Wikipediocracy

Meet the editors: WayneRay

Another blog post about lesser-known Wikipedia editors, this one a convicted child pornographer, WayneRay, banned on English Wikipedia, still active on Commons.

Please comment on the blog, comment here, and link the blog post where you think it will be most useful.

Thanks!

When I read the lede of the blog I first wondered what the problem was, as I don't think a convicted [whatever] should be banned from any community based on their criminal record alone. However the instances you document further into the blog makes a pretty strong case that he engages in predatory behaviour and shouldn't be allowed to stick around.

Why is "Russavia" listed as a tag for the entry? Did you copy the tags from another Commons-related blog entry? Please remove the "Russavia" tag from the entry.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Why is "Russavia" listed as a tag for the entry? Did you copy the tags from another Commons-related blog entry? Please remove the "Russavia" tag from the entry.

He's mentioned prominently. No.

Zoloft wrote:He's mentioned prominently. No.

Although he's mentioned in the article, you must consider the context:

Although globally blocking an account might seem like a serious action that must be carefully weighed against the possible harm to the project, it really isn’t. The WMF globally blocks sockpuppets of Russavia on a daily basis. There must be thousands of Russavia socks blocked by now, not to mention the occasional spammer. Globally blocking WayneRay and a few dozen more accounts would not be a big deal.

Russavia doesn't have any direct connection to WayneRay. The blog entry merely mentions Russavia as an example of a globally banned user. Your definition of "prominently" is off.

https://ca.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Canada:Discussions_in_English&diff=7532:

==Away for 4 years==

HI, I was one a couple of the first Skype organizing sessions back in 2010 or 2011 and due to unforseen circumstances I was off the Internet for the last 4 years. Thus I lost contact with the orginizers and this group. I am glad it has progressed so far. I am at a quandry though about images and articles and what contributions are to be made. I ventured trough the to do lists and a few other pages but can't seem to find an Upload link? Where are the Canadian photos or do all things revert to regular Wikimedia. Same goes for Canadian articles? Do I make a link or duplicate them here. Some were unceremoniously deleted from Wikipedia as they were deemed non notable by Americans who know nothing of some Canadian people or when I logged in under a different name. Is Wiki Canada just for promoting Pedia and Media to Canadians? That's great in itself as I was thinking of organizing some London meetings and workshops myself. [[User:WayneRay|WayneRay]] ([[User talk:WayneRay|talk]]) 13:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

WayneRay was apparently involved in Wikimedia Canada's early days.

Also, his article has been nominated for deletion.

Zironic wrote:I don't think a convicted [whatever] should be banned from any community based on their criminal record alone.

Generally we don't let convicted fraudsters help the elderly manage their savings. We don't let convicted burglers install alarm systems. We don't allow those convicted of animal cruelty set up animal rescue homes. So why would we allow child porn convicts to interact on a site frequented by children?


Back in 2002 a nature web forum started up, one of the more knowledgeable members contacted the site owner to inform him about a sexual conviction in relation to a child. Due to the fact that the site had a chat room and private messages could be exchanged it was felt that having the person on the site would be inviting trouble. And indeed kids are dumb online. A couple of years later one participant appeared to have split personality, the issue being that the person was young child and depending on whether the parent was supervising or not the postings could become quite odd. The admins tried to work through it until the child turned up on the chat rooms claiming to be 30 years old, at which point the ban-hammer descended.

lilburne wrote:

Zironic wrote:I don't think a convicted [whatever] should be banned from any community based on their criminal record alone.

Generally we don't let convicted fraudsters help the elderly manage their savings. We don't let convicted burglers install alarm systems. We don't allow those convicted of animal cruelty set up animal rescue homes. So why would we allow child porn convicts to interact on a site frequented by child.

In my country the only thing I am aware of were a criminal record bars you is that you cant work as a licensed accountant if convicted of fraud and even that is time limited.

In England and Wales, a convicted sex offender (against children or otherwise) would never be allowed to work in certain jobs such as a schoolteacher or a nurse, and despite the usual rules, there is no time limit.

Jailed police and barristers don't get to go back to policing or barristering afterwards either.

Poetlister wrote:In England and Wales, a convicted sex offender (against children or otherwise) would never be allowed to work in certain jobs such as a schoolteacher or a nurse, and despite the usual rules, there is no time limit.

Far more reasons than just sex offences - List 99

Information held under Section 142 of the Education Act 2002 (T-H-L)

Black Kite wrote:

Poetlister wrote:In England and Wales, a convicted sex offender (against children or otherwise) would never be allowed to work in certain jobs such as a schoolteacher or a nurse, and despite the usual rules, there is no time limit.

Far more reasons than just sex offences - List 99

Information held under Section 142 of the Education Act 2002 (T-H-L)

Agreed, but we're discussing a convicted sex offender.

Yeah, I know, I was replying to Zironic's point above "In my country the only thing I am aware of were a criminal record bars you is that you cant work as a licensed accountant if convicted of fraud and even that is time limited."

You couldn't make it up. WayneRay (T-C-L) was deleted in 2012 with the comment "Contact Arbcom before restoring". But because the Global Profile extension is now operational, he has a user page again - because GlobalProfile will show your Meta user page on any wiki where you don't have a user page. So there's no visual indication that he's blocked on the English Wikipedia at all. Great job!

Perhaps one of our resident ArbCom members would like to put {{ArbComBlock}} there instead.

The WMF allowing Wayne to work in areas where he can interact with children unsupervised (or interact with them at all) is, to me, not much different than Big Brothers Big Sisters of America or another volunteer organization allowing him to interact with kids. If any of them did so, the PR would be extremely damaging to them and multiple people would lose their positions.

I'm not a legal expert but it seems that if the WMF is allowing someone who was convicted for possessing child porn to converse and interact with children online, they may be partially culpable for anything he subsequently does. At the very least, thy should have to answer for their gross negligence.

Hex wrote:You couldn't make it up. WayneRay (T-C-L) was deleted in 2012 with the comment "Contact Arbcom before restoring". But because the Global Profile extension is now operational, he has a user page again - because GlobalProfile will show your Meta user page on any wiki where you don't have a user page. So there's no visual indication that he's blocked on the English Wikipedia at all. Great job!

Perhaps one of our resident ArbCom members would like to put {{ArbComBlock}} there instead.

I just put up {{indef}} for now. It was super-misleading. BTW - I contacted both ArbCom and the Child Protection folks on WP/WMF just after the story was published here. So far, he's still editing away on Commons ....

Alison wrote:

Hex wrote:You couldn't make it up. WayneRay (T-C-L) was deleted in 2012 with the comment "Contact Arbcom before restoring". But because the Global Profile extension is now operational, he has a user page again - because GlobalProfile will show your Meta user page on any wiki where you don't have a user page. So there's no visual indication that he's blocked on the English Wikipedia at all. Great job!

Perhaps one of our resident ArbCom members would like to put {{ArbComBlock}} there instead.

I just put up {{indef}} for now. It was super-misleading. BTW - I contacted both ArbCom and the Child Protection folks on WP/WMF just after the story was published here. So far, he's still editing away on Commons ....

Not for long, just wait a little longer! :-)

Kumioko wrote:

Alison wrote:So far, he's still editing away on Commons ....

Not for long, just wait a little longer! :-)

Don't hold your breath. Commons is after all a very weird place, and they do things differently there.

Poetlister wrote:

Kumioko wrote:

Alison wrote:So far, he's still editing away on Commons ....

Not for long, just wait a little longer! :-)

Don't hold your breath. Commons is after all a very weird place, and they do things differently there.

Commons is soooo broken.
The WMF really, really needs to strip all advanced permissions and install employees.

Vigilant wrote:

Poetlister wrote:

Kumioko wrote:

Alison wrote:So far, he's still editing away on Commons ....

Not for long, just wait a little longer! :-)

Don't hold your breath. Commons is after all a very weird place, and they do things differently there.

Commons is soooo broken.
The WMF really, really needs to strip all advanced permissions and install employees.

No, what they really need to do is destroy Commons and replace it with a proper shared digital asset manager. MediaWiki sucks as a digital asset manager, and is entirely the wrong tool for the job, and they should simply adapt an existing tool that is closer to appropriate, or write a new one. Just because it's possible to rig up a complicated jig so that you can use your Sawzall to drill out circular holes is not an argument for doing that in favor of using a drill press.

Kelly Martin wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Poetlister wrote:

Kumioko wrote:

Alison wrote:So far, he's still editing away on Commons ....

Not for long, just wait a little longer! :-)

Don't hold your breath. Commons is after all a very weird place, and they do things differently there.

Commons is soooo broken.
The WMF really, really needs to strip all advanced permissions and install employees.

No, what they really need to do is destroy Commons and replace it with a proper shared digital asset manager. MediaWiki sucks as a digital asset manager, and is entirely the wrong tool for the job, and they should simply adapt an existing tool that is closer to appropriate, or write a new one. Just because it's possible to rig up a complicated jig so that you can use your Sawzall to drill out circular holes is not an argument for doing that in favor of using a drill press.

That's a fair point.
However, if they redesign the tool, they should bring nobody over from commons. Nobody.

Annnnd blocked, by Odder, no less. The reason given was related to Oversight, for some reason.

Alison wrote:Annnnd blocked, by Odder, no less. The reason given was related to Oversight, for some reason.

If he had only taken the time to make a few posts on a noticeboard supporting Russavia, he'd be a commons admin by now.

Interesting... when I popped over to Commons using Alison's link, I noticed Wayne himself had posted a complaint on my talk page there, alleging harassment. I also noticed that in addition to being blocked (finally) someone nominated a whole slew of his photos for deletion.

Alison wrote:Annnnd blocked, by Odder, no less. The reason given was related to Oversight, for some reason.

Good for Odder.

In fairness, I once suggested that he not do something, because of an appearance of politics, and Odder thought about it and agreed that it would be better for somebody else to do it.
I don't recall ever having a discussion like that on Wikipedia, with an administrator, with whom I've had a disagreement---apart from Drmies, that is.

Someday we'll see Odder over here. You can tell that he's got some real beef with the WMF.

Zoloft wrote:Someday we'll see Odder over here. You can tell that he's got some real beef with the WMF.

Right after they SanFranBan him.

Kelly Martin wrote:No, what they really need to do is destroy Commons and replace it with a proper shared digital asset manager. MediaWiki sucks as a digital asset manager, and is entirely the wrong tool for the job, and they should simply adapt an existing tool that is closer to appropriate, or write a new one. Just because it's possible to rig up a complicated jig so that you can use your Sawzall to drill out circular holes is not an argument for doing that in favor of using a drill press.

Of course, they will never do that because that would be an admission that the cult of the wiki had failed in a very important respect.

I don't think they need to start over from a contributor point of view but certainly some pruning would be in order..."cough" Colin "cough", "cough".

I also agree with Kelly that they really should use or design something more suitable for images. The current system really is pretty terrible.

The Garbage Scow wrote:Interesting... when I popped over to Commons using Alison's link, I noticed Wayne himself had posted a complaint on my talk page there, alleging harassment. I also noticed that in addition to being blocked (finally) someone nominated a whole slew of his photos for deletion.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Master&diff=190984235&oldid=92604843:

WayneRay wrote:[...] Why Why Why continue to pick on me. [...]

1) Isn't the reason obvious?
1a) You were imprisoned, yet you still don't understand why people wouldn't want you around?
2) What are you, 12?

Mr. Ray was busy on Wikipedia over the years. Further research has turned up a long list of vanity articles he wrote about his non-notable poetry society, as well as his non-notable friends in an attempt to make his organization appear notable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... ssociation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfinished_Monument_Press
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaunt_Basmajian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Deahl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Daurio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Faiers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Plantos

Out of all of them, Basmajian and Daurio might be notable. All of them were written and edited primary by Mr. Ray and his Haiku Tea sockpuppet.

Kumioko wrote: I also agree with Kelly that they really should use or design something more suitable for images. The current system really is pretty terrible.

Except the WMF has one of the worst cases of not invented here (T-H-L) that I've ever seen, so I really doubt that'll ever happen.

Hex wrote:

Kumioko wrote: I also agree with Kelly that they really should use or design something more suitable for images. The current system really is pretty terrible.

Except the WMF has one of the worst cases of not invented here (T-H-L) that I've ever seen, so I really doubt that'll ever happen.

When you couple NIH with rank incompetence, you get the WMF.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=191172460&oldid=191171867:

Jalexander wrote:We [the WMF] are indeed aware and are looking into the case (obviously quite a lot of edits to go through etc). For now can't say more from our side but child protection reports are always high priority so we hope to finish as soon as possible. (obviously that shouldn't get in the way of community review of what they want). [[User:Jalexander-WMF|Jalexander-WMF]] ([[User talk:Jalexander-WMF|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez wrote:https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=191172460&oldid=191171867:

Jalexander wrote:We [the WMF] are indeed aware and are looking into the case (obviously quite a lot of edits to go through etc). For now can't say more from our side but child protection reports are always high priority so we hope to finish as soon as possible. (obviously that shouldn't get in the way of community review of what they want). [[User:Jalexander-WMF|Jalexander-WMF]] ([[User talk:Jalexander-WMF|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like commons is finding quite a lot of questionable material as they mine through WayneRay's edits.

Cirt has blocked WayneRay from Wikisource, Wikiquote, and Wikinews.

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AWayneRay

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AWayneRay

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AWayneRay

I really don't understand the WMF sometimes. They will step over the community and temporarily desysop an admin for 30 days, ban users without consulting with the community and now, in cases of obvious problems, won't WMF block an account pending review.

His meta account is currently unblocked, though he hasn't done anything there since last summer.

His uploads to commons are quite problematic indeed. Unlicensed derivatives, images uploaded without permission, claiming copyright ownership of images taken before he was born, etc. Of course, this isn't surprising at all consider it IS commons...

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Cirt has blocked WayneRay from Wikisource, Wikiquote, and Wikinews.

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AWayneRay

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AWayneRay

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3AWayneRay

As he's never edited on Wikiquote or Wikinews, and not edited Wikisource since 2009, this is clearly just Cirt throwing his weight around. If WayneRay is a serious cross-wiki problem outside Wikipedia and Commons, a steward should lock the global account.

Our friend Andreas writes for the Signpost, "Wikipediocracy blog post leads to indefinite user blocks on multiple Wikimedia projects". Responses from James Alexander are included.

tarantino wrote:Our friend Andreas writes for the Signpost, "Wikipediocracy blog post leads to indefinite user blocks on multiple Wikimedia projects". Responses from James Alexander are included.

Of amusing interest to me is that Andreas links to a Wikipedia article that I authored in exchange for payment!

Also amusing are Mr. Alexander's complaints of "significant resource constraints" and "bandwidth already stretched to the maximum". Maybe if they wouldn't waste so much time event-banning harmless movement critics from public sessions, they could redirect some of that precious resource bandwidth to actual child predators?

thekohser wrote:

tarantino wrote:Our friend Andreas writes for the Signpost, "Wikipediocracy blog post leads to indefinite user blocks on multiple Wikimedia projects". Responses from James Alexander are included.

Of amusing interest to me is that Andreas links to a Wikipedia article that I authored in exchange for payment!

Also amusing are Mr. Alexander's complaints of "significant resource constraints" and "bandwidth already stretched to the maximum". Maybe if they wouldn't waste so much time event-banning harmless movement critics from public sessions, they could redirect some of that precious resource bandwidth to actual child predators?

I suspect that the Game of Thrones in the WMF office is taking up all of the time at the moment. They'll get back to "work" once the pecking order has been established and the new office furniture arrives.

tarantino wrote:Our friend Andreas writes for the Signpost, "Wikipediocracy blog post leads to indefinite user blocks on multiple Wikimedia projects". Responses from James Alexander are included.

"Since publication of the Wikipediocracy blog post, volunteer administrators on Commons as well as English Wikinews, Wikisource, and Wikiquote have indefinitely blocked WayneRay." As I say, the last three blocks are pretty pointless. Andreas fails to note that he remains unblocked on dozens of sites; on four, including Meta, he has some edits.

thekohser wrote:

tarantino wrote:Our friend Andreas writes for the Signpost, "Wikipediocracy blog post leads to indefinite user blocks on multiple Wikimedia projects". Responses from James Alexander are included.

Of amusing interest to me is that Andreas links to a Wikipedia article that I authored in exchange for payment!

Also amusing are Mr. Alexander's complaints of "significant resource constraints" and "bandwidth already stretched to the maximum". Maybe if they wouldn't waste so much time event-banning harmless movement critics from public sessions, they could redirect some of that precious resource bandwidth to actual child predators?

Jimbo Wales and the CEO should be screaming at them to take care of this problem, and cut all other activities if need be.

Moral Hazard wrote:Jimbo Wales and the CEO should be screaming at them to take care of this problem, and cut all other activities if need be.

Of course, that will never happen. Even if they are both convinced of the seriousness of the problem (a big if), they would regard cutting all other activities as a hysterical over-reaction. The other trustees would need to be convinced too.

Túrelio removed several of WayneRay's creepy comments:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/T%C3%BArelio&offset=20160324073000&limit=06&target=T%C3%BArelio

Túrelio also nominated a couple of the images that WayneRay admired so much for deletion:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHosanavalesca&type=revision&diff=190896421&oldid=20369756

I'm late in reporting these developments, but I feel that it's important to note them here for the record.

Thanks, Túrelio.

The blog post says "Does a Wikipedia article about Wayne Ray meet the encyclopedia’s current standard for notability? No, not at all. Will the article get deleted now? Almost certainly". In fact, it was deleted on 27th March, following a snow AfD. (There was an earlier AfD which was a clear keep.) The Commons page has also been deleted (on 23rd March). The blog is thus rather out of date. Can someone amend it please?

Blog post updated by the author, drawing attention to WMF lack of action.