Herostratus LIVES!, (you won't believe this) Options

[NotARepublican55]

I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.

Your argument depends on the assumption that no one is, or can be, persuaded by their arguments on this global platform. My children occasionally repeat very strange things that they have 'learned' from Wikipedia.

If children believe the arguments that pedophiles are not inherently dangerous or abusive to children, that 'pedophilia' simply means liking children, not wanting to have sex with them, and so on, is that not going to make a difference, according to you?

What if the children believe this? What if it leads to an online relationship, and more? Let's not forget 'Anothersolipsist' who was carefully grooming a young editor for RfA until he was blocked.

Actually no, I don't think it will persuade kids that the guy who wants to get his hands down their undies is only wanting to do a good thing. I think it's a fallacy for two reasons. The first being that any kid old enough to maintain a 'life' on Wikipedia is old enough to know better and you don't give them the 'hutzpah' to realise that. The second being that the average age of the kids on WP is much higher than the range that most paedos enjoy.

I could understand, and agree much more, if this were MSN, Facebook et al where there are far easier, and far younger, pickings available. But Wikipedia? Nah! Given the total lack of street cred WP brings, the majority of the youngster element are brainiacs, and I really don't believe that they are so easily led.

"Smart" is not the same as possessing good judgment - in fact (at least in the case of 13 year old WikiGeeks) they're usually inversely proportional.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: Mon 1st March 2010, 7:00am

[Apathetic]

Have a look at Marlais (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Strangely enough, four days after Peter Damian posted this,
John Vandenberg went in and blanked Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

...

Not only do the Dogs Of Wiki allow pedophiles to edit their "encyclopedia",
they (incompetently) try to cover up the evidence after the shitstorm.

Eh?

But no need to let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

(The facts being that the userpage was edited only twice, in 2004, and on error - the person meant to post to Marlais' talk page so blanked it with the second edit)

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Mon 1st March 2010, 2:13pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Probably a reference to Anthony Stancl, who posed as a female only to blackmail and rape his classmates. He was sentenced this week to 15 years in prison. Google "Anthony Stancl" and read the GQ article...it truly is sickening.

And if you need more ugly examples of social websites serving as hellmouths......
Megan Meier. The "Middletown Seven". David Ludwig. Doe Vs. Myspace. Judy Cajuste. Helen Hunter. Michael Macalindong. Michael Ramos. And there are plenty of others.

How long until someone uses Wikipedia for this "purpose"?
Or has it happened already, and we don't know?

Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawnto
ohoohoordenenthurnuk. That should help me find this post with our fickled search function. Excellent post Eric. I appreciate the work in assembling these links.

[CharlotteWebb]

John Vandenberg went in and blanked Marlais' userpage--
and the history.

Eh?

But no need to let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

(The facts being that the userpage was edited only twice, in 2004, and on error - the person meant to post to Marlais' talk page so blanked it with the second edit)

Students will note that John V. had "oversight" access at the time of that edit, and until 3½ days thereafter.

I realize this doesn't prove anything, except that you haven't disproven anything.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Mon 1st March 2010, 2:55pm

[Apathetic]

Students will note that John V. had "oversight" access at the time of that edit, and until 3½ days thereafter.

I realize this doesn't prove anything, except that you haven't disproven anything.

Yes, I suppose he could've oversighted the whole lot.

[Web Fred]

"Smart" is not the same as possessing good judgment - in fact (at least in the case of 13 year old WikiGeeks) they're usually inversely proportional.

Actually "smart" is the same as possessing good judgement, perhaps you're confusing it with "intelligent"?

[NotARepublican55]

"Smart" is not the same as possessing good judgment - in fact (at least in the case of 13 year old WikiGeeks) they're usually inversely proportional.

Actually "smart" is the same as possessing good judgement, perhaps you're confusing it with "intelligent"?

Most Wikipedians aren't that "smart" then, fair enough.

[Eva Destruction]

The Irregular Verbs of Wikipedia:

Herostratus (v, n):
• "I was only having a joke"
• "He has exercised poor judgement"
• "They are blatant trolls and have been blocked indefinitely"
• "You are a Wikipedia administrator so 'admonishment' will suffice"

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

[GlassBeadGame]

The Irregular Verbs of Wikipedia:

Herostratus (v, n):
• "I was only having a joke"
• "He has exercised poor judgement"
• "They are blatant trolls and have been blocked indefinitely"
• "You are a Wikipedia administrator so 'admonishment' will suffice"

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

And what do they have to prove that his statement was a mere joke? Did he provide a background check or police clearance? Some of the details of his claim to be under criminal sanctions didn't add up but it clear he is a liar, one way the other or perhaps in a mixed fashion with actual criminal sanctions but lying about the details. He may be a convicted pedophile laughing his ass off that he told them and they still let him continue. Once a person makes deliberate false statements it taints everything they say afterward. ArbCom is completely unskilled in handling evidence of any kind.

[Jon Awbrey]

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

No, but I sometimes use the cognate "adminish" as an adjective.

For example —

"Man, he's so dense, he's positively adminish."

Jon

[Eva Destruction]

The Irregular Verbs of Wikipedia:

Herostratus (v, n):
• "I was only having a joke"
• "He has exercised poor judgement"
• "They are blatant trolls and have been blocked indefinitely"
• "You are a Wikipedia administrator so 'admonishment' will suffice"

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

And what do they have to prove that his statement was a mere joke? Did he provide a background check or police clearance? Some of the details of his claim to be under criminal sanctions didn't add up but it clear he is a liar, one way the other or perhaps in a mixed fashion with actual criminal sanctions but lying about the details. He may be a convicted pedophile laughing his ass off that he told them and they still let him continue. Once a person makes deliberate false statements it taints everything they say afterward. ArbCom is completely unskilled in handling evidence of any kind.

I actually agree with you on this one. I don't understand why Arbcom are handling this one so ineptly, and why there's this "admonishing" of Viridae. Police are routinely called out to "firearm incidents" which turn out to be kids messing in the street with realistic toy guns; that the whole thing turns out to be a misunderstanding doesn't mean that the witnesses who call the police, nor the police themselves, are acting incorrectly when they stop the kids; Viridae should be commended for prompt action against an apparent security breach, not admonished because Arbcom can't bear to admit that one of their precious administrators is at best acting like a juvenile asshole. SirFozzie appears to be the only Arb there who actually understands the issue.

This exchange plumbs a depressingly familiar depth, too.

[The Joy]

Herostratus is open to recall. I wonder if he'll pull an Elonka?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki..._open_to_recall

[GlassBeadGame]

Herostratus is open to recall. I wonder if he'll pull an Elonka?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki..._open_to_recall

What the fuck are you people waiting for?

[Jon Awbrey]

What the fuck are you people waiting for?

[Eva Destruction]

Herostratus is open to recall. I wonder if he'll pull an Elonka?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki..._open_to_recall

He's not actually given any criteria, though, so whatever you say he can just adjust the criteria so as not to fit. (Under Elonka's criteria, he'd be recalled instantly, FWIW; SirFozzie and Hersfold are both calling for his desysopping and they qualify as "Senior Wikipedians" under the convoluted rules she made up.)

[MZMcBride]

It seems the Arbitration Committee has mixed up "admonished" and "cautioned." In a situation like this, it's probably prudent to caution Viridae to be more careful in the future—he did block an administrator, after all, and that is usually step one in creating a nasty mess. However, there's nothing in this incident that rises to the level of an admonishment. Not for Viridae, at least.

[Mike R]

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

ya, mormons

[Malleus]

This exchange plumbs a depressingly familiar depth, too.

It does. The hoplessly inept Coren displaying just how hopelessly inept he is once again.

Incidentally, does anyone outside of Wikipedia ever actually use the word "admonish"?

ya, mormons

Do Mormons use the word "redact" as well? I see so many unfamiliar words on wikipedia. What does "civility" mean, for instance?

[EricBarbour]

The Irregular Verbs of Wikipedia:Herostratus (v, n):

This exchange plumbs a depressingly familiar depth, too.

Bloody twats.

Hopefully, Viridae learned something from this mess.

Basically, that Wikipedia is a joke, Arbcom is a joke, and that despite all the work he's done for WP,
they would cheerfully throw him to the wolves in an instant. (And lie about it after the fact.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 4th March 2010, 12:16am

[TungstenCarbide]

What does "civility" mean, for instance?

It means you said something an admin didn't like, so he can block you.