Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Editors _ Herschelkrustofsky banned for one year

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

This came pretty much out of the blue: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2&diff=51721447&oldid=17141097 It turns out that it was initiated by Dmcdevit, someone with whom I have never had any dealings, in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=50926760 well after I had stopped editing Wikipedia. I can't help but wonder whether joining this forum has made me a target. I imagine that other forum members can enlighten me on this topic.

Tell me, is it customary to blank one's user page under such circumstances? It may be that my user page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herschelkrustofsky&oldid=51207941) pissed someone off. Oddly, my page was blanked anonymously by 69.117.7.84 -- do any of you more experienced nerds have the expertise to find out who that is? And can any unbanned Wikipedians out there restore my user page while I am banned?

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

FORUM Image ---> You've been zapped by yet another high-level teenager at Wikipedia.

Dmcdevit is apparently Daniel McDevit, age 19. He comes from Scottsdale, Arizona but is now a freshman at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. A member of the politically-correct Green Party.

I can't find anything on 69.117.7.84 except that it appears to originate from Hicksville, New York.

Posted by: Donny

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 7th May 2006, 6:20am) *

This came pretty much out of the blue: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2&diff=51721447&oldid=17141097 It turns out that it was initiated by Dmcdevit, someone with whom I have never had any dealings, in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=50926760 well after I had stopped editing Wikipedia. I can't help but wonder whether joining this forum has made me a target. I imagine that other forum members can enlighten me on this topic.

Tell me, is it customary to blank one's user page under such circumstances? It may be that my user page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herschelkrustofsky&oldid=51207941) pissed someone off. Oddly, my page was blanked anonymously by 69.117.7.84 -- do any of you more experienced nerds have the expertise to find out who that is? And can any unbanned Wikipedians out there restore my user page while I am banned?

Yes, this kind of thing is typical. If you criticize Wikipedia, they feel like they have to ban you, rather than let it seem like you were a good contributor who got fed up with their shenanigans. I was banned permanently from Wikipedia after I'd posted a message saying I was leaving, then tried to revert the vandalism on my user page. Basically I was banned for reverting vandalism on my user page, and yet in the block log it says that I harassed another user, the user who was vandalising my user page. Ryan Delaney, the admin who posts here, actually put the block notice on my user page which is there now. I had had the page blanked out by another admin because I was sick of having it vandalised, and I thought blanking it would at least stop the vandalism. Anyway, don't be surprised if they come along later and delete the history of your user page as well.


Posted by: Ben

I'm about 80% sure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.117.7.84 is a sockpuppet of administrator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curps.

Other IPs I found are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.117.7.33, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.117.7.63, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.117.7.126, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.117.6.28, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.117.6.210.

(and I say sockpuppet, because he maintains anonymity even when other users ask for him to register/sign his posts).

---(edit)---

Less sure now: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curps&diff=prev&oldid=49537681

Here's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=48664856

Suffice to say, this user is a very interesting editor.

Posted by: blissyu2

*sighs*

There should be a warning for this forum: "Posting on this forum or in support of this forum may be seen by corrupt Wikipedia administrators as justification for them to harass you and ban you from editing Wikipedia. Please be aware of this and consider choosing a WR username that does not indicate what your Wikipedia username is".

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE
Suffice to say, this user is a very interesting editor.

I think he's more of a bot programmer who created a bot with sysop privileges. Here's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Curps/Sandbox&diff=next&oldid=10108549 he did last year.

Posted by: Ben

QUOTE
I think he's more of a bot programmer who created a bot with sysop privileges. Here's some testing he did last year.


Yeah, I'm not so sure that those IPs are Curps', but he does fit the profile to a certain extent.

It could be freakofnurture too, he sort of fits the profile as well. I'm just curious because someone "high up" (or a wannabe) is clearly editing under their IP but still wants to stay very much anonymous.

The IP editor edits railway related articles, sci-fi real-time strategy video games, and profiles/biographies of NBA basketball players, political/historical military people, and of notable Chinese people (and 69.117.7.126 has even done some Chinese-language http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E8%90%A8%E6%8B%89%C2%B7%E5%87%AF%E4%B8%BD%E7%94%98&diff=prev&oldid=1677525 on the Chinese Wikipedia on a StarCraft (video game) character's article, and 69.117.6.210 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.117.6.210 regarding the birthdate of Chinese actor Gu Yue.)

Edits like these are quite rare though, most of the time this user is fervently correcting spelling and grammar in ArbCom rulings and articles, making knowledgeable comments here or there with respect to administration and ArbCom, and tracking down banned users so he/she can put the "this user has been banned" notice on them (a lot of Curps' impersonators even.)

The editing profile is http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=0&user=Curps&dbname=enwiki_p to Curps', (if you don't look at his history--one big list of reverts--and use Interiot's contribution tree thingie. Curps has more than 30000 edits!) Curps is also constantly dealing with blocked/banned users on his talk page, like it is his speciality. When it comes to the Chinese oriented stuff, http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curps is also a user on Chinese Wikipedia (34 edits), and his user page there redirects to English Wikipedia. So Curps also speaks and reads at least some Chinese. I am definitely not positive that it's Curps, and probably can't be unless Curps comes right out and says it's him (I don't know why the IP editor seems to be hiding his true user identity--I did read a post where he admitted to having one somewhere in my search).

I also get a kick out of doing "investigative" kind of stuff like this. Curps, if it is Curps, isn't doing anything wrong at all that I can see, but it is interesting the way whoever it is uses their IP addresses as sockpuppets. Maybe it's a sort "AGF" protest, since his anon edits are sometimes met with "you're just an anon, sign up and learn some things." The editor is really into commenting in ArbCom anonymously too. Curious, is all, if a little disconcerting to me, since I wonder why edit this way at all, is the editor hiding something? Also, the editor's comments, when he/she makes them, are usually pretty abrasive and have a sort of "in-your-face" authority.

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

It might be Carnilado. A couple of edits show work being carried out by OrphanBot, which is owned by Carnilado.

Posted by: everyking

That's predictable. Just start a new account and continue editing.

Posted by: everyking

Obviously we don't agree. At all.

Posted by: blissyu2

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 7th May 2006, 4:20pm) *

That's predictable. Just start a new account and continue editing.


You should be careful. Karmafist said almost exactly the same words, and they were used as the primary reason why he was desysopped.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sun 7th May 2006, 8:10am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 7th May 2006, 4:20pm) *

That's predictable. Just start a new account and continue editing.


You should be careful. Karmafist said almost exactly the same words, and they were used as the primary reason why he was desysopped.


I have trouble believing that they could manage to desysop me for expressing an opinion off-wiki. I've been through the flames of hell on-wiki and they haven't desysopped me yet.

Posted by: blissyu2

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 7th May 2006, 5:54pm) *

QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sun 7th May 2006, 8:10am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 7th May 2006, 4:20pm) *

That's predictable. Just start a new account and continue editing.


You should be careful. Karmafist said almost exactly the same words, and they were used as the primary reason why he was desysopped.


I have trouble believing that they could manage to desysop me for expressing an opinion off-wiki. I've been through the flames of hell on-wiki and they haven't desysopped me yet.


Technically, Karmafist wasn't desysopped for what he wrote here. He was desysopped along with a number of others for "participating" in the Userbox dispute (note that the main culprits, Kelly Martin, Snowspinner and Tony Sidaway, were not desysopped). However, all of the others who were desysopped over the Userbox dispute succeeded in re-applying. Karmafist didn't. The primary reason why people voted oppose on his RFA was because of his writing here.

It's what we call a loophole.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I have taken a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Temporary_blocked_users, and I have discovered that it is not the normal practice to blank the user pages of those who belong to this fraternity (see for example the pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyring and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GreekWarrior) So, if there are any readers of this thread who are not presently banned who might be willing to restore the content of my user page, with the addition of the nifty "blocked" template, I would be much obliged.

Posted by: blissyu2

Worse, the blanking was done by an anon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHerschelkrustofsky&diff=51831584&oldid=51207941

I don't suppose they would consider that to be "vandalism" would they?

No, not http://spaces.msn.com/therealadrian/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!128.entry is normal practise, where vandals and unsourced lies remain, and all of the sourced accurate information is deleted.

Just depends on their POV, I suppose.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE
So, if there are any readers of this thread who are not presently banned who might be willing to restore the content of my user page, with the addition of the nifty "blocked" template, I would be much obliged.

And while you're at it, please restore my user page too. I was merely trying to warn Wikipedia about a new criminal statute that applied to anonymous editors who harass others. They called it a "legal threat."

Yes, I guess it was a legal threat, but it came from the U.S. Congress and was signed by President Bush.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 7th May 2006, 5:07pm) *

Yes, I guess it was a legal threat, but it came from the U.S. Congress and was signed by President Bush.

Does President Bush personally edit Wikipedia? If not, they can't block him.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

The new law isn't laid out in one sentence. It's a combination of scratching out something here, adding a couple of words there, and changing a definition some other place. It took me a good 30 minutes of following this spaghetti code to decide that what http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html was describing as the "new law" was an accurate description.

Here's a http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2006-02-14-cyberstalking-law_x.htm piece on the law.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sun 7th May 2006, 2:21pm) *

Worse, the blanking was done by an anon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHerschelkrustofsky&diff=51831584&oldid=51207941

I don't suppose they would consider that to be "vandalism" would they?



I note that the page was unblanked by another anon, presumably in response to my appeal in this thread. Thanks, whoever you are. But then, behold, the unblanking is reverted by SlimVirgin, who then does a partial protect on the page so that anons cannot edit it. Which begs the question: could 69.117.6.210 be a sock for SlimVirgin? unsure.gif

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Now it appears that SlimVirgin is engaged in a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herschelkrustofsky&action=history over my user page. I have taken a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Temporary_blocked_users and I find that most user pages have not been blanked, but some are. In the cases of the pages that were blanked, at least one blanking in addition to mine was done by 69.117.6.210. Does anyone know of any official policy or guideline that pertains to this? I notice also that User:Bengalski was kind enough to preserve the user page of banned user Effk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EffK linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EffK) If someone could do that for me, I would appreciate it. Daniel Brandt, it appears that some admin found your user page so offensive that the record of it has been forever deleted, and replaced with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Brandt&oldid=47374203

Incidentally, it appears that in the fracas leading up to my banning, it was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=48080401 characterized by the ArbCom as a "negative personal comment," that roused their ire.

Posted by: blissyu2

Actually, there is worse. Check out my original account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Internodeuser

Content wiped, history wiped, talk history wiped, permanently protected. To protect Wikipedia from evidence of personal attacks, it seems. Don't want proof about abuses by Wikipedia administrators for all to see.

Posted by: kotepho

WP:BAN says that it can be done, but it certainly doesn't require it. It was added to the page because admins started doing it, but people only seem to support it for disruption. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Blanking_of_banned_users.27_userpages and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy.

Posted by: Ben

QUOTE
Which begs the question: could 69.117.6.210 be a sock for SlimVirgin?


First, you copy and paste from my post, which you never responded to (that's the wrong IP if you're wondering).

Second, you don't respond to me, but you do to blissyu2 who just repeats "look an anon reverted you! isn't that weird!" apparently because she didn't notice that you brought this up in your very first post.

Then you all the sudden say "maybe the anon is SlimVirgin?" huh.gif

This is ridiculous. I gave a whole bunch of good reasons in the subsequent post why I think it is Curps, not to mention adding a whole lot of links. It's kind of a slap in the face to my help, that, you don't even respond to my help and it is help you specifically asked for! mad.gif It makes me think you just want it to be SlimVirgin, instead of, what I think is far far far more likely, some random uninvolved admin who spends all day putting up "this user has been banned" templates, and you just want to put your fingers in your ears unless it someone bashing SlimVirgin.

Posted by: blissyu2

Don't worry, Ben, people ignore my posts all the time. Apparently I write too much and give single line answers.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Ben @ Tue 9th May 2006, 7:52am) *

QUOTE
Which begs the question: could 69.117.6.210 be a sock for SlimVirgin?


This is ridiculous. I gave a whole bunch of good reasons in the subsequent post why I think it is Curps, not to mention adding a whole lot of links. It's kind of a slap in the face to my help, that, you don't even respond to my help and it is help you specifically asked for! mad.gif


Don't take offense. I have no idea who Curps is, whereas I have had over a year of running battles with SlimVirgin, who has now reverted my user page twice in her own name, and banned whoever it was that came to my aid there.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 8th May 2006, 8:44pm) *

Now it appears that SlimVirgin is engaged in a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herschelkrustofsky&action=history over my user page.


Yes, and I got banned for participating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billy_Chinook

(my Wikipedia name is Billy Chinook.)

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 20th May 2006, 1:45am) *

Yes, and I got banned for participating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billy_Chinook

(my Wikipedia name is Billy Chinook.)


Who is PGK?

Posted by: sgrayban

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 19th May 2006, 11:39pm) *

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 20th May 2006, 1:45am) *

Yes, and I got banned for participating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billy_Chinook

(my Wikipedia name is Billy Chinook.)


Who is PGK?


Another idiot admin.

Posted by: Donny

QUOTE(Hushthis @ Sat 20th May 2006, 3:55pm) *

Curps is another renegade admin who builds his reputation around "vandal fighting" and then implies everyone who disagrees with him is a vandal. He bans without hesitation, and runs some ban-bots as well.

It's amazing how the vandalism fighting has made so many Wikipedia admins feel that attacking legitimate content contributors with blocks and so on is reasonable behaviour. If Wikipedia took the fairly obvious steps of not allowing anonymous editing and requiring an email registration, the vandalism would drop off by a huge factor. In that case, I suppose most of the Wikipedia admins would no longer be of any use. Hmm. Perhaps that's why nobody does this obvious thing.