The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> 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.

10 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Herostratus LIVES!, (you won't believe this)
EricBarbour
post Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:06pm
Post #1


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:33pm
Post #2


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Apathetic
post Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:52pm
Post #3


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun 3rd Aug 2008, 7:36pm
Member No.: 7,383

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:33pm) *

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.

Perhaps you failed to notice they hold administrator permissions?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:57pm
Post #4


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Tue 23rd February 2010, 11:59pm
Post #5


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herostratus @ his successors and/or assigns)

UPDATE: Rather than improving, my situation has deteriorated. Now I am no longer allowed access to the internet, amd am forbidden to watch television or listen to the radio. Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960. The only way I can make edits is to mark up a printout and pass it to my majordomo to be typed into Wikipedia. Frustrating!

As he seems to acknowledge sharing his password, other speculation might be completely moot. Still I can't help but inquire about the significance of 1960 in this context.

A quick search reveals that certain formerly copyright-protected works published in Canada before 1960 are public domain they meet other specific criteria, but that doesn't seem terribly relevant.

Might censorship laws in his jurisdiction have some kind of grand-father clause (assuming the prevailing theory is true)?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Wed 24th February 2010, 12:22am
Post #6


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Apathetic
post Wed 24th February 2010, 12:22am
Post #7


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun 3rd Aug 2008, 7:36pm
Member No.: 7,383

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Viridae
post Wed 24th February 2010, 12:32am
Post #8


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined: Sat 19th May 2007, 4:16am
Member No.: 1,498

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Can someone please link someone background about this guy? What is he? Convicted pedo?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 24th February 2010, 12:45am
Post #9


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Wed 24th February 2010, 12:50am
Post #10


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 4:32pm) *
Can someone please link someone background about this guy?

One, two.
And even weirder.

Most of the discussion is in a "restricted area".....sorry.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 24th February 2010, 12:56am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Viridae
post Wed 24th February 2010, 12:50am
Post #11


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined: Sat 19th May 2007, 4:16am
Member No.: 1,498

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Wed 24th February 2010, 12:51am
Post #12


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Viridae
post Wed 24th February 2010, 12:56am
Post #13


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined: Sat 19th May 2007, 4:16am
Member No.: 1,498

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 24th February 2010, 1:32am
Post #14


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Wed 24th February 2010, 2:04am
Post #15


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 24th February 2010, 2:22am
Post #16


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 24th February 2010, 3:15am
Post #17


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th February 2010, 1:32am) *

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.

I think you overstate your case. Wikipedia neither encourages nor discourages "child and adult collaboration". Indeed it's often impossible to tell who's the child and who's the adult.

Surely the only possible real world danger that a wikipedia encounter might involve would come from private email communications?

This post has been edited by Malleus: Wed 24th February 2010, 3:18am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Wed 24th February 2010, 3:21am
Post #18


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:04pm) *
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?

Jeez, EK, you're really making me wonder about what is rattling around loose in your skull. Look at the guy's edit history--an obsessive interest in child-adult sex and child-adult sex related articles. Legal authorities have seen fit to ban him from all internet usage. (A ban he is trying to sneak past.)

Are you willing to follow him around on-wiki (along with a number of other unbanned pedophilia-interested types) and insure all his edits are properly neutral and meet general community standards? If not, then where do you get the idea that the general public would find this "acceptable"?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 24th February 2010, 3:23am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Wed 24th February 2010, 3:22am
Post #19


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 24th February 2010, 3:25am
Post #20


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:22am) *

Well, he just unblocked himself, so that didn't accomplish all that much. smile.gif

Presumably that was his court appointed proxy again. What a joke.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th 7 14, 7:00am