Herschelkrustofsky banned for one year, Do you suppose it's for participating in this forum? Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This came pretty much out of the blue: My one year ban. It turns out that it was initiated by Dmcdevit, someone with whom I have never had any dealings, in this edit of April 30, 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 previous version) 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?

[Daniel Brandt]

(IMG:http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/caution5.gif) ---> 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.

[Donny]

This came pretty much out of the blue: My one year ban. It turns out that it was initiated by Dmcdevit, someone with whom I have never had any dealings, in this edit of April 30, 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 previous version) 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.

[Ben]

I'm about 80% sure 69.117.7.84 is a sockpuppet of administrator Curps.

Other IPs I found are 69.117.7.33, 69.117.7.63, 69.117.7.126, 69.117.6.28, and 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: 69.117.7.63 posting on User_talk:Curps

Here's 69.117.7.63 putting {{sockpuppeteer}} on Brandt's user page

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

[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".

[Daniel Brandt]

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 some testing he did last year.

[Ben]

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 editing on the Chinese Wikipedia on a StarCraft (video game) character's article, and 69.117.6.210 added a disputed tag 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 Very similar 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, 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.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

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

[everyking]

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

[everyking]

Obviously we don't agree. At all.

[blissyu2]

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.

[everyking]

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.

[blissyu2]

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.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I have taken a look at 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 Skyring and 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.

[blissyu2]

Worse, the blanking was done by an anon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=51207941

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

No, not if my expose on the Port Arthur massacre 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.

[Daniel Brandt]

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.

[guy]

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.

[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 this columnist was describing as the "new law" was an accurate description.

Here's a USA Today piece on the law.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Worse, the blanking was done by an anon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Now it appears that SlimVirgin is engaged in a revert war over my user page. I have taken a look at the Category:temporarily 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 (here it is, linked from here.) 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 this message.

Incidentally, it appears that in the fracas leading up to my banning, it was this edit in particular, characterized by the ArbCom as a "negative personal comment," that roused their ire.