|
Help
This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
|
|
Herostratus LIVES!, (you won't believe this) |
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Despite being banned from Wikipedia (and computers generally) by court order, notorious pedophilia editor Herostratus (T-C-L-K-R-D)
is still able to edit WP. How? By getting his court-appointed minder to edit for him, apparently. Check his edit log for proof. He's doing it, even while being banned from watching TV or listening to the radio. Mentioned here. Why is his account still active?
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.
Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement? But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem.
|
|
|
|
Apathetic |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined:
Member No.: 7,383
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:22pm) QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.
Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement? But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem. Perhaps you failed to notice they hold administrator permissions?
|
|
|
|
GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:22pm) QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.
Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement? But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem. Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to.
|
|
|
|
Viridae |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined:
Member No.: 1,498
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:45am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:22pm) QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.
Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement? But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem. Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to. He has been. Until someone actually tells me what he was supposed to have been locked up for he has been blocked for tax evasion (not being in control of his account).
|
|
|
|
Viridae |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined:
Member No.: 1,498
|
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?
Eric said that Herostratus was " apparently" convicted of possessing child porn. I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it. If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one.
|
|
|
|
GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:56pm) QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?
Eric said that Herostratus was " apparently" convicted of possessing child porn. I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it. If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one. Because WP, a project that encourages child and adult collaboration, does not vet participants the very least that they can do (and not sufficient) is to act with dispatch when a user sends out red flags of this kind. Once they give reason for concern the questionable user ought to bear the burden of showing they do not present a risk. This is one of the most disturbing red flags imaginable.
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:56am) QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?
Eric said that Herostratus was " apparently" convicted of possessing child porn. I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it. If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one. I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither?
|
|
|
|
GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 9:04pm) QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:56am) QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:51am) QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am) Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?
Eric said that Herostratus was " apparently" convicted of possessing child porn. I don't know this inference is based on the cryptic notes on Herostratus' user-page (taken also in the context of the articles he chooses to edit) or if there is other evidence supporting it. If there is evidence for it I'll change he tax evasion block to a refer to arbcom one. I can't see the basis for blocking someone for real world activity. Obviously he's being punished in the real world, and he's using a legal means as a conduit to editing Wikipedia. If people are to be blocked for something like "possessing child porn", what about other crimes? Credit card fraud? Terrorism? Do they both warrant Wikipedia sanctions, or neither? You have no perspective whatsoever. Editing an on-line "encyclopedia" is not a basic human right. If a person presents any risk to children at all just don't let them participate. This is especially true in the absence of any vetting or supervision. This is not some crappy little "deletion review" debate on Wikipedia and your "slippery slope" argument is so out of context as to mark you as hopeless case.
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:50pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:45am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:22pm) QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:57am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm) While most people favor an absolute interpretation of the one person per account rule, I don't really see the problem here. The other person is purely acting as conduit for Herostratus due to a special set of legal circumstances. I can't fault the guy for wanting to continue with his hobby, as long as the edits themselves aren't problematic.
Really? You can't see a problem with someone forbidden from using a computer using a proxy to edit Child sexual abuse and Children's rights movement? But this proxy is court-appointed, right? And like I said, if there are problems with the edits themselves, that should be dealt with. I just don't think the specific method Herostratus is using to edit is a problem. Very strange. We need more information, but in the meantime this guy should be prevented from participation. Everyking, as always, just wants one more set of fingers "generating content" without much regard to who or what they might be connected to. He has been. Until someone actually tells me what he was supposed to have been locked up for he has been blocked for tax evasion (not being in control of his account). Well, he just unblocked himself, so that didn't accomplish all that much. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |