| |
|
by Gilbert Wesley Purdy A post dated May 28, 2009, on the site called “Ruhama Canellis” begins as follows: Today I will marry Alberto Cutié The small and private ceremony will happen early Thursday afternoon at Trinity Cathedral,… The post is unsigned. No mention of the wedding ceremony is posted at any later date. Another longer version of the post, in Spanish, with the headline “Esta tarde anunciamos que me caso con el Padre Alberto” [“This afternoon we are announcing that Father Alberto and I are being married”], begins with a paragraph of background information: El padre Alberto Cutié, el sacerdote que perdió su iglesia en Miami Beach después que una revista de farándula publicó a principios de este mes fotos de él con una mujer besándose y abrazándose, abandonará la Arquidiócesis de Miami para unirse a la iglesia episcopal.
[Father Alberto Cutie, the priest who lost his church in Miami Beach after a tabloid magazine published photos of him kissing and embracing a woman at the beginning of this month, will leave the Archdiocese of Miami to join the Episcopal Church.]
It then goes on to say that the person writing the post will be married to Cutie in a small private service that afternoon. It, too, is unsigned. No marriage ceremony is known to have taken place during the day of Alberto Cutie’s reception into the Episcopalian Church, at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, on the 28th.  The site “Ruhama Canellis” is found at www.ruhamacanellis.com. The domain was registered and immediately offered for sale on May 8, 2009 ― the date the first major media outlet claimed that Ms. Canellis was the woman seen in the tabloid photos with then Father Alberto Cutie. The contact email address it provides for those interested in advertising on the site belongs to high ranking a member of a Miami-based religious cult that has been going after Alberto Cutie and the Roman Catholic Church for years. At about the time that Alberto Cutie and Ruhama Canellis first entered the physically intimate stage of their relationship, some two years ago, the leader of the cult announced on his television station that then Father Alberto Cutie would be the subject of a major scandal. [ Read More>>>] Other Aberto Cutie, Ruhama Canellis stories at Virtual Grub Street:
Comments are displayed on individual pages only.
Access individual pages by clicking post title.
by Gilbert Wesley Purdy. In September of 2006, David.Monniaux, "a [system operator] on the English-speaking Wikipedia and a member of the board of Wikimédia France," deleted the English Wikipedia user page of User:Rookiee (a.k.a. Rookie Revolyob) and blocked it from further changes. Monniaux's reasons were amplified in a page now archived under the header User:Hermitan. The user/editor had used his page to advocate for man-boy love. That page now reads as follows: User:Rookiee's page listed a cause ("boyloving") that he advocated; his signature contained a mirror image of "boylover". If I understand correctly, he was not advocating breaking laws, but changing them so that certain acts become legal; but regardless, this was still advocacy.
Rookiee was one of a group of Wikipedia users who openly identified themselves as "pedophiles". As many as a dozen such self-identified pedophiles have been active editors on the site for considerable lengths of time. Some remain so. Note: The User:Hermitan entry quoted above no longer exists at Wikipedia. Nor does its archival version exist. Rookiee's first edit would seem to have occurred on October 21st, 2005: 01:51, 21 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Child sex offender Note: the Wikipedia page "Talk:Child sex offender" has been replaced by "Talk:Child sexual abuse". The archive page for "Talk:Child sex offender" no longer exists. It is an innocuous edit to a page which would be consistent with Rookiee's interest areas. The following are a representative sample of Rookiee's edit subjects: 16:43, 21 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pedophilia (→"Cultural Norms") 18:40, 21 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sex offender 20:56, 21 October 2005 (hist) (diff) m Sexual abuse (→Sexual Abuse, Minors, Consent, and Culture) 19:58, 25 October 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:ThePedanticPrick 19:39, 1 November 2005 (hist) (diff) m Child grooming (→"Online sexual grooming") 01:31, 8 September 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Child sexuality (Sex vs. Sex Play)
A complete (one assumes) listing of User:Rookiee's edits (to other than his deleted User and Talk Pages) can be found on his Wikipedia User Contribution page. Note: a number of Wikipedia archive pages relating to pedophilia have been cut-off to provide no more than the most recent 100 - 200 entries. The remainders of the archive have been removed.
While it is clear from the topics listed that Rookiee was interested in "dispelling cultural biases," and otherwise "misapprehensions," from the Wikipedia pages that hosted references, direct or indirect, to "boyloving," numerous references to his now deleted User pages make clear that Rookiee was accused of linking from his Wikipedia page to boylove advocacy pages. The following is quoted from the comments of another User who otherwise defended Rookiee's right to use his personal pages as he saw fit: ...I would strongly suggest he removes the links to the various pedophile blogs and websites.... — Matt Crypto 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)His User Talk pages, of course, also now deleted, provided a means for interested parties to make first contact with him. All of this was available to the many millions of minors who explore the pages of Wikipedia. There remains some record of how Rookiee's various actions were perceived. During an intense online discussion, on a pedophilia-related topic, he was temporarily "blocked" (prevented from editing). In a Wikipedia discussion page preserved by the site Wikitruth, it is clear that at least one user understood that Rookiee had been blocked for "pedophile trolling": Rookiee wanted to reply to you, but found himself blocked again, indefinitely this time, by Neutrality for "pedophile trolling". Clayboy 10:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC) The accusation is referred to as a matter of established fact in a September 2006 Wikipedia discussion in which User:Hermitian objected at length to Rookiee's being banned from Wikipedia: When Rookiee was banned by an admin with the excuse of "pedophile trolling" during the controversy over the Justin Berry article, there was extensive discussion at that time, and consensus was reached that banning people from editing Wikipedia because of their sexuality was inappropriate, and his ban was revoked. Rookiee's user page wasn't even an issue during that discussion, and I don't recall anyone having problems with it. Unwilling to be perceived as intolerant of others' "sexual preferences", the block had been lifted. Reinstated, Rookiee was informed that he had been blocked by Jimmy Wales (lifetime CEO of Wikimedia), only until he and his edits could be "sorted out": You were blocked because jimbo decided to block you while he sorted out the complaint made about the article. It's only a short block, I realise you feel hard done by but Jimbo has to look at the whole picture.
Rookiee's boyloving propensities, it was decided, fell under the category of "sexual preference" and users were not to be discriminated against due to sexual preference. A thorough search through the pages of Wikipedia indicates that this remains the online encyclopedia's only stated policy specifically regarding pedophile trolling and advocacy. At least one user attempted to rein-back on the final decision: In short we dont want self identified paedophilles editing articles about people who claim to have been molested and abused as children. We will write the article ourselves thank you. Personally i don't object to paedophilles editing pages about peadophillia but writing articles about abuse victims is simply not on.Theresa Knott Taste the Korn 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC) While all of this went on, Rookiee's User and Talk pages continued to be available in Wikipedia for nearly a year, and, in the words of User:Hermitian, it "wasn't even an issue". The Wikimedia Foundation - the parent company of Wikipedia - has 501(c)(3) tax exempt status in the United States. It is a Florida-registered Not for Profit "Charitable Organization" based out of St. Petersburg. According to the Wikimedia homepage, Wikipedia is one of the 15 most visited websites in the world.Labels: Wikipedia
Comments are displayed on individual pages only.
Access individual pages by clicking post title.
While Eye Online's research into "pedophile trolling" in the pages of Wikipedia grinds along, the following Google search-engine links might help you to check out a bit of raw data yourselves: Key words:Eye Online coverage to date: Labels: Wikipedia
Comments are displayed on individual pages only.
Access individual pages by clicking post title.
On March 4, 2007, Eye Online posted the article Man-Boy Love Advocate Accused of Using Wikipedia to Troll for Interested Parties. Eye Online has just discovered that, since the article appeared, Wikipedia Administrators have bypassed the entire Wikipedia editing/discussion system and have begun deleting/removing a large number of the online encyclopedia's User and Discussion pages containing pedophilia themes. While this is sure to be represented as a response to the public's sensitivity about such subjects, the question can not help but be asked: Is Wikipedia rapidly trying to destroy the evidence of years of "pedophile trolling" and "pedophile activism" in its pages? Much of it with the knowledge of its Administrators? With this question in mind, EO has begun downloading the Google caches for these pages. No time to waste. Even one of the cache pages has now gone blank. Stay tuned for further reports. The following are a few example pages:
From Animal Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Squealer: "...his lies to animals of past events they cannot remember refers to the revision of history texts..."
Also See:Labels: Wikipedia
Comments are displayed on individual pages only.
Access individual pages by clicking post title.
Wikipedia Mulls Proof Of CredentialsBy Thomas Claburn InformationWeek March 8, 2007 "The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with the general public," says Wales on his Wikipedia User Talk page. "If you don't care to tell us that you are a PhD (or that you are not), then that's fine: your editing stands or falls on its own merit. But if you do care to represent yourself as something, you have to be able to prove it." [ Go to complete story >>>] Wikipedia to challenge Google, Yahoo!Plans to build a search engineReuters Financial PostMarch 8, 2007 Wikia Inc., the commercial counterpart to the non-profit Wikipedia, is aiming to take as much as 5 percent of the lucrative Internet search market, Jimmy Wales said at a news conference in Tokyo. [ Go to complete story >>>] Conservapedia: The Word Says It AllBy Rob Mackey The Lede (NYT blog) New York Times March 8, 2007 ...some conservatives have given up on Wikipedia and set about building an alternative online encyclopedia they can call their own: Conservapedia. According to Wired, the Conservapedia project leader, Andrew Schlafly, “started the site in late November 2006 in conjunction with 58 high-school-level, home-schooled students from the New Jersey area”... [ Go to the complete story >>>] Bogus professor resigns as Wiki editorUPI ImedinewsMarch 7, 2007 Taking a paying job with Wikia Inc. apparently led to Jordan's unveiling. He has given up that post as well as his volunteer work. [ Go to complete story >>>] Man-Boy Love Advocate Accused of Using Wikipedia to Troll for Interested Partiesby Gilbert Wesley Purdy Mar 4, 2007 Eye OnlineRookiee's boyloving propensities, it was decided, fell under the category of "sexual preference" and users were not to be discriminated against due to sexual preference. [ Go to the complete story >>>] Page: Labels: Wikipedia
Comments are displayed on individual pages only.
Access individual pages by clicking post title.
Jason Scott's The Great Failure of Wikipedia (the "Transcription of a presentation/speech given at Notacon 3, April 8, 2006") has recently appeared in the web and garnered considerable attention. Jason can hardly be called anything but a disinterested witness. The quote, here, is only a portion of a piece ("Wikipedia: J. S. on Essajay") with many wide ranging and intelligent observations on the Wikipedia phenomenon: What is going on in all this, and which I am fearful is going to be missed, is how Wikipedia's Value System functions. "Honor Killings", "Circumcision", "Dog Shows", "Child Soldiers", "Abortion" ... there are thousands of events and values that people engage in every day that are completely inscrutable to a good portion of the rest of the people on the Earth. Sometimes you can see the logic and decide it's just not your cup of joe, but other times you see things that are allowed in one jurisdiction that would have "those people" turned into organ donors anywhere else. Finally, the massive Wiki Behavioral Problem begins (only begins) to receive its due attention. The effects are pouring out of Wikipedia's virtual anti-Oz into the real world. It isn't becoming a problem. It has long been one. Labels: Wikipedia, Witness Statements
Comments are displayed on individual pages only.
Access individual pages by clicking post title.
Bogus Wikipedia Prof. was blessed then promotedby Andrew Orlowski Mar 2, 2007 The Register, UKWikipedia's Maximum Leader Jimmy Wales, it transpires, has blessed an identity fraudster who bamboozled journalists last year, by rewarding him with a full-time job and promotion to Wikipedia's politburo. Wales said he had no qualms with the deception. His comments follow an apology issued by The New Yorker magazine this week, after a bogus Professor who claimed to have four degrees, tricked a Pulitizer Prize winning journalist commissioned by the publication. [ Go to the complete story >>>] Jimmy Wales Defends Wikipedia New Yorker Article Fabricatorby Seth Finkelstein Mar 1, 2007 InfothoughtActually, I did six hours of interviews with the reporter, and two with a fact checker, but I was really surprised that they were willing to do an interview with someone who they couldn't confirm; I can only assume that it is proof I was doing a good job playing the part. Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [ Go to the complete story >>>] What The New Yorker Article Fraud Tells Us About Wikipediaby Seth Finkelstein Mar 1, 2007 InfothoughtAs I read further about the scandal where Wikipedia administrator and now Wikia employee "Essjay" / Ryan Jordan pretended to be a "a tenured professor of religion at a private university" with "a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.", I ended up feeling more sadness for him than anger. [ Go to the complete story >>>] Wikipedia New Yorker Article Misrepresentation Exposedby Seth Finkelstein Feb 28, 2007 InfothoughtThe New Yorker Wikipedia article now has an update of how the Wikipedia site administrator "Essjay" "was described in the piece as "a tenured professor of religion at a private university" with "a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.", but in reality he "now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by Wikia - a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia - as a "community manager"; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions." [ Go to the complete story >>>] Wikipedia Biography Deletion Explodes In Internal Controversyby Seth Finkelstein Feb 28, 2007 InfothoughtAnd deeper, this is why I don't like Wikipedia. If there's no mechanism other than God-King divine fiat to override the segment of any population that likes to hurt people, that's an extremely bad statement about the organization. And if the organization has to keep hurting people because doing otherwise would undermine its fundamental driving force, that's absolutely horrible. [ Go to the complete story >>>] Zoeller Sues to Find Author of Web Postby Brett Thomas Bit-TechFebruary 23, 2007 Apparently, one article writer took a little liberty with Fuzzy's past, talking about how the golfer was deeply involved in drugs and alcohol. The paragraph, which has since been removed, also discussed him abusing his family - a claim which both he and his family deny. [ Go to the complete story >>>] [Full-disclosure] Wikipedia and Pedophiliaby V Vendetta Neohapsis January 19, 2007 They believe in censoring anything bad about themselves - yet will continue to spread pedophilic propaganda on #wikipedia in freenode. [ Go to complete story >>>] Five Wikipedia Predictions: A New Yearby Jason Scott ASCII January 1, 2007 Anonymous editors are now a sub-class on Wikipedia whose contributions are to be used but who are not to really be trusted or listened to. [ Go to complete story >>>] Toto, I Don’t Think We’re in Wikipedia Anymoreby Adam The Substantially Similar WeblogNovember 12, 2007 Within a few seconds after I created the article, however, it was “speedily” deleted. A bit surprised, I tried to start an explanation as to why the entry warranted at least consideration for inclusion, and the article was deleted again and I found this message on my “talk” page: This is your last warning.The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diez2 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [ Go to the complete story >>>] Know It All: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?by Stacy Schiff The New Yorker Sep 24, 2006 The New Yorker OnlineWikipedia, which was launched in 2001, is now the seventeenth-most-popular site on the Internet, generating more traffic daily than MSNBC.com and the online versions of the Times and the Wall Street Journal combined. The number of visitors has been doubling every four months; the site receives as many as fourteen thousand hits per second. *** Wales recently established an “oversight” function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there. [ Go to the complete story >>>] Labels: Wikipedia
Comments are displayed on individual pages only.
Access individual pages by clicking post title.
 While you are looking around for a solution to your computer's malware problem it is important to remember that Windows and Internet Explorer have their own standard management tools that can help you get your situation under control. They may even be able to help you remove your computer's infection. Windows comes with a System Configuration Utility installed. This utility can be used to disable malware items from starting up. Generally, if malware does not launch at start up it does not run at all. While disabling the infection removes none of it, your job will be easier without the malware being in control of your computer while your effort at removal is underway. To use the System Configuration Utility to this end:
- Go to your start page
- Click Start. Your Start Up Menu will deploy.
- Click Run. A pop-up window wil appear.
- Type "msconfig" in pop-up window.
- Click OK. The System Configuration Utility window will appear.
- Click Start Up tab.
- Scroll to find offending program.
- Click on program name to remove check-mark from box.
- Click Apply.
- When you exit the System Configuration Utility you will be prompted to restart your system.
- Click Restart.
- Your system will be in "Selective Restart mode" so long as a start up item is disabled.
Many malware products are designed to be hidden, from or to disable, the System Configuration Utility, it is true, but it is certainly worth checking to see if your computer's infection is listed or not. If your System Configuration Utility will not deploy it is a good bet that your malware infection has disabled it in order to prevent being removed. If your infection has registered on your machine as a Browser Helper Object (BHO), and you have a recent version of the Internet Explorer Browser, it should appear as an entry in Explorer's Manage Add Ons utility. Your Explorer toolbar may be hidden in the most recent versions. If so, press the Alt button on your keyboard and it will appear. When the toolbar is displayed, in order to Manage Add Ons:
- Click Tools.
- Roll your mouse-pointer down to the "Manage Add Ons" entry.
- Click Enable or Disable Add Ons
- Click on name of add on to be disabled. The item will be highlighted, as a result.
- Click Disable
- Click OK.
By no means are all malware infections registered as BHOs. Nor is it clear how many may be programmed to interfer with the operation of the Manage Add Ons utility. Again, it is certainly worth checking to see if your computer's infection is listed or not. While disabling the infection removes none of it, your job will be easier without the malware being in control of your computer while your effort at removal is underway. What may be able to remove at least most of your infection is Window's Add or Remove Program utility. To remove a program by the Add or Remove Programs:
- Click Start
- Click Control Panel
- Click Add or Remove Programs. Wait for the list of programs to load.
- Click name of program to be removed.
- Click Change Remove (You may be offered the opportunity to click on Support Information if available to learn more about the program you are removing).
Most malware will not appear in your Add or Remove Programs utility but some adware companies do include an uninstall feature for their software in this area. It is important to remember that the uninstall may still leave tracking and other passive files in your computer. After removal you should check your start up listing with the System Configuration Utility. If you do not find it listed, you should check your start up listing using HijackThis and/or scan your system with your preferred anti-virus scanner(s).
Access individual pages by clicking post title.
I have not been to the Mirar Toolbar Uninstall Pages for quite some time and cannot say when exactly its purveyor, NetNucleus, changed its uninstallation format. If the pages are not a direct reply to Sunbelt Software's letter of January 31, 2007, they certainy address most of the uninstall issues cited in the letter. As of February 16, 2007, there are two uninstall pages for Mirar Toolbar (a.k.a. Related Page). The traditional uninstall page ( http://remove.getmirar.com/ uninstall.html) provides a step-by-step removal that one apparently can no longer follow without the site detecting that Mirar Toolbar is installed in one's computer. For this reason, I can not presently describe the uninstall further from direct experience. A check-off box is provided for the user to declare: "I know Mirar Toolbar doesn't launch popups or any other advertising, or modify search settings, but I would still like to uninstall it." There is also now a "Mirar Support" page (http://www.mirarsearch.com/
support/uninstall.html) that describes uninstalling the toolbar from the Windows "Add or Remove Programs" utility. The "remove" command does not actually remove the software but instead it establishes a link with the Mirar Uninstall page(s). Removal must therefore be accomplished while connected to the Internet. The uninstall procedure by all appearances still includes a series of advertisements as described in the Sunbelt letter: ...even when the Mirar uninstall entry does successfully open the Mirar web site to download the uninstaller, users are not immediately given the uninstaller. Rather, users are confronted with a long web page imploring them to click through still more advertising for "online offers" (see Figure 4 above). At the bottom of the page is a prominent graphic button to "Submit" the form containing the offers, which users might mistake for a button to continue with the uninstallation. Only users who notice the comparatively small "No Thanks" link at the very bottom of the page will be able to continue the uninstall.
This would seem to be the "survey" described in the text for Step 6 of the support page's step-by-step instructions: The uninstaller will ask you to complete a survey, if you wish to skip this
step you may do so by clicking "no thanks" at the bottom of the page.
The support page now clearly brings the users attention to the "No Thanks" link but does not describe the nature of the "survey" (a series of product offerings). What is not clear is whether the uninstall still does not remove all of the toolbar-related files. According to Sunbelt: ...the uninstaller provided to users does not even perform a complete
uninstallation, as it fails to remove the NetNucleus domain additions to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone.
NetNucleus has clearly tried to upgrade the public face of its Mirar Toolbar uninstallation process while retaining the advertising advantages it has built into the process. The extent of legitimate improvement remains to be seen. The complete removal of all Mirar-related files would seem to be a key indicator. It has also added an actual online survey/complaint page at http://mirarsearch.com/support/contact.html. The survey is cognizant of the complaints that have been made against Mirar Toolbar and invites user feedback. Also See:- Sunbelt Tangles with NetNucleus. (February 7, 2007) NetNucleus, purveyor of the Mirar Toolbar, threatens to sue Sunbelt Software for labeling it's product "Adware". Sunbelt replies with a devastating overview of Mirar's stealth installation methods (and more).
- Is Google Associated with a SearchMiracle Knock-Off? (April 27, 2005). "A question begs the asking: How does NetNucleus generate revenue from its Mirar Toolbar search directory if it enters search terms in the Google Search Engine?"
- How to Remove Mirar Toolbar. Don't want to uninstall? Then remove it yourself!
Comments are displayed on individual pages only.
Access individual pages by clicking post title.
|
|
|
