Fred has perhaps been better recently?), and maybe some kind of block is justifiable as a reminder that the community does take these things seriously. However, in the present heated context, we have quite enough problems, and the user at the centre of that, the subject of Fred's comment, has weighed in against an indef-block above. Therefore, I propose to reduce the block to "time served", on the understanding that his comments will be closely watched for a while, and a longer block may be proposed if there are problems in the near future, especially if it's on the same issue. Rd232 (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let us remember that child porn images are created by some form of kiddie fiddling, which is why distributors of such are described as kiddy fiddlers. So if you are building a ban list of people that refer to kiddy fiddlers as kiddy fiddlers please to be adding me there too. John lilburne (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
creation and distribution are not the same thing. Commons distributes a wide variety of media, but it doesn't create them. I also have no idea why you're addressing me as "building a ban list of people that refer to kiddy fiddlers as kiddy fiddlers". Rd232 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBlocking editors who make useful contribution to Commons, such as Fred, is contrary to the best interests of Commons. Blocks should be used to protect Commons from vandals, spammers, users who never upload anything that is not a copyright violation, etc. The effort to block those users that some other users find annoying is a destructive process that can never succeed because the threshold level is subjective and tends to be put at whatever level the blocking administrator chooses. This is a bad block, and Fred should be unblocked. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to shout at me, but considering Fred's behaviour since the block, all editsbeingpersonal attacks, I revoked his talk page access. Please note I do not expect this decision I took to affect the length of the ban, I simply do not feel that people should be subject to such attacks. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are users being subjected to harassment by what he says on his own talk page? It is not as though anyone needs to read what he says there, unless they choose to. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harrassment was possibly not the best word to use there, I accept. But it is hardly uncommon for us to stop people using talk pages as a soapbox. Especially if you use that soapbox for nothing other than to spew vitriol at people. He was blocked for being incivil, the incivility continued post-block, as did the personal attacks. If removing talk page access for some time is the only way to stop this, so be it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest reducing the block to 3 days. The original block was wrong, but responding this badly even to a bad block does merit some sanction. Rd232 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose any reduction at the moment. Fred has a history of telling people to fuck off, and calling them cunts, and seems to attack and insult any editor whom he disagrees with. The reasons for Tiptoety's block are quite clear -- Fred is not able to act collaboratively in a civil way. He may have good contributions to this project, but that does not give any editor carte blanche to act in the way he has. He has been warned about this behaviour previously, and has chosen to ignore that, and then has chosen to evade that block by use of proxy's. This in itself is disruptive. He is obviously aware of his behavioural problems on this project, so I would suggest that he use {{Unblock}} on his talk page in 24 hours or so, and acknowledge that his behaviour has been disruptive and that he recognises failure to act in a conducive way on this project will lead to the indef block being re-applied. If he is unable to do this, the block stays. That is how I would handle it, but of course Tiptoety's input will be required here as well. russavia (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You, that is fine with me. That is how I intended the block to work. Blocking for 2 weeks just leads to him taking a short break then coming back and doing the same thing again. I will say though that I am displeased by Fred's most recent block evasion though and it is leading me to change my mind... Tiptoetytalk17:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The more Wikipedia (or Commons) tries to enforce civility, the more uncivil it becomes. Fred's outraged outbursts are perfectly understandable from a very common point of view. The deeper he "digs" the more I smile to read his prose. This was a contentious issue, carrying a huge cargo of unrelated ideological issues over porn and censorship, discussed between widely separated camps of people who distrust one another. Let's end the block, without recriminations for Fred or Mattbuck, and be on our way. Rodney King may be mocked for it, but seriously, can't we call get along? At least for now, regarding something that so overshadows all our ideological differences? Wnt (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
←I ask that everyone read over my block log entry. Note that it says nothing about Pedophilia, calling a user a Pedophile, kiddy fiddler, what have you. That block was issued to deal with a pattern of long term editing that is derailing the overall collegial atmosphere of Commons. I am acting purely in good faith here, and as a single human being who can and does make mistakes. If this is one of those mistakes, which I do not feel it is, then I trust my fellow administrators to correct it in the appropriate way, whatever that may be. Tiptoetytalk17:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tiptoety, what is it that gives you the ability to decide which users will be among the chosen allowed stay, and which users will get sent into wiki-exile? Do you have any idea at all how arrogant that sounds? I sometimes wonder how many of you guys have ever had jobs because, in the real world, employers do not fire people who are making good contributions to the organization for bullshit reasons like a supposed failure to remain "calm and civil." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your block log entry may not say that, but it was done in response to an AN/U thread about that. You took that as a jumping-off point for examining the user's entire record, and judged that an indef block would be appropriate. That was fair enough; what was not OK was enforcing that judgement yourself, without any consensus to back it. You should have proposed it in this thread. I will allow a little more time for discussion, but I will reduce the block to 3 days unless there's strong opposition to that idea. I'm aware of the post-block comments, but those should not be allowed to vindicate the indef-block decision. His response to the block merits some sanction, however, as a reminder that these things do matter. Rd232 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind seeing a block reduction, if he says "I recognize I cannot insult people I just did and be a member of this project." What's so wrong with requiring him to say he will conform to basic standards of conduct? MBisanztalk19:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly opposed to the simple reduction of any block on Fred, due to the concerns I raised above. This is an emotional issue, and for the most part editors have managed to stay civil in relation to each other. Fred has not, and has overstepped those boundaries on numerous occasions. He also wilfully used various proxies to evade the block, and continued to engage in such behaviour. Useful contributions doesn't give him, nor anyone else, a a free pass to engage in personal attacks on other editors as he has. Let him use {{Unblock}}, recognise that his behaviour is a problem, recognise that his use of proxies to evade a block is a problem, and that he recognises that failure to abide by community behavioural standards and expectations will result in the block likely being reimplemented. At no stage should we simply unblock editors without them recognising that their behaviour is a problem, because that is only enabling them to engage in such behaviour in future. russavia (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Fred should know his later behavior is a problem, but in the interests of peace, in order to try to persuade him to agree to that, but more importantly, for our own integrity, we should acknowledge that Commons' behavior was also a problem. The anti-porn crowd, the special WMF report on "controversial content", Larry Sanger going to the press about child porn, the FBI having been called in ... Commons is vulnerable. And despite that vulnerability, in places like Category:Wilhelm von Plueschow and to a lesser extent Category:Wilhelm von Gloeden, Commons has stayed true to its intellectual integrity, even to the extent of what I think it would be fair to call child pornography that passes the Miller Test, and apparently, is legal enough that those authorities didn't opt to suppress it. Think about the significance of that precedent - the firmest high fortress of the censors, its walls breached by amateur librarians and Victorian kiddy-fiddlers. But all that effort could still be undermined if we let it be said that Commons shields people who have distributed child porn and advocate pedophilia while inviting kids to websites they run, while indefinitely blocking people who protest against them. Doing something like that, the site could readily (and perhaps not inaccurately) be painted as something vile and worthy of public condemnation. We need to drop that baggage, hold Commons close and true to its actual purpose of housing a free and uncensored archive of the world's free educational content, and avoid such a catastrophic crash. Wnt (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mistress Selina Kyle's comment was misinformed (the user never uploaded child pornography) and contained minor personal attacks ("you live in your own little world") but I believe was impassioned because of strong beliefs about this issue and doesn't represent her normal mode of discussion. I believe a strong warning is adequate. Low activity is not unusual among Commons users, since their home wiki is generally elsewhere. After the dust settles on this particular matter, I expect she will be more productive. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by Dcoetzee. Don't you see the tilt? This is already the third block request (and I was threatend by an admin) against people who claim zero tolerance for paedophile advocacy on Commons. I fully agree with Jimbo saying "People ... are welcome to start their own pedophilia-friendly website on someone else's servers." --Martinatalk01:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about being friendly to pedophiles. It's about presumed innocence, good faith (you can buy anything with it, even image filters) and needed proofs for the opposite. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係01:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about bringing this up, but decided against it. Saying that an user uploads child pornography is certainly beyond the pale, and one has to wonder why, if they did do that, the image was not deleted and the user globally banned already. That this hasn't happened is probably a good case for there not having been any such files uploaded, certainly with the WR picking over it all. The user has however been making what are (to my mind anyway) unfounded accusations against myself and other admins [74][75]. But, I do not believe this is necessarily ban-worthy, though it is worth watching. I think a retraction here would be best. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rillke made a strong warning already. If it will not help (I suppose it will not help, but AGF and so on), a long block would be reasonable (a short block would not be noticed because of very low activity of the user). The last thing Commons needs are unproductive users who came here only for trolling/drama/harassment. Trycatch (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A user who was misinformed by the way the whole discussion is worded. Banning even temporarily of such user wouldn't do any good to the community. A person believes that child porn shouldn't be uploaded, and has posted that in the unrelated thread, admins do that, and get away without even the warning (because they know exactly how to word things). So no ban, not even a warning, but a polite explanation of the mistake would be in order in such a case. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 06:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regular contributors shouldn't be punished for actions of administration with the predictable consequences. If these comments wouldn't be made by Mistress Selina Kyle, i have no doubt that somebody else would make them. There's no point of making an example out of anybody. So Rillke's comments on this user's talk page should be enough, Rillke has tried to assume good faith and pacify the emotions. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 07:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What happened to assuming good faith? There's no evidence that the user didn't believe these things at time of posting. Did anyone even ask her to retract the claims until or unless proven? Rd232 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Defamation is not ok no matter if you made defamatory statements in a good faith or not. It's very easy actually -- _check your facts_ before throwing around potentially libelous statements about living persons. Trycatch (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that I think that Mistress does not "believe" in her claims? No, I think she believes/believed in. Regarding your last sentence: the time to show evidence is now (read my comment again). --Saibo (Δ) 15:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dcoetzee and Lewis. More meta-drama is not needed, no matter how awesomely ironic it may seem. --SJ+13:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a comment before/at Mistress Selina Kyle's original comment (libel/slander) myself now - to tag it at least as such. I still stand by my initial request. --Saibo (Δ) 14:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
→ That is slader / diffamation (a personal attack which may have legal consequences in some countries) of the targeted user unless proof is presented (currently there is nothing). I request a appropriate block and clarification edits to the attacking text parts if the user does not retract his claims. --Saibo (Δ) 16:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You realise you are demanding the outing of another user? To a large extent that outing has already happened (if you believe the presented evidence; the user did deny it a while back), but still. Also, because the responses to this will inevitably be very much on the subpage topic, I'm merging this into the subpage. Rd232 (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not demanding an outing. If evidence cannot be presented without outing it is not my problem. Then the accusations should be much more carful if they need to be without evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 17:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he said right here, recently, that he is not and contacted the newspaper in question that the article was in to ask them to clarify, since the name is, apparently, a very common name. Also, he says that he has documents that proves he was in another country while the supposed incarceration was going on. Silverseren5 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Counterproposal: Suggest desysopping Saibo. Saibo has made it clear, repeatedly and abundantly, that he disagrees with fundamental WMF principles (including compliance with US law and zero-tolerance policy on pedophilia advocacy) and seeks to actively and aggressively subvert them instead. That's unacceptable in an admin. --JN46617:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Counterproposal for Counterproposal: Suggest blocking Jayen466. Jayen466 has made it clear, repeatedly and abundantly, that he disagrees with fundamental WMF principles (including the five pillars and especially NPOV on sexuality related topics) and seeks to actively and aggressively subvert them instead. That's unacceptable for a user. (little rewording to illustrate the issue) --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係17:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a no-win situation for the Foundation. However, since the toothpaste is now out of the tube and largely involves information that is available in the public domain, the user concerned should consider providing evidence to the Foundation that the claim is wrong. If it is, there will be some very happy lawyers.--Ianmacm (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you've read either COM:NPOV or Neutral point of view. Neither supports your argument; though for different reasons. (And note COM:5P.) To be more precise, Commons is exempt from NPOV, and in Wikipedia, NPOV means doing as authoritative sources do, which is precisely what you have a problem with. You want to diverge from how real-world, reputable sources handle controversial content. POLA, on the other hand, is part of a WMF board resolution, and applies specifically to Commons, and controversial content in this project. Again, Saibo is sharply against it, and you seem to be too. --JN46618:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What was rejected was a proposal to make the board resolution wording itself a policy or guideline. That's not how it works. For example, the BLP policy does not consist of the wording of the BLP board resolution. However, the BLP policy does derive its legitimisation from the board resolution. --92.13.220.10115:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A person sent to federal prison for possession of child pornography is a pedophile. A --> B is astonishingly clear-cut here, and it is not defamation if what one says is true. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be a pedophile to posses child pornography. There are still a lot of other possible reasons to posses it, but being convicted for possession of child pornography. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係21:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning is actually false. There are many reasons a person may be in possession of child pornography other than being a pedophile. Some users download pornography without any awareness that it depicts minors (it is not actually possible to reliably visually distinguish 17-year-olds from 18-year-olds), and some are never aware they downloaded it at all (e.g. it may have been downloaded to their computer by a botnet agent). Some of them are producers/distributors with no sexual interest in the material themselves (although that's really even worse). Nor is it important whether the user in question is a pedophile - the question is whether they present a danger to child users on Commons. However, I'm not seeking a block for SilkTork - as with others, I believe this is an issue that provokes strong reactions that may not represent the user's normal mode of discussion, and I believe they will be more calm and critical after this discussion is complete. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there isn't actually any slander. What Dcoetzee has posted is a litany of common excuses, which I'm sure law enforcement has heard many times. Tarc (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not excusing any of these actions, they are illegal and must be avoided. My point is only that a person who is not a pedophile (does not experience sexual attraction to children) may still be convicted for possession of child pornography, which is a direct refutation of the claim "A person sent to federal prison for possession of child pornography is a pedophile." Dcoetzee (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you fail logic 101. To ward off any pitchforks: at this point I don't believe the remarks to be slanderous, but that's based on more than just a single data point (that one conviction). Rd232 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: our main concern here should be whether Beta M is a threat to child users, and we and SilkTork should all be focusing on that. Allegations of the user being a pedophile (or not a pedophile) are unnecessary and irrelevant. We should focus on questions like: what threat to child users is anticipated? How does this user's past behaviour demonstrate that those threats are more likely to occur than usual? etc. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore it is slander up to best knowledge now. If no one has acted in about 12 hours I will add direct remarks to SilkTork's comments myself. I urge someone else to do it. --Saibo (Δ) 00:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Have added a comment myself now. --Saibo (Δ) 14:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect a person who is interested in the truth of the matter we're discussing here to do so, yes, since what is at that WR link is pretty damning evidence that support the assertions made against Beta M. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted: this is an emotional issue, it does not help to nominate everyone who gets caught up in it for a block / desysop / counterdesysop / plasmawave editfreeze. --SJ+00:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disrupt your StarWars story... but in case you did not notice here is a human accused of being a paedophile without presented evidence - that even could have legal consequences if reported to authorities. --Saibo (Δ) 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you cut back on the sarcasm presented about seventeen notches. Evidence has been provided, you just stuck your fingers in your ears going "lalalalala I can't hear you" because you don't like where it's presented (on WR). SirFozzie (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niabot sees things in black and white. Things are really shades of grey. Are there many blocked users on WR who use it to vent at the site and things they don't like? Yes. Are there people there who make wildly inaccurate statements? Yes. Some people there you have to take their statements with a grain of salt the size of Sisyphus's boulder. But we shouldn't close our eyes to wisdom, even if it comes from the mouth of a fool (not calling anyone here or there one, mind you!). If it's true (and all evidence is that it is true in this case), we shouldn't ignore it solely because we don't like where it cam,e from. SirFozzie (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe i have to seperate my statement in two parts.
All i see is a troll base: This does imply the things you mentioned in your last post. but does not imply that everything presented might be total bullshit, even so most of it is. (my perspective)
No sufficient evidence: Even so there are hints and slight evidence for the past of the user, there is no evidence that it has anything to do with his work on Commons. Do we have any evidence that he did violate any rules on Commons that would be sufficent for an indefinite block? I saw nothing like this inside this discussion, the troll base or anywhere else.
If your investigation skill are really as good as this statement, then there is truly no evidence. When did i state that i haven't read this bad faith argument reconstructions? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係16:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to refer to the old saying that there are "none so blind as those who cannot see", but honestly, from your attitude in these discussions, I don't think there's any level of evidence that WOULD convince you. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have qualified your statement... I would say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (geez, I'm full of pithy old saying today). I really hate to go down the route, because it seems too much of a moral panic.. but let's divorce it from the current situation. How many "bad apples" would it take to damage Wikipedia (in all its flavors).. I'm not talking about the current right-wing hatred of WP, but let's say it came out that somebody did use a part of WP for grooming/contact, etcetera. But true "They met through a free encyclopedia through Wikipedia.." stories. The WMF is not in the habit of handing its opponents a hammer to clobber with it, which is the reason for Jimbo's statement that those who advocate any such thing are not allowed, and why such things are in the WMF's proposed Terms of Service that are being translated for other wikis before being formally put into place.
Here, there is a lot of evidence that the account blocked is the person he is believed to be. If he was not, then it would be fairly easy to disprove.. but they have elected to not disprove these allegations, and decided to leave. You ask what proof is there that they WERE using commons to advocate/groom for inappropriate behavior.. if there was such proof, I think Commons wouldn't be just blocking/banning him, they'd be reporting him to the appropriate authorities, am I correct? We can't monitor emails people send (as far as I know, not even developers can read emails sent through the WP interface).. so yes, it's not assuming good faith to assume that people who advocate such horribly inappropriate behavior AREN'T doing such things.. but are you willing to take that on faith, knowing the consequences? SirFozzie (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user has suggested that he would present identification, but no one has asked to see that identification, so what you write about hiding is not entirely accurate. I am also not aware of any illegal activity which can be reported anywhere. Possessing child pornography in the United States was a crime in 2000, but the person who possessed child pornography has already gone to prison over that and can't and won't be punished a second time for the same action. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your concept that this is somehow double jeopardy is not relevant. Wikipedia is not the US government but CAN say that someone with this past history is not someone we want on the project. SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, then i would recommend as the first action to take down the slogan from the main page. It is:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Telling someone that because of their past criminal conviction that they can't edit period, noway nohow, is different than that. I don't think we can justify going quite that far. But what we can say is, look, if you're a pedophile, or convicted for some related offense, and you decide while you're here to linkspam a website you're in charge of to further your conflict of interest (in the broad WP sense), and you do it on talk pages of high schools and children who use the site, well, then for you Wikipedia may be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit but not for very long." I don't think that so greatly undermines our purity of purpose.
As far as slander is concerned, there are two possibilities: either (a) we slandered Beta M, a user everyone believes to be a guy named Mozhenkov (or unknown) but who is actually someone else; the damages to be repaid there would be a loss of reputation for a Wikipedia account name due to a good faith administrative process making a wrong conclusion (which I believe to be zero); or (b) we told the truth about Beta M being Mozhenkov and so there is no defamation in doing so. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And all a user on WR did was connect the dots based on publicly available information, both what Beta M has written about himself and what reliable sources have said about him. Anyone is welcome to read what is written there and then draw one's own conclusion. But to flat-out refuse to even read it just because of the website it is on is a bit...mystifying. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WR can be annoying - in the past they've tended to make bad arguments. But this link is worth summarizing here. It's surely best if we take that moment of work so our discussion isn't at the whim of evidence that could be deleted from a third party site. The screen name "VolodyA! V" appears in prisontalkAinfosdriftline. Taking the Ainfos reference and [77] confirms sums on the time period. DC referenced a diff Beta m made on August 7, 2005 in w:Pedophile movement to "a pedophile's site on FreeNet" - just to be on the safe side (policy?, legal?) I'm not going to copy the diff here, nor have I viewed the link target on FreeNet to confirm.
Now I should acknowledge that a screen name alone is hardly proof - anyone could post stuff as VolodyA! V Anarhist all over the Web. COINTELPRO type infiltration campaigns have occurred many times, especially against anarchist and leftist groups. Homeland Security gets paid for something, after all. But the thing is, I'm not going to consider such a radical idea without some clear feedback from Beta m to direct it. If he came out and told us that he never made one or more of the various beta M diffs people have brought up, that they were inserted retroactively into the history by federal agents, I'd take it seriously, and we could investigate that. There are a bazillion mirrors of Wikipedia all over the Web and we could probably out and out catch the agents in the act, and humiliate them mercilessly. The same might be true for many of the other sites referenced in these links. But if none of them are forged, I have a real hard time believing him when he says he's not that guy. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, every proposed variant of the w:WP:Child protection and COM:Child protection policies calls for revdeling discussion related to these accusations when it turns up in odd places. In the interest of testing/evaluating the proposed policy - do you think it would be appropriate to revdel the relevant history at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems and perhaps in other locations now that this conversation has been moved to a dedicated subpage? Wnt (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence against Beta M is pretty conclusive actually, I'm not sure how people are sitting here saying it isn't with a straight face. And does Commons have a concept of the "involved administrator" ? If it does, then I see quite a large conflict-of-interest with Saibo attempting to render judgement on several of the above cases, i.e. [78] and [79]. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this debate has gone over the line in accordance with w:WP:Child protection, as it has discussed specific allegations that would have led to revdel/oversight at Wikipedia. However, if people did not read the allegations here, they would read them at Wikipedia Review, as they are by now no great secret. Beta_M has been placed in an impossible situation by all of this, as a public forum/shouting match is not a proper place to discuss serious allegations.--Ianmacm (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the verdict is not relevant to the revdeling under the Child protection policies and drafts. Innocent or guilty, conversations about the subject are to be revdeled, according to the text as written. The Commons proposal does allow that on this one subpage, the conversation could be kept if the charge is sustained, and my variant on that proposal would allow it to be kept if the person exonerated does not request its deletion. But the discussion elsewhere is still toast under all the proposals. Wnt (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this is why the en-wp policy is as it is. The mere suggestion of violating the policy is like a nuclear drama bomb. For those above who suggest that such blocks be handled publicly, I want you to look at the drama above, and ask yourself.. "Do I want to repeat this every single time something like this happens?". There is no way to "Square the Circle" of handling such requests publicly. I will say I don't know how Commons should handle it (having no equivalent of an ArbCom or something like that to work with the WMF, or to handle such requests privately to look at the situation dispassionately with an eye to the evidence. But as we can see, the current situation is untenable, and we must do our best to make sure that WP (in all its flavors) is not being used for unsavory purposes. SirFozzie (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I've seen WR drop this nuclear drama bomb at least twice before, with no pedophile required for assembly! The drama here emerged from how they handled it, combined with our lack of policy, combined with the Great Commons Porn War, combined with the Great Commons War Of Independence (or maybe 1814). If in the future we have a clear policy so that we're not arguing where the line should be drawn, and we have a single clear forum for handling the accusation, and if we have the experience of this affair to fall back on, then I think it could be done without such a kerfuffle as all this. Trusting an ArbCom sounds like a clever expedient; trusting random administrators to handle the situation, maybe less so; but in any case all these solutions, while they smooth things over for a while, leave us vulnerable to various catastrophes in time. For example, what happens if ArbCom blocks someone as a suspected pedophile, but he comes back, sweet-talks them a bit, so they let him quietly slip back in under a new name and edit, and after a while it turns out he did something terrible. Then we're in the same position as the Catholic Church reassigning priests, and because it is a centralized decision, we could end up on hook for the damages! I think it makes more sense to let the whole community watch and decide, no secrets, no leaked no-logged IRC logs, no email-based private consensuses, just people thinking things through right out here in the open. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Wnt, but the reaction here suggests you're wrong, they tend to shoot the messenger. Besides, in a case of a mistaken identity, would you want someone labeling you such a horrible thing available online (whether it's google-able or not). SirFozzie (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, but is it truly better to play like ArbCom and then have the whole debate be raised again on a different WMF project, or on Wikipedia Review, or (most likely) all over the Web, and not even have a centralized place to refute the allegations? Having one planned place to talk things out should be a service to those wrongly accused. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If by shooting the messenger, you mean, some of the blocks against people accusing Beta M, yes, that is undoubtedly a problem. For that matter Mattbuck was wrongly blocked for criticizing the WR people. But the thing is, the WP:Child protection policy is the source of the "pedophile protection" provisions which I criticized years ago; I don't think any editor should be blocked for raising the concern in good faith. The draft I proposed at Commons talk:Child protection makes that clear. Of course, if we don't accept WP:Child protection, then there's no policy to complain about even a known pedophile violating; but what we do have is the proposed (but final draft) Meta:terms of use, which more sanely prohibit improper activity without any prohibition on reporting it publicly. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"blocked for criticizing the WR people" - got to appreciate the irony of this erroneous remark being in this section, about revdeleting discussions that happened elsewhere so that everything is here. The block was for blatantly disruptive trolling at COM:VP that would very likely have got more heated discussion going there, on or around the topic which you want to limit to this page. Rd232 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His edit [80] did not suggest any editor of being a pedophile or the like, and so it would not be subject to the WP Child protection policy. I doubt it would have gotten him blocked over there at all, but you never know nowadays. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"would not be subject to the WP Child protection policy" - where did I suggest or imply that? The discussion might well have ended up repeating claims like that though, as part of WR contributors' attempts to defend themselves, or just as wandering around the topic jumping off from the venting. Rd232 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. My point is that the revdeling idea is about reveling things outside this subpage, in order to keep discussion in one place. Rd232 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he didn't reveal the things the policy would cover, so it's still irrelevant. And I don't even know if any of the policies will be adopted or imposed. I proposed the RevDeling as a test of the proposed policy, in part because (though I don't really know) I have a feeling that technically revdeling a major noticeboard like that will turn out to be too much of a pain in the rear. If that's true we'll need to adjust the policy to be something admins are actually willing to do. Wnt (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to get back on topic, I don't think it really works as a "test" in that way, because in this case the volume of things that would need deleting outside the subpage is much greater than it would normally be under the policy. In future cases, I would expect discussions to be moved very rapidly, so revision-deleting would be relatively simple (if the discussion wasn't started on a subpage in the first place). Rd232 (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn about whether to revdel. On one hand, the allegations made against Beta M were a mixed bag, some strongly supported by evidence and some just speculation, suggesting that portions of it deserve redaction. On the other hand, the damage to the history of other unrelated threads caused by such an enormous revdel would be substantial. There's also the issue that if a similar discussion ever arises we may wish to refer to this one in its entirety. Maybe in lieu of redaction we can move for some kind of big disclaimer? Dcoetzee (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing a person of being a pedophile in a public forum will set off a massive amount of teh dramah.
If the accusation turned out to be false, the person involved would sue the pants off WMF.
The policies of all WMF projects on child protection must now be standardized, as a shambles like this must not be allowed to happen again.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initially the issue was dealt with properly, a block was put in place and referred to ArbCom. If that process had been allowed to finish most of the drama would have been avoided. Instead some one decided to unblock, the residents here decided that they knew best, and the drama ensured. Which has been watched by various journalist for over a week. John lilburne (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of unblock the only evidence offered was "some guy with the same name was once convicted of possession of child pornography". This is not enough for a block under WP:Child protection, nor under any reasonable policy. What other course but consensus discussion can resolve a complex issue with an extensive collection of evidence? I would have been happy to direct discussion to a private mailing list instead, if such a thing existed on Commons - perhaps now is the time to start one. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the evidence was sufficient for ArbCom to confirm the enwp block within hours. You cannot, or at least should not, discuss this sort of stuff in public. You now have this guy's name blasted all over the internet, which if he wasn't the guy complained about would be a real issue. The initial block made no mention of the reason and could have been dealt with in camera. As it was the unblocking resulted in a six ring circus of blocks and unblocks and further digging. These things need a professional staff approach, and no doubt in some cases liason with law enforcement child protection officers, not some amateur pseudo legal public trial. John lilburne (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the discussion is revdelled here or not, the information is still available on Wikipedia Review. As such, a revdel might not have much effect. What would Beta_M want to do with this discussion himself? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with lilburne's idea that we should leave it to "professionals". The whole point of Wikipedia is that you can get a bunch of people together with no requirement or verification of credentials and they can put together an article that is as good or better than what professionals would have done. It's the same cruel logic mass production brought to the Industrial Revolution. But in the case of something like this, we're already into territory that most countries have handled by juries - ordinary people - for centuries, because random ignorant people are more trustworthy than a cabal of experts.
Where exposure on the Web is concerned, remember that this started with newspaper articles in 2000 about a man being put on trial. It has burned on in a variety of forums ever since. Commons didn't invent this discussion, and it won't be the last of it. We should also remember that anarchists have kids too; our discussion would not merely harm but also help people.
For Revdels, the proposed Commons child protection policies (all versions) currently call for revdeling discussion everywhere but on this page. The WP policy calls for revdeling them everywhere - but - the current revision of Jimbo Wales' user talk page hardly lives up to that policy - it links "beta m" and "child pornography", and Jimbo put it under a simple hatnote, where people continue to discuss it. Remember, he's the one who imposed the WP policy in the first place! And I'm getting the feeling from this discussion that Commons administrators are hardly lining up to sort through the noticeboard history to take out posts. So my conclusion from this test is that indeed, a policy to revdel as a matter of course is unworkable. We shouldn't pass policies that nobody, not even the admins, intend to enforce, so I'm going to recommend for the proposed policy to say that edits may be revdeled without implying that they necessarily will be, because it looks like that is going to be at most rarely done. Wnt (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence gathering is done in private, the decision to prosecute is done by professionals, and the trial conducted by professionals in accordance to rules. Juries are usually empanelled when there is the possibility of loss of liberty, and where they have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. A kangaroo court conducted on a website as to whether someone should be a participant or not is not the same thing. John lilburne (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@John lilburne: It's worth noting that Beta M himself publicly stated the reasons for the block before the unblock was made, because he wished to contest it. I think when the accused brings the accusations to a public forum they are inviting public discussion. That doesn't justify groundless speculation and drama, but I think each user should be able to decide whether complaints against them are processed behind closed doors or not. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that regardless of what the subject wants, responsible organisations have a channel for such complaints and a process for dealing with them, that doesn't involve a four ring circus. Flickr for example would not have countenanced this debacle. Any user debate would have been shut down, and flickr staff will have sorted out the issue. There would be no reason for extra drama on the various discussion boards as every one knows what the process is. If it had of been left to rest with ArbCom or wherever the extra 12 pages of evidence and speculation wouldn't have existed on WR and various members here wouldn't be being labelled as complicit. And you wouldn't have a page like this where a number of people look like fools. John lilburne (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so? Corporations are great at sweeping stuff under the rug, it's true. They avoid those heated conversations about blowout preventers and safety inspection logs, the company officials collect their bonuses based on the last quarterly earnings report, and when oil comes washing in all over the Gulf, that's the stockholder's and the shrimpers' problem, not theirs. But for a joint, voluntary, ideologically motivated effort like this, lots of people in the community feel the need to see what's going on, have their say, try to decide the philosophical issues and see that a good decision is made. Oh, sure, it is all very unseemly - all democracy is unseemly, but nothing can be beautiful except to the degree that it is ugly. Wnt (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In which case they get fined $20 billion or so, and those responsible for the cover-up get shit canned and/or prosecuted. If you are incapable of leaving sensitive subjects like this to the site owners without sticking yer nose in, then perhaps you should bge running your own board. There have even been cases of child porn on here where admins have deleted the stuff, and members of the community have demanded access to the material so that they can decide whether it is child porn or not. An amazing stupid situation. Seriously you need to learn when such issues are well above your pay-grade. John lilburne (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But not my lords on Wikipedia Review, I take it. This strikes me as a rather self-serving position for those who want to keep the dramas all to themselves. Running our own board? Yeah, that's the whole point - we are running our own board, Wikimedia Commons, part of WMF, the flagship of crowdsourced content. And this is the noticeboard where problems like this get thought through. And we don't need owners and masters to step in and run it for us. As for the situation with child porn, obviously that could be a problem - a problem for any organization. Just because somebody calls themselves "ArbCom" and wants to rule Wikipedia/Commons, or even if they're on a Board of Directors, doesn't mean that they have any special exemption to look at the stuff that a routine administrator or user would not. Such an unlikely situation is a poor, poor excuse to give up on community self-rule. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WMF making one office decision we should have been able to make anyway (sooner or later) is hardly a loss of self-rule. WMF Office can't even really make that one decision count on its own - they don't have the manpower to find and block beta M sockpuppets, if he wants to play that game. Of course, Commons doesn't have unlimited power either, and if it abuses its power by ignoring substantial risks to the users, something will be done about it. Like it or not, Commons has community self-rule - but the WMF is a significant part of that community. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on over to the dark side young Luke. The WR thread was a handful of posts mostly to get the attention of the Arbs and Admins that hang out there, but almost half were examining how the Commons anti-porn patrol would behave. After 12 hours and the banning the issue appeared settled, nothing to see there move along. But then the PORN-R-US contingent woke up, the unbanning occurred, the revdels to clean up the history started occurring, and PR0N SUPPORT wenty into action. GAME ON. I have to say that Niabot/Saibo, Mattbuck, Dcoetzee, and russavia played true to form. Excellent dual/solo performances backed up by a strong supporting cast. John lilburne (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the implication that I unblocked this user because they supported retention of sexual media and they are my "ally." I had no contact with the user prior to the unblock, as far as I am aware - I unblocked them because they made a request on IRC and after I evaluated the justification for the block, it appeared insufficient according to policy and common sense. That is all. Moreover, I have had recent violent disagreement with other users, such as User:Saibo, who support retention of sexual media, and have advocated deletion of low-quality, out-of-scope pornographic media - I am not a member of any faction. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The case put up by the WR people at the beginning was muddled and confusing. My initial response "regarding witch hunts" was justifiable based on the skimpy facts that they presented. The things that convinced me to change my position were mainly the products of my own searches - finding that extra profile with the name and pseudonym, finding the recruitment of high school kids to the Wikia - plus the two college articles posted much later on WR by michaeldsuarez. Without addressing anyone else's motives, I'll say that of course I was drawn to side with the "porn-r-us contingent" (which I simply view as inclusionists) because by and large they've stuck up for Commons policy in the face of unreasonable attacks by those seeking to change the WMF core mission to one which is readily censored rather than readily added to. And I will sorely miss Beta M's vote in future disputes. Nonetheless... there are some things we can't risk having happen, simply to forward a political end. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there is a concern that the only thing that keeps out the pornographic Simpson cartoons, or the Wesleycest stuff is copyright, and that if someone searched for "Bart Simpson" they'd get a lot more than they bargained for. However, the general issue isn't ine of censorship, which is a particularly pathetic charge against any sort of filtering. Basically if I'm sat on the metro with a tablet searching for information on 'Carmalite Nuns' I'd really appreciate not have a picture of one with a dildo up her snatch show up on my screen, that has nothing to do with censorship because you won't find many people sat on the metro flipping through the pages of Penguin Fetish Monthly either. John lilburne (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly censorship: readers of Penguin Fetish Monthly are unable to read their favourite monthly magazines on the train while other people can read their favourite monthly magazines. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst some can pick their nose on the train, others can't pick the smegma from under their foreskin, but that has nothing to do with censorship either. John lilburne (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're not running a train here, more like an art museum, where anything goes, unless some injustice like copyright law hinders our progress. I have to say, the Simpsons pornography is ROFL-worthy, but I judge the Australian response [81] to be just too stupid to make good comedy. I understand that Commons doesn't want Fair Use material to compromise the complete freedom of its archive for reuse, and parody is a Fair Use, but certainly that's the only reason not to host such material, which is actually quite well drawn, though what I found could use work on the plotline. Wnt (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've been in art museums and they don't mix up the Rembrandt's and the Vermeer's with the Miro's and the Piccasso's, let alone with the iPhone upload of some frat guy jacking off. And the point about the train is that there are places and times when consumption of porn is appropriate and other times when it is not. As Margaret Mead found in Samoa sexual attitudes there were very liberal, but still there was a community wide opinion that some activities were not appropriate for the age, or the place. John lilburne (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to this it sounds like she and others found practices which neither of us would condone, though I suppose some people pushing for "nondiscrimination by erotic orientation" would cite them. But that's neither here nor there. The point is, I know full well that some censorious nosy person looking at other people's cell phones on a train is the one who should be ignored, and the person producing free content that other people want to look at is the one who is doing something useful. Provided, that is, that no one is getting criminally abused in the process. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, this isn't really the end of it. It took the WMF Office a pretty long time to make this decision - if Beta M comes back and starts new account(s), it will still fall to plain admins to track/block any possible "sockpuppets". I think the discussion should try to come to a consensus conclusion anyway; is it feasible? Wnt (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The show is started because WMF did block a user without a reason - I wrote them already an email as the block comment offered. And, no, I do not think Beta_M will create socks, sadly, he probably would not come back at all to this fucking community. --Saibo (Δ) 01:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the explanation given was quite sufficient. It was an OFFICE action. For a number of reasons, we do not talk about the specifics of an office action. As a general matter, we do not act on cases without an official off-wiki complaint, usually from experienced members of the community. In these cases, we listen to our community's concerns, assess those claims, and ultimately decide whether to take action. On this issue we are balancing a multitude of different competing issues -- and we just can’t talk freely about it in public. We wish we could, but we can’t. Fortunately, this kind of thing is extremely rare. There have only been about 20 office actions in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation: this doesn’t add up to many. The action was approved by the Executive Director and the General Counsel. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saibo, it's well understood that the Wikimedia Foundation does not discuss the specifics of office actions. They are used in sensitive circumstances where confidentiality is important, usually for legal/privacy reasons. Thanks. Sue Gardner (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please "lock" me too through a "OFFICE" action? Then there would be more peace for the WMF. Good offer, isn't it? I mean, you even do not need to present any reason. Just do it. --Saibo (Δ) 01:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Hello, I still can write? --Saibo (Δ) 02:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, we don't globally lock on request. You may find a steward willing to do it, I don't know. But that doesn't meet our requirements to globally lock. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saibo requested a lock thru OFFICE action, no steward can do that. Also personally I would decline such a request (self lock) in any case, but it seems clear to me that the user's request was focused on the OFFICE part and as such nothing to do with us stewards :) Cheers, Snowolf (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Saibo's request, I'm just popping in here to note that in all cases of OFFICE actions, the Wikimedia Foundation must balance different values, including privacy. While we can't discuss specifics, I can say that the Wikimedia Foundation discussed this issue over several days. The General Counsel led discussions at the staff level, and the Executive Director and the GC spoke with the Board, as well. The final decision was made by the GC and the ED, with support from legal and communications staff. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yea - Government does for the people what they cannot do for themselves. Commons admins were unable to solve a glaring problem with a problematic user, so it was done for them. Tarc (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this range of attitudes. Beta M lied to us, and I can't believe people don't see any possible concern - why so bitter that WMF went and did something? And Commons still should sort out this issue for the future and find a way to handle it on its own - there's no call to gloat about things being this dysfunctional. Surely we should be able to find a sane way to reject bogus measures to "save the children" by banning porn and so forth without actually accepting real risk to real children. We don't even necessarily have all the evidence WMF had. We should focus on coming to a productive conclusion and deciding a consensus policy. Wnt (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they don't have any information we don't have. It's just one more stupid moral-panic driven decision by Jimbo&Co against community consensus. Trycatch (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a lot of stupid moral panics on Wikipedia. Not just porn and Muhammad images, I mean, spoiling the ending of "The Mousetrap", displaying the Rorschach blots, heck, any sentence containing the word "sockpuppet" that doesn't also contain the word "vote". Jimbo has fallen victim to one of them, as I recall, the porn thing, under media pressure, and relented pretty quickly. But somebody with a child porn conviction, linkspamming multiple sites he operates and inviting children to go join him? That's not a moral panic, that's getting more toward just plain panic as far as I'm concerned.
(Also, I suppose I have in the back of my mind that however cruel and unusual we may have been here, the Vladimir who was convicted got off pretty easy. I mean, in the U.S. there are towns with tent cities because convicted sex offenders aren't allowed to live near... anything and would violate parole if they left. They're not allowed to go near a computer. Their address is readily public information and drives down home values so their neighbors feel duty bound to beat them up and drive them out to recover their property value. Vladimir was free to just fly off to Mother Russia, start up college again in Britain, and spend lots of time posting about anarchist ideas.) Wnt (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(bunch of non sequiturs) therefore (kill the witch). Yeah, this kind of logic is pretty typical for moral panic. I want to point out that you failed to find _any_ wrongdoing against children (or even something remotely similar to wrongdoing) in _any_ wiki operated by Beta_M. Trycatch (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are people here who have irreconcilable differences with the Foundation, then I wish they would leave, and create their own community elsewhere. Many people have expressed the view in the last few days and weeks that admin decisions here in Commons, especially in relation to adult material, are so weird and corrupt that they don't feel like contributing here any more. That too, reduces editor numbers. Commons has become a laughing stock, or worse. --JN46604:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not getting away with this one. Just because we agree about real threats to children doesn't mean we agree about imaginary ones. Commons will remain a free and open resource to the world. I don't know why Saibo is so upset but I hope he'll get over it - WMF didn't just decree censorship and fire and brimstone coming out of the sky, they banned one user according to a policy they told us about a long time ago. Wnt (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beta_M is dangerous to children in the same way w:The Hollywood Ten were dangerous to the US Government, or the Salem witches were dangerous to anybody. I.e. not dangerous at all. But yeah, the harm to Commons made by banning of an active contributor is quite real, while pros of this action are imaginary. Who will do the work of Beta_M on Commons -- review DRs, upload diagrams, do various maintenance tasks? Probably, Jimbo, Sue & Co. Trycatch (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like comparing w:John Berry (film director) to a pedophile. Unfortunately, the situation we have here is sort of like if Joe McCarthy had come forward and shown that hey, I have the name of a Communist working in the State Department, and he's been travelling to Russia under a forged passport, and he's been inviting friends who work at defense contractors to visit the Kremlin with him. And you're still trying to say yeah, but... maybe they were just tourists enjoying landmark attractions of the Soviet Union. Yeah, maybe. But there's a difference between not wanting witch-hunts and being completely trusting no matter what. Wnt (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this action for the reasons I previously stated, and with overriding of Commons consensus, but will accept the Foundation's decision, in light of the complexity of this case and their careful consideration. As with any office action, I'll take no action to circumvent it. I also admit the possibility that the Foundation may have access to private information that we don't here, such as complaints from specific child users, in which case the action is justified. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, how should one not accept the WMF decision. The WMF is so inviolable that there's no way to appeal. If Jimbo says "Picture X is pooh" or "User Y is a f*cker", the other folks have nothing to claim. - A.Savin12:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment by an infrequent visitor to Commons who learned of this via Jimbo's talk page) It would seem a WMFOffice action has no official public meaning unless they chose to give it one. For example, for all we know, the global block could be part of a sealed settlement in which the blocked account holder received $1 million for emotional distress caused by recent events.(The second/italicized sentence is sufficiently rhetorical to be immune from analytic rebuttal, one may hope; but the initial sentence should stand as unrebuttable fact, one would assume.) etc etc -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's like an ex cathedra. WMF's reasons are unknowable, we must trust them. Amen.
Je prononce à regret cette fatale vérité... mais Louis doit mourir, parce qu'il faut que la patrie vive.
La terreur n'est autre chose que la justice prompte, sévère, inflexible; elle est donc une émanation de la vertu ; elle est moins un principe particulier, qu’une conséquence du principe général de la démocratie, appliqué aux plus pressants besoins de la patrie.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Now that it is clear that the Foundation support those who called for Beta M to be blocked, could someone please unblock all those who were incorrectly blocked by Beta M's defenders?--Peter cohen (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to unblock them at this point, given the above and given that the blocks no longer serve any purpose. In fact, I'll unblock them myself - Alison❤02:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking about Fred's block, let me restate that the block was not placed because he called Beta M a "kiddy fiddler" but due to an overall long term patter of disruption and since his block he has began using IPs to sock. Tiptoetytalk02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's a long-term, established contributor to Commons (early 2010) and has a total of two prior blocks, though his block log looks worse due to its having seven entries in total. An indef block with page prot. is overly harsh, IMO, and serves little purpose at this time. From what I can see, his position has not been that far from the WMF's - Alison❤02:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fred's position is that he can ignore a block and that we have to put up with his incivility; I don't see the WMF supporting that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[83] is not acceptable. I don't see why we should unblock anyone who has recently engaged in block evasion, particularly to engage in personal attacks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, I suspect I agree with Fred on the block of Beta, where I disagree with him is that he can insult and demean other contributors with nasty language and get away with it. Having him apologize to Tiptoety and other editors he has called names is not asking too much. MBisanztalk03:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Damian needs his block log scrubbed or a 1 sec block in order to put into the record that the blocks regarding Beta M were not justified. Fred's block has been revised since you made your block, I believe by mattbuck who was thinking about the paedo stuff.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The block was justified. As Dcoetzee stated, the fact that Beta M was banned as an office action in no way makes acceptable the behaviour people engaged in during this fiasco. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the Foundation did support all those who called for Beta M to be blocked; witch hunts can be correct, and still be witch hunts, and the Office has not dumped everything it knows here, unlike other users who decided to engage in public outing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
←It is indefinite , not infinite. I'm fine with unblocking if and when Fred can take responsibility for his actions and show the community how he plans to rectify the issues. Socking, calling others names, etc is doing anything but. I'm baffled that we are calling for an unblock when Fred has started socking. As for the talk page editing - I would support allowing Fred to edit his talk page again. Though, I will note I have sent him an email attempting dialogue. Tiptoetytalk03:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, not all the responsibility was his. He cannot take responsibility for the entire situation in which his outbursts occurred, because most of it was not of his making. Calling someone a name when faced with a stubborn refusal on their part to do the right thing, to the extent that the WMF had to swoop in and do it, may deserve a block, but not an indefinite ban. Reduce to time served, please. --JN46604:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He can certainly take responsibility for the outbursts. At the very least, he can disavow his statements that he doesn't have to pay attention to blocks and that we have to put up with his incivility.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reallowed him talk page access. That said, the fact that we had to semiprotect AN/U to stop him IP-socking and verbally abusing everyone in sight should make us wary of a hasty unblock. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It's a fair argument. The curse of enforced "civility" has gotten this place too unaccustomed to hearing an honest opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if he does charge 50 pounds an hour, and doesn't have to let someone with a child porn conviction play with his grandson to get that rate, either. Give him a break and move on. If you're that eager, you can always get offended by something else he says tomorrow. Wnt (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has civility been a problem with giving an honest opinion? You can give an honest opinion without being rude or abusive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are human, not robots Prosfilaes. Have you never shouted at anyone? It's this attitude that creates the attraction of places like WR. Because at least you are allowed to say what you think and feel there. --JN46604:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation's decision is not a vindication. They "balanc[ed] a multitude of different competing issues" in coming to it, and likely experienced some uncertainty themselves. I've opposed nearly every block that fell out of this discussion, but if a similar controversial discussion arose in the future, I would want these users to have learned by then to conduct themselves calmly - that's how we keep a controversy from erupting into drama. Sometimes blocking is the best tool to teach that kind of lesson. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Proposal: Reduce Fred the Oyster's block from indef to one weekedit
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As I advocated before, this is exactly the situation where cooling off blocks are required. A fixed period, that will expire, but is long enough for all sides to take stock and calm down. Yes, there was an outburst of serious incivility, but demanding apologies with an indef hammer in the heat of the argument tends to back people up against the wall. When the block expires, I expect Fred will come back as a positive contributor, and he will know that repeating such an outburst will simply double up the cooling off period. At this stage, now that other issues are resolved, I suggest a 1 week total block that is allowed to expire with no hard feelings. PS I do hope that when calm, Fred will apologize to the good faith users he has insulted, but that is a personal integrity issue, and we don't block users for a lacking personal integrity per se.--99of9 (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A week is enough to make the point clear, and to let this discussion fizzle out. If the users remain aggressive and unrepentant, we re-block them for a longer period. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this solution; demanding apologies is rarely helpful, even when the demand produces one (probably of doubtful sincerity). Some sanction of the post-block disruption and attacks is appropriate (even though the block was wrong, IMO), and on that basis I could also support a reduction to 3 days, which I think is long enough in recognition of the very heated circumstances and the bad block. Rd232 (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would suggest that all admins here read COM:BP. It specifically says ""cool-down" blocks are not condoned." What is being suggested explicitly goes against policy. Tiptoety made it explicitly known why he was blocking Fred, and this is clearly covered by our blocking policy. Fred has a long history of telling other editors to fuck off, and calling them cunts, and engages in other such behaviour that makes it impossible to have a collegial atmosphere. Whilst forcing an apology from Fred is pointless, we can, and should, be making him recognise that the behaviour he is engaging in, is absolutely not on, and if he continues it in future he will be blocked. There is nothing wrong with making editors recognise that their behaviour is a problem before unblocking them. Simply unblocking him after a good block, without making him recognise this, is only going to make it harder to deal with next time the situation arises. So I oppose the lifting of the block, and urge Fred to use {{Unblock}}, acknowledge that it was his behaviour that led to the block, and acknowledge that a relapse in future will lead to future blocks. russavia (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is a non-sequitur from the previous sentence in my opinion. I use the term "cool down" in the preventative sense, not the punitive. But to lay it out in clearer words, I believe Fred is still too "hot", and unblocking now would risk continued attacks or disruption. However, after a period of one week, I believe there will be no further need for prevention, because by then I believe Fred will be "cool". --99of9 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COM:BP actually says blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one; "cool-down" blocks are not condoned. which is illogical in the way the second clause is linked to the first, since a "cool-down" block is intrinsically preventative. "Simply unblocking him after a good block" - the block was bad, very bad. There was absolutely no call to jump into an AN discussion and so swiftly indef the subject on those grounds. The history was well known, and the user was nonetheless accepted as a contributor, so discussion should have focussed on the recent incident, and if anyone thought there was grounds for going beyond that and considering the entire history and acting in a wider scope, then that should have been proposed and consensus sought for it. Rd232 (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't be more wrong in your reasoning Rd232. You seem to be implying by your words above that because Fred's history of attacking editors and socking is well known, that this gives him a free pass to continue such behaviour here. That is not how COM:MELLOW is meant to work, and it certainly is not how we should be allowing editors to behave. That he has a past history of doing such things, should make it clear to us that there is indeed a problem with his behaviour; he has been warned previously about such behaviour here on Commons. That he chose to continue to attack others after the block can to some extent be put down to what we would expect after someone is blocked, but his thumbing his nose at the community and engaging in socking by use of open proxies is the continuation of behaviour that has caused him to be banned from other projects. I, in all sincerity, can not believe that we have admins here who are willing to give editors such as this free reign to do what they want, when they want, to whom they want, and however they want. At no stage should he be unblocked without acknowledging that his behaviour is a problem -- everyone else was able to discuss things in an emotive issue in a suitable way, except he chose the road which he has previously been warned about from going down. If he was to acknowledge this, he could already be unblocked and back to editing; it does us as a community no good when we have admins all but excusing this behaviour. russavia (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COM:MELLOW is just an essay. everyone else was able to discuss things in an emotive issue in a suitable way - ORLY? So we didn't get admins, for example, trolling COM:VP having declared "fuck the lot of you", or editwarring false claims into their user pages that they were globally locked by the Office? Bottom line, the block was wrong, and the consequences that attach to (poor) response to it should be as limited as possible. In no way should the response to the bad block vindicate the block. Rd232 (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COM:MELLOW may be only an essay, but it is a good guide as to what we expect of people on Commons. Rd232 not a single admin agreed with your block of Mattbuck, yet you completely ignored the words of other admins, and you refused to lift the block, forcing Mattbuck to submit an {{Unblock}} request, which you yourself attended to. Yet here, you are refusing to acknowledge that Fred has been disruptive and are prepared to give him all but a walk on this behaviour -- if Fred was to use your comments above in his unblock request, I would deny straight away, because it does not address his disruption and his attitude towards other editors. I don't think anyone is wanting to force an apology (that will come if he is the type of person who recognises ones own fault), but we are able to make Fred recognise his behaviour is a problem, and that he agrees to abide by community norms of behaviour. Telling others to fuck off, calling others cunts, and other such behaviour is not the norm and there are no extenuating circumstances for such behaviour. If admins believe this is acceptable, then let's wipe any notion of civility from this project, and let's make it a free-for-all where anything goes. Anyway, this really should be moved to COM:AN/U to get wider input from the community, and you should also take heed of Tiptoety's (the blocking admins) comments as well. russavia (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(i) "you completely ignored the words of other admins" - no, I responded to them. And I responded swiftly to Mattbuck once he agreed not to repeat the behaviour that led to the block. (ii) "Yet here, you are refusing to acknowledge that Fred has been disruptive" - I have acknowledged that; even in this exchange, I said "(poor) response [to the block]". (iii) if you insist on comparing the Mattbuck and Fred situations - if Matt had started being disruptive after the block, would that justify the block? (iv) "Telling others to fuck off" - what, like mattbuck did without consequence or even comment (except from me)? (v) "Telling others to fuck off, calling others cunts, and other such behaviour is not the norm" - correct, it is not the Commons norm, and it is not what Fred generally does. (vi) "there are no extenuating circumstances for such behaviour" - nonsense. There was a situation where lots of people were getting upset, and one admin decided to jump into a discussion about comments related to that conversation and judge the entire history, just as you are doing here. (vii) The post-block disruption amounts to FOUR (count 'em, FOUR IP-based edits to COM:AN/U, two of which are a simple attempt to vote in the Beta M discussion, and the other two are this and this. There's also one very angry comment just before that [85] which triggered the removal of talk access. Before that, the discussion at AN/U was about his use of the term "kiddy fiddler" in relation to Beta M, apparently as a synonym for "pedophile" (he rejected the assertion that he meant "child rapist"). A discussion about his use of that term led, out of nowhere, to an indef-block. (vii) In conclusion, the block was bad, and I would like to restore the status quo ante, of unblocked and a discussion about whether to block. Had there be no disruption or angry comments, I severely doubt there would be one. In recognition of the subsequent comments, one week is plenty - I would make it 3 days, but I'll take a week as a compromise. It is simply not fair to bring up past comments which have very little relevance, and your claims of his past comments are irrelevant to the pre-block situation, and have little relevance to the post-block comments either. Rd232 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Russavia. An unblock just now would resemble a license to further trolling. Maybe in a couple of weeks, when the issue is obsolete. - A.Savin12:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, sorry. However, the discussion on (un)blocking still imho should take place after resolving this issue, which could last much more than a week. - A.Savin12:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I look at Fred's actions as a form of wiki-civil disobedience, but the protest is now over and there's nothing to fight. Let bygones be bygones, let him out of the dungeon. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support any expiration or elimination of the block. Asking him to apologize in this particular situation is just plain obnoxious. Wnt (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lifting the block without Fred specifically asking for it. Like any other banned user (like me yesterday), he can add {{Unblock}} to his talk page and we will consider the request. This is an indefinite ban, not an infinite ban. If he is willing to be polite and respectful of other users, he will be unbanned. But remember, he is why we had to semiprotect AN/U, because after being banned he first continued his attacks on his talk page, leading to a revocation of his talk page access (now restored), then started using IPs to attack people. That is never ever ever acceptable behaviour from a Commons user, especially one who has been here long enough to know better, as Fred has. I don't accept the "emotions were running high" argument, because this is in fact his standard operating procedure. He stated himself that he believes that because of the work he does we should all just deal with him verbally abusing people left right and centre. I say no. We always have problems banning long-term abusive users who nonetheless do decent work (Ottava Rima, Mutter Erde as examples), but I believe COM:MELLOW should be pretty much our primary policy in cases like these. If someone is attacking people, it makes the environment stressed, and that's bad and makes it worse for everyone else. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has been blocked and an unblock is being suggested it should be done just as all other discussions about unblocks. That means it should be done in a separate discussion for each user under a heading informing other users about what is being discussed. As it is now it is not clear who will be unblocked (or not) if we support or oppose. So lets close this and do it right. Thank you! --MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the title. My proposal mentioned Fred by name, and I haven't seen any indication that other voters were unclear about who they were discussing. --99of9 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should move towards drawing a line under this saga. To that end, I think we should
decide to remove Fred the Oyster's indef-block (in favour of a short-term block, backdated). In view of some of the other actions in this saga, it's hard to justify a demand for a mea culpa. Let's just try and move on.
decide that we're not going to revdel on this occasion as the draft policy suggests, because there's rather a lot of it and the relevant material is available offwiki anyway. We could consider deleting, rather than archiving, some related conversations that are outside COM:AN or its subpages (those pages are noindexed).
agree where any further discussions that might be needed should take place. Obviously development of the relevant policy is at Commons talk:Child protection (and m:Pedophilia for a global version); is there a need for any other discussions?
Discussion above suggests consensus for shortening Fred's block without his apology is not going to appear. I believe we should do nothing for now and revisit this later back on the main User problems page. The rest of your closing proposal is fine with me. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the page wasn't part of the proposed closure and I would weakly oppose it on the grounds that we may wish to refer back to it during ongoing discussion on the Commons:Child protection policy, future similar discussions, etc. But it also does contain some unsubstantiated allegations and so I wouldn't really mind either way. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose blanking the page, at least not unless WMF legal decides it is a necessary precaution. The proposed Commons policy doesn't call for blanking the page when action is taken. And this discussion has clarified some things about the "threat model" here. We see something of the jargon, networks, and political concepts involved. I may be alone on this, but I would put special emphasis on the point that in the end, what is most concerning is when someone tries to get the kids to link out from Wikipedia. It stands to reason - a malefactor can't just cold call a kid when there are laws against it; there has to be some way to ease into things. Rather, there has to be some way to pick out the kids and lead them off to a third party site where he has substantial influence. I haven't thought this over enough to extract a clean principle, but I think we may need to revise the proposed policies to focus very specifically on attempts to recruit kids to external sites, regardless of whether the editor is a known pedophile or not. I'm sure there's a lot more food for thought here if we can recognize it. Wnt (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the subject of the ban wished to have the discussion held in public and that Commons had no policy at the time that the issue became known, I suggest that there is value in keeping this discussion rather than deleting it. Firstly, the discussion may serve as a reminder of why it is foolish to have these discussions in public. Secondly, any attempt to delete the discussion may be seen as an attempt to cover up the incident. Thirdly, several of the comments made here are likely to be referenced in future discussions concerning the governance of Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though we agree on keeping it, how can it be foolish to have these discussions in public if we don't want coverups and the outcome of the exercise is a valuable reference for later? Remember, admins and ArbCom did all this stuff before we nosed into it, but only an open community discussion could satisfy the community's need to know what was going on. If we give into the notion that some issues are too important to leave to democracy and transparency, why would anything of less significance be treated that way? And you in particular, as a WR participant, certainly saw the merit of open discussion of the matter there before this process ever got started. Wnt (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this instance as an example of what the community does when presented with what was perhaps the least complicated possible case (short of actually uploading child pornography), it should be clear that having a public free-for-all will not work. In addition, there are privacy issues for the accused that must be balanced with the need for openness to the community. False accusations could be extremely damaging to the accused. Even justified accusations may put the accuser in legal jeopardy. People are blocked and banned on WMF projects all the time without general discussion and the community does not object. What the participants of WR or any other site choose to do are not governed by the rules of Commons or vice versa. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, every block/ban discussion is general - they are not limited to admins, let alone special appointed arbitrators. And: do you believe that people discussing this case on WR were wrong, or that they are just better than the rest of us? If it hadn't been for general discussions - not just there, but among the anarchists before that - this case would never have been considered at all. A public free for all appears to be essential to have any outcome at all. Moreover, the point of much of the debate concerned the policy that Commons should have, so saying we shouldn't have had the debate means saying we shouldn't have the chance to decide our own policy. And indeed, we were denied this chance anyway, by people who think that a few more days of public discussion seven-year-old material is too slow, or maybe that we would come to the "wrong" conclusion. Well I think this is a wiki, this is how it works, and while it might have taken a while, consensus would have built for the right decision given everything that eventually came out. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Now I have to admit, I thought that WR would make accusations like that over and over and never find anything of concern, and it that sense, this has been a vindication for them. But I still recall WR harassing the innocent; if they managed to find something this time, there still was a lot of luck involved; I much doubt they would have found this person if he weren't a consistent vote to keep media they dislike. We could do better right here, on Wikimedia noticeboards; there should be no need to go outside the organization to figure out cases like this. But as long as so many people get blocked along the way for making honest efforts, as long as evidence continues to be rehashed and arranged randomly rather than carefully organized by volunteers throughout, we're going to have trouble. Lilburne is wrong about leaving this to professionals, but certainly we could be a lot more professional with a little organization and thought. Wnt (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "if he weren't a consistent vote to keep media they dislike"...well, isn't that kind of obvious? WR's user base generally oppose the hundreds/thousands of blurry amateur porn shots here, the donkey punch animations, the "teen boy's legs" images, and so on. If there are users here who are consistent supports of that stuff, then yes, they may see a bit of extra scrutiny, as many think that the Commons should not be a warehouse of such things. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know that's not true. Lots of "amateur porn shots" remain in use on Wikipedia by consensus. The only way the "Donkey Punch" cartoon fell was by a contorted and unlikely copyright claim which avoided the community consensus to keep it. (I don't know what the "boy's legs" thing was) A person does not have to be a frickin' pedophile in order to believe in freedom of speech. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What User talk:Tarc is referring to are the photos that some kid uploaded a of close up shots of his nipple and bare legs, and who a short while later decided that was one of his best moves and requested that they are deleted. Cue the twonks, some of whom should behave better posting templates on his talk page threatening banning 'cos a CC license is for life LUZER LULZ. So general misbehaviour, or failure to empathize with others may well reap a wirlwind of what goes around comes around. John lilburne (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, depending on the specifics of the photo, that might be covered under a point that was addressed in the rejected COM:Sexual content draft (see [86] under "Deletion at the subject's request") Without that, policy is less clear, but the COM:Photographs of identifiable persons requires a subject's consent for a photo in a private place, and usually a minor is regarded as incapable of full legal consent; certainly if he withdraws it I'm inclined to doubt we ever really had it. Is that how it was adjudicated here? Wnt (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I point you to a related discussion at Commons_talk:Deletion_policy#Privacy (a related proposal of mine I'd like to revive at some point), and suggest that we try and bring discussion here to a close? Other topics might need homes elsewhere - if so, let's talk about that. Rd232 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcoetzee: There should be always a consensus to uphold a block to keep it in effect, not necessarily a consensus to lift it. Otherwise a minority is sufficient to keep someone blocked. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It does no harm to use both, not least since they are technically different mechanisms to request search engines not to index the page (one produces an HTML meta tag within the page, the other is a central file for the site). Rd232 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The robots.txt will stop direct spidering but it won't stop indirect spidering. So long as there is a way for a spider to access a page (following some external or internal link will do) chances are good that it will index the page. John lilburne (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly "confirmed" ("indirect spidering"? what's that?), but it does seem to imply that robots.txt needs to be combined with the URL removal tool to remove existing indexation from before the robots.txt entry was added. Since we can't do that (no way to verify site ownership for the Google URL removal tool), NOINDEX on each AN page and subpage (including archives) may be better, because spiders will see it and apply it to existing data in their index. Robots.txt should be fine for pages that were never indexed though (like DRs created after the robots.txt entry banning their indexing). So... is there any easy way to apply NOINDEX on all AN pages (without editing each page individually)? Rd232 (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Postscript: attempt to appeal an Office action to the Commons communityedit
Info based on personal documents vs. the SPTimes artifactedit
Hello community,
here are some new facts (as announced by B._M on 2012-03-07) regarding a accusation made in the above discussion by some users based on a news article from the Petersburg Times (search source for sptimes.ru):
I received scanned/photographed official documents containing very sensitive
personal information from B._M. These documents are showing dates in a country
A: 2000-08, 2003-09; and dates in a country B: 2003-09, 2004-09. Both
documents are very unlikely to have been issued remotely, so B._M should have
been at that place at that date. Neither country A nor country B are the
United States of America. Just for prevention, I am to sure to have done more
more sophisticated checks for possible document forgery than the average
participant (in this discussion) here would be able to do.
My opinion: For clarification, I would like to repeat my previous comments on
this case: The question of applicability of the news article from the Petersburg Times
does not matter anyway for the case here. It would not justify a ban even if it would fit the facts. B._M explains that thought in more detail below.
I hope WMF corrects (not necessarily based on the info of this section) their decision (globally locking B._M's account) soon. And I hope that the community stands up and acts instead of silently accepting incorrect rulings from "above". --Saibo (Δ) 15:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The St. Petersburg Times article was published in November 2000. It says that the person in the article was arrested "last December" (i.e. in December 1999), so I would assume that the person in the St. Petersburg Times article was kept in a prison or at least restricted from leaving the United States between December 1999 and November 2000 pending the court's verdict. Thus, it would appear impossible for the St. Petersburg Times person to be in Country A in August 2000. This suggests that Beta_M is not the St. Petersburg Times person. If the 2000-08 and 2003-09 records are entry and exit stamps, it could mean that Beta_M was in Country A continuously from 2000 to 2003. In that case, he could impossibly have been in a US prison at that time.
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons link, a person with the same name was released in 2002. It would have been possible for the released person to be in other countries in 2003 and 2004, although some countries might impose entry restrictions on people who have crime records. Of course, the released person and the St. Petersburg Times person don't have to be the same person; the released person might have been held in prison for some other reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any appeals of this ban should be done in accordance with Commons:Office actions. There is absolutely nothing that can or will be accomplished in this forum; the Wikimedia Commons mechanisms for dealing with this type of person were shown to be woefully inadequate. Also, I would not trust Saibo in the slightest to act as the investigator/mediator of any evidence submitted, as he has been highly involved and highly partisan in his support of Beta M. The evidence presented...online posts using the exact same name/handle for starters...is far too damning to be explained away by "here's some docs showing me in A and B", sorry. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I believe that any action regarding this editor needs to come from the WMF at this point; see m:Office actions. At this point, Beta_M should defer to them for a response - Alison❤22:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is pointless for us to evaluate new evidence in this forum, as we are incapable of taking any action in response. Beta_M and/or Saibo can contact WMF directly with their evidence and concerns. This will also enable WMF to respond with confidential information, as necessary. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"P.S. 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)."
"And after this people will still be telling me that it is those who watch pornography who abuse somebody. You can have "limited freedom" for 3 years for looking at people fucking."
Well, frankly, the arguments presented by Michaeldsuarez are persuasive. And it's too easy to slightly doctor digital scans to accept them as a strong proof of anything. The block was idiotic because of other reasons, not because of misidentification of the witch. --Trycatch (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what kind of site that is which you've listed first - I do not see how that source can be trusted. Probably next week on some other page there is my name somehow, hmm? Regarding the freedomporn citation: that sentence is a general, informative sentence and not a description of ones past. If I say "you can die if you jump from a skyscraper" - does that mean that I am dead because I've jumped from a skyscraper?
Anyway, as said above, even if that michaeldsuarez information is true and of the correct person - its type is not relevant to decide if someone is allowed to contribute to Commons or not. --Saibo (Δ) 17:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you realize that Beta_M basically lied to you? You and the community placed their trust / faith in Beta_M, and Beta_M betrayed your trust / faith by lying. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saibo, your assertion of "its type is not relevant to decide if someone is allowed to contribute to Commons or not" is simply not true. A person convicted of a charge related to child pornography is not a person that is welcome to contribute to this project. I believe this point has been made abundantly clear. We also have his activity regarding "boywiki"; the two of those together is quite a double-barreled reason to prevent this preosn from ever editing in this project again. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about whom you are talking, but Beta_M is welcome to - that is the outcome of the community discussion. --Saibo (Δ∇) 19:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that Beta_M has been convicted of a charge related to child pornography. Furthermore, I fail to see why that is of any relevance. People convicted of charges related to child pornography are allowed to use facilities such as supermarkets, public transport and streets (all three frequently used by children) and I fail to see in which way a WMF project is any different from those facilities.
What you are proposing is that pædophiles should have their accounts blocked, presumably leading to them creating sockpuppets so that people won't know who they are. A blocking policy is unlikely going to get those users away from Commons; at most, it will lead to pædophiles being more hidden to most users (and thus more dangerous to children). If you do instead care about the protection of children, it would be much more practical if users remain under the same well-known usernames so that people know who they are. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off, yes there is evidence to that on this very page; that you refuse to accept the evidence is not the same as it being absent. Second, that is precisely what I propose, and that is what is currently done on en.wiki; identified pedophiles or those who advocate for it are banned. No discussion, no vote, not back and forth by the public. They do not need to be given safe harbor with a safe identity; they need to be squashed. There are many communities that enact local laws forbidding convicted child predators from living within a certain distance of locations where children may be found; schools, parks, etc... I support those efforts fully in real life, and I support it being done in this project. No quarter shall be given. Tarc (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do not know what answer the WMF will give until you ask. If you ask here enough times, I am sure someone will supply an answer, but since only the WMF know why they locked the account, that answer will be worthless. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you live in your WR fantasy world - but, em, I probably asked/messaged with them twenty times as of now (with no answer given) and will continue to do so (which is also your advise). --Saibo (Δ∇) 13:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there's been quite enough badgering of WMF staff to provide an explanation for a decision taken at the highest level which they have said they cannot explain publicly, presumably for legal reasons. Rd232 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a message from Beta_M at 2012-04-10 10:54, received by me via email. I was asked to post it at Commons. I fixed three email-induced line breaks which were breaking links. --Saibo (Δ) 15:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the community of Wikimedia Commons,
If you are reading this, you are likely aware of the performance of the theatre
of idiocy choreographed by Geni which had
the locking of my account as its grand finale. I have made the public statement
about what i thought about the whole ordeal, but there is something which
remains to be said.
I need to apologise to all those who will come after me, for i have made a huge
error of judgement, which i did for no other reason than the fear of being
banned. When the admin, who has made the original ban, has e-mailed me with the
threats and accused me of being the person discussed in the artile in the St.
Petersburg Times, i had two options: to refuse to acknowledge that this is a
valid reason for a block or to show the stupidity of considering me that
individual. If the same thing would have happened right now, i would have made a
correct choice, but back then i believed (or itʼd be better to say that i
believed that i believed) that i could make one unethical act and then
neutralise this karma by contributing much content to Commons. Did i actually
think that such neutralisation is possible? Of course not. I simply did what
people do when they get scared.
In this act of defending myself, i have actually betraid the whole community. By
allowing the bigots to change the
conversation from the ethics of banning somebody because the person
voted keep on a single
deletion request (most of you probably have already forgotten that this
was the original rationale) to whether or not it is suspicious whether iʼve
edited an article on Wikipedia and the financial situation of Freedom Porn, the
rules on Commons were rewritten forever. I already see that good images
describing sexuality are being deleted only hours after being posted on DR
without even providing any justification, people being accused of posting child
pornography for using wrong image capturing devices or using numbers in oneʼs user name, etc.
What do i do now? My original thought was to show the documents that i had
showing my whereabouts in the early 2000s to an admin and then squash all doubts
that way. Right after my lock i was planning to ask the admin to post the info
on Commons and then e-mail legal@wikimedia.org asking them to unlock. Now, i no
longer wish to be unlocked or unblocked for that reason. I still have presented
the evidence to Saibo, but i do that not to prove to anybody
anything, i do that because i gave the word to the community that i felt i was a
part of. But do i want to be a part of any community which would allow such an
action from its admins and not demand at least desysop of User:Geni? And the
truth of the matter is that even if i were to be unlocked right now, it would
only allow the likes of this admin to play stupid games of “make and accusation
and run away”.
A much better question, however, is not what i will do, but what will you do?
“Encyclopedia (sic) that everybody can edit” is not a promice to the editors,
itʼs the promice to the readers. By locking me, Wikimedia didnʼt ban me from
contributing, it banned the entire world from benefitting from my contributions;
and yes, it is a private server space, but they do not own the community that is
created around that server. While forking the project or splitting may seem like
a good option, i would urge people to not push for that at this time. Letʼs
create an island of freedom within the current system and use that to educate
others of the horrors of bigotry.
In order to not punish those who use Commons as the source of information for
the misdeeds of the Office and a minority of admins i will continue creating
Freely Licenced content and will make it available for Commons. What i need is
one or two individuals who would take what i create and upload it here, if you
are interested in being “a gate of freedom”, please contact me via an e-mail
form of my Commons account (that part still works).
As a political philosopher and an activist Mihail Bakunin put it: “None of us
are free, until all of us are free”. VolodyA! V Anarhist 2012Apr10
Proxy editing on behalf of a globally banned user, a user banned for being involved in something rather heinous and despicable, would not be an advisable action for someone here to take. If such editing does take place, I and no doubt many others will make sure that that is addressed by the proper noticeboard here. I'd like to see Saibo sanctioned for posting this message above, even. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point to a rule or policy I have violated, then by all means do so. I am an active editor of en.wikipedia and have an interest in issues that affect the WMF as a whole. I'm sorry that I haven't quite found the time to photograph my penis from 20 different angles and uploaded them here for the general public to share, as that seems to be how some tally "non-bullshit-contribs" around here. As for Beta M, he is globally locked out of the WMF as a whole. By any stretch of one's imagination of what the definition of the word "banned" is, that is it. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, there doesn’t exist any "global ban" thing at all. That isn’t a policy, that proposal is in discussion on Meta. So, it isn’t possible that any user is globally banned up to now.
And a ban on a specific wiki means that there has been a community discussion with a community decision at the end to ban a user on the wiki. There has been a discussion about blocking him here, but there hasn’t been a community decision for banning him here. So the user isn’t banned here. --Geitostdiskusjon20:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I’m reading this sentence above:
"There was no consensus for a block of Beta M at Commons nor were significant problems found with the contributions by Beta M at Commons."
My response: if User:Beta_M is interested in uploading legal, freely-licensed media to sites like Flickr or a personal website, clearly marking them with a license, and contacting a non-banned user to request an upload to Commons, I have no problem with this. Even if the Commons user commits to this "gatekeeper" role on an ongoing basis, I don't think this is substantially different from the situation where we upload media on behalf of non-Commons users. I don't reasonably expect that any of Beta_M's off-wiki uploads will be related to child pornography, since none of his uploads here were related to that before his global ban. However, I would refrain from pasting any further communications from him - I believe the Foundation likely had access to pertinent evidence to motivate their block, and nullifying his participation in on-wiki discussions is essential to address their concerns. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again: There doesn’t exist any global ban policy, therefore, it’s not possible at all that any user can be globally banned up to now. He has been globally locked (by WMF, not by a steward as normally), that’s a technical thing to prevent a user to log into a SUL account (and this is done, just because there doesn’t exist a global block for user accounts, but only for IPs). These things are quite different from each other, a ban means that there has been a community decision, it’s not a technical thing like blocks and locks. --Geitostdiskusjon01:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And equally again, that is pretty much a distinction without a difference. Beta M is prohibited from logging in to any Wikimedia project. That is "banned" by any stretch of the definition of the word, and it is how I will refer to this user in discussions. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The WMF did not prevent access for technical reasons (e.g. because this user's password was compromised). They decided that they did not want this person to participate in the project. In any online context I've ever heard of, preventing access from someone you don't want to participate is called a ban, regardless of who is doing it. You can call it a ban by Office Action or a ban without community consensus if you really want to emphasise that bit. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I believe the Foundation likely had access to pertinent evidence to motivate their block". Dcoetzee, do you have any factual reason to believe in it, or you are, well, just spreading the bullshit around? --Trycatch (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I pointed to, particularly the lines "we do not talk about the specifics of an office action" and "we just can’t talk freely about it in public". Neither Philippe nor any other WMF person will be able to provide the information you request. That is your answer. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is no answer to the question asked. "No" would be an answer if I would have asked "Do you deem to justify your lock decision"; but that was not the question. --Saibo (Δ∇) 20:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You asked "So, what type of information is it? How is it related to the wiki activities?" The answer is "that information will not be given to you". Clear? Tarc (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-posted video on youtube that is presumed to be the editor in question. Mind, this editor was involved in lots of porn editing here and in encouraging anonymous (and potentially quite young and naive -- who knows?) editors to take naked pictures of themselves and upload them to porn sites. It's enlightening. [89]Bali ultimate (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any need for a banning policy proposal anymore?edit
No, the question hasn‘t been answered.
But my main question about this whole thing is another one: Has there been any user at all in the past that had been blocked or locked by the foundation and not by admins or stewards (who usually give reasons for that and who – the latter – can also see the oversighted content)? Has there been any case in the past, when any user has been (b)locked, but it hasn’t been told why? And is there any reason at all that anyone can imagine to (b)lock a user for any offwiki reasons? (I think most of the relevant offwiki reasons are already online/onwiki, so it shouldn’t be a problem to decide this onwiki.)
If someone is doing any harm to the wiki(s), then I don’t know, why this couldn’t be posted. If someone does criminal things offwiki that doesn’t affect the wikis at all, then I don’t know, why this should be a reason for (b)locking. If this affects the wikis and there would be privacy reasons not to tell onwiki, the stewards should be told and can decide about it. And if there are reasons which have been oversighted or can only be seen by checkusers and stewards, then I’m seeing no reason, why stewards couldn’t decide that on Meta like they usually do and which is a much more transparent way. The locking policy says nothing about any possibility of locking by WMF, but only by stewards. So, the decision about locking has been up to the stewards until March 2012 – and now, suddenly this has changed, but why? Office actions were about deleting content and about articles (up to March 2012), but AFAIK not about users. That has changed, this is a precedent for all future blocking and locking issues. The locking policy isn’t worth the server space on which it has been written. And perhaps, noone should bother about the banning proposal anymore, because it is completely irrelevant now with this precedent. Please tell me just one user who had been (b)locked before because of an Office action. I don’t know any.
It’s not the question anymore, if a community wants a user to get banned or blocked or not. Now the communities don’t have to decide that anymore, the final decisions are made somewhere else in the future. That’s the main thing about this. Where is the decision about this major change, that blocking and banning users isn’t up to the communities anymore? And who made this decision and why? I haven’t found this. I don’t think that the question is, whether the user should remain locked or not. The question is, who should make these decisions? I have learned in this discussion, that a decision of the WMF about locking a user means for a lot of people, that the user has been banned. But then, there is no need for the banning policy anymore, it just can be deleted. It means a lot of effort with this banning proposal to ban a user, and it takes a lot of time for a lot of people. It’s much easier to just let it be done by the office in the future, then the communities don’t have to care about it anymore. --Geitostdiskusjon19:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can still block and ban all you want, and for any reason you want. The issue here is that it dragged on for 10 days, the community were unwilling to deal with the issue, were arguing wikilawyering WMF policy and whether it applied here, were banning users that raised concerns, were spilling the issue across various projects, were thumbing their noses at Jimbo Wales, and journalist and lawmakers were pouring over the pages as Jimmy had just been apoint a government advisor on open access to prime minister Cameron. The issue of who are the real bosses were eventually resolved. John lilburne (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The community concluded that there was no need to block anyone, but a small number of users kept complaining. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmh, does this mean, that (b)locks take place because of a prime minister or journalists instead of policies and community decisions? Does the foundation want any kind of global banning policy which means that there have to be long discussions onwiki (on more than just one wiki and in more than one language and for each user who is proposed to be banned in the future) where journalists and governments are looking upon? --Geitostdiskusjon19:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the above is the reason that WMF took action to protect the project. Its the same reason that sixapart got rid of the incest and child porn from LiveJournal, and why MySpace got rid of it too. John lilburne (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, the WMF can delete any child porn on the wikis. That would have been a quite normal office action, deleting such things. Then they can also tell the community who were those users who uploaded the child porn and the community can deal with it. But has there ever been any office action about a user (b)lock before? There is no answer on this by now. Those are different things. Has MySpace community discussions which deal with user (b)locks? --Geitostdiskusjon21:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He wouldn’t have been eligible for a global ban discussion since he wasn’t blocked on more than one wiki, so he couldn’t even get globally banned if the banning policy proposal would be policy now. It seems like he was locked because of another policy proposal:
[90] "The case on Commons was an office action, and the way this policy is written would mean that user would not be eligible for a global ban (they were not blocked on multiple independent projects). As for the proposal at Pedophilia, the text says that any such user "...will be indefinitely blocked." (…)" Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment I don't really see what the users have done wrong here. There is a very messy situation (which English Wikipedia has a well-defined process for), spilled over onto Commons because the user is active here, and Commons has no process for it or policy for it. So it's very difficult to make a decision, but because of the subject matter, tensions are very high. But the input the users have provided has not really been disruptive here, and the Meta policy issue is a matter for Meta (and it's not like there was any attempt to deceive on the policy issue). Rd232 (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hotel_Karada.png&diff=67580504&oldid=67576497){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Simulated_Forced_Fellatio_in_Bondage_Scenario.png&diff=67580422&oldid=67579747){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sukumizu_Girl.jpg&diff=67737053&oldid=67730900){kind=link}
- got to appreciate the irony of this erroneous remark being in this section, about revdeleting discussions that happened elsewhere so that everything is here. The block was for blatantly disruptive trolling at COM:VP that would very likely have got more heated discussion going there, on or around the topic which you want to limit to this page. Rd232 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Support I support this. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I would suggest that all admins here read COM:BP. It specifically says ""cool-down" blocks are not condoned." What is being suggested explicitly goes against policy. Tiptoety made it explicitly known why he was blocking Fred, and this is clearly covered by our blocking policy. Fred has a long history of telling other editors to fuck off, and calling them cunts, and engages in other such behaviour that makes it impossible to have a collegial atmosphere. Whilst forcing an apology from Fred is pointless, we can, and should, be making him recognise that the behaviour he is engaging in, is absolutely not on, and if he continues it in future he will be blocked. There is nothing wrong with making editors recognise that their behaviour is a problem before unblocking them. Simply unblocking him after a good block, without making him recognise this, is only going to make it harder to deal with next time the situation arises. So I oppose the lifting of the block, and urge Fred to use {{Unblock}}, acknowledge that it was his behaviour that led to the block, and acknowledge that a relapse in future will lead to future blocks. russavia (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
